0.0. Challenges and Opportunities for a new European Humane Security Order 

         This introductory chapter has three sections: first deals with ignored types of threat showing the economic influences on popular disturbance and the link between Globalisation and European integration, the second introduces the common opportunities and challenges of EU enlargement towards CEE space and the third one, proposes the paradigm of cooperation, starting point for a new Model of Global Humane Governance. All three sections present the issues from a feminine perspective: new paradigm of Humane Security taking into account the ignored types of threats, the opportunity of Cooperative relationship instead of Competitive relationship for overcoming the main common challenges of all actors involved on European, humane governance for sustainable development.

        This first section of the introductory chapter evaluates how structural change in the international system level, such as Globalisation and the end of the Cold War, have impact on the Security agenda, by looking at those ignored types of threats  related to security in post-Cold War Europe, from a feminist point of view; hunger, disease, illiteracy, person abuse and exploitation, pollution of the air and water and especially unemployment. 

        Comprehensive security concept is a big challenge for state and other existing institutions. This type of challenge consists on new linkages between political, security and economic threats, which have challenged the capacity of the state to perceive and to respond to new challenges and needs for action in one side and on institutional challenge relating to the competence of existing institutions for international action in the other side and finally to the potential for co-ordination between state and other non-state (transnational and subnational) forces. 

        This first section also explains the relationship between Integration and Globalisation, by warning on the present and future impact of integration on the poor of the most of the CEEC. An analysis of challenges and opportunities of European Enlargement is not an end in itself; it is a useful way of understanding the social and political world in order to change it, in a neo-Gramscian, feminist perception, producing a more “feminine” society and a new model of governance, by adapting the emergent geo-governance to the realization of human rights.

        We continue trying to answer what is the relationship between three simultaneous processes in the most of the CEEC: multilevel and multidimensional process of transformation, the process of integration into the EU and both of these processes are occurring in the larger context of the Globalisation process. All these three macro-processes are strongly interrelated and it is difficult or even impossible to distinguish clearly the transformation, integration and global processes and their impact on the economies and societies of the transition countries because we don’t have a theoretical approach able to explain this simultaneity and existent theory of integration are limited. 

        We assume that if we would like to find solution in the real life we have to find solution also at the theoretical level, taking into account the power of ideas for change. We need a new theory of integration as a useful instrument for generating alternative models of governance adequate to the reality of European Integration. We need new theory because the old ones are limited and are not able to explain the reality.

        Despite the continuing domination of states, multinational corporations, nongovernmental organisations, intergovernmental organisations and supranational institutions such as the EU share the stage of global politics affected by economic and political development combined with technological changes. The inability for governments to manage problems arising from trans-border transactions requires co-operation even at the cost of losing autonomy. The first section of the second chapter will demonstrate the impotence of state - the Romanian case study  - to guarantee humane security and sustainable development and consequently their priorities of foreign policy to fill this vacuum of security, by the CFPS regime of EU and by integration, potentiality for a win-win game instead of zero-sum game scenarious. We will also demonstrate that state sovereignty and personal sovereignty are myths only, because in reality, multi-national corporations are not subordinated to states and International organisations, such EU and law have superior authority and for this reason states can’t determine their own policies. These actors have different interests and power politics is made less important because they are operating within the societal domain and beyond direct state control. We are summing, in this section, the existent theories of integration pointing out their limits.

Neo-functionalism explains European Integration through an emphasis on the internal dynamics of European Politics, of spill  - over, from different sectors of economy to political sector. The wider structure, within European Integration is situated, is completely ignored. It is impossible to take into account structural change such Globalisation and the end of the Cold War. 

        In contrast to neo-functionalism, which emphasizes the importance of non-governmental interest groups in the process of European integration, intergovernmentalism considers the international structure to be an anarchic system in which states are the only important actors. This approach argues that states pursue rationalist policies of power maximisation and security in order to ensure their survival in the absence of a central power at the International level.

        Liberal intergovernmentalism put the predominant emphasis on state as the main actors in international relations neglecting the power of ideas and transnational actors as independent forces behind integration. The behavior of TNCs, after1980s in the EU, is interpreted as rational adaptation of intergovernmental commitment, while policy involvement and ideas of TNCs are view as the result of intergovernmental demands, but not as independent force.  

        Neo-Gramscian alternative gives another answer to this behavior, showing the role and power of influence and control of this transnational capital and financier actors at the European level, being a critical theory which try to explain the change and treating the human nature and all structures, including the international system, as product of history and consequently subject of change.

        The revival of European integration since the mid-1980s has reconciled regional integration with Globalisation. How it was possible? The answer is obviously simple, the same transnational fractions of capi¬tal that are behind the current drive of European integration are components of a wider transnational historical bloc, working within high profile fora such as the G-7 meetings (now G8) and including also private organisations such as the Trilateral Commission and the European Round         Table of Industrialists (ERT). It is this bloc which has generated the ideas, institutions and material capabilities for a global shift towards more neo-liberal forms of state and which influenced the development of European inte¬gration making it compatible with Globalisation, not opposed to it. It is correct to agree with Cox, that the task to change World Order begins with the long laborious effort to build new historical blocs and our thesis will try to analyze the potentiality of such occurrence in the post Cold Europe.

        Change of the polarity of the international system after the Cold War, reflects the development of new structural variables, as results of trends aiming to revise institutional entities as European Union and state policies. Not all elements of change are causes of conflicts, because it is not polarity but polarisation that can lead to conflicting situations. There is no evidence that such a process will occur in the European subsystem yet, but the coming situations are not predictable, thus this thesis will try to analyze the potential polarisation in Europe, as a product of willingness for change of the losers representing the social power of the European integration process with its both aspects deepening and enlargement, process which is driven by the transnational forces of globalisation, which are the real winners. 

         What is important to notice is that the states become “a transmission belt” from the global level to the national economy level, “undermining the sovereignty and autonomy in all aspects of security”. This phenomenon “can be called internationalizing of the state”, according to Robert Cox .  This phenomenon created the so-called “social fracture”, engine of the conflicts of globalisation. (see annex 1,Conflicts of globalisation, first neo-Gramscian analysis of the author of this thesis).

        Linked with this social fracture of Globalisation and European enlargement towards CEEC, we have to start our analysis by looking to the ongoing hegemonic project of “embedded-neo-liberalism” synthesis aimed to unify the transnational capitalist actors (TNCs) and first subchapter of the first chapter will elaborate on it. This includes the social purpose supporting the emergent European Order. The Maastricht compromise reflects the gradual rise of what can be called an ”embedded neo-liberalism”. This is neo-liberal view as it emphasizes the primacy of global market forces and the freedom of the movement of the transnational capital. So, as a result of such processes, markets become increasingly disconnected from their post-war national social institutions and we risk a shift from a “national dictatorship” to an “international dictatorship” in these so called transition countries. In one side, one may read “embedded neo-liberalism” as the outcome of the transnational struggle between the three projects of neo-liberalism, neo-mercantilism and supranational social democracy. This was a struggle in which the neo-liberal became dominant but still had to accommodate the concern both of the former neo-mercantilist and of the social democrats. The neo-liberal project incorporated these rival concerns in such a manner that they were subordinated to the interests of globalising capital (neglecting the social democratic concerns in this compromise). In the other side,  “embedded neo-liberalism” can also be interpreted as the emerging hegemonic project of Europe's transnational capitalist class. This class has become dominated by- the leadership of a globalist fraction both in terms of financial firms and global industrial TNCs. 

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………

List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………

Summary…………………………………………………………………………………….

INTRODUCTION

0.0.Challenges and Opportunities for a Humane Security European Order……………. 1

0.1.Method aim of the research and the importance of choosing the issue……………...9

0.2.Structure, theoretical approach and the principal question of the research…………12

CHAPTER 1 

Western European perspective on the challenges and opportunities of EU enlargement 

 1.0.Western European Perspectives on the EU enlargement towards CEEC…………..14

1.1.From ERT perspective as challenge and opportunity for a free market strategy …..15

1.2.From EU Perspective: CEEC as a challenge and opportunity for a new strategy….21

1.3. From European Civil Society perspective as potential opportunity for a new project………………………………………………………………………………….28

1.4.Conclusions and perspectives………………………………………………………34

CHAPTER 2

 Eastern European perspective on EU integration as an opportunity and challenge

2.0. Eastern European perspective on the EU enlargement towards CEEC……………36

2.1. From CEEC governmental perspective as a challenge and opportunity ………….36

2.2. From the economic, regional, and social winners perspective as an opportunity…39

2.3.From the present and future losers as an opportunity for organising civil society…42

2.4.Conclusions and perspectives………………………………………………………47

CHAPTER 3

 Challenging prospect for a humane governance for sustainable development opportunity

3.1.Humane security paradigm as a common denominator of all European actors against common challenges………………………………………………………………………49

3.2.Sustainable development as a common denominator for all European Actors and good opportunity……………………………………………………………………………….53

3.3.Human governance for human security and sustainable human development………56

3.4.Conclusions and perspectives on the future project of the European Civil Society…57

 FINAL CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………59

Annexes…………………………………………………………………………………..64

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………84