East and West: Europe without Winners and Losers
Eugeniu Burdelnii, Moldova
Over the past fifteen years the newly independent states (NIS) of the former Soviet Union have been trying to create their own models of development based on local political, economic and cultural traditions. For most of these countries the process has been very painful, marked by devastating economic recession, political instability and social crisis.
One of the main reasons for the difficult transition was the considerable political, economic, social and psychological distance between the NIS and the European Union, particularly in the first decade of their independence. The boom in fashionable European brands, love of European bars and restaurants, holidays in Ibiza and Ithaca were transient idols for a new post-Soviet stratum of nouveaux riches. It seemed that everything in these states was ‘sort of’: a ‘sort of’ democracy and a ‘sort of’ capitalism, accompanied by tyranny and extraordinary poverty; a ‘sort of’ intellectual past and present, mixed with everyday boorishness and ignorance; a ‘sort of’ separation of powers and civil society, but crippled by unprecedented corruption and police-state repression.
In fact, the necessary ‘Europeanization of minds’ and structural transformation of society did not occur. Poorly thought-out reforms, incorrect choice of priorities, and neglect of public interests fed by a Soviet mindset skewed the development of these countries. It distorted the meaning of democracy, freedom, free choice, European values, etc., in the process associating them in the popular mind with the disasters of the 1990s.
As a result, some of the NIS began to shift towards authoritarianism, marked by the rule of ‘Families’, tight travel restrictions, unprecedented state control over all aspects of life, violations of human rights, and the cult of personality. This was particularly evident in some Central Asian republics, such as Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
Other countries whose elites chose the path of blind imitation of the West came up against unprecedented corruption, bureaucratic tyranny, the withering of national identity, an abandoned historical-cultural heritage and loss of independence. Sheltering behind the façade of democracy and freedom, these post-Soviet elites proved extremely rapacious. At around the same time, there also emerged ‘frozen conflicts’ and pseudo-states – Nagorno-Karabakh, Transdniestria, Abkhazia, etc. – which remain a permanent source of instability and threat not only for eastern Europe, but for the whole of the European continent as well. This state of affairs was caused by the failure to understand the importance of pan-European cooperation in overcoming key problems, and by the existence of a divide between eastern and western Europe.
Today Western Europe – the European Union – is expanding, offering up a real model of development. It is in the West where the most successful patterns of political and economic society have developed. A breakthrough is needed now to narrow the gap in growth and development with Eastern Europe and particularly the European countries of the post-Soviet space. The events in Georgia (Rose revolution), Ukraine (Orange revolution), the European orientation of Moldova and other post-Soviet countries – all require major structural changes in society and governance based on close cooperation with EU member-states. In this connection, the EU’s Common Neighbourhood Policy can be a genuine catalyst for rapprochement between Eastern and Western Europe.
For its part, the West has frequently demonstrated a poor understanding of developments in Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism. The squandering and embezzlement of multi-million dollar credits and grants in the 1990s was due largely to inadequate knowledge of the problems in those countries. There is a real need to create and promote effective mechanisms of partnership between Eastern and Western Europe at all levels.
Unfortunately, in the very heart of Europe voices can be heard advocating a so-called ‘European fortress’ to isolate Western Europe from mass migration, criminality, etc. from the east. Some political elites in the EU have managed successfully to manipulate public opinion using nationalist rhetoric. It should be remembered, however, that terrorist acts such as the London bombings in July 2005 were committed by citizens born and educated in western European countries, but supported by radical criminal regimes and groups outside Europe.
These tragic events showed that the EU faces new challenges. Prosperity and welfare in EU member-states depends directly on stability in the wider region. That is why we must reduce poverty, provide equal opportunities, safeguard security and human rights, and improve the mechanisms of mutually beneficial interaction. These challenges can be resolved on the basis of expanded cooperation with the Union’s eastern neighbours – Moldova, Ukraine, Russia, etc. – taking into account their particular national characteristics and interests.
Bringing East and West closer will help create a common and prosperous European family. There cannot be any ‘winners’ or ‘losers’, just as there cannot be any ‘strangers’ and ‘hosts’. All will be ‘participants’, ‘winners’ and ‘hosts’. Whatever our origins, the issue at stake is nothing less than our common European future.