Is the European neighborhood policy only a policy of exclusion which separates the EU from its close neighbors?

Résumé du document

Developed in the context of the enlargement of the European Union in 2004 at the Stockholm European Council in 2001, the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) as it is conceived today was designed to avoid the appearance of new dividing line in Europe. The main objective of the ENP is to improve the EU's relations with the riparian countries to the east and south side of its borders, without involving these countries in an accession procedure. This policy makes it possible to improve the Union's relations with its close neighbors on topics such as security, stability and economic development.
Two main regional policies are at the heart of the ENP: Euromed with the countries of the southern shore of the Mediterranean, and the Eastern Partnership (EaP) with the countries of Eastern Europe.

Extraits

[...] De jure, the ENP should promote the better inclusion of all partners, and joint ownership of the regional cooperation process[7]. But de facto, this policy segregated the countries concerned, refusing them the EU candidacy, which caused a rejection in some countries of the EU and its values. The few successes of the political changes that took place in Tunisia or Georgia cannot hide the overall failure of this policy, which promised Europeanization to neighboring countries without Europeanity, thus marking a deep division between the neighboring candidate countries and the neighboring countries of the ENP. [...]

[...] Is the European neighborhood policy only a policy of exclusion which separates the EU from its close neighbors? Developed in the context of the enlargement of the European Union in 2004 at the Stockholm European Council in 2001, the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) as it is conceived today was designed to avoid the appearance of new dividing line in Europe. The main objective of the ENP is to improve the EU's relations with the riparian countries to the east and south side of its borders, without involving these countries in an accession procedure. [...]

[...] In its economic dimension, which is the basis of cooperation with neighboring countries, the results are mixed. The adoption of the single market rules by the neighboring countries presented as one of the main themes of the 2003 communication, has proved to be an excessive or even negative ambition for countries that did not engage in significant exchanges with the EU, and therefore not ready to enter an economy with a single market. Similarly, the more limited goals of free trade development have disappointed, not meeting the expectations raised. [...]

[...] In the East, despite the EaP, the EU remains powerless against the upheavals of the region (especially in Ukraine), and seems unable to impeach the enlargement of Russia's sphere of influence. These upheavals and unimportant developments highlight the unrealistic "democratic gamble" that was at the root of the launch of the ENP in 2003, as well as the growing maladjustment of the EU's intervention instruments. Before 2011, the European Union could believe in the extension of the rule of law beyond its borders thanks to the emergence of a circle of neighboring partner countries oriented in this direction. [...]

[...] Financing of this policy Most of the funding for this neighborhood policy comes from the European Neighborhood Instrument which since 2007 has been the main financial mechanism through which EU aid is channeled to partner countries. The ENI, according to its regulation, must provide community assistance "for the development of a prosperous and neighborly area" covering the EU and the partner countries. Since 2009, partner countries have benefited from € 3.2 billion in various forms and through EU-funded programs. For the period 2014-2020, the financial resources of the ENI are increased to meet the new objectives of the European Neighborhood Policy and to adapt to the different national and regional contexts. [...]