Argument Paper Of Korosteleva (2011)

main focus of the paper of Korosteleva (2011) is finding the limitations like conceptual and methodological of the initiative of Eastern Partnership. The main concern was on notion of partnership as considering it as important point of initiative. She examined the EU relations with Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova while doing ESRC research project. According to her observation, there is a clash between notion of partnership and top-down EU centric governance. The notion of partnership is based on cooperation on problems of mutual interest and reciprocal exchange.  The research of Korosteleva (2011) on the current EU practices has revealed tow-level problems. EU does not know much about what it is trying to promote under the aegis of shared values, collective norms and joint ownership in its eastern neighbourhood.  There is also a clash of the vision of EU of better governance with the perceiving of neighbours starting from their experiences of history and cultural traditions. The second issue is that EU favours a top-down governance approach in making relations with outsiders or foreigners which totally seems odd with the idea of partnership and through which, while in the process of reform, the input is explicitly limited. The external governance restricts the EU’s actions to its centred-vision of governance in the absence of workable notation of partnership.  

Popescu & Wilson (2009) did a research on the limits of enlargement lite. They found that after launching of European Neighbourhood policy (ENP) in 2003, in most of the states in region, embarked on association and free-trade talks, deployed crisis management operations and offered visa facilitation and visa-free dialogues, European Union had become a biggest trading partner. But to turn this presence into power, the EU did not get that much success. Through which, the EU has involved itself in the eastern neighbourhood, but its abilities of influencing political developments in the region had stopped at best. The direction of almost all the eastern neighbours of EU is going to wrong direction except of Moldova. Three structural trends are involved in turning the presence into power. The visibility and outreach of EU with public, business interests and state institutions with the eastern neighbours of EU should be increased. However, the overall rely should not be only on soft power. Instead of this, EU should also make transactional relationship with its neighbours.

The EU’s relations with its eastern neighbours are explored by the research of Korosteleva (2011). The data was collected with the help of focus groups, panels, interviews and surveys with the people of Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Russia and Brussels. It was assessed by Korosteleva (2011) that why the limited legitimacy has been received by EU’s initiatives. Korosteleva (2011) found that the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) 2004 and the Eastern Partnership (EaP) of 2009 foreshadowed a new type of relations with the neighbours of EU. The partnership was based on ownership that is partially shared and the shared values and if it will not completely change the traditional governance framework of EU that is used for enlargement, then it would be complemented. EU got a mix response from its eastern neighbours because of this initiative. This tells that how the EU had copied the main elements of ‘partnership’ rather than jointly. It also examines the ideas and usefulness of external governance. EU should make the policy effective and legitimate in the region, without understanding the partners, internal problems, issues and needs.  Popescu & Wilson (2009) mentioned that over the last few years, each major holiday season has been disrupted because of certain events in Eastern Europe. In August 2008, there was between Georgia and Russia. Because of gas crisis in January 2009, the cold winter of Russia and Ukraine had made colder. All the incidents and crisis are linked with each other. It was found that the Eastern neighbourhood states are weak. All the revolutions that were made in these states in 1991 were only for nation i.e. they are national not social. Russia had stepped up its operations in the region, in order to respond to the economic crisis. Russia considered the neighbourhood as it is its backyard. On the other hand, Eastern Europe upped the ante in their Titoist balancing games in order to respond to the economic crisis. With the well-being of states in the eastern neighbourhood, the security, prosperity and the relationship of EU with Russia are bound up. If the importance of region would be continuously down played by the EU then in the next few years, it will suffer the consequences.

References:

Korosteleva, E.A. 2011. Change or Continuity: Is the Eastern Partnership an Adequate Tool for the European Neighbourhood? International Relations, 25 (2), pp. 243-262

Popescu, N., & Wilson, A., 2009.  The Limits of Englargment-Lite: European and Russian Power in the Troubled Neighbourhood. European Council on Foreign Relation