Chasing the European Mirage

The main issue at this stage in Moldova-EU relations is not when the negotiation chapters will officially open, but whether the European Union still has the political will to pursue genuine enlargement

European integration has always been and remains the ruling regime’s central project. Virtually every significant government decision, major reform, or diplomatic move is framed in terms of rapprochement with the European Union. But no matter how often statements are made about the “irreversibility of the European path”, they cannot hide the growing contradictions between high-sounding rhetoric and objective reality. And despite “positive signals” from Brussels, the EU enlargement process itself continues to run into fundamental limitations. Even a possible early start to accession negotiations won’t really change anything. Serious differences between various groups of countries within the European Union regarding the admission of current candidate countries are becoming increasingly apparent. Against this backdrop, the efforts of PAS and the European Commission to maintain a high level of public optimism regarding EU accession are particularly noticeable. The outcome of the EU-Western Balkans summit is no less indicative. For many years now, this region has served as a clear example of just how long, difficult, and often futile the path to full membership can be. As is well known, some Balkan states have remained candidate countries for decades, fulfilling Brussels’ requirements, adapting their legislation, and implementing painful reforms, yet never receiving a concrete timeline for accession. This experience raises a logical question: if the European Union is unable to integrate countries with which it has been negotiating for years and decades, what can Moldova possibly hope for? Our authorities, however, prefer to turn a blind eye to this fact. One need only look at the fanfare surrounding Marta Kos’ latest visit. It turned out to be a rather telling example of how the vacuum of actual negotiating success is filled with rosy media imagery. The commissioner rafts down the Dniester, chats with the clergy, attends forums, dances, makes the most encouraging statements – and all of this with maximum publicity in all pro-government media. From the perspective of socio-political strategies, such maneuvers are highly beneficial for the ruling party, which apparently has access to reliable polling data and fears a potential rise in Euroscepticism among the public. Therefore, in the absence of any real intentions regarding EU enlargement, there arises an urgent need to compensate for this with a visual demonstration of the “strongest possible cooperation” between Brussels and Chisinau. In reality, however, European institutions’ representatives are increasingly forced to acknowledge the existence of major problems. It is no coincidence that a lively debate is currently underway in Brussels regarding alternative integration models for candidate countries. One of the most notable initiatives here is German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s proposal for so-called “associated membership”. One could, of course, delude into thinking that such ideas are an attempt to simplify or accelerate the integration of new members. It is more likely that the search for new intermediate forms of quasi-integration effectively amounts to an acknowledgment that the current model of enlargement has ceased to function. After all, if the candidate countries were truly capable of meeting all the requirements and becoming full members of the Union within the foreseeable future, there would simply be no need to invent additional transitional statuses. The very fact that the concept of “associated membership” has emerged suggests that key European capitals have come to the realization that a significant portion of the current candidates are objectively incapable of meeting the standards required of EU member states. But the problem lies not only with the candidates, as the European Union itself is undergoing a protracted institutional, political, and economic crisis. Procedures for making fundamental decisions have become significantly more complicated, disagreements among member states have intensified, and budgetary burdens associated with supporting less developed regions have increased, and so on. And every new enlargement, as is well known, automatically entails a redistribution of European funds, a shift in the balance of votes within European institutions, and the emergence of new conflicts between the national interests of member states. For these reasons, Western European countries in particular are extremely cautious about admitting full members into the Union. Moldova still faces a number of objective challenges that continue to hinder its EU accession. The first of these is the need for a profound transformation of the legal system, public administration, judicial practices, regulatory policy, and economic legislation. The scale of such reforms requires enormous financial resources and many years of painstaking work. The second reason lies in Europe’s economic fears. Donor countries are reluctant to take on the burden of new aid recipients. This is especially true amid economic instability, when European taxpayers question the wisdom of funding new members whose level of development lags significantly behind the European average. The third factor is the question of political balance within the Union itself. Each new member state gains representation in the European Parliament and participates in making pan-European decisions. For the leading players in the EU, it is important to avoid a situation in which enlargement leads to a noticeable strengthening of the influence of certain regional groups, whether they be Eastern European countries or states with specific foreign policy interests. Finally, the fourth issue concerns Brussels’ traditional reluctance to accept countries with unresolved territorial conflicts, high levels of corruption, and persistent problems regarding the rule of law. Incidentally, during her last visit, Marta Kos emphasized that the “Cyprus scenario” is not being considered with regard to Moldova. In other words, the Transnistrian issue remains a major source of uncertainty. The result is a picture that is, not usually discussed openly – in its current form, the EU simply cannot expand. Instead, in essence, a model is taking shape for keeping countries in candidate status for the long term. This approach proves advantageous for the European Union for several reasons at once. First, candidate countries are required to align their policies with European standards, which gives Brussels significant influence over their internal processes without assuming any particular obligations. Second, a sort of buffer zone is created around the EU’s borders, as countries seeking accession automatically align with the European agenda and coordinate their foreign policy with Brussels. Third, geopolitical control is maintained over regions that might otherwise engage more actively with other centers of power, such as China and Russia. Thus, the main issue at this stage in Moldovan-European relations is not when the negotiation chapters will officially open, but whether the European Union still has the political will for genuine enlargement. So far, unfortunately, all signs point to the contrary, as Brussels seeks to preserve the European project’s appeal. This means that Moldova risks remaining in a “buffer” status for a long time. In other words, we are being offered not membership in the club but a subscription to use its infrastructure, with the stipulation that we accept the club’s charter in its entirety and unconditionally. Observing this crisis-management performance featuring a European Commissioner, one arrives at a rather unsettling conclusion: in a situation marked by profound uncertainty, the authorities seem primarily concerned with sustaining the illusion of inevitable European integration. Yet illusions cannot last forever. Sooner or later, they collide with reality. The only question is how painful that reckoning will be for those who have chosen to believe in them.