Ernüchternde Wahlen in Ost und West

Die EU hat mitverfolgt, wie die Wahlen zwei seiner großen
Nachbarn – Ukraine und USA – in die ‚falsche Richtung‘ gingen. Über
dieses Thema schreibt Michael Emerson
vom Centre for European Policy Studies in
einem Kommentar.

Russia was intervening so heavily in Ukraine , that it too was
part of the drama of last week. What is the EU to make of this? Is
it being completely surrounded now by peoples who have different
views of the world? Has Europe alone got it right, or has Europe
got something wrong? Or is it just that there are several world
regions, of which the EU is just one, that are all structurally
different in their politics? 

The striking comparison between the Ukrainian and United States
contests is that both were neck and neck two-horse races, with the
opposing candidates standing for radically different conceptions of
their nations and their external relations. In both cases the
nations were deeply polarized, both ideologically and regionally.
In both cases the EU could empathize with one half, and regard the
other half as the ‘other’ indeed. 

The Ukrainian election is not in fact over. In the first round
last weekend the two main candidates were virtually equally placed
with 39.88% for Russia-oriented Viktor Yanukovich and 39.22% for
European-oriented Viktor Yushenko, but a run off has now to take
place on 21 November. Exit polls suggested a lead for Yushenko,
implying electoral abuse aided or permitted by the authorities. The
Ukrainian election was indeed a dirty affair. Yushenko was
apparently poisoned during the campaign. Media bias in favour of
Yanukovich was massive. OSCE observers regretted the slide
backwards in electoral standards. Putin’s electioneering for
Yanukovich was blatant, with a three day visit in the week before
the election. A similar story but worse is going on in little
Abkhazia down in the South Caucasus , too obscure for most people
to notice. And then Berlusconi was back in Moscow , enjoying photo
opportunities in a regal Kremlin setting, and maybe doing some good
business too. 

Whatever one thinks of the results, the US election was an
impressive exercise in democracy. Bush’s majority was clear this
time, with an undisputed majority. Europeans were broadly on the
same wave length as 48% of the US population, finding John Kerry to
be a thoughtful, careful man with good judgment on international
affairs. They can agree with Bush that it is a good idea to promote
democratic values worldwide (but without bombing please). Yet this
Bush re-election is still deeply significant. Bush in his first
term was the new president responding to the drama of 9/11. He
responded well at first, in the average European and US opinion,
but then he made the big mistake. Until his re-election the Iraq
war could be regarded as his personal affair politically. But the
American people have decided to ‘persist and sign’, as the French
say. This means that the US body politic has indeed moved away from
the European one, with European public opinion much more united
than their leaders. Robert Kagan’s view about Mars and Venus, or
about the two peoples understanding each other less and less, often
portrayed as a witty exaggeration, has been seriously
vindicated. 

Russia and Israel were the only two countries that were hoping
for Bush’s re-election. Putin chimed in immediately that the
American people had elected a leader that was not intimidated by
terrorism, so pulling the rhetoric over to cover himself too with
the good news, and deflect criticism over his increasing
authoritarianism and neglect of human rights. Both pool all
terrorists in the same basket, with ‘we do not negotiate with
terrorists’. Fair enough for Al Qaida. But Russia will surely have
to negotiate one day with Chechnya , and Sharon one day with the
Palestinians again. Should Blair not have negotiated with the
IRA? 

If indeed EU, Russia and US are all structurally different
polities, so what? The EU has to focus on its prime interests and
values. Its huge economic interdependence with both US and Russia
has to be managed. Its huge exposure to the fortunes of the
neighbours is next. This is where the emerging European
Neighbourhood Policy should come in strategically, not as a mere
placebo. For the northern neighbours, starting with Ukraine , it
has to mean one of Prodi’s memorable lines ‘everything but the
institutions’. The EU should offer to these neighbours maximum
advantages under every relevant line of policy in its hands –
trade, aid, visa and migration facilitation and a host of other
socializing mechanisms sufficiently weighty to induce these
countries along the path of democratic Europeanisation (EU policy
documents are so far all about the neighbours’ obligations, without
doing their homework on the incentives). For the southern
neighbours, and on into the wider Middle East, the EU has to work
out a somewhat different formula for countries not yet ready for
fast track democratization. It has to emphasize the search for
compatibility of civilizations with its Muslim neighbours, starting
with its own minorities at home, extending then into the moderate
Arab states such as Morocco , and on into the fundamentalist
regimes of the Middle East . If Bush’s reelection is to coincide
with a post-Arafat Palestine , maybe the window of opportunity
opens for decisive progress in the Middle East at last, in which
case the prospects for harmony in EU and US efforts to democratize
the Muslim neighbourhood improve.