The Future of the European Neighbourhood Policy

In his opening remarks Ms. Schlunck, Director of the Representation of the Free State of Bavaria to the European Union, noted the many challenges—but also opportunities—presented by the recent developments in the Arab world and called on Europe to stand up for human rights and democracy. CES Director Tomi Huhtanen then commented on the timeliness of the conference in light of the European Commission’s new, soon-to-be released European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).

Mr. Saryusz-Wolski, MEP, EPP Vice-President, began by expressing his opinion that the EU has failed with regard to its neighbourhood policy in both the east and the south. The new policy should be demanding when holding governments accountable on issues of human rights and democracy. Moreover, stability at any price is not an acceptable target anymore. He also underlined the following points:

• EU must take a more holistic approach;
• The Member states must play a key role in implementing any new policy framework;
• Significance of youth organizations, religious groups, unions, and trade and business groups;
• The importance of the EU developing the ability to act and respond in a timely manner;
• The EU must always strive to promote its values;
• Weigh the costs of failing to achieve the aims set out in a new and better ENP.   

Panel I

Mr. Forstner, HSS Director, opened the first panel by saying that the EU was cautious and reluctant to respond to the revolutions in fear over sharp increase immigration flows from North Africa. Later in the panel he asked what kind of lessons could be drawn from the Eastern European revolutions.

Mr. Shalaby, Lecturer at the School of Business and Economics at the Modern Academy in Cairo, said that the aim of the ENP should be the dissemination of Western Values in the South Mediterranean with leadership, commitment and consistency.

• leadership should be assumed with action and not re-action;
• commitment by believing in the real values and potential of the south dimension of the ENP;
• Consistency - the better coordination between the European and national level.

An intra-cultural dialogue between research institutes and think-tanks should be supported to bring Europe and the Arab world closer. He also said that conditionality implies a freedom to choose between two options. Mr. Shalabi reminded about EU’s comparative advantage:

• Over the US – it did not intervene as early and as intensely;
• Over China - culture of freedom and human rights that is inherent in Europe.

Mr. Vialichka, Chairperson of International Consortium EUROBELARUS, reminded that there are no direct analogies that we can draw between the Eastern European revolutions in 1989 and the most recent Arab Spring.

• Democratic reforms do not come along easily and that democracy should be given space;
• Mr. Vialichka added that visa liberalization schemes should not be conditional;
• the ENP should build contact separately with the government and the civil society.

Mrs. Majorenko, Head of Division European Neighborhood Policy Sector - EEAS, commented that conditionality, although far from flawless, it is a process that yields results in the long term. According to Mrs. Majorenko conditionality, has a profound impact on society and the people by focusing on economic development and change. With regards to institutional design Mrs. Majorenko mentioned the creation of a civil society forum that will be affiliated with the ECOSOC.

Panel II

Ms Grabbe, Director Open Society Institute, structured her remarks by first describing the experience of the Open Society Institute with the ENP and its perception of the ENP. First of all, the EU should recognize that the political obstacles are real and that the EU has a brief time slot when a window of opportunity is opened for substantial change. Also the EU must keep in mind the ‘practice what you preach’ principle.

Then she suggested 5 things that the EU should imperatively stick to when drawing up the ENP:

• Increase the investments and visa liberation;
• Impose clearer benchmarking; one that is more tangible with clearer language about what exactly we mean by the term “democracy”;
• More effective monitoring – including Annual reports by the EP;
• The funding itself should be more efficient too, yet commitments should be fair and realistic;
• Make more effort to empower civil society which could push the regimes from downwards and the EU with its partners from the other side. Implementing political change with these pressures from both ends should be easier.

Moreover, the EP should come up with standards for democracy and the conditionality associated with it and the capacity, as well as the competencies of the EEAS and its delegations should be increased.

Mr. Smolar, Senior visiting fellow at the CES, said that with the ENP we have certain expectations that the countries will change and be more like us. We should, however, learn to manage our expectations in this particular regard. He also pointed out the fact that the strict conditionality exercised on the Eastern countries was never applied to the Southern ones.

• Eastern partnership was based on internal reform, enhanced cooperation and the perspective of membership;
• Pro-Western and pro-European values must be promoted by means of independent influencing.

Mr. Roucek, MEP, Vice-President of the European Parliament, underlined the importance of the EURONEST Parliamentary Assembly as an important vehicle for cooperation and dialogue. He reminded the participants that the situation is ever so complex and it is changing fast. Not to mention that the partner countries are losing large sums of tourism money. He also said that we unfortunately cannot offer membership neither to the East nor South and that there are many limitations to this.

Mr. David, MEP, Vice-President of the EPP, continued by saying that the time for splitting the Eastern and the Southern dimension is gone. He said that the first order of business for the EU should be to answer the question of what exactly we want to achieve and what role we really want to play, it should gradually move from being payer to being a player. He also noted the following:

• Most of the migrants at the moment are economic refugees. The EU cannot accept everyone;
• He also called upon the ENP partner countries to define a shared set of values for themselves.

In response to a series of questions the speakers expressed themselves about the following things:

• Parliamentary diplomacy should liaise more with the EEAS;
• The European Parliament should play a role of dividing the labour and tasks effectively;
• We have to stick to our core values when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process;
• Reminded us to take into account the demographic realities with regard to migration;
• With regard to the recent row over internal border controls, it was said said that part of the solution lies on the external border of the EU.

President Martens closed the ENP conference by emphasizing that our approach in the framework of the ENP should be tailored to each country. He also called on the European Commission to present a bold change in the review of the ENP that followed a few days after the Conference organized by the Centre for European Studies. He thanked the participants and the representatives of various involved stakeholders for supporting the value based approach and reminded that the EU should be the back-bone of a joint EU-US strategy towards the new Middle East.