An old disease
National State protectionism is a disease as old as the European Union itself, if not much older. Ironically, the latter was originally established in opposition to protectionist practices and ideas. After all, the common European market has always been based on free and fair competition - it may not be fully accomplished yet, but the principles are clear.
One of the main tasks of the European Commission is to protect these principles. So far the Commission has been successful in this endeavour. At times, some EU Member States did have problems with excessive state aid being provided to national industries. Whether it was Greek airlines or Polish shipyards, the decisions of the European Commission were always taken decisively, with no remorse. There was always a Europe-wide consensus that the principles of fair competition are sacred and as such they must be upheld by all means.
Suddenly, at the time of economic crisis, the opposite opinions are being voiced. The other day, the French president pledged state aid to the domestic car industry under the condition that factories would operate in France and not abroad.
This of course sent shockwaves across the EU, especially the new Member States. The reason is simple. Nothing can deal a more deadly blow to the idea of the European integration and solidarity than the protection of a national industry “against” other EU states.
A swift reaction followed. The Czech Prime Minister rushed to condemn Sarkozy’s plans and quickly summoned an informal sitting of the European Council in Prague to debate the issue.
Other European leaders have also played a positive role. Donald Tusk, Polish Prime Minister, rightly did not follow his Hungarian counterpart in calling for direct aid, but persuaded new Member States to champion the cause of the European solidarity in the face of the new breed of EU national protectionism.
As a result, the bad apple was thrown out of the basket. The French withdrew their controversial ideas. Once again, the European Union has proved its worth. Its mechanisms appeared to be effective despite a time bomb being planted to blow them up.
If the outcome of the informal EU summit was different, we would witness the beginning of the end of the European integration - a new wall would be built to separate the poor East from the rich West. Luckily, we have averted this danger and the long-time efforts of helping the newcomers lagging behind the Western Europe turned out not to be in vain.
The lesson to be drawn by Ukraine from this story is the following. The political elites should have clear expectations from the international community and from the EU in particular and be ready to advocate them. Only then will Ukraine be able to convince those who can help. As we witnessed during the last summit, the principle of pragmatism finally did win, albeit with difficulty. Many, among the European leaders understood that they can not fight the economic crisis on their own. They realised that there is a need for collective action, and no country can be left outside. Still, Ukraine must present itself as a reliable partner, otherwise common sense may not prevail.
