Winners and Losers in EU Integration

Questions: 1. How far should the EU expand to incorporate its eastern and south-eastern neighbours? 2. Should EU try to build bridges with Russia and other former soviet republics along its eastern border? 3. Should EU set aside it reservations and speed up the process of accepting turkey as full member? 4. What are the business implications for the tensions in the eastern and south Eastern Europe? 5. Outline the most likely scenario for the development of the relations between the EU and its eastern and south eastern neighbours over the next ten or twenty years? Answer: 1. The relations between the countries in Eastern and South Eastern Europe with the European Union are generally positive but there are several problems to the incorporation of the states into the EU. There are new republics that have been constructed from Soviet Union and the change of borders led to the uneven distribution of different ethnic groups. This was previously suppressed by the sense of unity and national benefit but as there is separate countries with different agendas now the conflict has come to fore and the eruption of violence between nations of the region are not uncommon. Therefore, the relation of the countries in Eastern Europe with the ones in the EU is different (Black, 2010). Moreover, the economic condition of the countries and their development are too different from the member states to consider a union at this time. The EU should bide their time until the situation settles and the countries show gradual progress and development in the social and economic s cene. 2. In my opinion, the EU should not attempt to build bridges with Russia and other eastern European nations at this moment as the political situation in that region is still too volatile for them to attempt growth with the help of the EU. The gas line supplies to Ukraine and other ethnic reasons are causing severe tension in the region. This situation is not conductive of growth and prosperity that the countries of EU have in common (Lavenex, 1999). The economic condition and social progress are also vastly different from the countries in the EU so any attempt made to connect with these countries will be futile and has high chance of failure. Therefore, the EU should only try to build bridges with the countries that have similar level of progress and potential for development. The instability of the region is too big a gap that has to be bridged by effort for one side, although the value of positive relations is indisputable. 3. In my opinion the adoption of turkey into the European Union is only a matter of time and the current situation in the region has only a few minor barriers to the joining of the country into the EU. The matter of the turkeys consideration for adoption is subject to the records of human rights violation of the ethnic minorities and the somewhat developed economy along with the predominantly Muslim religion and culture that is vastly different from the other countries of the EU (Pond, 2002). There is also the point of Turkish domination of the northern Cyprus that is a point of contention between the countries. These barriers in my opinion can be easily overcome by the combined effort from the whole of the EU and the people of the country will benefit from the influence of the European Unions interference. Therefore, there are no reasons to slow down the growth of the country by the bureaucracy. 4. In the tensions of the Eastern Europe the business implications of the region are based on the ethnic conflicts that result in violent confrontations between ethnic groups. These conflicts cause instability in the market of the region and the rate of foreign direct investment in the countries allied with Russia are significantly lower than the countries that are more in favour of their western neighbours (Smith, 1999). This causes the trade imbalance between the nations of the region. The nations of the region were separated by the iron curtain during the soviet reign had not totally dissolved the trade barriers but the countries that are allied with the EU are benefitting to some degree by the influx of trade from their neighbours of western Europe. 5. In the next ten to twenty years the scenario in the Eastern and South Eastern Europe is liable to change dramatically. Already after disaster in the 1990 the countries in the region are shaping up nicely and in just ten years they were able to pick themselves back up from the disaster. Therefore, it can be hoped that the in the next ten or twenty years they will be completely stable and the conflicts that erupt unannounced will be quelled in the region. The peace will be followed by economic development and prosperity and rise in social standards (Tang, 2000). This will lead to more equality in the region and the countries in this region will be ready to form union with the western neighbours in the EU. Therefore, the current stance and rigidity of the EU will be reduced and the reasons for such mentality would have been eradicated by then. So in ten or twenty years there will a peaceful cooperation between the eastern and western European countries. References Black, R. (2010).A continent moving west?. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Lavenex, S. (1999).Safe third countries. Budapest: CEU Press. Pond, E. (2002).The rebirth of Europe. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Smith, K. (1999).The making of EU foreign policy. New York: St. Martin's Press. Tang, H. (2000).Winners and losers in EU integration. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Topidi, K. and Morawa, A. (2011).Constitutional evolution in Central and Eastern Europe. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub.