Dosarul Schengen - mize si incordari (RO)

Subiectul aderarii la Acordul Schengen incinge din nou, in aceste zile, coabitarea politica damboviteana. Diferenta fata de precedentele esecuri pe aceeasi tema este schimbarea de roluri: daca in 2011 presedintele Basescu era cel care propunea realocarea banilor pentru securizarea frontierelor spre alte domenii si autoritatile se razboiau cu florile olandeze, iar anul trecut pe vremea asta puterea portocalie obstructiona Serbia cu bataie pe Schengen, acum guvernul USL - sustinut de o majoritate zdrobitoare in parlament - isi incordeaza muschii in fata Occidentului, in timp ce basistii critica prestatia puterii.

In ambele ipostaze, avem de-a face cu acelasi simptom, chiar daca actorii au fost re-distribuiti: vorbim de slabiciunea pozitiei externe a Romaniei (un tratament similar aplicat, sa zicem, Poloniei sau Cehiei ar fi greu de imaginat), combinata cu incapacitatea cronica a clasei politice de a se abtine de la demagogie si de a actiona unitar si disciplinat in chestiuni care tin de interesul national. Totul, pe fondul unei deteriorari generale a climatului european in chestiunea liberei circulatii (si nu numai), despre care am scris deja de mai multe ori.

Ce ar fi, totusi, de facut? Si cum poate fi judecata pozitia guvernului Ponta?

Cum a aparut subiectul Schengen pe agenda Consiliului European din 1-2 martie? (RO)

In aceasta postare nu voi reveni asupra istoriei cu mini-santajul asupra Serbiei si aliatilor europeni, despre care am scris in postarea precedenta. Imi mentin parerea si cred ca in general nu este bine in politica externa sa-ti iei prin surprindere aliatii. Poate voi reveni altadata asupra implicatiilor ultimelor zile in ce priveste profilul european al Romaniei.

As vrea totusi sa clarific un aspect foarte concret, factual, care vad ca este in mod persistent denaturat in presa: a contribuit amenintarea Romaniei cu blocarea acordarii statutului de tara candidata la UE Serbiei la introducerea subiectului Schengen pe ordinea de zi a Consiliului?

Pe mai multe canale s-a lansat teza ca, "incordandu-si muschii" in dosarul sarbesc, Romania ar fi obtinut readucerea in discutie a subiectului aderarii ei si a Bulgariei la Schengen.

Din cate imi pot da seama, teoria a fost lansata pe hotnews.ro, care a vorbit prima data de aparitia "surprinzatoare" a chestiunii Schengen pe agenda Consiliului, facand referire la o scrisoare de invitatie emisa miercuri 29 februarie catre presa de biroul Presedintelui Consiliului European. Mai mult, in articolul hotnews se sugereaza o legatura directa cu pozitia Romaniei din ziua precedenta fata de Serbia.

Teoria aceasta, cum ca Romania ar fi obtinut introducerea pe agenda a problemei Schengen pe ultima suta de metri datorita atitudinii fata de Serbia a fost ulterior propagata pe numeroase canale de presa - mai ales dintre cele apropiate puterii portocalii, dar nu numai. Pana si astazi Ziarul Financiar, enumerand presupusele rezultate ale pozitiei adoptate de Bucuresti, scrie ca "in al doilea rând, a fost readus în discuţie subiectul Schengen care nu era pe agenda summit-ului".

Care este adevarul?

Feriti raza de actiune: Basescu iar face politica externa (RO)

Felul in care Romania a obstructionat pe neasteptate acordarea statutului de tara candidata la Uniunea Europeana pentru Serbia este inca un simptom al izolarii internationale crescande la care ne supune regimul basist. Cat de deplasata (chiar cu totul "din alt film") a fost supralicitarea neasteptata a diplomatiei romanesti (actionand la ordinele directe ale lui Basescu) puteti vedea aici. Ce efecte ar putea sa aiba in chestiunea stricta a minoritatii romane/vlahe din Serbia, vedeti aici; trebuie sa fii cu totul paralel cu realitatea - sau neinteresat in a rezolva cu adevarat problema - pentru a crede ca presedintele Tadic, aflat in dificultate inainte de alegerile din Serbia, poate ceda la astfel de presiuni venite in ceasul al 12-lea, dupa ce si-a asumat deja costurile politice ale concesiilor facute in privinta Kosovo (si pentru care acordarea statutului de stat candidat se dorea o compensatie).

In timp ce scriu aceste lucruri, diplomatiile romana si sarba cauta probabil fiecare o solutie de salvare a situatiei, fara a parea ca tara lor face un pas inapoi. Situatia este extrem de neplacuta pentru ambele parti, dar Serbia are sustinerea si simpatia a 26 de tari membre UE, in timp ce Romania s-a auto-izolat (din nou!).

Desigur, puterea de la Bucuresti si presa apropiata ei fac tot ce se poate pentru a prezenta aceasta noua ridicare a poalelor in cap drept o mare victorie - de exemplu, pretinzand ca santajul de ieri al Romaniei a readus in discutie chestiunea intrarii in zona Schengen. Titlul hotnews.ro, care sugereaza aparitia "surpriza" a subiectului Schengen (de fapt, al opozitiei singulare a Olandei la aderarea Romaniei si Bulgariei) pe agenda summit-ului UE de maine ca rezultat indirect al "aratarii pisicii" prin blocarea Serbiei, este contrazis chiar in continutul articolului, unde se recunoaste ca rediscutarea problemei la summit-ul din martie 2012 a fost deja stabilita in concluziile Consiliului din decembrie 2011 (vedeti si punctul 15 de aici). Dar ce mai conteaza? Pentru cei mai putin atenti la detalii, Basescu poate poza inca o data drept barbat viril si campion al demnitatii nationale.

Daca Romania avea o pozitie externa de oarecare influenta si o politica externa consistenta, nu ar fi ajuns in situatia sa surprinda neplacut pe toata lumea cu un subiect care, desi important pentru noi, este perceput ca fiind cu totul meschin si inoportun la scara istorica a lucrurilor. Ar fi facut din chestiunea vlaha un subiect in discutiile dintre UE si Serbia privind acordarea statutului de candidat cu mult timp in urma, ar fi explicat cu rabdare si pe indelete partenerilor europeni legitimitatea preocuparilor Bucurestiului.

Ce se intampla, de fapt, este ca avem o politica externa dominata de umorile schimbatoare ale lui Basescu, iar acest episod nu este decat ultimul dintr-o lunga serie, care a facut din Romania o tara marginala in Europa.

Scurte precizari:

Schengen - o idee constructiva pentru Romania si Bulgaria (RO)

Sursa imaginii: Hotnews.ro 

Devine tot mai clar zilele acestea ca acceptarea Romaniei si Bulgariei in zona Schengen va fi din nou amanata.

In ciuda eforturilor presedintiei poloneze a UE de a avansa o solutie de compromis (o aderare in etape a celor doua tari), cel putin doua state - Olanda, urmata de Finlanda - se opun chiar si unei aderari partiale a Romaniei si Bulgariei in viitorul apropiat. Au existat chiar relatari ca Franta si Germania ar fi de asemenea impotriva, dar dezmintite ulterior. Cum aderarea la Acordul Schengen necesita acceptul unanim al statelor membre, perspectivele pentru sedinta de maine a Consiliului Justitie si Afaceri Interne (JAI) nu sunt deloc optimiste. In plus, ratarea aderarii in perioada presedintiei poloneze a UE, care a facut din cauza Romaniei si Bulgariei o prioritate a mandatului sau, poate insemna un blocaj pe termen mai lung.

Pozitia guvernelor care se opun admiterii tarii noastre in Schengen nu este usor de acceptat. Ea pare determinata in buna masura de considerente de politica interna, in special de presiunea in crestere a curentelor eurosceptic si xenofob din propriile tari. La fel de adevarat este ca platim si pentru problemele Greciei si Italiei in a controla imigratia ilegala, ca si pentru o deteriorare generala a atmosferei din jurul constructiei europene si a liberei circulatii in particular, despre care am mai scris (aici si aici).

Principalul motiv invocat - lipsa de progrese in combaterea coruptiei - poate fi valabil in absolut, dar nu are legatura cu conditiile initiale, pe care Romania si Bulgaria deja le-au indeplinit (conform avizului Comisiei Europene si votului din Parlamentului European). Impunerea de noi conditii echivaleaza cu o schimbare a regulilor in timpul jocului; in plus, obtinerea de progrese in lupta impotriva coruptiei este un criteriu destul de vag si greu de cuantificat, care poate lasa mult timp de acum incolo decizia la discretia intereselor politice.

Pe de alta parte, reactiile de pana acum ale Romaniei si Bulgariei nu sunt de natura sa le ajute catusi de putin. Blocarea importului de flori olandeze de catre Romania sau amenintarea Bulgariei ca va impiedica reforma Acordului Schengen nu fac decat sa creasca ostilitatea in randul occidentalilor si regretele, deja exprimate ocazional, ca cele doua tari au fost admise prea devreme in UE (este ilustrativa aceasta declaratie). De fapt, este foarte posibil ca ralierea explicita Finlandei la pozitia Olandei sa reprezinte in parte si o reactie de raspuns la incercarea de presiune romano-bulgara, perceputa drept santaj. Initial, a existat o reactie de usurare in unele cancelarii occidentale la vestea ca Olanda a luat asupra sa opozitia explicita fata de extinderea zonei Schengen la Romania si Bulgaria, pentru ca si alte tari aveau reticente, dar preferau sa nu-si exprime atat de clar opozitia; cum acceptarea noilor membre necesita unanimitate, veto-ul olandez scutea alte tari de nevoia de a se expune. Faptul ca, acum, se inmultesc luarile de pozitie impotriva primirii Romaniei si Bulgariei poate fi si semnul unei solidarizari a unor state membre in fata presupusului santaj. Daca are cineva de castigat din asta, in mod sigur nu sunt Romania si Bulgaria, si nici proiectul european.

Si atunci, ce ar fi de facut?
Cum se poate raspunde in mod constructiv intr-o astfel de situatie?

Ideea pe care vreau sa o propun este urmatoarea:
In cazul unei decizii negative la Consiliul JAI de maine (prin care inteleg nefixarea unei date in 2011 la care cele doua tari sa poata adera macar partial la Acordul Schengen), Romania si Bulgaria ar trebui sa desfiinteze, printr-o decizie comuna, granita dintre ele.
Efectul politic al unei astfel de actiuni ar fi benefic pe toate planurile si ar relansa dosarul admiterii celor doua tari in zona Schengen in termeni noi. Sa explic:

Structure vs. entropy and the EU's slow undoing (EN)

There are many possible readings of history, and one of them is to see it as a continuous struggle to create structure, in the face of the ineluctable forces of entropy.

By structure I mean macro-level order, aggregation, alignment, unification, centralization; the structure is information-rich, the system is more complex than its parts. Think music (not necessarily good music). Think discipline.
By contrast, I use the short name of entropy for the absence (or looseness) of overall organization, for atomization, divergence, fragmentation, dissipation; an entropic system is information-poor (meaning, the system as a whole can be described through simple formulas and statistical randomness), but its different parts may have more intrinsic complexity. Think noise. Think freedom.


This dichotomy is of course over-simplified, and should not be understood as a value judgment; life is made of the duality of these forces. In some cases the macro-structure may be aimed at promoting harmony and stability; but at times it can also become a straitjacket, repressive of individual liberties. And there are several possible levels of aggregation (e.g. in terms of social order: community level, national, international/regional, global) that sometime go against each other: for instance, some people advocate for strong national states and against supra-national integration. Many conspiracy theories are predicated upon the alleged drive by secretive groups (such as the Freemasonry) to control the world and impose a global macro-order.


The story of the Tower of Babel suggests that beyond a certain level God dislikes the human effort towards aggregation; or perhaps - depending on whether you are a believer or not - that there is a natural limitation to how much a structure can extend before it collapses under its own weight. History can be seen as a recurrent attempt to build castles on quicksand; there are many examples of seemingly eternal macro-structures that eventually collapsed - from the Roman Empire to the Third Reich to the Soviet Union.


The last 60 years or so have seen consistent efforts to create macro-structures at the international or supra-national level. In the bipolar world of the Cold War, both the West and the Communist bloc were aiming at the ultimate aggregation of a world order based on their respective ideologies; the United Nations tried (rather successfully) to patch a global governance regime of sorts over the East-West dichotomy while also incorporating the 'non-aligned' nations; the collapse of communism two decades ago seemed at the time to open the way for a unified international system dominated by liberal democracies, and in which regional and global integration processes would converge.

But nowadays the tide has turned.

Borders (EN)

I vividly remember the time when I needed a visa to travel to Western Europe. The endless queues at foreign consulates, the constant humiliation of being treated like a second class European, the arrogance and corruption of some consulate staff, were all powerful deterrents to anyone traveling for a legitimate purpose.
Once, as a student, I almost missed a scholarship for a summer university in Southern France, due to the impossibility to get an Italian transit visa in time. As I was traveling by train, the excruciating routine of seeking transit visas from all countries on the way, in reverse order from the destination, got stuck for good at the Italian consulate in Bucharest. Such was the chaos and total disregard for visa applicants that I spent one week at the consulate's gates with hundreds others from about 6am to afternoon every day, without even getting to submit an application (for a less than 24 hour transit visa) or to show to anyone at the consulate the letter that I had from the French embassy, requesting that my transit visas be expedited. In fact, I never got to see the building from the inside. At the last minute, I decided to change route and got instead transit visas from Austria and Germany, traveling about 1,000 kilometers more to my final destination.

***

A few years ago, I was flying from Vienna to Sarajevo for a regional conference. At that time there weren't many direct flight connections between the ex-Yugoslav countries, and to travel between neighboring countries the easiest way was often to take a transfer flight through Vienna. Thus, on the same flight there were quite a few people from other Western Balkan countries, some of whom I knew, going to the same conference. The late evening flight took off on time, but shortly thereafter the pilot noticed some technical problems and decided to return to Vienna rather than continue to Sarajevo. All passengers were disembarked and booked for an early morning flight next day; we also got vouchers for dinner and accommodation at the NH hotel at Vienna airport, literally across the street from the terminal. Everything went smoothly, but as I was checking in at the hotel, I noticed that my Western Balkan acquaintances were missing; and they did not show up by the end of the dinner when I went to sleep.
I eventually found out next morning that they had spent much of the night in the airport, not having an Austrian visa to get out of the terminal and cross the street to the airport hotel; eventually they were given a visa after a few hours, which left them just enough time to check in at the hotel, take a shower and return to the terminal for the morning flight.

***

Earlier this year, as I was flying from Vienna to Oslo on a snowy winter evening, a surprise was awaiting upon disembarkment at Oslo airport: a gentleman in uniform, standing at the gate (just standing there, not at the typical booth as there was none around) was checking travelers' passports or IDs.
To remind, both Austria and Norway are part of the border-free Schengen zone (though the latter is not an EU member); theoretically this means that there should be no control whatsoever at the border. But there it was.
To be fair, it went pretty fast, the uniformed man seemed to be doing a largely perfunctory check. Notwithstanding, my Romanian passport earned me some bonus conversation. Unlike the others, I was asked about the purpose and duration of my visit, and when I explained, it probably seemed somehow counter-intuitive to my interlocutor, so he asked me to show him some evidence, which I did. While doing this, all along in the back of my mind a nagging inner voice was telling me that I didn't have to answer those questions - as an EU national I was free to travel within the Schengen zone at will without having to provide any explanation. But I just answered them, because it seemed more expedient and I was not in the mood to look for trouble.
To give some minimum satisfaction to the nagging voice, and having already established rock-solid credentials for my less than 24-hour visit to Norway, I asked the uniformed man what was his purpose checking passports at a Schengen internal (non-)border. He seemed a little surprised by the question and told me that his was not a border control, just a police check. It just happened at the border by some coincidence.

***

Why am I telling these stories?
Well, because these personal stories (and I actually have many, many more) are illustrative of the history that we have been living in this region. The experience of traveling in Europe, as a Romanian, has changed a lot, mostly for the better, in the last 20 years - and this has coincided with historic progress in the country's European integration, culminating with accession to the EU in 2007 (perhaps more important for the common folks was the lifting of visa requirements back in 2002).
And this has pretty much been the trend as well for other Eastern European countries that gravitate towards the EU.

But this trend seems now to have stalled, or even gone into reverse gear.