What effects the EU had upon Eastern Europe
What effects has the EU had upon Eastern Europe and the Balkans? An International Relations position.
The European Union has had profound effects on both Eastern Europe and the Balkans, specifically, by a combination of both its actions and inactivities, and/or seasonableness of its actions. Its philosophical and political aspirations, and idealistic religion in the built-in high quality of Western economic and political systems have enabled it to blend into a really powerful organisation in the few short decennaries since its formation, but the EU’s fastidiously cumbersome insisting on classless ideals, slow-moving political procedures, and its member states’ misgiving of federalism or other centralised signifiers of power has made for a peculiar and uneasy interaction with Eastern European provinces and Balkan states which comprised the former Yugoslavia. In some ways, the manner of being of the EU represents vis-a-vis the Eastern European and Balkan states represents a clang of civilizations and political orientations that predate the European Union by centuries. So while the power and efficaciousness of the European Union is considerable, it is non predestined that its matrimony with and primacy over spiritual, cultural, and political tensenesss of states from the former Eastern Bloc / Yugoslavia will be a happy or reciprocally good one.
Presently, the former Eastern Bloc Communist states of Poland, Slovania and the Czech Republic ( the two constituents of the former state of Czechlosavakia ) , Austria, Hungary, every bit good as former Soviet provinces Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are all members of the European Union. Of the states which one time comprised the former Yugoslavia, merely Croatia and Macedonia are campaigners for EU rank ; none are members yet, most notably neither Serbia nor Bosnia-Herzegovina. All of the above members joined in May 2004, after holding applied in the mid-1990s. Croatia and Macedonia applied for EU rank in 2003 and 2004, severally.
Expansion of the European Union has by and large been greeted with much ostentation and been hailed as a victory of peace and democracy. “It has become self-evident for the Union to claim that rank of the Union, of itself, contributes to the democratic development of these provinces and that it enlarges the zone of peace and stableness in Europe.” ( Salmon, 2003, p.1 ) However, as clearly illustrated by the United States’ seemingly vain attempt to present peaceable, representative democracy in the political and cultural vacuity left behind by Saddam Hussein’s totalitarian repression of Iraq, it is a basically naive belief that idealistic Western values of peace and harmoniousness can merely be introduced into the H2O supply of a state fighting to exceed cultural, political and spiritual discord, and spread itself like a benevolent virus with easiness and self-perpetuating grace. Equally attractive as Western ideals are of spiritual freedom, self-government, and capitalist ( or quasi-capitalist ) economic systems, their entreaty should ne’er function as an alcohol that leads us to believe that these ideals are ever easy and fleetly implemented.
The slavishly gawky political rightness and homogeneousness of political orientation – leftist fascism, as it were — apparently mandated by the corporate civilization of the European Union is a slightly hard lucifer to states of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, who are still merely less than two decennaries beyond the clasps of totalitarian and/or autocratic governments underwritten by the Soviet Union and/or strongmen like Yugoslavia’s Marshall Josef Tito. Much as the economic systems and societies of the provinces which comprised the former Soviet Union still struggle to happen cohesive, functional new individualities which can profit the general population after the autumn of Communism, the states of the former Warsaw Pact still struggle to changing grades to implement and harvest the benefits of consumer capitalist civilization and representative democracy. Is it non ever an either easy or rapid displacement ; it is an development. The cardinal civilization displacement which is required is one in which the paradigm of single rights, single authorization, and single pick comes to be instinctively within the people of each state used to holding determinations made for them by governments which exist to repress them and minimise their single power, governments which inherently demeaned the value of human life by minimising the importance of the person in favour of the province. Contrary to averments of the sort favored by American president George W. Bush, human existences are non inherently endowed with an natural expertness in autonomy, justness, and self-governance. These baronial constructs are unimpeachably worthwhile in footings of functioning as organisational rules of a merely society, but they must be learned and practiced. These constructs, as evidenced by the illustrations of the fallible histories of both the United States and the European Union, are philosophical plants in advancement, non inherently perfect paradigms which are easy superimposed upon and adapted by civilizations for whom the primacy of cultural individuality over all other political or societal concerns, or the primacy of the state’s value over that of the person, have been the ruling paradigms for decennaries or even centuries. The cultural hates that made the Balkans such a toxic environment after Slobodan Milosevic ascended to power ( shortly after Tito died ) are dark passions whose histories run so deep that they really predate the being of representative democracy as an enforced signifier of authorities. Equally stable as the Balkans are, comparative at least to the barbarian genocidal wars of the 1990s, it is still hard to conceive of the mean Bosnian Serb or Muslim Croat experiencing more trueness to Europe as a corporate construct, or the European Union as a political entity, than their ain cultural and spiritual heritages, which have bound them together, formed their corporate individualities, and defined their conflict-laden relationships, for literally centuries – surely a historical discharge within which the few decennaries of the European Union’s being could easy be seen as a minor aberrance unlikely to for good squelch or eliminate the dormant, but still simmering cultural tensenesss between states of the former Yugoslavia. If the assorted perennial infernos that comprise Middle East political and cultural worlds should flame up up into a corporate struggle between Judeo-christian states and Muslim states, where would the trueness prevarication for the assorted states and ethnicities that comprise the Balkan provinces? Would they follow the dictates of the European Union, NATO, the United States, or sympathise with the Palestinians, the Iraqis of assorted spiritual religious orders, or Iran’s Shia? These are inquiries which are hard to reply with any certainty, but at the really least they should bring forth ample cautiousness about the romantic fog which seems to hide many EU and Western policies in the kingdom of both internal and international dealingss.
When British Prime Minister Winston Churchill called for a “United States of Europe, ” modeled after the paradigm of the United States of America, in September 1946 address, the states of Eastern Europe were steadfastly under the clasp of the Fe Communist fist stretching out from Moscow. The useful value of the confederation between the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union dissipated rapidly after the resignation of Germany and Japan and quickly became counter as America’s usage of the atomic bomb merely served to reenforce both Stalin’s homicidal, paranoid compulsion with keeping his ain power, which extended to totalitarian urges that went far beyond the boundary lines of the Soviet Union. But the philosophical underpinning of the European Union provided by Churchill was non simply a warning shooting across the proverbial Soviet bow, but a acknowledgment of and supplication for healing of the wash uping centuries of fratricidal warfare that had ravaged Europe internally, irrespective of the United States and Russia/ the Soviet Union. After all, World War I had sprung from the Balkans, in Serbia, and World War II has been argued by many to rooted in issues unresolved after the first World War, peculiarly the rough intervention of Germany taking to her economic prostration. In the post-war despair for peace, Churchill urged Europeans as follows:
We can non afford to drag frontward cross the old ages that are to come the hates and retaliations which have sprung from the hurts of the yesteryear. If Europe is to be saved from infinite misery… there must be this act of religion in the European Family and this act of limbo against all offenses and follies of the past… the wrongs and hurts which have been inflicted will hold been washed off on all sides by the wretchednesss which have been endured. Is at that place any demand for farther inundations of torment? Is the lone lesson of history to be that world is unteachable? Let there be justness, clemency and freedom. The people have merely to will it, and all will accomplish their Black Marias ‘ desire. ( Churchill, 1946 )
It is this desire to abdicate war as a platitude default method of deciding struggle that has led the EU to its current stated mission with regard to the Balkans: “The EU ‘s cardinal purpose for the Western Balkans part ( South East Europe ) is to make a state of affairs where military struggle is unthinkable – spread outing to the part the country of peace, stableness, prosperity and freedom established over the last 50 old ages by the EU and its member states.” ( EU website, 2004 ) This is both a continuance of Churchill’s warning and a silent recognition that the European Union displayed an dismaying deficiency of resoluteness and willingness to consequence alteration during the old ages that Yugoslavia disintegrated into a civil war characterized by horrific ‘ethnic cleansing’ that many Europeans had solemnly sworn would ne’er reoccur after the mind-boggling extinction of human life during the Holocaust.
One such topographic point where cultural cleaning horrified the universe was Kosovo, where Serb forces consistently murdered and/or resettled 100s of 1000s of Kosovars in 1998. NATO and EU states were maddeningly slow to move, coercing the United States to take the lead in forming and spearheading an aerial barrage run against Serb marks in 1999. Inexplicably, EU and NATO member states believed Milosevic could be reasoned with, despite no historical grounds whatsoever to back up this charitable rating of Milosevic’s nature ; on the contrary, he had displayed singular aptitude and appetency for sweeping slaughter despite cosmopolitan protests, indignation and disapprobation from all corners. Nothing was effectual except the usage of military power. Military struggle was clearly rather thinkable by Milosevic and rather necessary on the portion of the United States to set a halt to Milosevic’s violent disorder. So in this instance, the Balkans were capable to far more desolation than was necessary or defendable due to the comparative powerlessness and inactivity of the European Union and its member states.
In the wake of the Kosovo catastrophe, the Kosovars intelligibly wished for liberty over their ain personal businesss and would digest no more talk of integrity under the auspices of the Serbian authorities. A agonizing agreement was hammered out with the United Nations, under which Kosovo would go a semi-autonomous political entity governed by the U.N. and whose security is guaranteed by a NATO associated state force. Given Kosovo’s comparatively big size as a per centum of entire Serbian district, the Serbian authorities has been loath to yield complete authorization over Kosovo ; every bit late as September 30, 2006, the Serbian parliament reaffirmed via a new constitutional papers its strong belief that Kosovo is an built-in and inseparable constituent of Serbia. This places Serbia forthrightly at odds with the European Union, whose acknowledgment of and interaction with Kosovo as an independent entity has been ongoing for several old ages. The EU’s Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation ( CARDS ) plan has spent over 1.6 billion Euros in Kosovo since 1999. Serbia desires rank in the European Union, severely in demand of the economic stableness and prosperity that a friendly and concerted economic relationship with EU member provinces can offer to a fighting economic system such as Serbia’s. However, the EU has made it clear that Serbia will hold to abdicate its repetitive territorial claim on Kosovo if it wishes to hold any opportunity at EU rank. Former American minister plenipotentiary to Serbia ( and former American embassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke stated that Serbia will hold to do a blunt pick between Kosovo and EU rank: “I believe that Kosovo should have independency… I know that my friends in Serbia will non hold with me and I know that your viewing audiences will be angry at me for stating this, but the truth is that Serbia has lost Kosovo. It lost Kosovo because of the political relations of Slobodan Milosevic and it is best for it to recognize this reality.” ( Holbrooke, 2003 ) For better or for worse, the EU has used its economic relationship with Kosovo to oblige Serbia to change its behaviour and conform to EU ideals and EU political policy. It is a formidable carrot to offer ; nevertheless, one does non hold to look far back into history to falter across legion illustrations of states with totalitarian histories responding violently to economic blackmail of assorted kinds. It is a deliberate gamble on the portion of the EU that depends greatly on the attending and resourced of both its member states and the possible military influence of the United States, which is to a great extent distracted by its morass in Iraq, to state nil of the by and large uneffective and slow-to-act United Nations. It is in both Serbia’s and the EU’s involvement to come in into a partnership ; Serbia can non last as an economic and political outcast, and Europe is loathe to contemplate the lengths an stray Srbija might travel to continue itself. Engagement is cardinal, but is by no agencies certain to be effectual. Will Serbia assent to the EU or asseverate its self-proclaimed historical right to regulate Kosovo and stop up in a category like states such as North Korea? This is merely one of many blunt illustrations in which trueness to cultural and political history preceding the European Union goes head to head against the values and comparative benefits of collaborating with and/or fall ining the EU.
The EU’s CARDS plan is a perfect illustration, nevertheless, of one of the implicit in constructs of the European Union, which is the belief that economic cooperation, economic chance, and economic mutuality lessen the odds that political or other traditionally thorny differences between nation-states will be resolved through force or other destructively coercive agencies. The ideological divide that separates the United States from China, for illustration, takes on a certain moot quality given the economic mutuality between the two states. The sum of trade between the two states is prodigious: over $ 240 billion in U.S. dollars in the twelvemonth 2005 alone, harmonizing to the United States Census Bureau. The break of this degree of trade would do a considerable break in the diverse economic systems of both states, so it is of class in the involvement of both nation-states to avoid said break by virtuousness of military struggle. This degree of economic mutuality is a far call from the yearss when the United States battled China in Korea during the 1950s and the U.S. came hazardously close to utilizing atomic arms to halt the overpowering Chinese countermove into North Korea. Such a struggle is unthinkable today non needfully because either state has become more good-humored in nature, but merely because globalisation and the impulse towards free trade have become a powerful dynamic that it serves as a disincentive for war. Cipher believes for a 2nd that either China or the U.S. would endanger their ever-burgeoning trade relationship due to a semantic bicker over the position of Taiwan, merely as an illustration. By the same item, the European Union hopes to accomplish military security through both economic mutuality between member nation-states and economic mutuality with larger trading entities ( such as the United States and China, or Japan ) , leveraging a corporate economic strength that single member nation-states would be unable to make.
During the Cold War, military security in Europe revolved around the detente created by the comparable military strengths of two military confederations that evolved out of the post-World War II tenseness between the Soviet Union and the United States and Great Britain, the North American Treaty Organization ( NATO ) protecting Western Europe, and the Warsaw Pact protecting Eastern Europe. After the Berlin wall fell in 1989, efficaciously taging the symbolic terminal of the Soviet Union’s regulation over Easter Europe, the Warsaw Pact besides rapidly passed into the history books as the Soviet Union abdicated its authorization in Europe, to a great extent preoccupied with cardinal alterations within its ain boundary lines. Much to the irritation of Russia, NATO wasted small clip in absorbing former Warsaw Pact nations into its security web, necessitating careful diplomatic negotiations to guarantee the Russians that NATO’s purposes were strictly defensive in nature and that its member provinces had no aspirations to infringe on Russian district. Eastern European states had resolutely thrown off the yoke of Soviet subjugation and conspicuously elected to project their batch with their European brethren.
The European Union, so, can arguably be seen as the economic and political analogue to NATO’s function as a military associated state vouching the security and stableness of the whole of Europe. As alluded to above, nevertheless, the privileges of EU rank do non come without an ideological monetary value – or financial cost. In 1993, the EU established what became known as the Copenhagen standard, which established benchmarks required to go a member province within the EU. The rank standard for a nation-state is as follows:
Membership requires that campaigner state has achieved stableness of establishments vouching democracy, the regulation of jurisprudence, human rights and regard for and, protection of minorities, the being of a working market economic system every bit good as the capacity to get by with competitory force per unit area and market forces within the Union. Membership presupposes the campaigner ‘s ability to take on the duties of rank including attachment to the purposes of political, economic and pecuniary brotherhood. ( European Council, 1993 )
Many campaigner provinces can non be objectively characterized as meeting these standards. Clearly, the Balkan nation-states that comprised the former Yugoslavia have a long manner to travel to run into these criterions, peculiarly the 1s refering regard for and protection of minorities. In a state where some consider people of different cultural or spiritual background less than homo, the protection of minorities and human rights are, unfortunately, sometimes absurd and unrealistic abstractions. Additionally, Turkey’s campaigning is a perplexing show of selective application of the standards, given Turkey’s patched repute in attesting a bona fide democratic authorities, to state nil of its persecution of cultural minorities, including the Kurds. Furthermore, the awkwardness with which the Eastern European states were admitted into the EU reflected the considerable trouble each member province encountered in transforming their economic systems from moribund, state-run bureaucratisms dependant on the Soviet Union to vibrant, market-based economic systems. Equally late as September 2006, widespread public violences occurred in Hungary to protest the considerable economic adversities being suffered by the Magyar people due to its rapid displacement to a market-based economic system and the economic demands of its admittance into the EU. The troubles of transitioning from cardinal province planning to reliance on market forces are considerable and beyond the range of this authorship. However, it is deserving observing one outstanding illustration: the relationship of a nation-state’s economic system to the ecology:
One of the most urgent obstructions for many of the Eastern Bloc states was the environment. For many of these states, concentrating on the environment was a wholly different construct from their traditional industrial stance, supported by Communism. The EU’s newest members, nevertheless, proved to be widely successful in their environmental ventures. Environmental studies highlighted the decrease of chief air pollutants by 60-80 per centum, toxic metals by 50 per centum, and organic affair pollution in H2O by 80 per centum. ( Ecolinks, 2004 )
These are singular statistics. Cleaner air and H2O do non look as if by magic, nevertheless, and surely non without cost. These new Eastern Bloc states agreed, as portion of their initiation into the EU, to pass between two and three per centum of their Gross Domestic Product ( GDP ) on conveying their economic systems in line with EU authorizations – no little amount of money. Therefore, any of the Balkan provinces wishing to fall in will hold to be after for the same kind of agreement to convey its environmental criterions up to par, and no economic system that is anaemic can afford to pay for what could be considered, in comparing to high unemployment and hungriness, a baronial luxury. The same holds true of the impression of human rights – they are unimpeachably baronial ends, but how realistic can they genuinely be in states whose economic systems are excessively wrecked or antediluvian to supply for citizens’ basic demands – nutrient, shelter, instruction, etc. If a state can non supply these rudimentss, can it be reasonably depicted as run intoing the standard for rank with regard to human rights, to state nil of economic viability? In much of the Balkans, “economic growing … is low or non-existent ; unemployment is high ; corruptness is permeant ; and the populace is pessimistic and distrustful towards its nascent democratic institutions.” ( Krastev, 2005 ) . It becomes a annoying possible Catch-22 state of affairs – a state can non go an EU member without run intoing the assorted ambitious standards, but it may non be able to run into the standards without the benefits and economic support of EU rank. Surely, the EU is non unmindful to this paradox and, as mentioned above in the illustration of Kosovo, it has ambitious ongoing programs for assistance bundles to both non-member neighbour provinces and to neighbour provinces that are campaigners for rank. Get downing in 2007, the Byzantine hodgepodge comforter of EU aid plans will be combined under the umbrella of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, which will supply both economic aid and aid in edifice substructure to assistance in formation and sustaining of democratic establishments and market economic system systems. Less clear for the Balkans is how the EU intends to animate trust in yet another effort at administration by a hegemonic organisation, in this instance one which displayed a peculiarly put offing combination of indifference and incompetency in the face of cultural cleaning during the 1990s.
The issue of single national sovereignty is besides an of import consideration in measuring the consequence the EU has had, and will hold over both Eastern European and Balkan states, every bit good as the older Western European member states. The regulating constructions of NATO, the European Union ( the European Parliament, the European Council, the European Commission, the European Court of Justice, the European Central Bank, etc. ) combine to organize cumbersome and in some instances redundant political and bureaucratic systems that non merely demand attachment to ideological homogeneousness in exchange for economic privilege, but are maddeningly slow to move in support of their rules. For the states of Western Europe, peculiarly the older states with centuries of autonomous history accumulated – Great Britain and France come to mind – the populations are loathe to digest non merely the yoke of administration within their ain states, much less the superimposition of a greater European system of authorities which asks that the member provinces forsake much of their ain single individualities, or at least prioritise a corporate European individuality over the individuality and heritage of the single state in inquiry. In a spot of symmetrical sarcasm, this is non a job for some EU states. For many of the states of Eastern Europe, the corporate consciousness is one that is used to multi-tiered bureaucratism and homogeneousness of political orientation, no thanks to half a century of stultifying Soviet regulation. On the other manus, submissiveness is anathema to many states of Western Europe. Neither the Gallic nor the British, for illustration, have much tummy for any political moral force that jeopardizes their independency and peculiarity of their national civilization and sovereignty. England, like France and many other states of the EU still pig-headedly use their ain currencies alternatively of the EU currency, the euro. To project the affair in a petroleum visible radiation, it is improbable that the EU will be able to chasten the obstreperous personality of Great Britain pacifically if Adolf Hitler could non make so by force. How will the Balkan states menu should they come in the orbit of the European Union?
These are non some idle philosophical inquiries of individuality political relations ; the hereafter of the EU itself was put straight into inquiry when in late 2004, France and the Netherlands both rejected the proposed European Constitution, directing daze moving ridges throughout the EU. Merely about half of the 25 member provinces of the EU have approved the Constitution, naming into inquiry whether the EU should merely stay an economic Confederacy or whether it should draw a bead on to unify the continent under one political streamer. On a continent where such a singular meeting of diverse civilizations, faiths, and cultural histories has co-existed anxiously, the feasibleness of a complete and entire Utopian European integrating seems doubtful. Many EU experts believe that
the dreams of a United Europe are melting fast. This is mostly because both
authoritiess and their peoples begin to experience and show the position that integrating
has gone far enough… confirmed by both the low turnout and form
of vote in the June 1999 direct elections for the European Parliament. There is a
strong and turning antipathy to future transportations of sovereignty, particularly as the
countries under treatment are the cardinal nucleus of economic policy and so the
cardinal nucleus of what makes a province a province: its ability to support its district, its
people and their belongings. ( Salmon, 2003, p. 4 )
Furthermore, should any of the nation-states presently expecting a determination or eligibility sing EU rank be successful in their application, what exactly will be the nature and influence of the organisation that they will be fall ining? If historical timetables remain consistent, the reappraisal procedure for a nation-state want to fall in the EU will go on to take several old ages. In 5 to 10 old ages, it is hard to state what the European Union will look like and what demands it will do upon its member provinces, and every bit significantly, what privileges it will be able to confer on those members.
Already, there “has clearly been an forsaking of the ‘we’re all in this together’ rule in EU integrating, as the linguistic communication as become that of: multi-speed Europe ; homocentric circles ; inner
and outer nucleus ; Europe a la menu ; variable geometry ; and flexibility.” ( Salmon, 2003, p.3 ) The cloudy ostentation of these footings provides a graphic illustration of the socio-political rational gymnastic exercises that are required in order to suit the wildly differing economic, political, and societal preferences of the heterogenous EU member provinces. Yet the EU keeps churning out sweeping declarations of human rights and economic benchmarks, every bit good as implementing regulating bureaucratic establishments to consequence them within the EU. The conceptual tenseness is axiomatic, and so it should be no surprise that even as the EU makes no secret of its expansionist purposes, some of its member provinces are rejecting certain dogmas of EU rank. The tendency towards homogenous behaviour has merely increased in recent old ages, every bit good. So as we look to the hereafter, can Kosovo and France, merely as one possible future conjectural illustration, be considered equals on an equal or even similar terms economically or politically? Kosovo, while holding made great paces since 1999, still does non yet wholly operate under bona fide, proprietary self-governance. A nation-state administered by the United Nations and in demand of military protection by a European military confederation can non rationally be considered a constituent that could heighten the stableness of the European Union. The inquiries of sovereignty and single vs. corporate national individuality must be grappled with, and some moderately functional consensus arrived at, before the EU continues to bolt up the Balkan provinces.
The idealism of the European Union is non limited to the dour administrative officials who, for better or for worse, believe and hope that nation-states can speak and decree political, cultural, and spiritual differences into irrelevance. Many ordinary citizens see the umbrella of the European Union to finally be the salvaging grace of many member provinces whose continued being was in serious uncertainty for decennaries. A Polish-born American citizen returned to Poland on the Eve of its initiation into the European Union ( along with nine other states ) on May 1, 2004. It was a exultant juncture, and of the state that spawned him and his household, he had this to state in his web log:
… this cockamamie but profoundly beloved state was here for good, was here to remain. It would be come a normal, second-tier European state, besieged by raging backpackers and wholly everyday. That may non sound like much of a national dream, but for Poland it is the apogee of two hundred old ages ‘ bitter battle. My ain gramps is older than modern Poland ; being in Europe means we can now take the independency and continued being of this state for granted, a singular luxury. ( Ceglowski, 2004 )
Indeed. The blatant ailments about the frights of annihilation of national and cultural individualities pale in comparing to the fact that the luxury referred to above means the luxury to quibble about such issues. In provinces trapped in eternal rhythms of fratricidal war with their neighbours, or provinces under the yoke of totalitarian subjugation, such philosophical discourse would look either silly or appallingly naive and/or unrealistic. However, less than 20 old ages after the autumn of the Berlin Wall, the citizens of states such as Poland are free to fall in their Gallic cousins in kicking about the advantages and disadvantages of take parting in a corporate European organisation, should they take to make so. Potentially, the Balkan provinces may fall in the EU less than 20 old ages after Yugoslavia broke apart in a hideous war, and their people may take to voice the same ailments and chew over the same issues. And pick, truly, is the bosom of the affair. For all the disadvantages that a corporate European individuality, economic system, currency, and ideological model may offer, there are countless advantages and chances that the Balkan and other Eastern axis states ne’er had the chance to chew over freely or take. Possibly the one inarguable advantage EU collectivity offers is the freedom for a population to do these picks, alternatively of holding these picks forced upon them, frequently at hazards of their lives. For Eastern Europe and the Balkans, given their sad yet baronial histories, this is possibly the most powerful and good consequence the European Union could perchance hold to offer.
Churchill, Winston. Address at Zurich, 19 September 1946. Full text available from:
hypertext transfer protocol: //www.peshawar.ch/varia/winston.htm
“EU Western Balkan Relations, ” European Union website, 21 September 2004. Available from:
hypertext transfer protocol: //www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/eu-western-balkans-relations/article-129607
“Serbia Must Choose: Kosovo or EU? Former US embassador Levels Gun, ” Interview with Richard Holbrooke, B92 Serbian Internet Radio, 5 May 2003. Available from:
hypertext transfer protocol: //www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php? id=8849
Krastev, Ivan. “The European Union and the Balkans: Expansion or Empire? ”OpenDemocracy, August 6, 2005.
Bickerson, Chris. “No Welcome for Serbia in the EU, ”Le Monde Diplomatique, October 2006 issue.
Lungescu, Oana. “EU’s Balkan Influence, ” BBC News, 27 February 2006.
United States Census Data Website:
hypertext transfer protocol: //www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html # 2005
Presidency Conclusions, Copenhagen European Council June 1993.
European Commission’s European Good Neighbor Policy Website:
hypertext transfer protocol: //ec.europa.eu/world/enp/index_en.htm
Drummond, Shaun. “Hungary for Some Change, ”Lawyers WeeklyMagazine, 25 September 2006.
“New EU Members are Bettering Environmental Track Records, ” Ecolinks News Service, 6 May 2004. Available from:
hypertext transfer protocol: //www.ecolinks.org/news/Index.cfm? Page=1 & A ; NewsID=26802
Salmon, Trevor. “Issues in European Enlargement, ” article inSecurity Dynamics in Nordic-Baltic-EU-Russian Relations into the New Century, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, 9 July 2003.
Ceglowski, Maciej. “Poland Joins the European Union.”Idle Wordss( personal weblog ) , 3 May 2004. Available from:
hypertext transfer protocol: //www.idlewords.com/2004/05/poland_joins_the_european_union.htm