One of the biggest challenges of European integration is communication of this process. To begin with, the European Union itself and its institutions are quite complex. This is not the USSR, where all decisions came down from above, but a community of free nations that have the same right to vote. The EU makes decisions by consensus, which, on the one hand, guarantees that the interests of all members are taken into account, but, on the other hand, sometimes allows blocking important issues by abusing the right of veto, as is done by Hungary led by Putin’s friend Viktor Orbán.
In order to communicate European integration properly, we should first of all understand the complex terminology that is increasingly appearing in the Ukrainian mass media. Let’s focus on a few important terms.
Since the negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to the European Union began, the term “EU acquis” has been widely used. Sometimes it is mistakenly confused with EU law, which does not fully convey the essence of the term. The word “acquis” comes from French and means “that which has been acquired or obtained”. Thus, it refers not only to EU law, but also to community practices – the entire set of rights and obligations of the member states developed over the years of the Union’s existence.
A country applying for EU membership must meet the Copenhagen criteria. They were adopted in 1993 at a meeting of the European Council in Copenhagen and reaffirmed two years later at a similar meeting in Madrid. They relate to democracy, the rule of law, human rights and freedoms, protection of minorities. These criteria were developed in connection with the integration into the EU of Central and Eastern European countries that had previously been in the so-called “socialist camp” and did not have stable democratic governance institutions. Simply put, to meet the Copenhagen criteria, a state must prove that it holds fair elections, has a real, not a decorative, parliament, guarantees the rule of law, really protects human rights, etc.
Any country that integrates into the EU has its legislation screened for compliance with the European one. In other words, the European Commission checks whether our legal acts meet the requirements set for EU member states, i.e., the already mentioned EU acquis.
Special attention should be paid to disinformation campaigns about the EU, which are actively funded by Russia. At one time, the process of visa liberalization or obtaining the so-called “visa-free travel” between Ukraine and the EU was under attack. At first, the Russians threw messages into the Ukrainian information space that our country would “never get a visa-free travel.” Then, when the EU passed the relevant decision, social media and pro-Kremlin outlets began to spread false information about the conditions for our citizens to cross the border with the EU. Even after all these manipulations were dispelled by people’s personal experience, the enemy propaganda did not calm down – talks began that the EU was “pumping brains and cheap labor out of Ukraine” and so on.
Today, the Kremlin uses similar patterns, talking that Ukraine has no real prospects of the EU membership and inventing new false narratives about “restriction of sovereignty in the EU” and the EU’s attempts to use us as a “raw material appendage”. Furthermore, the Russians exploit the theme of so-called “traditional values” and attack the EU liberalism by scaring us of gays and the influx of migrants.
The success of the enemy’s disinformation campaigns is largely caused by the poor public awareness of the nature of European integration processes and how the EU institutions are organized, what the real requirements for candidate countries are, and what benefits European integration provides in the medium and long term.
First of all, it is important to understand that the EU, similar to individual countries, has legislative, executive and judicial branches, albeit modified. Thus, power in the European Union is divided between the democratically elected European Parliament, the European Commission as an executive body, and the European Council (or the Council of the EU, not to be confused with the Council of Europe!) as a representative of all member states. Any EU document and, above all, its directives go through a long path of political discussion. It is about the so-called trialogue between the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Council. Any directive is, from the outset, is based on a well-thought-out policy that is agreed upon by all participants in the political process.
Sometimes the European Parliament is mistakenly believed to perform only a ceremonial function and not to influence real processes. The example of support for Ukraine shows what an important role this collegial body sitting in Strasbourg (France) plays in shaping EU policies. The last two convocations of the EP created a broad political framework for assistance to Ukraine. This institution was the first to declare that Ukraine should be granted candidate status, and also called not only for the freezing of Russian assets in the EU, but also for their seizure and channeling for military, financial and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Therefore, it is extremely important for us to have further support of MEPs after the recent elections.
Besides, the composition of the European Commission directly depends on the composition of the European Parliament, because the EC is headed by the person who represents the biggest political force of the European Union and has the support of the coalition. Currently, the European Commission is once again headed by Ursula von der Leyen, who represents the European People’s Party, which won the June elections to the European Parliament.
However, sometimes an advisory nature of the European Parliament’s decisions allows their free interpretation or partial consideration. “The European Parliament’s resolutions are legally non-binding. They are more about recommendations and a framework. And it is quite interesting how our colleagues from the parliamentary mono-majority read EP resolutions. When the EP passes a big resolution in support of Ukraine, everyone welcomes it; they understand that this is the basis to proceed and demand, for example, tougher sanctions against Russia. However, the same resolution contains a paragraph that points to certain problems in current Ukrainian politics, certain problems with democracy. When we urge our colleagues to pass a resolution of the Verkhovna Rada pursuant to this resolution of the European Parliament to get rid of problems, for example, with unconstitutional restrictions on people’s deputies’ travel abroad, our colleagues answer: ‘no, it is of an advisory nature,’ – says the Chair of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Ukraine’s Integration into the EU Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, – And when you hear this, you understand that we are still very far from understanding how the principles work and how we will have to use these principles as a part of our lives if we are serious about joining the EU.”
Much of the Russian disinformation concerns alleged restrictions on the sovereignty of member states. On the other hand, the Russians are actively frightening the EU with Ukraine’s unpredictability. These fears within the Union are fueled by the above-mentioned policy of Budapest, which often puts its own interests above those of the European Union.
In this context, Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze notes that even though Ukraine is not a member of the EU yet, it has the opportunity to influence how European politics will develop in the future. She gives an example of Kyiv’s possible stance on the principle of consensus decision-making in the EU: “Let’s imagine that we held a discussion within the state, the state came out with its vision and decided that Ukraine would not insist that it always be a consensus, but it reserved the possibility of veto rights for Ukraine. If Ukraine deliberately declares that it is not necessary to keep a consensus, this will be an important signal of very serious changes within the European Union. Because this is what many people fear – that such big Ukraine will come, will insist on something and will be interested in taking the rest of the EU member states hostage. If Ukraine does not cling to this right of veto, then there are fewer risks that many people imagine today in connection with Ukraine’s accession. We underestimate this.”
International trade is another sensitive topic that is skillfully manipulated by Russian propaganda. We could see that during the blocking of the Ukrainian border by Polish farmers. In this case, it is important to highlight the Russian meddling efforts in such campaigns for the Ukrainian audience. On the one hand, it should be explained to Ukrainians that the politicians who organize such actions do not reflect the position of the entire Polish society. Their goal is to drive a wedge between Ukraine and Poland. On the other hand, Poles should also be shown the reluctance of the initiators of blocking the Ukrainian border to hinder the import of the same goods from Russia and Belarus.
Natalia Pakhaichuk, head of innovative projects of the National Network of Hyperlocal Media Rayon.in.ua, shared her experience of such communication. During the aggravation of the border crisis, their journalist recorded the importation of Russian goods into Poland. He was detained Polish law enforcement officers and later deported. “The deportation incident caused a great uproar in international media, and the story increased the focus on trade between the European Union and Russia, – Natalia Pakhaichuk said. As a result, the European Commission issued a decision, which resolves this issue. So, even our efforts of a small editorial office from a remote region can bring results.”
Finally, it should be noted that for successful communication of European integration, only the desire of individual journalists or editorial offices is not enough. Often, the media, especially in the regions, are faced with a lack of specialists who understand this topic and can easily explain certain processes. In order to involve more such experts, it is necessary to invest in their training, study trips to the EU, etc. To some extent, a number of programs of the EU and other international donors are aimed at solving this problem. The state, of course, should also be more active in such work. The Ukraine Crisis Center is also working on this, introducing media representatives to key stakeholders and encouraging journalists, primarily regional ones, to pay more attention to the topic of European integration in their materials.
