Skip to main content
May 17, 2012

The EU has more to do in the South

Printer-friendly version
In the Debate: 
ENP review - a proper response to a changing Neighbourhood?
Cornelius Ochmann
2011-06-14

The changes proposed by Catherine Ashton are part of a process for improving the effectiveness of European Union institutions. The fundamental assumptions for revising the European Neighbourhood Policy are as rational as can be. We should keep our fingers crossed that they can be achieved.

The most important change will be to make the payment of aid conditional on progress in implementing reforms. This is a normal, reasonable approach. We can only regret the fact that it is being introduced so late. But as the Poles (almost) say – Europe is being wise after the event. The revolutions in North Africa have exposed the EU’s inability to react quickly and effectively in crisis situations outside the Community. The reform of the ENP is an attempt to prevent such situations in the future. It is also an attempt to cut through the EU’s Byzantine extravagance: paying out billions for projects that are not necessarily justified.

At the same time, it must be noted that Lady Ashton was able to accurately assess the situation in which the Community found itself. Greater involvement in the South, in Africa and the Middle East, will take time. It is there where the potential for change is; important things are happening there. Therefore the EU should get involved there.

Meanwhile in the East... well, here the situation is dire. Only Moldova offers any hope of positive changes. And it is not worth even talking about Belarus. In Ukraine, we have continued indecision, the rivalry between groups which cannot decide whether to move towards Europe or Russia. We still do not know whether Kiev will decide on joining the customs union with Russia or not.

Therefore I stress again – the Ashton initiative results from sober evaluation and a willingness to take the chance offered by the shocks in the South. Revising the ENP in that direction should also give Poland something to think about. During its upcoming presidency, Warsaw cannot be fixated on the Eastern Partnership alone. The situation requires flexibility and a willingness to engage elsewhere.