NATO Romania

For EU institutions:

• The EU can be instrumental in establishing a fund to support democratic movements in the authoritarian states of the post-communist world. Before he was elected Estonia’s President in October 2006, Vice Chairman of the European Parliament Toomas Hendrik Ilves made such a recommendation together with British, Polish, Hungarian, and Czech Europarliamentarians. (4)
The idea would be to bypass current EU regulations that only allow funds to be donated to movements approved by each country’s government.
• Because the fund cannot be created within the framework of the EU due to the opposition of the older members, the new EU entrants need to take the initiative. The European Liberty Fund has been proposed as the name of the new initiative, which would work through alternative mechanisms to support the democratic opposition.
• Brussels could open a full EU delegation office in Belarus, thus developing its decision from 2005 to establish a regionalized EU delegation in Minsk. (5) It can also nominate an EU Special Representative for Belarus. By easing visa regulations for members of civil society, scholars, and students, the EU would help open up the country to EU influences and democratic alternatives. The European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) should be fully utilized and contacts developed with all sections of Belarusian society, including regional elites, unions, business leaders, and educational institutions. (6)
• EIDHR should be fully utilized and contacts developed with all sections of Belarusian society, including regional elites, unions, business leaders, and educational institutions. (7)
• A greater role should be given to NGOs in candidate states such as Ukraine, especially in raising public awareness and debate about the EU and NATO and providing the authorities with important analytical inputs in their decision-making process. (8)
• The EU, together with the United States, should become a member of the Black Sea Economic Council (BSEC) and take an active role in its initiatives. This would enhance the prestige and effectiveness of the organization and enable it to take a broader role in security and reform questions.
• The EU needs to strengthen the conflict resolution instruments of its policies in Moldova and Georgia and provide more powers and resources to the EU Special Representatives (EUSR) in the South Caucasus and in Moldova.
The mandate of the EUSR in Georgia should be strengthened from that of conflict prevention to conflict resolution, thereby enabling the representative to facilitate direct talks between Georgia and the two separatist entities.
• The EU should adopt a more prominent role in resolving the separatist standoffs in Moldova and Georgia and not simply trail the OSCE mission. This would include the application of sanctions and incentives where necessary to advance solutions. Suggestions have also been made to increase engagement with the unrecognized administrations in Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia to promote democratization, civil society development, and the rule of law without legitimizing the status of these entities. This would help counter their isolation, promote pro-EU currents, and avoid exclusion from the EU integration process. Eventually, the EU may need to employ multinational peacekeeping missions in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
• The EU can enhance its ENP Action Plan with Moldova and Georgia to include the issue of state reintegration. (9) The South Caucasus and Moldovan conflicts need to be raised in senior discussions by EU representatives with neighboring powers, particularly during EU-Russia Summits and other high-level meetings.
• A new Border Monitoring Operation (BMO) along the Georgian-Russian border needs to be emplaced under an EU mandate to reinforce Georgia’s sense of security and help implement a more effective border guard and customs management system along Georgia’s entire frontier with Russia. If some EU member states remain fearful of antagonizing Russia through such a mission, a coalition of willing EU states could launch such an initiative. (10)
• A more coherent EU policy needs to be devised toward Russia, working together with the United States and the NATO alliance. Specifically, this would need to include:
— Applying diplomatic pressure on Moscow to cease supporting the Lukashenka dictatorship in Belarus. (11)
— The EU must require Russia to withdraw its military contingents and weaponry from the Transnistrian region of Moldova in line with Moscow’s commitments at the OSCE Istanbul Summit in November 1999. If this is not accomplished within a set timeframe, the Russian military presence in Transnistria should be declared as illegal. Moldova’s constitution underscores the country’s neutrality and prohibits the presence of foreign troops on any part of Moldovan territory.
— The EU and United States, working with Ukraine, should ban military and commercial flights between Russia and Moldova’s breakaway region of Transnistria without the authorization of the Moldovan authorities. A similar arrangement should be pursued with Tbilisi to ban unauthorized Russian flights to the secessionist Abkhaz and South Ossetian regions of Georgia.
— The Kaliningrad region on the Baltic coast, which borders the EU states of Poland and Lithuania and was annexed by Russia at the end of World War II, needs to be placed on the EU’s neighborhood agenda. Greater engagement with the local authorities, politicians, and businessmen would discourage the region’s isolation, promote economic development, and prevent it from becoming a source of instability, cross-border crime, and environmental hazards for the wider Baltic zone.
• It is important for the United States and EU to coordinate their energy policy as a common strategic security interest. Russian control over energy routes from the trans-Caspian region will undermine American interests throughout the Middle East, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe by giving Moscow strong political leverage over these states. A trans-Atlantic energy security strategy can direct more substantial investment toward alternative routes from the Caspian basin and can oblige members of NATO and the EU to pool their resources during a crisis. This will lessen dependence, instability, and potential future conflicts with Russia. The EU and the United States do have some leverage in that Moscow needs Western capital to increase energy extraction and modernize its energy exporting infrastructure. This leverage should be used strategically to ensure fair competition and transparency in energy policy and avoid the monopolization of supplies and infrastructure.
• More resources need to be earmarked for conducting an effective public awareness campaign about the EU throughout Eastern Europe, including its structure, institutions, principles, values, programs, capabilities, and membership benefits. The CEE countries can be very helpful in this process as they have recently joined the Union and have first-hand experience regarding the impact of accession.
For the U.S. administration:
• The U.S. administration needs to clearly make the argument that progress toward stable states and secure democracies in a widening Europe and an expanding trans-Atlantic community that encompasses the Black Sea zone and the Caspian Basin is in America’s national interests and serves its strategic goals. The eventual inclusion of East European states that are currently situated outside NATO and the creation of a wider Alliance would help expand and consolidate democratic systems, open up new markets, stabilize Washington’s new allies, and increase the number of potential U.S. partners.
• Regional questions of direct concern to the CEE countries will necessitate greater U.S engagement and more visible and effective U.S.-EU complementarity. America’s new CEE allies seek greater clarity in U.S. policy toward Russia and the wider region and more resolute support for Russian democratization and the curtailment of Moscow’s regional neo-imperialist ambitions. A long-term commitment to democracy and security throughout the Wider Europe would add substance to President George W. Bush’s global initiative on behalf of spreading freedom and democracy.
• The Bush administration has called for greater involvement by Poland, Lithuania, and other nearby CEE countries in the democratic transformation of Belarus. Washington will need to provide more substantive political and financial support for opposition activists as they become engaged in the prolonged struggle for democratic change in Minsk.
• The United States can provide the Ukrainian government headed by President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yanukovych with attractive counteroptions to dependence on Moscow, including closer engagement with NATO and better defense cooperation, if Kyiv undertakes a sustained effort at structural reform. NATO’s Intensified Dialogue with Ukraine must reinforce the perception that Ukraine is a genuine partner of both NATO and the EU.
• Washington can pursue a more active policy in reintegrating the Moldovan state, discouraging Russian interference, promoting democratization, combating the criminal networks in Transnistria, and extending to Moldovans the prospect of a closer partnership with the United States.
• To underscore its more activist and transformational approach, Washington should remove the “Eurasia” label from all U.S. Government institutions. Just as the three Baltic states were never officially recognized by the United States as part of the Soviet Union, the East European, Caucasian, and Central Asian states bordering Russia today should not be defined as part of some grand “Eurasian” or “post-Soviet” space in which Russia predominates. Labeling effects perception and perception impacts on policy. “Eurasian” labeling is inaccurate and insulting to the citizens of diverse countries with divergent aspirations. Such labels also create a strong impression that Washington and Brussels will keep these states at a distance and accept the premise that some East European states should remain subservient to Russia’s expansive national interests.
• Russia is not a reliable U.S. partner, and Washington needs to draw up contingencies for a potentially unstable post-Putin era. We cannot assume that Putinism has created a stable authoritarian system. Russia confronts several looming crises: demographic (with a declining population of productive age), ethnic, and potentially religious (especially in the North Caucasus), economic (with over reliance on primary resources), social (as the stifling of democracy restricts flexibility, adaptability, and modernization), and political (as power struggles may become manifest between the new Kremlin oligarchs and security chiefs who have gained control over large sectors of the economy). Although Washington has few tools to influence Russia’s internal development, it can deploy its economic, diplomatic, and military capabilities to forestall and contain any instabilities emanating from Russian territory that could challenge the security of various neighboring countries.

October 2007. Excerpt from the Conclusions of the Report
The full report is available at Strategic Studies Institute
The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.