europeanization at the eu’s external borders: the case of romanian–moldovan civil society...

This article was downloaded by: [Nipissing University]On: 04 October 2014, At: 03:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of European IntegrationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/geui20

Europeanization at the EU’sExternal Borders: the Case ofRomanian–Moldovan Civil SocietyCooperationConţiu Şoitu a & Daniela Şoitu a

a Department of Sociology and Social Work , Alexandru Ioan CuzaUniversity , Iaşi, RomaniaPublished online: 24 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Conţiu Şoitu & Daniela Şoitu (2010) Europeanization at the EU’s ExternalBorders: the Case of Romanian–Moldovan Civil Society Cooperation, Journal of EuropeanIntegration, 32:5, 491-506, DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2010.498633

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2010.498633

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/geui20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07036337.2010.498633

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2010.498633

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

European IntegrationVol. 32, No. 5, 491–506, September 2010

ISSN 0703–6337 Print/ISSN 1477–2280 Online/10/050491-16 © 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/07036337.2010.498633

ARTICLE

Europeanization at the EU’s External Borders: the Case of Romanian–

Moldovan Civil Society Cooperation

CON [Tcedil]IU [Scedil]OITU & DANIELA [Scedil] OITU

Department of Sociology and Social Work, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Ia [scedil]i, RomaniaTaylor and FrancisGEUI_A_498633.sgm10.1080/07036337.2010.498633Journal of European Integration0703-6337 (print)/1477-2280 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis325000000September [email protected]

ABSTRACT Since the fall of the Iron Curtain, relations between Romania and Moldovahave oscillated between closeness and distance within a wider context that has seenRomania’s accession to the European Union in 2007. Initial hopes for unification andMoldova’s bid for joining the EU have not materialized and cooperation between thetwo countries today takes place within the framework of the European NeighbourhoodPolicy and its instruments. Civil society organizations, which have been increasinglyinvolved in cross-border cooperation, have at the same time shifted their activities fromdirect aid toward advocacy for the promotion of best practices and the application ofdemocratic principles in law and government as part of a process of Europeanization.

KEY WORDS: Europeanization, external borders of the European Union, civil society, cross-border cooperation, Romania, Republic of Moldova

Introduction

The Romanian–Moldovan borderland is a ‘fractured’ region despite theconsiderable linguistic, cultural and historical ties that exist between the twocountries. Socio-economic disparities, different paths of post-socialist politi-cal transformation, geopolitical tensions and everyday issues of security —particularly in terms of human trafficking, illegal immigration and smuggling— are just some of the issues that impact on cooperation across this border.Furthermore, the problematic questions of Moldovan nation-building andMoldovan national identity have often complicated political relations withthe EU in general and Romania in particular. It is estimated that anywhere

Correspondence Address: Con [tcedil]iu [Scedil]oitu, Department of Sociology and Social Work, ‘AlexandruIoan Cuza’ University, 11, Carol I, 700506, Ia [scedil]i, România. E-mail: [email protected];[email protected]

T S S

t Ss

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

57 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

492 Con iu oitu & Daniela oitut S S

between 300,000 to 500,000 citizens (out of a total population of c. 4.4million) are Romanian passport holders. Similarly, the number of Moldo-vans holding Russian and, in some cases, Ukrainian, citizenship is alsoconsiderable. At the same time, only about 4 per cent of the total populationclaim that ‘Moldovan’ is their native language. Harking back to more tradi-tional geographical understandings of borders and their functions, Marcu(2009) has gone so far as to suggest that the Romanian–Moldavian borderrepresents a ‘bad border’: not only is there an underlying lack of security butthe state of Moldova itself is inherently unstable due to its ‘composite’ ethnicstructure and genesis as a product of Soviet geopolitics.

Within this context of regional fragmentation, cross-border cooperation(CBC) between civil society actors in Romania and Moldova has emerged asa potential resource for social development and democratization. Undoubt-edly, the direct and indirect role of the EU in conditioning bilateral relationscannot be underestimated. In the specific case of Romania–Moldova, the EUwas crucial in normalizing relations and in improving conditions for civilsociety cooperation. At the same time, Romania’s accession to the EU in2007 also radically changed the norms and cooperation practices thatemerged locally after 1991, the year Moldova gained state sovereignty.Romania’s policy of granting passports to ethnic Romanians in Moldova,visa-free travel and liberal cross-border trade arrangements have all vanishedat the behest of the EU and the imposition of the Schengen border regime.1

The issue of visa requirements is particularly onerous given the close culturalties between the two countries. As a result, some authors, such as Kostadi-nova (2009), argue that the EU (and its European Neighbourhood Policy —ENP) is actively developing discriminatory and exclusionary practices thatare contributing to the hardening of borders. Somewhat less polemically,Gabriel Popescu (2006, 2008) has framed the tensions involved in localcross-border cooperation between Romania, Moldova (and Ukraine) withina clash of different territorial logics. On this view, civil society cooperationis being negotiated within the new system of incentives and normative frame-works defined by the EU as well as with regard to national and regionalinterests on both sides of the border.

Similarly to Popescu (2006, 2008), we argue that civil society cooperationcan partially attenuate the dividing effects of the Schengen border and ‘navi-gate’ the vicissitudes of Romanian–Moldovan relations. We argue, further-more, that processes of ‘Europeanization’ have been set in motion throughcross-border networks that not only deal with crucial local issues but alsotransmit democratic principles, new forms of political cooperation withgovernment actors and more effective modes of project implementation. Forexample, the issue of human trafficking is, without doubt, one of the mainpolitical issues encumbering relations and heightens the EU’s securitizationagenda at the border. At the same time, this phenomenon represents a majorarea of civil society interaction at the local, national and European level. BothRomanian and Moldovan Civil Societies Organizations (CSOs) cooperatewith organizations from destination countries within the EU as well as withthe support of the EU and international organizations, such as the United

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

57 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Europeanization at the EU’s External Borders: Romania-Moldova 493

Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (Unicef) and the Organi-zation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Based largely on theperceptions of Romanian and Moldovan civil society actors interviewed bythe authors, this article will discuss experiences of cross-border cooperationand impacts of Europeanization on civil society agendas in what is perhapsone of the more problematic regions along the EU’s external frontiers.2

Europeanization and the European Neighbourhood Policy

How does the concept of ‘Europeanization’ help us understand cross-bordercooperation? We will focus on the links between the Europeanizationprocesses in Romania, as a new member state and that in the Republic ofMoldova, as a strategic eastern neighbour of the EU. In doing this, we willpoint out how civil society organizations play a significant role in cross-border cooperation between these two countries. In a broader sense, the termEuropeanization suggests the emergence of a sentiment of belonging, of aEuropean identity that complements national, regional and local identities.In a more concrete political sense, concepts of Europeanization refer to aprocess through which the EU’s institutions, values and political, legal andeconomic practices complement and reconfigure those of individual states(Radaelli 2003; Börzel 2005; Bosse 2009; Camyar 2010).

Europeanization can thus be seen as a process through which countriesand societies are shaped by standards set by the European Union. Theconcrete values and norms that the EU seeks to promote outside its bordersare perhaps best defined by the membership criteria defined by the EU andthat were specified by Article 39 of The Treaty on European Union. TheTreaty states that: ‘any European State which respects the principles set outin Article 6(1) may apply to become a member of the Union, the principlesbeing those of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamentalfreedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the MemberStates’. In December 1993 at Copenhagen, the European Council added thatcandidate countries must have (a) stable institutions that guarantee democ-racy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minor-ities; (b) a functioning market economy, as well as the ability to cope withthe pressure of competition and the market forces at work inside the Union;and (c) the ability to assume the obligations of membership, in particularadherence to the objectives of political, economic and monetary union.

However, Europeanization has not been limited to integration andenlargement processes within the EU; it also pertains to states beyond theEU’s borders. According to Olsen (2002), externally orientated processes ofEuropeanization involve ‘exporting’ certain forms of governance and politi-cal institutions toward countries outside the European Union. Grabbe (2001,9) concluded that within the enlargement context, Europeanization has beenbased on ‘added dimensions of conditionality and negotiating processes’ and,as such, has significant impacts on the internal governance in accessioncountries. These principles are now being applied to non-EU countries withinthe scope of the ENP.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

57 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


The European Security Strategy, published in December 2003, definedstability, prosperity and democracy in the countries neighbouring the EU askey foreign policy interests of the EU. This security agenda contributed to theformulation of the ENP in 2004, according to which sixteen states andauthorities in the EU’s immediate neighbourhood were to benefit from newforms of economic integration, financial assistance and political dialogue inexchange for reform efforts and democratization.3 The ENP’s objectives canbe grouped into two categories. The first is linked to security issues, such asconflicts and crises, terrorism, illegal immigration and drugs, arms andhuman trafficking; the second, in answer to requests made by the concernedcountries to rethink institutional relations, concerns the economic dimension— the creation of an area of prosperity and freedom of movement.

The most succinct definition of this policy has probably been suggested byRomano Prodi in 2002 when he stated that the ENP is ‘everything except theinstitutions’. The EU does not consider its neighbourhood policy as analternative to accession, but neither does it see it as a promise nor guaranteefor future membership.4 Thus, the Republic of Moldova has not even beenincluded in the list of ‘potential candidates’. The Neighbourhood strategy isbeing implemented through bilateral action plans that are subject to annualreview. It comprises lists of actions for each neighbouring state and the EUwhich aim at harmonizing laws and norms and ensuring a gradual transitiontoward a ‘mutually co-ordinated’ political and economic space.

In its initial form, the ENP has been criticized for a number of reasons andby various actors. It has, for example, been accused of lacking coherencebecause it applies a ‘one size fits all’ policy to many different countries withinvery different geographical areas — i.e. Eastern Europe, North Africa and theMiddle East (Börzel, Pamuk, and Stahn 2008) — some of them separated fromthe EU by hundreds and even thousands of kilometres, and which are char-acterized by specific historical experiences and diverging democratic trackrecords. Some of the countries involved in the ENP were formerly part of theSoviet Union, while others are more or less fragile Mediterranean democraciesunder threat from radical Islam. Furthermore, the ENP has not distinguishedbetween countries wishing to join the Union and those that have not (yet) doneso. It should also be pointed out that financial resources for cross-bordercooperation within the overall context of the ENP and the European Neigh-bourhood Policy Instrument (ENPI) have diminished, resulting in rather lessfor CBC purposes than was available under past programmes, such as Tacisand Meda (Mure [scedil]an 2005), Finally, suspicions were voiced that the ENPwould be used as partial compensation for the closure of the enlargementprocess (Balfour and Missiroli 2007) and that it would lead to a Europe withinfortified borders (van Houtum and Pijpers 2007).

These criticisms have helped inspire a joint Swedish–Polish proposal for anew form of cooperation between the EU and its Eastern neighbours: theEastern Partnership (EaP), presented shortly before France launched itsproject of a Mediterranean Union in July 2008. The EaP seeks to comple-ment the ENP by deepening bilateral relations between the EU and six statesof its ‘eastern neighbourhood’: Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia,

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

57 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


Armenia and Azerbaijan. A ‘jointly owned’ action plan will be drawn up foreach state, including provisions for cross-border mobility of persons and,possibly, for a free trade area. The EaP has five so-called ‘flagship initiatives’covering border management, support for small and medium business, thepromotion of regional electricity markets and energy efficiency, the SouthernEnergy Corridor and cooperation on natural and anthropogenic disasters,with a proposed budget of 600 million over a four-year period. Consideringthis, it would seem that the EU has taken up the idea formulated by KarenSmith (2005, 771) that: ‘strengthening the multilateral and/or regionalelements in the ENP would help to tackle not just the cross-border problemsthat affects the EU, but also those that affect all the neighbours’.

Within this emerging ‘infrastructure’ of regional cooperation, the mediat-ing role of civil society — and not just of more traditional state-centred mech-anisms of negotiation — would appear of great political significance. TheCommission’s ENP strategy paper (2006) has explicitly mentioned severalareas where CSOs are seen to play an increasingly important role, amongthem: youth work, science and education, culture and cross-border coopera-tion, the environment, the fight against corruption and the support of localdemocracy. In the case of Romania and Moldova it is impossible to underes-timate the role that civil society actors play, both domestically in terms ofsocial development and citizen empowerment but also as facilitators of bilat-eral dialogue, especially when formal political relations suffer setbacks. IfEuropeanization is to be understood not merely as an imposition of externallydefined norms but rather as a promotion of co-development and joint owner-ship of regional cooperation policies, then the participation of civil society isessential. Research performed by the authors, which will be presented below,substantiates this claim for Romania and Moldova and thus corroborates thefindings of Nielsen, Berg, and Roll (2009) for the case of Estonia and Russia.

The Vicissitudes of Romanian–Moldovan Relations

Since the early 1990s, Romanian–Moldovan relations have been character-ized by alternating phases of open and rather distant relations. In May 1990,Romania and the Moldovan SSR lifted travel restrictions between the twocountries, and hundreds of thousands of people crossed the Prut River whichforms the common border. In his February 1991 address to the Romanianparliament, the Moldovan president spoke of a common identity of Moldo-vans and Romanians, referring to the ‘Romanians of both sides of the Prut’and ‘Sacred Romanian lands occupied by the Soviets’. However, by 1993,this initial enthusiasm for closer relations and even unification had waned.Politicians in Moldova, often called ‘Romania’s little sister’, increasinglyaccused Romania of expansionist designs. While continuing to requesteconomic and other help as a partner of equal status, they also stressed thecountry’s necessity of facing eastward, toward Russia.

In January 2006, the Romanian president B [abreve]sescu declared strongsupport for the Moldovan bid to join the EU and that ‘Romania’s minimalpolicy is that the unification of the Romanian nation would be done within

a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

57 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


the EU’. In July 2006, he made a proposal of union to the Moldovan presi-dent Voronin, enabling Romania and Moldova to join the EU together. Theoffer, however, was refused and B [abreve]sescu said that he would respect this deci-sion and that Romania would help Moldova find its own way to integrateinto the EU.5 At the same time, political analysts increasingly questionedwhether Moldova would be economically and politically prepared to jointhe EU and whether Romania would be able to shoulder the economicburden of unification with Moldova, currently one of the poorest countriesin Europe. In addition, Moldova’s situation had become more complicatedwith the latent conflict in the breakaway territory of Transnistria.

Romania’s political focus remains highly orientated towards the EuropeanUnion and the country’s political strategies and priorities in terms of interna-tional relations and cross-border cooperation have had as their main objective— achieved on 1 January 2007 — accession to the EU. Indeed, Romanianpolitical priorities continue to be informed by relations with Brussels and anattempt to rapidly ‘Europeanize’ institutionally. The harmonization of Roma-nian legislation with the Community acquis and its application in practice is,for example, of great importance within this context. A similar phenomenoncan be seen in the Republic of Moldova, even if the basis there is the appli-cation of the ENP and its instruments rather than pre-accession. Despite theexistence of European commonalities in terms of increasing interaction withthe EU, relations between the two countries can be said to be rather complex— at least at the official level. Bilateral relations since Romania’s EU member-ship have been marked by increased opportunities for economic development.However, political relations have been strained by slow democratizationprocesses and (prior to the contentious 2009 presidential elections) the pres-ence of the Communist Party in power structures — for many of the politicalelite, too close relations with Romania (and by association, with the EU)represent a potential threat to their legitimacy. Problematic as well is the latentconflict in the breakaway territory of Transnistria. Free circulation across theborder has undergone a decrease following EU accession and imposition ofSchengen Accord rules. Solutions are being sought in order to facilitate circu-lation between the two countries, without infringing EU regulations in anyway. Solutions are also sought for making it easier for Moldovan citizens toobtain legal work permits for Romania. Grabbe (2000, 512) has advocatedmeasures that lower the ‘paper curtain’ of visas and frontier controls andpromote bilateral cooperation between the EU member states and their neigh-bours: ‘Schengen needs to return to its original purpose of facilitating freecirculation of goods, services and people’.

For the time being, the obstacles claimed in this process are excessivebureaucracy and high costs. Additionally, the desire for a reduced permeabil-ity of the border between Romania and the Republic of Moldova can beexplained based on a number of perceived risks, such as:

(1) contraband, especially cigarettes, alcohol, as well as other merchandize(including weapons, ammunition and drugs coming from the formerSoviet Union);

a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

57 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


(2) human trafficking, Moldova being one of the countries the worst affectedby this problem;

(3) a high crime rate in the Republic of Moldova, especially in the Transnis-tria region;

(4) illegal migration, not only of Moldovan citizens, but also of citizens fromthe other former Soviet states as well as countries in Asia (India, Bang-ladesh, etc.).

Romania’s new status as a member state has had far-reaching conse-quences for relations with neighbouring Moldova. Circulation between thetwo countries, for example, has become more difficult following Romania’sEU accession and imposition of Schengen Accord rules. Until 2007, citizensof both countries did not need a passport to cross the border. On 9 April2009, the Republic of Moldova even began to require visas from Romaniansentering its territory (but not from citizens of other EU member states). Thisdecision was in violation of earlier agreements signed with the EU and wasoverturned by the Chi [scedil]in [abreve]u Appeals Court on 29 April 2009. However, thecourt’s ruling was disregarded. Visa requirements for Romanians wereabolished only in late summer 2009, when a new coalition government, theAlliance for European Integration, came into power.

Finally, geopolitical tensions are largely to blame for the present difficul-ties of Romanian and Moldovan civil society actors in their attempts at moreintensive and effective cooperation. Moldovan elites are split between thosewho would promote an ‘anti-EU’ Moldovan identity (partly under Russianauspices) and those who see Moldova as a former Romanian territory that isfirmly part of EU-Europe. Permission to cross the border is often givenarbitrarily by Moldovan authorities, depending on changing politicalclimates. For the EU, this is a neuralgic point at its external border, onewhere security issues, illegal immigration and human trafficking loom largeand encumber local and regional cooperation. For many Romanian andMoldovans, the Schengen border is an unfair and cruel border that continuesto separate communities almost 20 years after the end of state socialism.

Romanian–Moldovan Cross-border Cooperation within a Wider European Context

Despite the ups and downs of Romanian–Moldovan relations, coopera-tion between the two countries has not been limited to border issues.Bilateral economic agreements, partly in response to EU policies, haveencouraged each side to use existing opportunities of facilitating access tothird-party markets. Thus, exports of Romanian products towards formerSoviet states have benefited from the mediation of partners in the Repub-lic of Moldova, and Moldovan companies have relied on Romaniancounterparts for easier and more advantageous access to the commonmarket. The Romanian government has also acted as an advocate ofMoldova’s interests vis-à-vis regional, European and international bodiesof which Moldova is not yet a member, and has stated — as often as the

s a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

57 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


opportunity has presented itself — that the safest and most beneficialway to develop bilateral relations would be within the future borders ofthe European Union. The EU has, in turn, opened financing lines forcross-border cooperation projects in structural, economic, social andcultural fields where civil society organizations often play a crucial role.

Cross-border cooperation has been facilitated by the existence of bilateralor national framework strategies that establish priorities and allocateresources. Some of these have become inoperational with Romania’saccession to the EU, as new requirements and norms have been introduced.However, agencies such as the Regional Bureau for Cross-Border Co-operation (BRCT) and programmes such as Phare have made importantcontributions to the development of cooperation. Among the reasons for thisare the following:

(1) the funding lines managed by these agencies have been the main accessroute to European or national funds dedicated to cross-bordercooperation;

(2) the agencies and programmes financing them have also had a role inregulating cross-border cooperation. Before 2004–2005, when cross-border cooperation among Romania, the Republic of Moldova andUkraine became a separate chapter within the Phare-Tacis programmes,partnerships used to be sporadic and embraced mainly educational orcultural dimensions. Afterwards, priorities were set and projects werefunded in other crucial domains: border safety and security, infrastruc-ture development, social services development, environmental protection,education, culture, economic cooperation, etc. These funding lines haveencouraged and even caused the organizations to look for partners on theother side of the border.

With the creation of three Euroregions that include counties from Roma-nia and the Republic of Moldova, local authorities have increasinglybecome involved in and eager to extend cooperation at this level. A newelement has been and still is the development of projects in partnershipwith civil society organizations and involving representatives of Moldovanlocal authorities. In 2007, a Memorandum of Co-operation for EuropeanIntegration6 was signed between the Moldovan Ministry of Foreign Affairsand several civil society organizations from Moldova, which detailed a newqualitative mechanism of cooperation, especially through the followingmeans:

• the exchange of information and cooperation experiences at the nationaland local levels, both within the context of the Moldova–EU Action Planimplementation and with regard to the realization of the European inte-gration policy of the Republic of Moldova;

• planning and carrying out common events, such as meetings betweenexperts and working groups, conferences and round-table talks;

• training activities that include the organization of workshops, courses andscholarships in the field of European integration and encouraging the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

57 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


participation of experts and representatives from both countries at inter-national seminars.

In more recent years, EU financial support for cross-border cooperationprogrammes between Romania, Moldova and Ukraine has been tied to theapplication of the ENP and its instruments. Cross-border cooperation thuslargely takes place within a European framework and should be seen as partof wider processes of ‘Europeanization’.

Civil Society Cross-border Cooperation

In recent years, a number of Romanian non-governmental organizations(NGOs) have contributed to the promotion of best practices and standardsat the national level through dialogue with central government authorities.Similarly, but to a lesser extent, Moldovan NGOs have benefited from thisprocess by applying non-national models and by making use of externalfunding. Romanian civil society organizations thus have been active in thefight against human trafficking and, in the field of illegal immigration, coop-erated on projects with civil society partners in Moldova as well as with stateagencies, such as the border police, customs and judicial bodies ( oitue andoitu 2008). Providers of social services from Romania have organized

training sessions for social workers in the Republic of Moldova. Otherassociations, such as the Group for Social Dialogue (Ia [scedil]i) and the MoldovanAssociation of Independent Press, have participated in the training ofjournalists and media managers. Through these activities, civil society orga-nizations can be seen, and see themselves, as promoting European values andas agents of Europeanization.

This dynamic is reinforced by EU funding which is crucial for implement-ing these projects. In the words of one Romanian expert: ‘All Moldovanswho participated in training courses knew that the funds were provided bythe EU and [as a result] became aware of the positive influence the EU hashad in this area’.7 In this way, EU policies are perceived in a relativelypositive light despite a long list of EU conditions, regulations and restrictionsand perceptions that Europeanization is coercive in nature. Ultimately, theprocess of Europeanization is driven by a local desire to be part of the Union— an observation that substantiates the claims of Lavenex (2004), Gawrich,Melnykovska, and Schweickert (2009) and others regarding the transforma-tive power of EU external governance.8

Adherence to this process is, however, not without reservations, as civilsociety actors still feel that they are not accepted as full and equal partners.Many interviewees were of the opinion that despite enlargement and manyyears of pre-adhesion ‘coaching’ the EU still sees the states of Eastern Europeas a kind of annexe, a source of cheap labour, as well as a source of problems.9

Criticism is also levelled at their own national governments. Civil societyactors have demanded that Romanian and Moldovan governments showmore ‘strength of character’ so that ‘those in Brussels would see us as an equalpartner, as a state with full rights’.10 To quote one representative at length:

SS

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

57 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


I feel I am a European not because the EU was established, but insteadbecause Europe as a continent is an old structure. I felt I was a Euro-pean when I was young and living under the communist regime. I feel Iam a European now but not because Romania has joined the EU. … Itmay be that in ten to fifteen years Romania will no longer be a EUmember but I’ll still continue to feel as a European as I do now becauseI relate not so much to a certain space but more to a concept of Europeas it was dreamed up by people in Ancient Greece who related to amodel of civilized society in which relations between people were natu-ral, normal … Well, unfortunately, I no longer feel like a Europeanwhen the transnational government of Brussels exercises unofficialpressure in order to make legal values that Romanians do not share. …The EU should lend its ear to the East as well; it could thus learn somethings from a spiritual point of view, in terms of interpersonalrelations.11

The principal areas of cross-border cooperation between Romania andMoldova lie clearly within the provision of social and health services as wellas in the areas of human rights, culture and education. Economic developmentis another area where cooperation is gradually increasing. The prevention ofhuman trafficking, as well as giving assistance to victims of this practice, isparticularly important and an area where much international support hasbeen received. Poverty, high levels of unemployment and domestic violenceare among the main factors that make Moldova and Romania countries oforigin for trafficking in human beings ( oitu and oitu 2009).

In terms of civil society cooperation between Romania and Moldova,available funding incentives provided by foreign donors have always beenone of the principal rationales for establishing priorities and agendas. Before2003–2004, major donors were represented by USAID, the Soros Founda-tion, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Interna-tional Office for Migration (IOM) and Unicef, and NGO activities wereconcerned mainly with offering direct material aid and combating phenom-ena, such as human trafficking. Since then, cross-border cooperation hasbeen funded increasingly by the EU through the Phare–Tacis programmes,the Instrument of Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) and, more recently, theENPI. For Romanian CSOs, this has been accompanied by a shift towardactivities of social policy advocacy, support for the application of democraticprinciples in law and governmental action, as well as the promotion of bestpractices. Their expertise in this field has also been shared with MoldovanCSO counterparts who wish to become similarly involved in the social,economic and political life of their country.

On 27/28 June 2007, 40 civil society representatives from Romania andthe Republic of Moldova took part in a seminar on Civil Society andCooperation for Development in the Republic of Moldova in the Context ofthe European Neighbourhood Policy. In a joint declaration they proclaimedsupport for the Romanian civil society which ‘has had a crucial impact onthe process of democratizing and strengthening a Romanian state governed

S S

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

57 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


by the rule of law and on the process of integrating the country into theEuropean Union and of helping to integrate the Republic of Moldova’.12 Thedeclaration also called upon the civil society in the Republic of Moldova ‘toplay the same role’. According to this declaration, in recent years Moldovancivil society ‘has proven it can become involved in domains that are essentialfor the country’s integration into the European space (reform of the legalsystem, democratization, good governance) and that it can be a credible andtransparent partner for the public authorities and the international commu-nity’.13 Similarly, representatives of Moldovan civil society organizationshave suggested a more institutionalized dialogue, similar to that engaged withother candidate states, between the European Commission and MoldovanCSOs in the form of round-table talks, a task force or a board of experts fromcivil society. It designated as areas of special interest:

• the dialogue between the European Commission and Moldovan CSOs onhuman rights, political freedom and democratic freedom;

• democratic reform with regard to the above fields and to politicalinfluence on the judicial system, as well as the reform and the efficiency oflocal administration;

• free access to information, freedom of expression and of the media asparticularly sensitive topics.

On 4 May 2009, in the wake of parliamentary elections, Moldovan civilsociety organizations proposed as the main objectives of this dialogue toensure the normal operation of democratic institutions; to ensure funda-mental rights and freedom; and to strengthen social cohesion and Euro-pean cohesion in this time of crisis. In a Communication of December2008, the Commission (2008, 14) proposed in its turn ‘to support thefurther development of Civil Society Organizations’ and, in particular, ‘toestablish an Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum to promote contactsamong CSOs and to facilitate their dialogue with public authorities’. In ajoint declaration issued on 7 May 2009, the participants of the PragueSummit invited the European Commission to develop and propose modali-ties for the establishment of a Civil Society Forum of the Eastern Partner-ship. This forum was launched in November 2009 in Brussels by theEuropean Commission, the EU Presidency and the European Economicand Social Committee.14

Generally, cross-border partnerships between CSOs are establishedaccording to project objectives and on the proven ability of organizations towork together — either through previous activities, on the basis of recom-mendations or following discussions during international meetings. A desirefor maximum social and public impact are also important and evidenced bythe activities of journalistic associations on both sides of the border (e.g. theGroup for Social Dialogue from Ia [scedil]i and the Association of Independent Pressfrom the Republic of Moldova). Their activities include the training of jour-nalists and media managers. In addition, CSOs providing social services inRomania have organized training sessions for social workers from theRepublic of Moldova, while CSOs concerned with fighting human trafficking

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

57 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


and illegal immigration have worked together in a cross-border capacity aswell as with state and administrative bodies.

Civil society organizations actively pursue a strategy of closer links withthe EU in the hope of being able to implement national or regional agendasof social policy and improved governance. As the interviews conducted withCSO representatives in Moldova show, despite concerns about futureenlargement prospects, the EU is seen as: ‘a structure with internationalpower, in which the rule of law is operational and in which certain mecha-nisms in the social, political and economic domains offer a better model, asa very good model for different countries and cultures’.15 Adopting this EUmodel is also considered a step toward globalization. In the words of oneinterviewee,

European institutions, as well as civil society in the Republic of Mold-ova, want greater openness both of the authorities and of ordinary citi-zens toward the EU; they want European values to be known andshared by the citizens of the Republic of Moldova and, bearing in mindthese perspectives, try to influence things in a way. The EU enjoys apositive image among the citizens of the Republic of Moldova, becauseit is associated with freedom of movement and other kinds of freedomit offers.16

More specifically, for civil society organizations the EU provides thepossibility to acquire the expertise necessary for promoting these values.According to the representative of a Moldovan NGO, the EU’s role ‘islimited to information and experience which concern the processes takingplace, at the national and local level, to strengthen the infrastructure, tobuild capacity for securing the borders and to organize joint events, such asmeeting between experts, working groups, round tables and training ontopic activities of the European Union’.17 CSO representatives from bothcountries declare that they want to benefit from sharing ‘European experi-ence’ acquired by professionals — economic, financial and social experts —in the member states, but also to be treated as equals in the partnershipsthey conclude. Indeed, a significant effect of international and cross-bordercooperation is the shaping of the civil society actors’ self-image as profes-sionals. As one interviewee stated: ‘the interaction with others is veryimportant because we come into contact with other people, other expertsfrom other states and thus we prove that we too are competent, that we toohave our well-defined place and that we can always understand eachother’.18

The relationship between civil society actors is often contrasted with rela-tions at the intergovernmental level. One Romanian CSO representativeadmitted that: ‘I don’t know to what extent these projects [of cross-bordercooperation] can influence the relation between Romania and the Republicof Moldova at higher levels, which I feel has been very tense lately. I believethat implementing these projects does not lead to improving this relationsince national politicians do not see eye to eye’.19 Several interviewees also

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

57 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


stressed that while external financial support had been crucial for manyprojects, the policy of decentralization had not been accompanied by thenecessary financial measures. It is in this context that civil society organiza-tions see themselves as taking on part of the problems and solving them to acertain extent.

One of the main problems in the Republic of Moldova is the prevailinglevel of poverty that has led to extensive labour migration. As one informantsuggested: ‘this issue probably causes European officials to view the Republicof Moldova with some apprehension and to favour attempts to raise the localstandard of living through cross-border programmes, thus bringing it closerto the European level’.20 The European Union has promoted local andregional cooperation mainly through its Neighbourhood Programme and, inparticular, through projects aimed at strengthening cross-border cooperationin the Euroregions of the Lower Danube, Siret-Prut-Nistru and Upper Prut.Its mainstays are financial and logistical support for providing services tocertain social groups, thus raising the public’s awareness of existing prob-lems and promoting standards and experience for local development.21

Within this context, civil society organizations perceive their role as beingthat of intermediaries between local needs and policy formulation at thenational and European levels. A Romanian physician involved in cross-border cooperation thus stressed that identifying social needs will be the keyelement in reducing differences between European regions. At least for theperiod 2007–2013, it seems that the analysis of these needs in terms ofEuropean policy has proven to have a major impact — resulting in theformulation of a more responsive national development plan.22 Moldovancivil society organizations are somewhat more sceptical about their overallimpact. A social worker thus stated that: ‘every society has its own needs andits own policy. The EU can influence these matters through projects and,even though it cannot identify completely the needs of a society, solve them.Influence at the local level is important but not very efficient’.23 At any rate,the lack of a coherent and effective social agenda in neighbouring countries,such as Moldova, but also in new member states, such as Romania, couldjeopardize overall goals of regional cooperation defined by the EU.

Conclusion

This essay has demonstrated that the EU wields considerable normativepower in the development of cross-border networks of civil society actors inRomania and Moldova. One obvious reason for this — and which was onlyalluded to here — is Romania’s own internal struggle to ‘Europeanize’ itspolitical culture, institutions and systems of governance. The difficultattempts of Moldova’s civil society to establish closer ties with Romania and,thus, promote its domestic agendas also serve to heighten civil society’sinterest in the EU and its institutions. Open resistance to the idea of Europe-anization comes first and foremost from political interests in Moldova witha stake in maintaining a ‘Soviet style’ form of autocracy and close ties to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

57 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


Russia. However, the power of these political elites (i.e. within the MoldovanCommunist Party) appears to be waning.

In this discussion we have provided ample evidence for the increasingexternal influence of the EU. We suggest, however, that the issue of Europe-anization is not about a simple transferral of norms and values. Whilediscourses and practices emanating from Western Europe are undoubtedlyinfluencing civil society advocacy groups in Romania and Moldova, theEuropean Union is also being shaped and transformed by local processes inits new member states and at its external borders. At the moment, there isconsiderable tension between what the ENP envisages in terms of regionalpartnerships and the realism that permeates the rather limited policy initia-tives that the ENP has generated thus far. The ENP must be made moreaccessible to non-state actors who are developing social agendas in countriesthat lack true social policies. If the authors appear a bit too critical it is onlybecause we concur with Nielsen, Berg, and Roll (2009) and Sagan (2010)that valuable opportunities are being missed for a more effective neighbour-hood perspective because of a lack of engagement with local civil societies.

Notes1. The Schengen Agreement was signed by Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands in

1985. Now, it is signed by the EU member states and three non-EU states (Iceland, Norway andSwitzerland), becoming part of the acquis communitaire. This agreement ‘creates a common, exter-nal Schengen border by defining, implementing, monitoring, and enforcing benchmarks for borderpatrols, visa procedures, cross-border police cooperation, and information sharing among allsignatory states’.

2. The data used in this study were collected from various sources: newspapers, scientific articles,political statements and from 127 interviews carried out in 2007–2008 with relevant actors involvedin cross-border cooperation. The central empirical element of the study involved 82 basic interviews(40 in Romania and 42 in the Republic of Moldova) and 45 in-depth interviews (21 in Romania and24 in the Republic of Moldova), from two local seminars (one local seminar in Romania, Iasi, 21March 2008, and one local seminar in Chisinau, 11 April 2008). The selection of CSO representa-tives to be interviewed was based on participation in the Phare CBC programmes of 2004 or 2005.Through ‘snowballing’, other organizations engaged in transnational and interregional cooperationwere identified and interviewed.

3. The ENP does not include Russia, considered a ‘strategic partner’, nor Turkey and other (potential)candidates for EU adhesion in the Western Balkans.

4. What is the European Neighbourhood Policy?, ec.europa.eu/world/enp/policy_en.htm.5. Evenimentul Zilei. 2006. B [abreve]sescu [scedil]i-a dezv [abreve]luit planul unionist secret. [B [abreve]sescu revealed his secret

unionist plan.] 3 July.6. The memorandum can be consulted through the ministry’s website (www.mfa.gov.md).7. M.L., Association of Moldavian Folk Craftsmen, Ia i, Romania, in-depth interview, March 2008.8. See: Draxler, J. and O. Van Vliet (2010); Lepik, K.-L. (2009); Scott, J.W. (2009); Skvortova, A.

(2001), (2006).9. N.R., ‘Contact’ Centre, Chi [scedil]in [abreve]u, in-depth interview, February 2008.

10. M.L., Association of Moldavian Folk Craftsmen, Ia[scedil] i, Romania, in-depth interview, March 2008.11. ibidem12. Federa[tcedil] ia Organiza[tcedil] iilor Neguvernamentale pentru Dezvoltare din România (FOND) 2007. The

joint declaration adopted at the end of the Seminar Societatea civil[abreve] [scedil] i cooperarea pentru dezvoltareîn Republica Moldova în contextul politicii europene de vecin[abreve] tate (Civil society and cooperation fordevelopment in the Republic of Moldova in the context of the European neighbourhood policy)organised on 27–28 June 2007 in Ia[scedil] i, pp.1–2.

a s a a

s

s as

t ta s

a

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

57 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


13. The Independent Report of the 19 Representatives of CSO from The Republic of Moldova, in thecontext of the European Commission Report and the new Agreement between the EU and theRepublic of Moldova, Chi[scedil] in[abreve] u, 28 November 2008.

14. http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/eastern/civil_society/index_en.htm15. I.I., the Young Journalist’s Centre in the Republic of Moldova, Chi[scedil] in[abreve] u, in-depth interview, March

200816. D.L., Association of Independent Press from the Republic of Moldova, in-depth interview, March

200817. N.R., “Contact”; Centre, Chi[scedil] in[abreve] u, in-depth interview, February 2008.18. L.M., Save the Children, Ia[scedil] i, Romania, in-depth interview, February 200819. M.L., Association of Moldavian Folk Craftsmen, Ia[scedil] i, Romania, in-depth interview, March 200820. D.L., Association of Independent Press from the Republic of Moldova, in-depth interview, March

2008.21. N.R., “Contact”; Centre, Chi[scedil] in[abreve] u, in-depth interview, February 2008.22. A.M., Centre for continued medical education, Ia[scedil] i, Romania, in-depth interview, May 2008.23. A. G., social worker, Decanate 2 Ia[scedil] i, Ia[scedil] i Archbishopric, Metropolitan District of Moldavia and

Bukovina, in-depth interview, December 2007.

ReferencesBalfour, R., and A. Missiroli. 2007. Reassessing the European Neighbourhood Policy. Issues paper

enlargement and neighbourhood Europe, no. 54. European Policy Centre, June.Börzel, T.A. 2005. Europeanization: how the European Union interacts with its member states. In The

member states of the European Union, ed. S. Blumer and C. Lequesne, 45–77. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Börzel, T., Y. Pamuk, and A. Stahn. 2008. The European Union and the promotion of good governancein its near abroad — one size fits all?, SFB-Governance Working Paper Series, no. 18. Free Univer-sity of Berlin, Germany: Research Center 700 ‘Governance in areas of limited statehood — newmodes of governance?’.

Bosse, G. 2009. Challenges for EU governance through Neighbourhood Policy and Eastern Partnership:the values/security nexus in EU–Belarus relations. Contemporary Politics, 15, no. 2: 215–27.

Camyar, I. 2010. Europeanization, domestic legacies and administrative reforms in Central and EasternEurope: A comparative analysis of Hungary and the Czech Republic. Journal of EuropeanIntegration 32, no. 1: 137–55.

Commission of the European Communities. 2008. Communication from the Commission to theEuropean Parliament and the Council. Eastern Partnership, COM(2008)823 final.

Draxler, J., and O. Van Vliet. 2010. European social model: No convergence from the East. Journal ofEuropean Integration 32, no. 1: 115–35.

The European Commission. 2006. European Neighbourhood & Partnership Instrument. Cross-BorderCooperation. Strategy Paper 2007–2013. Indicative Programme 2007–2010. Available at: interact-eu.net/…/296/ENPI_Strategy_Paper_2007_2013.pdf

Gawrich, A., I. Melnykovska, and R. Schweickert. 2009. Neighbourhood Europeanization through ENP— the case of Ukraine. KFG Working Paper no. 3. Free University of Berlin, Germany: Kolleg-Forschergruppe ‘The Transformative Power of Europe: The European Union and the Diffusion ofIdeas’.

Grabbe, H. 2000. The sharp edges of Europe: Extending Schengen eastwards. International Affairs 76,no. 3: 481–514.

Grabbe, H. 2001. How does Europeanisation affect CEE governance? Conditionality, diffusion anddiversity. Journal of European Policy 8, no. 4: 1013–31.

Kostadinova, V. 2009. The Commission, ENP and the construction of borders. Geopolitics 14, no. 2:235–55.

Lavenex, S. 2004. EU external governance in ‘wider Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 11, no.4: 680–700.

Lepik, Katri-Liis. 2009. Euroregions as mechanisms for strengthening cross-border cooperation in theBaltic Sea region. TRAMES: A Journal of the Humanities and Social Science 13, no. 3: 265–84.

s a

s a

s as

s

s as

s s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

57 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


Marcu, S. 2009. The geopolitics of the eastern border of the European Union: The case of Romania–Moldavia–Ukraine. Geopolitics 14, no. 3: 409–32.

Mure [scedil]an, I. 2005. The European Neighbourhood Policy: a new framework for Europeanization?Working Papers Series, 15. Bucure [scedil]ti: Institutul European din România.

Nielsen, K., E. Berg, and G. Roll. 2009. Undiscovered avenues? Estonian civil society organisations asagents of Europeanisation. TRAMES 13, no. 3: 248–64.

Olsen, J.P. 2002. The many faces of Europeanization. Journal of Common Market Studies 40, no. 5:921–52.

Popescu, G. 2006. Geopolitics of scale and cross-border cooperation in Eastern Europe: The case of theRomanian–Ukrainian–Moldovan Borderlands. In Scott 2006, 35–51.

Popescu, G. 2008. The conflicting logics of crossborder reterritorialization: geopolitics of Euroregions inEastern Europe. Political Geography 27, no. 4: 418–38.

Radaelli, C.M. 2003. The Europeanization of public policy. In The politics of Europeanization, ed. K.Featherstone and C.M. Radaelli, 27–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sagan, Iwona. 2010. Post-Socialist transformation, European neighbourhood and civil society networksbetween Poland, Russia and Ukraine: a case of multi-level contingency. Journal of EuropeanIntegration 32, no. 5.

Scott, J.W., ed. 2006. EU enlargement, region building and shifting borders of inclusion and exclusion.Aldershot: Ashgate.

Scott, J.W. 2009. Borders, border studies and EU enlargement. In Das Europa der EU an seinenGrenzen!? Konzepte und Erfahrungen der europäischen grenzüberschreitenden Kooperation, ed.B. Köppen and M. Horn, 33–51. Berlin: Logos Verlag.

Skvortova, A. 2001. Country report Moldova. In Prospects and risks beyond EU enlargement, ed.I. Kempe, 147–76. Leverkusen: Leske and Budrich.

Skvortova, A. 2006. The impact of EU enlargement on Moldovan–Romanian relations. In Scott 2006,133–48.

Smith, K. 2005. The outsiders: the European Neighbourhood Policy. International Affairs 81, no. 4:757–73.

[Scedil] oitu, D., and C. [Scedil]oitu. 2008. Gender and human trafficking issues in Romania–Moldova cross-bordercooperation. Caiete sociologice [Sociological Review]. Ias]i: Fundatia AXIS. 6/2008: 177–98.

[Scedil] oitu, C., and D. [Scedil]oitu. 2009. Civil society in Romania–Republic of Moldova cross-border cooperation.In The Scientific Annals of ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’ University. New Series. Sociology and SocialWork, no. 2/2009, 197–209.

[Scedil] oitu, D., and C. [Scedil]oitu. 2008. Gender and human trafficking issues in Romania–Moldova cross-bordercooperation. Caiete sociologice [Sociological Review]. Ia [scedil]i: Fundatiei AXIX.

Van Houtum, H., and R. Pijpers. 2007. The European Union as a gated community of fear: The two-faced border and immigration regime of the EU. Antipode 39, no. 2: 291–309.

ss

S S

S S

S Ss

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

57 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

europeanization at the eu’s external borders: the case of romanian–moldovan civil society...

Documents