“Bitter Reality of European Integration”

The reform processes now underway within the European Union threaten to transform it from a political and economic union of equal members into a military-political bloc with a rigid internal hierarchy, where the voices of smaller countries such as Moldova would carry virtually no weight  

Semyon ALBU, RTA: The country’s domestic affairs continue to unfold under the sign of one negative development after another: gas tariffs have risen sharply twice in a single month, while heating and electricity rates are set to increase just as substantially. Headlines such as “A cubic meter of water in Glodeni costs more than in Berlin” no longer come as much of a surprise, nor does news that energy resources in Moldova are among the most expensive in Europe. The most frustrating part is that there is little prospect of the situation improving. On the contrary, talking heads from the ruling regime across the media are predicting a harsh winter, urging people to tighten their belts and believe in better days ahead. The new prime minister, who seems to have lost his bearings almost immediately after taking charge of the country’s crumbling economy, has so far done little more than come out with gems about being “Putin’s main enemy” and “delight” the public with promises to look for cheap gas everywhere, just “not from the Russians”. Given the sums appearing on their utility bills, the grateful public must surely have nothing but the warmest feelings toward the authorities for such principled behavior. In the past, the harsh domestic reality was at least somewhat offset by international successes. Just how beneficial they actually were for Moldova is another question, but at least the picture looked good. Sometimes Maia Sandu would be praised by none other than the global hegemon, in the person of the US president; sometimes dozens of European leaders would gather in Bulboaca; and sometimes Moldova would be bestowed with some impressive-sounding status, complete with yet another financial cheque. Nothing of the sort is happening now. The EU, and the US even more so, have little interest in our republic, as evidenced both by the lack of high-profile visits and the absence of any new support programs. It has gone so far that, on the eve of the “most difficult winter”, the EU has refused even to provide funding for a compensation program to help the population cope with the outrageously high utility tariffs, something it had done every year before and without ever being particularly stingy. What can one say? “They used you and dumped you” is a standard story. But not wanting to leave us completely without a positive development, Brussels decided to draw up proposals under which the “leaders of European integration” would receive a clear, step-by-step roadmap for joining the EU. As one might expect, we also found ourselves on this list of “lucky ones”. Still, I suspect that the Georgians, who were denied this particular “privilege”, looked at the state of affairs in Moldova and thought that perhaps it was better to remain “underachievers in European integration”. In principle, the authors of the initiative do not hide the fact that its main purpose is to keep EU candidate countries on the arduous road to accession while their applications are being considered. They realize that people cannot live on tales of a “bright European future” alone, and that sooner or later they will start asking when the process will bring them something other than sky-high tariffs and whether there is at least something tangible to show for it. So, the applicants need to be dangled another set of carrots to make sure they do not start thinking about abandoning the trajectory mapped out for them. Still, even if we are someday given a firm date for joining the European Union, say 2028, the year Vasile Tofan is so fond of dreaming about, there is no reason to get too excited. Surely you did not think that all this war hysteria gripping the EU was happening for no reason? It is about preparing the ground for the inevitable reforms that will ultimately transform an attractive political and economic union of equal member states into a militarized military-political alliance with a rigid hierarchy and an essentially autocratic decision-making model, where the voices of smaller countries will count for absolutely nothing. And these changes will come much sooner than one might think. As early as next week, the controversial head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is expected to present a plan for a sweeping reform of how the Union operates. The changes are being promoted under the guise of further enlargement. The argument is that, with more members joining, the unanimity-based decision-making mechanism could collapse altogether. Even now, it is clearly irritating both Brussels and the leading member states, which have to keep bargaining with Budapest, Bratislava, or someone else whenever strategic issues are at stake. In short, full consensus is no longer considered necessary. A model based on the domination of the big over the small and the strong over the weak will do just as well. Hence the proposal to introduce qualified-majority voting by 15 member states, all in the name of speeding up the adoption of “urgent decisions”. Incidentally, potential new members, including Moldova, could even benefit from this at first: their progress through the stages of accession to the Union would become less problematic. Still, they too have some “surprises” in store beyond the standard “safeguard” measures governing their participation in the EU’s core policy areas. First, after enlargement, only two-thirds of the member states will have the right to nominate a European commissioner, rather than all of them as is currently the case. Needless to say, in such a scenario, we would be among the first candidates to be left without one of the coveted and prestigious portfolios. Another innovation is a “probationary period”, and a fairly lengthy one at that, lasting ten years or more. It will no longer be enough simply to join the EU. You will also have to prove that you behave yourself and act in accordance with the “party line”. So, newcomers can expect close scrutiny from Brussels and invigorating punitive sanctions if they step out of line: from the simple withdrawal of funding to the suspension of voting rights. New members will also be required to sign a commitment not to block decisions agreed upon by the “old” EU member states. In other words, if we do join the Union, our voting rights would largely become a fiction. It follows that even the hypothetical end point of European integration in the form of EU membership would, in effect, become just another interim stage, with the whole process threatening to drag on indefinitely. Do we need integration of this kind at all if we immediately take on all the obligations and risks, wreck the country by taking part in the confrontation with Russia, and in return receive a truncated form of membership with virtually no influence over EU affairs and a complete loss of sovereignty? After all, with the financial cudgel at its disposal, the European Commission would gain the ability to manipulate even the domestic politics of our country as it sees fit. Of course, one could argue that this is not the most important thing, and that the main goal is to gain access to European funds, which, in practice, have become our country’s only remaining hope for a substantial improvement in living standards. But there may be a catch. It is no secret that Brussels has been making sweeping efforts to militarize the bloc in recent years. Rearmament programs and joint defense procurement schemes worth hundreds of billions of euros have been approved. Under agreements reached within NATO, EU member states have committed to increasing defense spending to 5% of GDP, a level that comes close to that of a country at war. And just the other day, some wonderful news emerged: six European countries are reportedly refusing to accept the EU’s seven-year budget, demanding that spending be slashed by “hundreds of billions of euros” and redirected toward military purposes. And these six are by no means insignificant states: Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, and Finland. In other words, they are among those who largely foot the bill for the “prosperous European garden”. Their position therefore carries weight. And what do you think they want to cut? First and foremost, funding for farmers and subsidies to poorer EU countries. For our agricultural and, let’s be honest, impoverished country, you could hardly come up with a better proposal. On the other hand, it has long been time to understand which way the wind is blowing. After all, it is easy to guess why even Kyiv is being denied funds to support agricultural producers, while Moldova is being denied assistance for vulnerable groups to help them pay their utility bills. As the saying goes, it’s a waste of a good thing. Yet €120 million was found to purchase an air defense system for Moldova. After all, European integration comes at a steep price: for now, it is being paid out of increasingly empty pockets, and later, God forbid, perhaps in blood as well.