The Ukrainian Protests and Musings on the State of the EU

At the end of 2013 the Ukrainian government voted to further ties with Russia and reject a deal to strengthen links with the EU. The New Year has heralded mass protest, captivated the world media and destabilised the country as a whole.

This article will look at what makes the EU so attractive to join, Russia’s policy towards its previous Soviet states and whether the EU membership is simply a unifying purpose that opposition leaders are utilising for political progress.

Is the EU the perfect suitor?

It has been a difficult partnership for any states which consider the EU to not be ‘perfect’ per say. The UK has not had good relations with the EU as it seeks to remain independent and dependent – holding this balance is difficult. Likewise, as you move further East states are locked between the might of the EU and the Russians. Both powers carry advantages to cooperating with them.

With fears over the EU typified by Greece's economic turmoil, why are states still eager to join?

Simply economics, grants and freedom of travel between countries have helped states starve off turmoil.

Poland is a prime example of a flourishing state which has adopted wholeheartedly the European Union mechanisms to boost its economy. Reading a 2008 document published by the Polish Government it suggest that the membership helped reduce unemployment from 20% in 2003 to 11.4% by the end of 2007. This was accompanied by a nominal rise in salaries by 58%

From this case example we could conclude that the EU is economically beneficial.

Poland a shining example of EU integration

Not so quick…

The EU has an economic problem as it seeks to make states economically similar to allow freedom of trade. This works when the global economic system is growing. However, logically if economic decline ensues then the similarity of the EU has led economic suffering. Daniel Hannan aptly articulates this when he discusses Spain:

“Nowhere is the failure of the euro clearer than in Spain. A country which was running a budget surplus going into the crash has been reduced to penury and squalor by the determination of its own political class, and Europe's, to maintain the monetary union at any cost. Who has gained? Bankers and Eurocrats. Who has lost? Everyone else.”

Moreover, economists used to believe that an economic monoculture insinuated a positive economic climate but following the economic crash they have turned to the lessons of nature. Indeed a 2009 Bank of England report summarises an argument I have been suggesting for a number of years:

“In consequence, the financial system became, like plants, animals and oceans before it, less disease-resistant. When environmental factors changed for the worse, the homogeneity of the financial eco-system increased materially its probability of collapse.”

Ergo, an economy based on a single currency and economic model makes the states within the EU less resistant to economic shocks.

Has this currency debased our individual economies?

Returning to the Ukraine the economic growth which the EU membership offers seems attractive. Yet, if it is the economy that is a concern then surely the 15 billion dollar bailout from Russia would resolve the dissent and the cut in gas prices is bound to appease protesters?

In the Ukraine the riots have little to do with the economy. The Ukrainians want democracy and see closer ties with Russia as a suppression of their rights as substantiated by the recent anti-protest laws.

(On a side note, Putin’s claim that they are simply helping their ‘brothers’ in the Ukraine and the bailout had nothing to do with the government E-turn on the EU seems unlikely… the coincidence is too high to be an accident.)

What is concerning is that joining the European Union may be being used by the Ukrainian opposition as a unifying focus to join groups together against the current government. They know that by doing this they will draw in the media and tap into the current discussion about joining the EU. The Ukrainians are tired of a corrupt government but by using the EU they debase the organisation. If it is associated with regime-change rather than democracy then the EU has not become a vehicle of democracy but an opportunity for opposition parties. The EU cannot afford to pick sides or the whole concept is threatened.

Democracy or regime change?

I may be overly pessimistic about the oppositions intentions and my political musings could become unfounded. Yet, my experience of politics has taught me to ask these questions, no matter how absurd.

The future of the EU is questionable and democracy promotion is complicated. The battle for Ukraine continues on its snow swept streets.