A University of Sussex DPhil thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details Explaining European Union engagement with potential new member states Peter James Simmons UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2015 I hereby declare that this thesis has not been, and will not be, submitted in whole or in part to another University for the award of any other degree. Signature: Contents List of Tables and Graphs i List of Abbreviations ii Acknowledgements iv Summary v 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Originality and distinctiveness of this study 4 1.2 Literature review 5 1.2.1 The EU as an actor 5 1.2.2 The role of political elites 9 1.2.3 The role of civil society 10 1.2.4 EU Common Foreign & Security Policy 13 1.2.5 EU use of conditionality 15 1.2.6 Concluding comments on the literature review 19 1.3 Theoretical framework and research methods 21 1.3.1 Definitions 21 1.3.2 Engagement 22 1.3.3 Research questions 23 1.3.4 Dependent variable 23 1.3.5 Independent variables 24 1.3.6 Hypotheses 26 1.3.7 Case studies 27 1.3.8 Time period of study 28 1.3.9 Research methods 29 1.3.10 Ethical considerations 31 1.3.11 Structure of this study 33 2. The level of the relationship with the EU 34 2.1 Poland and the European Union 35 2.2 Croatia and the European Union 39 2.3 Ukraine and the European Union 43 2.4 Conclusion 46 3. The EU policy approach to potential new member states 48 3.1 EU engagement with potential new member states 48 3.2 The EU policy approach towards Poland 50 3.3 The EU policy approach towards Croatia 54 3.4 The EU policy approach towards Ukraine 59 3.5 Evaluating the EU policy approach 64 3.6 Comparison between the cases 69 3.7 Conclusion 73 4. The receptiveness of political elites to EU influence 75 4.1 The EU approach to political elites 75 4.2 Elite receptiveness in Poland 76 4.3 Elite receptiveness in Croatia 84 4.4 Elite receptiveness in Ukraine 93 4.5 Comparison between the cases 104 4.6 Conclusion 110 5. The level of activity of pro-EU civil society 112 5.1 The EU approach to civil society 112 5.2 Civil society activity in Poland 115 5.3 Civil society activity in Croatia 120 5.4 Civil society activity in Ukraine 124 5.5 Comparison between the cases 131 5.6 Conclusion 139 6. Conclusion 142 6.1 Research findings 142 6.2 The central argument 161 6.3 Additional comments on post-2013 developments in Ukraine 166 6.4 Areas of possible future research 168 Bibliography 169 Appendix: List of Interviewees 216 i List of Tables and Graphs Chapter 1 Table 1.1 Requirements for EU ‘actorness’ 7 Chapter 2 Graph 2.1 The level of the relationship with the EU 34 Table 2.1 EU Regular Report assessments of Poland (1997-2003) 36 Table 2.2 EU Regular Report assessments of Croatia (2004-2010) 40 Table 2.3 EU assessment of Ukraine in 2010 45 Chapter 3 Graph 3.1 The level of development of the EU’s policy approach 70 Chapter 4 Graph 4.1 The receptiveness of the political elite to EU influence 105 Chapter 5 Graph 5.1 The level of activity of pro-EU civil society 132 Graph 5.2 Freedom House civil society scores (1997-2013) 135 Chapter 6 Graph 6.1 The level of the relationship with the EU 152 Graph 6.2 Changes in the independent variables - Poland 153 Graph 6.3 Changes in the independent variables - Croatia 155 Graph 6.4 Changes in the independent variables - Ukraine 157 ii List of Abbreviations AA Association Agreement CARDS Community Assistance for Reconstruction Development and Stabilisation CBA Centralne Biuro Antykorupcyjne (Central Anti-corruption Bureau – Poland) CEE Central and Eastern Europe CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy CIS Commonwealth of Independent States CSI Civil Society Index CSO Civil Society Organisation CVM Co-operation and Verification Mechanism DCFTA Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area EaP Eastern Partnership ECHR European Court of Human Rights ECJ European Court of Justice EEAS European External Action Service EED European Endowment for Democracy EIDHR European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights ENP European Neighbourhood Policy ENPI European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument EU European Union FDI Foreign Direct Investment FRA European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights GONG Građani organizirano nadgledaju glasanje (Citizens Organised to Monitor Voting – Croatia) GRECO Groups of States Against Corruption HDZ Hrvatska Demokratska Zajednica (Croatian Democratic Union – Croatia) ICJ International Court of Justice iii ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia IMF International Monetary Fund IO International Organisation IPA Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance KOR Komitet Obrony Robotników (Workers’ Defence Committee – Poland) MAP Membership Action Plan (NATO) NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NED National Endowment for Democracy (USA) NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OSCE Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe PAUCI Polish-Ukrainian Cooperation Foundation PCA Partnership and Cooperation Agreement PHARE Poland and Hungary Assistance for Restructuring Economies PiS Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (Law and Justice – Poland) PO Platforma Obywatelska (Civic Platform – Poland) SAA Stabilisation and Association Agreement SAP Stabilisation and Association Process SFRY Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia SLD Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej (Democratic Left Alliance – Poland) SRP Samoobrona Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej (Self-Defence Poland – Poland) TACIS Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States UfM Union for the Mediterranean USKOK Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta (Bureau for Combating Corruption and Organized Crime – Croatia) USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics iv Acknowledgements I would like to sincerely thank my supervisors Professor Paul Taggart and Professor Aleks Szczerbiak at the Sussex European Institute, University of Sussex, for all their advice and support during this project. I would also like to thank Professor Alan Mayhew, Professor Tim Bale, my examiners Dr Adrian Treacher and Dr Ulrich Sedelmeier, and my fellow research students. I would like to thank all those who gave their time to be interviewed for this project, and those who helped me with making contact with interviewees, especially Goranka Crnković, Nadiya Kravets, Rafal Wieladek and Mark Harris. On a personal note, I would like to thank my parents Tony and Valerie Simmons for unbelievable love and support. I would like to also thank my sister Marion Laws and her husband Granville, and my nieces Rachel and Hannah for all the fun and games. Thank you also to Mike, Jenny and Alexander Koa Wing, Edward & Denise Koa Wing, Adrian Koa Wing, Lily Wong, Anthony & Cindy Wong, my Uncle Malcolm Simmons, and my Aunt Vivienne Kendall & Uncle Alan Kendall. Also thanks to my friends Victoria Hewerdine, James Robertson, Merrick & Alice Angle, Mark Harris & Karen Watts, Emma Badger, Benedict Brook, Jonathan Shipley, Victoria Regan, Chris Ayles & Jess Holman, Luke Concannon, Ali Gavan, Vicky MacKenzie, Sarah Parfoot & Ben Smith, Hanna Jackson & Chris Cousins, Victoria O’Byrne, Emma Morgan, Diego Muro, Jonathan Hibberd, Sam Carroll & Ben Paley, Jenna Bailey, Dimi Patounas, Andy Barrett & Dorothy Clyde, Wendy Venables, Darren Marks & Rowena Burton, Neil Parkinson & Lyz Kessick, Glenda Mead, Maria Athayde, Lucy Collingwood, and Louise Santhanam. Thanks also to my former colleagues in the University of Sussex Press & Communications Office - Alison Field, Maggie Clune, Jacqui Bealing, Rob Read and Chrissie Anthony. Thanks also to Deborah Ward for listening to me, and to the WAY (Widowed and Young) Foundation. Most of all, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my late wife Sandra Koa Wing, for making everything possible. v UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX PETER JAMES SIMMONS THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Explaining European Union engagement with potential new member states SUMMARY This is a comparative study which asked the central research question of whether domestic conditions or the European Union’s policy approach best explained whether the EU was able to engage with potential new member states. Three cases of post- Communist states in the EU’s immediate neighbourhood were studied: Poland, Croatia and Ukraine, over the time period 1990 to 2013. The interplay between external and domestic factors was studied in terms of the policy approach employed by the EU, the receptiveness of political elites to EU influence, and the level of pro-EU civil society activity. The evidence from this study seems to suggest that the EU policy approach was successful with potential member states in Central and Eastern Europe, such as Poland, although the problem of democratic backsliding post-accession later emerged, to which the EU had no immediate policy approach. The EU’s policy approach in the Western Balkans appears to have had some success, seen in the case of Croatia, but it is unclear whether this success will be replicated in the more problematic cases, such as Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. The EU’s policy approach through its European Neighbourhood Policy has not been successful in the East, exemplified in the case of Ukraine. Domestic factors, and in particular the receptivity of the political elite to EU influence, appear to remain the most important in explaining whether the EU is able to engage with potential new member states.