AB’NİN AVRUPA KOMŞULUK POLİTİKASININ ETKİNLİĞİNİN SORGULANMASI : UKRAYNA ÖRNEĞİNDE

Abstract

Soğuk Savaş sonrası genişleme süreçlerinden bu yana AB daha geniş bir coğrafyaya komşu olmuştur. Bu yeni coğrafya farklı öncelikleri ve güvenlik sorunları olan güney Akdeniz’den Doğu Avrupa’ya ve Güney Kafkaslara kadar uzanmaktaydı. Bu yeni sınır AB için tüm alanı kapsayacak bir komşuluk politikasının kurulması ihtiyacını doğurmuştur. Avrupa Komşuluk Politikası bu ihtiyaçlar doğrultusunda kurulmuş bir inisiyatiftir. Her devleti aynı kabul etmesi ve bu nedenle de aynı politikalar yöneltmesi ise inisiyatifin başarılı olup olmadığı sorularının çıkmasına neden olmuştur. Bu çalışmada AB bu inisiyatifle dilediği başarıyı ele edememiştir argümanı savunulacaktır. Bu başarısızlığın nedenleri olarak ise AB üyesi devletler arasındaki ortak hareket etme eksiliği, üyelerin isteksizlikleri ve şartlılık politikası üzerinde durulacaktır. Bu problemler AB inisiyatifinin belirsizliğine yol açmıştır sonucu çıkarılacaktır. Bu argüman Ukrayna örneği üzerinden analiz edilecektir. Ukrayna’nın seçilmesinin nedeni inisiyatifin belirsizliğine ve etkisizliğine vurgu yapabilmek açısından her ne kadar AB’nin şartlarını yerine getirse de çok istediği tam üyeliği alamamış olmasından kaynaklanmaktadır.

Keywords

• AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ
• UKRAYNA
• AVRUPA KOMŞULUK POLİTİKASI

QUESTIONING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EU’S EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICY: A CASE OF UKRAINE

Abstract

With the post-Cold War enlargement processes, the EU closed to an enlarged neighbourhood. This new neighbourhood has stretched from the southern Mediterranean to the Eastern Europe as well as South Caucasus where various priorities as well as security challenges have. Thus, this new borderline increases the requirement of forming new neighbourhood policies covering whole areas for the EU. The European Neighbourhood Policy was formed in accordance with these concerns. Accepting these areas as similar and so adapting one-size-fits-all policy approaches however questioned the efficiency of the initiative. This essay argues that the EU could not be able to achieve what it want with the ENP because of the lack of common attitude and the reluctance of current member states, and also conditionality. These problems lead ambiguity of the EU initiative. These ambiguities and inefficiencies analyse through the case of Ukraine since it makes great achievements in fulfilling EU conditions but has not got what it desired the most – the full membership.

References

1. Akgül, P. (2020) The Criticism of EU’s Efficiency in Region Politics: A Case Study of the Black Sea Region, Ankara, Sonçağ Akademi.
2. Barbé, E. & Johansson-Nogués, E. (2008) “The EU as a modest ‘force for good’: the European Neighbourhood Policy”, International Affairs, 84(1):81-96.
3. Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, “Wider Europe –Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours, COM (2003a) 104 final, Brussels.
4. Council of European Union (2003b) “European Security Strategy”, http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/03/st15/st15849.en03.pdf (12.03.2012)
5. Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission “European Neighbourhood Policy Strategy Paper”, COM (2004) 373 final, Brussels.
6. Dannreuther, R. (2006) “Developing the Alternative to Enlargement: The European Neighbourhood Policy”, European Foreign Affairs Review, No:11: 183-201.
7. Dekanozishvili, M. (2020) “The European Union’s credibility-expectations gap in its European Neighbourhood Policy: perspectives from Georgia and Ukraine”, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 20(2): 1-16.
8. Del Sarto, R.A. & Schumacher, T. (2005) “From EMP to ENP: What’s at stake with the European Neighbourhood Policy towards the Southern Mediterranean?”, European Foreign Affairs Review, No:10: 17-38.

9. Edwards, G. (2008) “The Construction of Ambiguity and the Limits of Attraction: Europe and its Neighbourhood Policy”, Journal of European Integration, 30(1): 45-62.
10. European External Action Service (EEAS) website (2015) “In focus: EU restrictive measures in response to the crisis in Ukraine”, http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/russia/press_corner/all_news/news/2015/20150219_en.htm (15.05.2015)
11. EEAS website (2016a), “European Neighborhood Policy (ENP)” https://eeas.europa.eu/diplomatic-network/european-neighbourhood-policy-enp/330/european-neighbourhood-policy-enp_en (05.01.2021).
12. EEAS website (2016b) “Ukraine and the EU”, https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/ukraine/1937/ukraine-and-eu_en (05.01.2021).
13. EEAS website (2016c) “Study in the EU and travel between the EU and Ukraine”, https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/ukraine/1939/study-eu-and-travel-between-eu-and-ukraine_en (05.01.2021).
14. EEAS website (2020) “EU-Ukraine relations – factsheet”, https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/ukraine/4081/eu-ukraine-relations-factsheet_en (05.01.2021).
15. Emerson, M., Noutcheva, G. & Popescu, N. (2007) “European Neighbourhood Policy Two Years on: Time indeed for an ‘ENP plus’”, CEPS Policy Brief, No:126: 1-28.
16. European Commission (2010) “The Policy: What is the European Neighbourhood Policy?”, http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/policy_en.htm (18.03.2012).
17. European Commission (2011) A New Response to a Changing Neighbourhood: A review of European Neighbourhood Policy (25/05/2011), COM (2011) 303, Brussels.
18. European Commission (2015) “ENP Country Progress Report 2014 – Ukraine” https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_15_4679 (05.01.2021).
19. Ferreira-Pereira, L.C. & Vieira, A.V.G. (2015) “Ukraine in the European Union's Partnership Policy: A Case of Institutionalized Ambiguity”, European Politics and Society, 16(2): 143-158.
20. Grant, C. (2011) “A new neighbourhood policy for the EU”, Centre for European Reform Policy Brief, March, pp.1-13.
21. Official Journal of European Union (2014) “Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part”, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/november/tradoc_155103.pdf (05.01.2021).
22. Pridham, G. (2014) “EU/Ukraine Relations and the Crisis with Russia, 2013-14: A Turning Point”, The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, 49(4): 53-61.
23. Prodi, R. (2002) A Wider Europe –A Proximity Policy as the Key to Stability, Brussels, 6th ECSA-World Conference, 5-6 December.
24. Sasse, G. (2008) “The European Neighbourhood Policy: Conditionality Revisited for the EU’s Eastern Neighbours”, Europe-Asia Studies, 60(2): 295-316.
25. Sasse, G. (2010) “The ENP and the EU’s Eastern Neighbours: Ukraine and Moldova as Test Cases”, in Whitman, R.G. & Wolff, S. (eds) (2010), The European Neighbourhood Policy in Perspective Context, Implementation and Impact, London: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN, pp.181-205.
26. Smith, K.E., (2005) “The outsiders: the European neighbourhood policy”, International Affairs, 81(4): 757-773.
27. Solonenko, I. (2006) “European Neighbourhood Policy- The Perception of Ukraine”, in Overhaus, M., Maull, H.W. & Harnisch S. (eds) (2006) Foreign Policy in Dialogue: The New Neighbourhood Policy of the European Union Perspectives from the European Commission, France, Germany, Poland, Ukraine and Moldova, 7(19): 44-51.
28. Tonra, B. (2010) “Identity Construction through the ENP: Borders and Boundaries, Insider and Outsiders”, in Whitman, R.G. & Wolff, S. (eds) (2010) The European Neighbourhood Policy in Perspective Context, Implementation and Impact, London: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN, pp.51-72.
29. Whitman, R.G. & Wolff, S. (2010), “Much Ado About Nothing? The European Neighbourhood Policy in Context”, in Whitman, R.G. & Wolff, S. (eds) (2010) The European Neighbourhood Policy in Perspective Context, Implementation and Impact, London: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN, pp.3-26.