On the 17th of July this year an airplane departing from Amsterdam crashed, while it was flying over the Ukrainian province of Donetsk, which is currently beset by pro-Russian groups. The crash could be seen as a tragedy on itself, but it could also be seen as a part of a greater conflict.

As the occasionally violent protests in Ukraine show, lines have been drawn between a pro-European and a pro-Russian side. However, by using the words pro-Europe and pro-Russia, people give off the illusion that Russia is not a part of Europe, but rather Europe’s opposite. It also supposes that the pro-Russian faction in Ukraine wants their country to be the opposite of Europe or that the EU Association Agreement is a join-Europe-today signup sheet. When someone believes this to be true or believes Europe stands for benevolent democracies or Russia for a malevolent dictatorship, this person might suffer from a almost 2500-year-old bias that the East is evil.

In the 6th century B.C. Greek explorer Anaximander categorised the earth. He devised it to be surrounded by one large ocean and divided by three rivers, which flowed from the outer ocean to the eastern part of the Mediterranean, thus dividing the earth into three continents: Europe, Asia and Libya. (Side note: according to Anaximander’s map East-African countries like Kenya would be part of Asia)

After the Grecian victory in the 5th century B.C. Greco-Persian Wars, however, the Greeks, mainly the Athenians and their allies, conceived the divide between Asia, home of the Persians, and Europe, home of the Greeks, to be both a natural and cultural one. The East, according to the Athenians, was stained by despotism, decadence and debauchery, whereas the west was characterised by democracy, superiority and decency. This was partially, because they had recently become a democracy by overthrowing their dictator, Hippias, who fled to Ionia (nowadays the west coast of Turkey) and allied himself with the enemy Persian Empire. Victory over the Persians might at the time very well have been seen as victory of democracy against the old ways.

This biased worldview, however, especially for Europe turned out to be a fallacy, since Europe has had its fair share of autocrats in the past: Roman dictators such as Sulla and Caesar, Roman emperors such as Caligula, Claudius and Constantine, the self proclaimed French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and kings such as Charles I of England, Frederick II of Prussia and, Louis XIV ‘the Sun King’ of France might come to mind. In the 21st century it is even hard to argue that concepts like chattel slavery or modern imperialism are indicators of either superiority or decency in the West.

While Russia could be considered to be less democratic than all of the other EU states or candidate members, it does not have to be categorised as a dictatorship or so much as an evil dictatorship. When someone reads about the conflict in Ukraine, western media often tend to view the Association Agreement, between the EU and the Ukrainian government in Kiev to be a ‘haha-in-your-face’ victory over Russia. This discourse, however, actually seems to be nothing but a cocktail of Cold War sentiments, infused with the ancient ‘East-is-evil’ bias. As a matter of fact, considering its elected house of representatives one could argue that Russia is more democratic than other states in the west of Europe such as Vatican City or Liechtenstein. Simply because it lies in the East, it does not mean that Russia or the Russian people instinctively despise either democracy or Europe. As the Anaximander’s map shows, the divide between Europe and Asia seems to be somewhere between arbitrary and non-existent.

Placing the aforementioned bias aside, there is, however, a political and economical divide in the border regions of Russia, which causes the conflict in Ukraine. With the signing of the Association Agreement on the 27th of June 2014 Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine have agreed to implement a number of reforms aimed at improving democracy, the rule of law, human rights, fundamental freedoms, and at creating a well-functioning market economy and sustainable development in return for the creation of a framework to aid the enforcement of these reforms.

This Agreement, however, could have already been signed half a year ago by Ukraine’s former president Viktor Yanukovych, were it not for the political and economic alliances that presently fuel the conflict in Ukraine. Yanukovych refused to do what Ukraine’s current president Petro Poroshenko did, because of Ukraine’s shift from a non-associated economy to a politically charged one. In 2001 Ukraine had founded GUAM, an organisation to support democracy and economic development with its other members: Georgia, Azerbaijan and Moldova. One of the core principles of this organisation was that it was to be neutral, meaning not to the EU or to Russia aligned. However, between 2010 and 2013 Yanukovych not only considered Ukraine to become a member of the EU, but also to become part of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia. In response to this, both the EU and Russia declared that Ukraine could not become a member of both economic zones. Subsequently Yanukovych was persuaded by Russia not to sign the Association Agreement with the EU and strengthen Ukraine’s ties with Russia instead. Immediately after this decision protests broke out in Kiev, prompting a regime change, a transfer of the Crimean peninsula to Russia and a civil insurgence in the East of the Ukraine supported by Russia in order to pursue its economic interests with Ukraine and on top of which a plane from Amsterdam crashed.

In short, by signing the Association Agreement the government in Kiev has agreed to aid in conforming Ukraine’s democratic norms as well as its trade and customs regulations to those of the EU and that much of the European market will open up to Ukrainian exports. With the signing of similar Agreements by Georgia and Moldova these countries will receive similar benefits. Furthermore, now three of the four members of GUAM have aligned themselves with the European Union through these Association Agreements, it might become interesting for Azerbaijan to ponder upon a pro-European course as well.

However, as the plane crash demonstrates, when two political bodies fight, in this case for the pursuit of economic interests, civilians die. The fighting continues every day in Ukraine and the Association Agreement is by no means an end to it. However, without bias at least it becomes visible that the insurgence is not a glorified conflict between Good and Evil, democracy against dictatorships or West versus East.

Written by Willem Laurentzen, AEGEE-Nijmegen

Recently, on the 27th of June 2014 the Republic of Albania saw its status elevated from ‘potential candidate’ to ‘candidate country’ to join the European Union. The question whether this is something positive or negative, good or bad remains a much heated and lengthy debate between those who trust in or those who are sceptic of the European Union. However, using the misconceptions of both sides, what could correctly be stated?

Some people for instance state that citizens of ‘candidate countries’ are able to  freely move to other member states of the European Union. These people often point to the Schengen Agreement as the cause for this migration. However, this would be confusing two main concepts. Regardless whether a country has signed the Schengen Agreement, every citizen of the European Union is able to live and retire in any of the other member states: they all have freedom of movement. The Schengen Agreement then, simply abolishes all types of border controls between their international borders, unless they have an opt out or unless their bid for participation in the Schengen Area has not yet been approved by the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers.

Much of the confusion might come from Iceland, a ‘candidate country’, to and from which citizens of both the EU and Iceland can move freely.  However, this happens because, unlike Albania, Iceland together with Norway, Liechtenstein and the EU is part of the European Economic Area, which is the actual area in which there is freedom of movement. That is to say, within the EEA all citizens of member countries are able to freely choose where to live and retire. So, will we see an increased, legal migration to and from Albania any time soon? –Not likely.

A second misconception is that once a country becomes a ‘candidate country’ it has also the right to print and use the euro. While a country’s political measures to become a part of the European Union might coincide in measures taken to make it join the Eurozone, this is not mandatory. ‘Candidate countries’ are allowed to enter the European Union without having the right to be a part of the Eurozone. Examples of which are Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary.

In order for Albania to become a member of the Eurozone upon becoming a member of the European Union, it must do three things. Firstly, it must decrease its government deficit from 6.1% to under 3%; secondly, it must drop its debt to GDP ratio from 70.5% to under 60%; and lastly it must shrink its inflation from its current percentage of 1.7 to at best around 1,5 percent. (note: all of these figures come from the 2013 estimations from the CIA The World Factbook)

Considering these three prerequisites to join the Eurozone, it becomes unlikely for Albania to become a part of the Eurozone within the first years of its admittance to the European Union. Out of the ten countries that became members of the European Union in 2004 for instance only six have entered the Eurozone and those only between 2008 and 2014.

A final misconception is that non-EU member states, especially those in Eastern Europe, are impoverished and backward countries. Most popular images might include a fragment of the 2004 movie Eurotrip. In this movie Slovakia, at the time recently admitted to the EU, was portrayed as a desolate place, where technology and broadcasting shows were several years behind, and, where $1,83 was enough to rent an entire suite in a five-star hotel. So, considering this negative stereotype, what does this say about the political and economic state of Albania in 2014?

Generally it could be said that the European Union is foremost a democratic political and developed economic union. Since EU membership has only been made available to democratic countries, what could be said of the stereotypical dictatorships in the east of Europe? According to The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, Albania is not a dictatorship. It is categorized as a ‘Hybrid Regime’ with an overall score of 5.91, which is just 0.09 points shy of being called a ‘democracy’. It also puts Albania on par with its fellow ‘candidate country’ Turkey. The next ‘candidate country’ on this list is Montenegro, with an overall score of 6.57 being categorized as a ‘Flawed Democracy’, and the first EU member to follow is Croatia with an overall score of 7.04, still categorized as a ‘Flawed Democracy’.

Economically speaking, it could be said that the country is doing well, it is certainly not backwards. As previously stated, Albania has an inflation rate of 1.7%, which is economically very sound, since most economists agree that optimum levels of inflation are between 1-3%. Furthermore, Albania a high Human Development Index score of 0.749, which is somewhat comparable with other countries in the region including EU members such as Romania (0.786) and Bulgaria (0.782).

In short, Albania is not the most democratic or economically strongest country on the European continent, but it is roughly comparable with the rest of the Western Balkan. Additionally, there are figures that at least economically the country is improving each year, partly thanks to the EU Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance funding. While full membership to the European Union might not happen within the next decade, Albania has already signed a number of agreements with the EU and is likely to eventually comply to all of the EU requirements for membership.

Written by Willem Laurentzen, AEGEE-Nijmegen