EU officials’ cautious answers to questions about the possibility of Ukraine’s direct involvement in the European community of nations lead to disheartening conclusions. In the present situation, however, it is worth realistically assessing the possibilities for Ukraine to take part in the EU’s vital activities. Kyiv recently hosted a scholarly conference with Norwegian and Polish participation, which pondered two possible scenarios of closer cooperation between Ukraine and the EU.
Norway and Poland were chosen for a reason. Norway is a developed European state that is not a member of the EU. During both referendums concerning Norway’s EU membership the response was negative. Norwegians had their reasons, the main one being that they are afraid of being overwhelmed by the huge union and losing control primarily over their national oil and gas deposits, which are the basis of the Norwegian economy. These moods are still predominant in Norwegian society, which is why the government decided to postpone the EU membership issue for at least four years.
Instead, Norway will continue the tradition of close economic relations. Norway is a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). In 1960 this agreement was signed by Austria, Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, and Switzerland, with Finland and Iceland joining in 1970. However, as the EU expanded, EFTA member countries began pulling out. Today the association consists of Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland. Yet this does not mean that the EFTA and the EU are trading separately. After the EU introduced a single domestic market in 1992, EFTA started negotiations about participating and signed an appropriate agreement in 1994, which became Norway’s main instrument in its relations with the EU. Thanks to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, this country is part of the internal European market. This envisages the creation of a joint commodity market, services, manpower, and capital. Here common standards, regulations, and market-regulating instruments are effective. Common regulations are also envisaged in terms of competition and distribution of state subsidies. At the same time, the Agreement on the European Economic Area has a dynamic character. Every time the European Union changes its policy in one branch or another, appropriate changes are introduced into the agreement. True, some on the Norwegian side complain that their country is “playing the role of a performer, not a legislator.” Under this agreement, Norway is not involved in a number of EU fields of endeavor. Norway is not a member of the customs and currency unions; it has no influence on EU foreign policy, and has nothing to do with resolving defense matters. In addition, there is no common policy on agriculture and fisheries. By and large, thanks to this agreement Norway has won access to the European market and for decades has had stable and predictable import and export indices.
Norway regards this scenario as totally acceptable for Ukraine. First, it does not call for any global shifts, as it is impossible to do everything at once. Second, being a signatory to this agreement costs less than EU membership commitments, even if this is not the decisive argument in favor of such cooperation with the EU.
This option looks quite realistic to Ukraine; it can be implemented in the nearest future. Ian Boug, head of the European Commission’s Representation in Ukraine, said that after Ukraine’s admission to the WTO the EU will start negotiating a free trade area. Positive results might be reflected in 2008, in a new extended cooperation agreement — according to the summary of the implementation of the EU-Ukraine Action Plan and after the completion of the partnership and cooperation agreement. Such a step could be Ukraine’s accession to the Agreement on the European Economic Area.
Poland is supporting Ukraine’s EU membership. On the basis of their own experience (Poland became a full-fledged EU member on May 1, 2004) Poles believe that Ukrainians should not become despondent but should struggle to attain membership in the EU (together with NATO membership), instead of some other associations. The primary reason for this is that EU membership standards are very exacting, which in the final result has a positive effect on the development of countries that have declared their European choice and require fundamental changes. This is what happened to Poland and other countries during the last expansion wave. Poles point out that this integration process is even more important than its end result. For example, the latest EU candidate members were required to have stable state institutions that guarantee democracy, rule of law, implementation of human rights, and protection of ethnic minorities. A market economy must be functioning in this country, which is capable of handling competition within the union. A candidate country must be capable of honoring the commitments stemming from its obligation to participate in the political, economic, and currency union. Comparative analyses of the development of countries representing various waves of EU expansion attest to positive achievements in the processes of social democratization, effective performance by the government, and successful economic reforms. Such results are determined by the EU’s rigid admission policy; slapdash reforms or so-called paper reforms are not accepted. Turkey is a vivid example. For many years this country has had one foot in the European Union, but somehow it cannot cross the threshold.
How high Ukraine sets the bar will depend on how well the Ukrainian government is prepared for changes.
