Signal from Brussels
There is no place for Ukraine in the enlarged European Union, while Russia is too big to enter the EU, European Commission President Romano Prodi told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant. At first glance, this statement contains nothing new. Moreover, it is not for the first time that this high-ranking Brussels official has voiced such phrases. Yet, the very frequency of such comments stirs certain fears — particularly, over Kyiv’s declared European choice.
It is quite possible that former Italian Premier Romano Prodi thus expressed his own point of view, as he did when he noted that one must first define the criteria of EU enlargement, for it does not matter at all that the Ukrainians or Armenians feel themselves European because the New Zealanders also feel they are European. A similar statement was made last September by EU Enlargement Commissioner Gunther Verheugen, but the Ukrainian top echelons did not take his statement seriously. For he is just a bureaucrat not empowered to speak on behalf of all the Union countries. But the situation with Mr. Prodi is quite a bit different. The European Commission president is appointed by the member states’ governments, and his candidature is subject to approval by the European Parliament. This double “legalization” vests him with multifaceted political power. He sets European Commission priorities, takes part in all summits, and is authorized to represent the whole commission. It should be noted that the president can only air the positions of this influential body on the principle of collective responsibility. Did he consult other European Commission members before saying there is no place for Ukraine in the enlarged EU? Probably not. At the same time, it is of paramount importance that the European Commission president is not president of the European Union. So Mr. Prodi’s comments on the EU’s foreign political prospects could only be considered official if he had been authorized to do so by the governments of all the 15 member states. Thus it appears that Mr. Prodi merely expressed his personal, albeit very rash, opinion.
This kind of comment is capable of sparking new speculative statements within Ukraine itself. Will Brussels benefit much from such Kyiv questions as, “Do we really need to strive for EU membership if we are unwelcome guests there?” Will the European Union be happy if Moscow says, “They won’t admit you in any case, while we are inviting you right now to join the Eurasian Economic Community”? Perhaps Mr. Prodi meant the short term. Indeed, Ukraine will not be able and is not trying to become a full EU member in one or two years’ time. So far, Ukrainian diplomats have been focusing on the necessity of a EU signal that Ukraine’s full integration into the EU is possible. In their turn, Brussels diplomats point to the current heavy workload in connection with the next wave of enlargement in 2004. This does not mean, however, that they take an absolutely negative view of Ukraine. Last week’s session of the European Union Council of Ministers at the level of foreign ministers adopted recommendations about more active relations between the EU and Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova. According to Ukrainian diplomats, Kyiv’s opinion was taken into account. In particular, Ukraine expressed concern that our state was put in the same category with Belarus and Moldova. Brussels allegedly accepted the necessity of a differentiated approach. Moreover, Oleksandr Chaly, State Secretary for European Integration at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, said last week that the EU recommendations do not thwart Ukraine’s prospects for European integration.
It will be recalled that earlier, when asked by journalists about Ukraine’s possible EU membership, Mr. Prodi said, “Why not?” Which of his words should we believe now?
