Dr. Beata Piskorska teaches International Relations courses at John
Paul II Catholic University of Lublin in Poland. She is an expert of European
Union especially in terms of EU’s Eastern Neighborhood Policy. Piskorska had
some courses and a seminar last week in Istanbul Gedik University as part of
Erasmus+ mobility program.
Dr. Ozan Örmeci: Dr. Beata Piskorska, congratulations for your
courses and seminar in Istanbul Gedik University. We were delighted by your
knowledge and warm personality. During your seminar, you explained EU’s “soft
power” abilities as part of ENP with a particular focus on Caucasian region. You
also argued that EU’s “soft power” instruments do not work efficiently in
recent years due to Russian aggression and the general trend of returning to
the “hard power” in the world. You also presented some statistics about
democratic regression in EU’s neighbouring countries. Could you elaborate on
democratic trends in EU’s eastern neighbours in recent years?
Dr. Beata Piskorska: Dr. Ozan Örmeci, I would like to express my great
gratitude for ability to come to Istanbul Gedik University and my participation
in valuable meetings and discussions with university staff and students. It was
a really significant experience to share of my interest, knowledge and
experience as a Polish university teacher interested in EU research. Additionally,
I am very grateful for perfectly organized and very interesting seminar of the
EU’s role in international relations. It was a great opportunity to discuss the
most recent political developments concerning EU and the future of security and
defence policy of this organization.
As I presented during
the seminar, soft power is treated as a main instrument of the EU policy
towards the neighbourhood region in the Southern and Eastern Europe realized by
European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and the Eastern Partnership (EaP) as a part
of it. By
these two initiatives, the EU attempts to play the role of influential actor,
being able to change the way of thinking and democratize states in the region. Because
of the lack of well-functioning hard power, the EU uses primarily of non-power
instruments in order to strengthen political and economic cooperation with
them. These soft instruments are: association agreements, DCFTAs, financial
support, public diplomacy (scholarships, student exchange, trainings), support
for governments, civil society and democracy and civilian missions, without offering
them membership perspective. Lack of this possibility may not be motivated for beneficiary countries to
undertake domestic reforms.
Actually, I argued pessimistically on the basis
of several statistics that prove that, ten years after the launch of the Eastern Partnership,
the EU’s strategy of soft power doesn’t work effectively in the promotion of democracy
and economic development in partner countries. There are several problems
regarding the ENP that prevent it from becoming an effective instrument to help
the EU to achieve its aim of norm promotion: political situation in the closest
neighbourhood and the rising imperial competition coming from Russia who uses
hard power instruments towards the region and tries to contain the EU’s soft
power in the shared neighbourhood. However, the outbreak of Ukraine-Russia war in 2013 and the
annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 became a turning point for the EU’s soft
power policy. Since then, the EU has had to deal with the geopolitical
collision with the Russian Federation and its aggressive military policy in the
so called “near abroad”. It needs to stress
that the hard security issues related to resolving regional conflicts
(Ukraine-Russia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria-Transdniestria)
are not included into the agenda of ENP. Therefore, the EU’s influence by using
soft power instruments into this region is not a successful response to the
security challenges in the Eastern neighbourhood. That is why, it needs to
emphasize that without deeper involvement in conflict resolution there, the EU
will not be able to achieve its own interests in the Eastern neighbourhood.
Coming back to the issue of democratic
trends in EU’s eastern neighbours in recent years, we can observe that democratic political and economic changes in the post-Soviet
space are carried out very slowly and insignificantly. According to rankings presented
by me during the seminar, there is a decrease of almost all countries’
democracy score within last ten years since the creation of EaP (Eastern Partnership)
initiative. It is visible mainly in case of Armenia and Azerbaijan. In case of Ukraine,
we see a slight decrease in terms of level of democracy. Regarding the Corruption Perception Index in 2008-2018, the
worse indicators can be found in three countries: Azerbaijan, Belarus and
Moldova. Considering the general level of freedom according to the Freedom in
the World 2018, political situation in post-Soviet countries hasn’t changed
significantly for ten years. Deterioration has taken place only in case of
Ukraine – has changed from free to partly free, level of freedom in the
remaining five countries is the same (Moldova, Georgia and Armenia are identified
still as partly free). The worst level of freedom is noticed in two countries:
Azerbaijan and Belarus (they are defined as autocratic regimes). It means that the EU is
currently unable to promote democracy in partner countries. I think the main
reason of this is the lack of an EU
membership incentive/perspective, which also weakens the motivation and the
power of politicians in neighboring countries to make the necessary reforms.
Dr. Beata Piskorska during a lecture in Istanbul Gedik University
Dr. Ozan Örmeci: There are critical news in recent years in the
international press about the democratic situation of some European countries
including Hungary and Poland. How do you see the democratic development of
these countries?
Dr. Beata Piskorska: Actually, in many EU countries democracy and the rule of law are under
pressure. We can observe this tendency considering the general level of freedom according to
most popular statistics agency. According to the Freedom House ranking (Freedom
in the World 2018), democratic freedoms
are falling within last 12 years. Three out of 28 EU countries (Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania) are
categorized in the ‘partly free’
countries. Unfortunately, in Poland (currently
a “free country”) also, the Freedom House analysts have noticed, in recent
years, the politicization of courts and public media. Alarmingly, governments of Hungary and Poland have recently witnessed
constitutional changes; accumulating more power for governments and limiting
the independence of the courts and the freedom of the media. In both countries,
after winning the elections, Viktor Orbán
(leader of Fidesz) and Jaroslaw Kaczyński and his Law
and Justice party - PiS (which was successful in the parliamentary
elections of October 2015) immediately set out to create proper conditions for the consolidation of
their power through rewriting the fundamental rules
of liberal democracies. The core idea of their anti-democratic agenda was to
efficiently neutralize all forms of internal resistance, starting with the
highest level of institutional control, the Constitutional Court, followed by
the broadly understood justice system. The significant developments that have occurred in
Poland and Hungary attract international attention and provoke the question of
whether the politics of Eastern Europe is being fundamentally altered, and the
democratic achievements of the region reversed. In case of Poland, the European
Commission has launched the procedure of article 7 of the Treaty on EU for
breaking rule of law after conducting a dialogue for almost two years. It is
particularly sad for the state, which was the model of democratic change 20
years ago.
Dr. Beata Piskorska and Istanbul
Gedik University staff
Dr. Ozan Örmeci: Right-wing populism has become an influential
political wave in many European countries. Most recently, we have witnessed the
entry of Vox Party into the Spanish Parliament. What do you think about the
reasons of the rise of right-wing populism in Europe?
Dr. Beata Piskorska: There is no easy answer to this question. Recent
academic studies have shown that throughout the western world right-wing populism are widespread. Parties of this type across Europe takes different forms depending on
nationally specific factors such as political history, system and culture, but
there are similarities. They are in government in 11 European countries. More than a quarter of Europeans voted populists in their
last elections. In my opinion, the main reason for the increase in support
these groups with ultra-nationalist views is arising anti-immigrant,
Islamophobic and antisemitic sentiments, and exploiting public anger over
austerity and the perceived ‘arrogance’ of the Brussels political class. The
populists aim to reassert the pre-eminence of national identity, narrowly
defined, and to stop the European project in its integrationist tracks. Alarmingly,
across the EU countries, far-right populists and ultra-nationalist parties are
mobilising ahead of upcoming this month’s EU parliamentary elections. Polls
show their support growing.
Dr. Armağan Gözkaman
and Dr. Beata Piskorska after the seminar
Dr. Ozan Örmeci: You were in the Turkey almost for a week few
days ago. What were your observations about Turkey and Turkish people? What do
you think about Turkish accession to EU?
Dr. Beata Piskorska: I have been in Turkey for the third time and always
visit Turkey with pleasure. During my stay, I had chance to observe daily life
of ordinary people in the streets and I was surprised that this country and
especially Istanbul has developed well mainly on the Asian side. I am extremely
impressed by the high level of learning at university, the students’ interest
in European affairs and a very warm attitude from the academic staff.
Regarding
opportunities of Turkey’s accession to the EU, this country is still a candidate
with a long-standing association agreements. Turkey applied for the EU
membership in 1987. It is known that due
to Turkey’s
geographical location and political history, the EU hesitated for a long time
before accepting its application. Although accession negotiations finally began
in October 2005, some EU leaders
have expressed doubts as to whether Turkey will or should become a member of
the European Union. One of these
leaders is current French President Emmanuel Macron, who stressed last year that there is no
chance of progress towards Turkey joining the European Union at present, but it is important to keep a close relationship
with Turkey and offer other options at the moment - a partnership. This would not
be a sufficient offer especially for Turkish society that wants full access to the
EU. Nonetheless,
the EU intends to remain a reference point for Turkey in relation to political
reforms and fundamental rights because of President Erdoğan’s rule and restriction
of human rights. As we know (also in Poland), the respect for European values remains a non-negotiable condition for accession.
Dr. Ozan Örmeci: Dr. Beata Piskorska, thank you for your time and
good luck in your studies.
Interview: Dr. Ozan ÖRMECİ
Date: 07.05.2019
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder