Solution to the problem of Ukraine and consolidation of the eastern border of the EU

Note: This article was written in 2004, during the Convention on the Future of Europe, and published in 2007 as part of the book Toward a New World Order, Carlos del Ama, pages 163-180. The article predicts the reaction that should be expect from Russia to the potential application of Ukraine to join the European Union and he proposed, as a preventive measure that would avoid a crisis between the EU and Russia, the creation of a Confederation of Black Sea, to integrate Russia, the EU and Turkey.

Eight years later, the reality of events confirms the prediction and makes it urgent to consider this proposal as a permanent solution to the crisis and peace building.

                                                                                  “Human rights are universal”

Nicole Fontain, speech to the European Council of Helsinki December 10, 1999”.

We could analyse the problem of the borders of Europe by considering that Europe cannot grow ad infinitum, and a limit must be established. The European Union, as a communicative community, a community in which conflicts are resolved through dialogue and not by the imposition and strength, which is waived, must share a set of values, such as democracy, respect for the law, respect for the dignity of the human being, solidarity between member countries and their peoples, the desire for justice, respect for human rights and freedom, respect for the operating rules of a communicative community etc., and whoever does not share these should not be a member. Moreover, whoever ceases to share these values must be expelled from the Union by unanimous agreement of the other members. The challenge is to find a definitive, sound, operative and global solution which would not place limits on future requests for enlargement which might be of interest at the time, but does not put what has been achieved at risk by diluting the European identity. However, possible alternatives must be considered and a tentative final mosaic designed, which would serve as a guide for the foreign policy of the Union, without the need for it to be rigid and immobile.

Europe must reflect its identity on its mission, what it is and on what it wants to do, without being short-sighted, but without embarking on excessive expansion which, apart from giving rise to envy and suspicion, even among its natural allies, condemns it to operative paralysis and collapse due to its success. Neither historical nor geographic considerations define a clear line which delimits a Europe which become diluted towards the Caucasus and submerges itself in the Atlantic emerging here and there. Over geography prevails the criteria of common values. The question lies in whether, once the common values are defined and assumed, we must discriminate the possible candidates by another criteria. Five considerations must be weighed up on deciding whether a determined state should or should not be a  member of the European Union: the governability of the whole, geographic dispersion, history, the cost of its incorporation and the geopolitical value of the candidate. As Romano Prodi once said, “An ideal candidate for membership of the European Union is New Zealand, but geography does not allow this”. An additional consideration should be how it affects the incorporation of a new member to third countries.

The subject of borders must not be closed definitively in order not to renounce possible candidates which might be of interest in the future. Each case would have to be studied without prejudices as the possible incorporation of a new member arises, but this does not prevent us considering the possible limits to Europe and fixing a territorial objective coherent with the mission established for Europe

The Limits of Europe

Article I-1,2 of the Constitutional Treaty states that, “The Union is open to all the European States which respect its values and undertake to promote these in common”, Neither the treaties, nor the Constitution define what Europe is, nor do they specify which are the States are considered European and which comply with these conditions, therefore, this article does not resolve the question of the limits and the borders remains undefined and open to future conflicts.

The European Union has also been defined as an area of freedom. All environments of freedom are unstable unless it they are universal and consolidated so that, together with freedom, security and justice are ensured. The cultural features must not be ignored, these features describe what Europe is as a cultural community, but no one should be excluded from a Union with a universal vocation, a vocation which is implicit in its conception as an environment of freedom, security and justice. An arduous dilemma. The intrinsic need for the universality of the environments of freedom have two possible channels: the indefinite expansion of a single environment of freedom or the structuring of several environments of freedom in a superior structure which harmonises these. In the first case, there is the risk of a loss of internal coherence and the dissolution of identity, with the risk of ungovernability and the generation of tension in those who do not feel fully identified with the project in progress or sees it as a threat to its local interests or an attack on its identity.

The second model resolves both problems although special attention must be paid to the structuring of the borders between different environments and, especially, to the permeability of these borders. We must not forget that a basic component of freedom is the freedom of movement. Another problem, which determines the previous one, lies in defining the degree and types of tolerable differences between adjacent environments of freedom. There are four main types of differences: political, cultural, social and economic. An organisation of this type will require policies which tend to reduce differences and encourage exchange, and also promotes tolerance for the differences and maintain these.

The Chinese solution of isolating itself from the rest of the world by a wall is not feasible today. An intermediate step is that every environment of freedom develops the awareness of the need to have a security cordon made up of other environments of freedom around it. If the security cord solution is achieved, it is still only a partial solution as the peripheral zones have their own external borders and guaranteeing the border security of the adjacent security zones will be a commitment which is difficult to avoid. The experience of the European Union shows how countries which were enemies for centuries, as is the case of France and Germany, can participate successfully in a common project at international level. It also teaches the importance of institutionalising dialogue and rational argumentation.

In the structuring of every environment of freedom with neighbours, the individuals and peoples who can act as mediators between both are very important as these belong to a zone and feel identified with the inhabitants of the other due to their origins, family links, command language or long periods of residence in the other area.

As regards the universal pattern demanded by an environment of freedom, a solution to the dilemma of the balance between the universalising tension and the requirements for controlling the organic complexity and preserving identity in diversity would be that the subsequent growth is planned fractally, through another superior structure in which the Union is integrated, as a whole, in an organised macrostructure with other regional federations of states, which already exist or which might be configured in the future, reconstructing the fundamental unity which constitutes the planet, at political level.

The Eastern Border

Apparently, according to the experts and based on the philological and genetic observations they made, the Indo-European identity was forged near the Caspian Sea. From there, the Indo-European emigration to the east and west determined the concepts of east and west which we use today, as they turned their backs on each other and marched off. While the roads of those who went in the same direction crossed frequently, those who went in opposite directions met again, sporadically, and confronted each other irreconcilably in bloody wars. While the far east was distant and alien (except during the avalanches of Huns and Turkish Ottomans), the near east, Indo-European and a neighbour, form part of the history of Europe like “the others”, who often appear as “the enemies”. The identity of what we call the West today has been forged in its differentiation and confrontation with those “others” our brothers belonging to the East.

We recognise ourselves in others through our similarities and our differences, for what we are and what we are not but could have been. The different ways of being a man are not strange but our own identity is seen in the differences with others. We know better what we are when we discover in others what we could have been and are not. Among the differences between East and West is the different perception of freedom. Two aspects stand out in this difference: despotic absolutism and fatalism. In contrast with these typically oriental aspects, are the western characteristics of democracy and free will, the encouragement of individualism and personal responsibility.

If there is a time in history in which the despotic Persian East and the democratic Greek West were delimited, this was the Battle of Thermopylae, when Leonidas, the Spartan, fought in inferiority of conditions to defend the Athenian democracy. We should speak at length of the heroes of the Thermopylae, not only did they know that they were going to die, but they were convinced they would be condemned eternally for fighting on the holy days of the Carneia and, despite this, they fought for the ideals which were beginning to differentiate classical Greece as the cradle of the West from the East. When the crusaders or the muyahidines face death in battle, they do so convinced that, if they die, they will go to Paradise, but the soldiers of Leonidas fought believing that they would go to hell. I cannot think of a greater heroism. To sum up, Europe, the cradle of the west which was born in Thermopylae, is the triumph of individualism as opposed to massification, democracy against despotism, the predominance of the personal identity in contrast with the collective, this generates a personal ethics, accountability, an awareness of guilt and a personal critical spirit faced with social pressure.

Cicero’s opinion was that, “although Cyrus, the famous king of Persia, was very just and wise, that form of a people does not seem very desirable as it depended on the command and disposition of a single person[1]”. While, “if the people know how keep their rights complete, they deny that there can anything more glorious, more free and more fortunate as they are then the lords of the laws, of the trials, of force, of peace, of the treaties, of life and of the fortune of each one[2]”. Unlike the uniform oriental despotism, the European spirit is characterised by individualism and diversity, the affirmation of identity through the acceptance of the other as other. Unlike determinism, in freedom, the guarantee of individual accountability is affirmed.

The West was forged in Greece, in its struggle for freedom against Persian absolutism. After their passage from Greece to Rome, the classical values were infused with Christianity, passing to the Visigoths and by them to the Poles, the Magyars and the Finns. The Principality of Kiev with Prince Vladimir received the Christian tradition from Byzantium, and Moscow was converted in the third Rome. The crusaders again and again attempted to impose the Christian ideas on Islam by force of arms through the old routes of Byzantium, but they were defeated first by Saladin and finally by the Turks at Nicopolis and Varna. With expansion to the east sealed off, the spirit of the West crossed the ocean to establish itself in America and by the Cape of Good Hope, it arrived in Australia, the Philippines and New Zealand. The west was thus delimited between Australia and Russia, passing though the Americas and the rest of Europe.

To the east we find the enlargement of the European Union in progress in order to ensure the reunification of Europe and consolidate security at these borders. However, expansion does not eliminate borders, but displaces them, creating a new border and a new periphery, opening up a new incognito as regards where future enlargements must continues. Each enlargement dilates the border, which weakens, more heterogeneity dilutes the common identity even more and new problems are incorporated (for example, the incorporation of Bulgaria to the European Union will bring the problem of the Kozludu nuclear power station, Estonia and Lithuania come with the problem of the Russian minorities and the vulnerability of the Mazeikiai Refinery to the shutdown of Russian supplies, Rumania brings the social tensions of the mines in the Valley of Jiu, Hungary has numerous mafias and the integration problems of the Rumanian minority. The Czech Republic has the problem of the gypsy minority and Cyprus has the problem of the division of the Turkish and Greek populations, Turkey has the problem of the Kurds, the latent threat of religious fundamentalism and the water problems with Iraq. Sooner or later it will be necessary to establish security zones to the east and south east which do not form part of the Union.

As regards the long delayed and polemic incorporation of Turkey, a member of NATO for a long time, a member of the European Council, OECD and OEEC. What should the definitive border of the EU to the east be? The alternative that Russia and Turkey might one day form part of the Union would require having Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and some of the republics of the Caucasus, even all of these. Alternatively the possible incorporation of these countries without the incorporation of Russia or Turkey should be considered.

The public debate on the Constitutional Convention has shown that there are strong reservations among the European public concerning the incorporation of Turkey which led to the outspoken declarations of the President Giscard discarding Turkey and which was an important ingredient for the French No to the Constitution as the campaign for the referendum linked the entry of Turkey with the Constitution. Turkey will be able to enter the EU, with or without a Constitution. Due both to its size and the Asian component, The incorporation of Russia to the European Union presents important challenges, however, geopolitically, if  Europe aspires to being an important participant in the world community, it would be of interest to it to have two oceans. We must not suffer geographic vertigo and should, for a moment, carry out the exercise of contemplating a map of Europe which goes from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

In any case, due to its importance and particularity, it is necessary to study the options of cooperation with Russia and Turkey with special interest, with al the difficulties entailed by their size, disparity, plurality and complexity. Another important question is to determine whether we share common principles  and characteristic values with them, which we have seen are identifying features of every communicative community and, consequently, they are prerequisites for constituting an effective communicative community.

Russia

Despite what was said by Prodi regarding stopping the border and finalising the enlargement with the incorporation of Bulgaria and Rumania, it is expected that Rumania advocate the entry of Moldavia. It is also expected that, sooner or later, Poland will table the possibility of incorporating Ukraine, reinserting the amputation of Yalta, or Ukraine might apply for incorporation by virtue of the oft quoted article I-1,2 of the Constitution. Hungary, Bulgaria, Rumania, Germany and Austria, together with the former Yugoslavian states which might form part of the Union at that time, are expected to support the proposal and the other member countries will probably not object. However, is it possible to incorporate Ukraine without incorporating Russia? Can Russia renounce the “Principality of Kiev”, the cradle of the Russian motherland? Can Russia forget the millions of Russians who form part of Ukraine? Can it renounce a splendid allied port they have on the Black Sea for its southern fleet? If someday Ukraine moved towards the European Union, Russia would react vigorously, using the gas supply to Ukraine as a weapon and claiming Crimea. Is it not time that history does justice to the efforts of Peter the Great and Russia is given suitable ports? We are not talking about Saint Petersburg or Odessa or Sebastopol, but of Hamburg and Amsterdam, Marseille and Istanbul. Do we want a new Danzig in Kalingrad? Can Europe live tranquilly with a resentful, insecure Russia as a border? Russia must know that the European Union is its natural ally and its hope.

Russia must be ensured as soon as possible that the European Union is counting on it. Russia could have been Asian, Turkey could have been oriental and Spain African, but all they chose to be European. Russia chose Europe with the christening of Prince Vladimir and its alliance, political and family, with Byzantium; reaffirming this with Peter I and Catherine the Great. The Grand European House of Gorbachev is the recent ratification of the Russian will to be European and President Putin has repeatedly stated the European vocation of Russia. With Ataturk, Turkey chose Europe and Spain chose Europe at the Battle of las Navas de Tolosa, ensuring that Africa does not begin at the Pyrenees. None of the three can be denied the wish to be European. The option to be European is an option they have the right to because they have won this by their will and their efforts. We should not forget that Moscow is, after Byzantium, the third Rome. Assimilating Russia to the European Union would be difficult or even impossible, due to its size and its diversity. Although this is not a question of thinking of the division of Russia which might facilitate the integration of the European part to the Union once it has cast off the Asian territories. I remember the Mayor of Moscow telling me, while having lunch in Toledo in 1992: “We have dismantled the USSR so that the Russians can join the European Union.”

Although Russia is not in a condition to join the Union, it would be recommendable to draw up a plan which might open channels of close cooperation through a permanent institutionalised alliance. Once the status of Kalingrad is resolved, after the incorporation of the Baltic countries and with Poland in the Union, Russia is divided by the territory of the Union and is the neighbour of an enormous power. The incorporation of Russia would be natural in these circumstances, but the size and the Asian component of Russia are serious inconveniencies for its assimilation by Europe in political, economic and social terms.

As in case of the countries of Eastern Europe, European Russia could be incorporated into the European Union in its own right by virtue of article I-1,2.  Of course, the integration of Russia, European Russia, if it does come about, would take some time. Big problems have to be solved, such as the pacification and stabilisation of its borders, ensuring the security of its nuclear power stations and other installations and putting an end to the problem of Chechnya. The tension at a border between a deserted Siberia and an overpopulated China continues to be a potential source of preoccupation. It will take decades for Russia to comply with the conditions of Copenhagen and Helsinki. But, what would happen if it complies? Regardless of whether they are one day integrated as a member country, it will be necessary to help them to work and progress as from now so that they can converge with the Union and formulate the form of a possible very close association.

If trans-Ural unity is maintained, integration Russia as a state of the EU would be very difficult, however, as an alternative Russia could form its own regional Union with Belarus, Ukraine, etc. The elections in these countries show how these people lean either towards Europe or Russia. However, given that the dissolution of the USSR happened so recently, the population might be reluctant to joining a new regional confederation made up of ex-Soviet Republics, unless this was a stage in a programme of. Another option is that the former Islamic Soviet Republics form part of a Grand Turkish Union with more success and fewer tensions than their reincorporation into a Union with Russia, as there is a greater cultural identification.

If it is not possible to be integrated as a Member State of the European Union, Russia could be linked as an associated state or, even better, form a confederation with the European Union and Russia, regardless of whether Russia is extended or not. A god solution could be to create a institutionalized Union among the European Union, Russia and Turkey involving a Confederation of the Black Sea, governed, after the example of the EU by a permanent Commission and Council.

We must take into account the numerous cooperation programmes between the European Union and Russia, such as the Northern Dimension Action Plan, TACIS, ECHO, Cooperation Councils, Cooperation Committees, such as the “EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee” and the growing cooperation with the NATO, through the NATO-Russia Council and the Partnership. The institutionalisation of the relations of the European Union with Russia should culminate in the creation of a Confederation of the Black Sea.

The Turkish Case

The big question is whether Turkey belongs to the West or whether it is a limit. Historically, Turkey is not the West, but modern Turkey has become quite westernised. Anatolia was the location of many Greek colonies, it was part of the Roman Empire and, later, Byzantium fought there against the Sassanid Empire and against the Arabs and the Turks in defence of the ideals of the West. The problem with Turkey is not a religious one, it arises from the difference of conceptions, of cultures, due to long centuries of living separate, to the lack of coexistence. This led to an absence of those value standards which Habermas speaks of as necessary in all communicative communities. Keeping Turkey out of the EU will facilitate the internal communication and coherence of the Union, but it will prevent developing common experiences with Turkey, just as the discrepancies were dissipating. Integrating Turkey will hinder internal communication as the communion of values and archetypes will diminish, but it will permit the development of common experiences through closer coexistence, which will enable the development of common value standards which ensure fluid communication in the future. Coexistence in NATO has demonstrated that this is possible. Moreover, the fear of an avalanche of Turks on the continent after the incorporation of their country must be considered relatively as we have seen how the integration of a country puts a brake on the emigration of its nationals as the expectation s of local work and prosperity grow. This happened with then Spaniards and the Portuguese, it is happening with the Poles and the Hungarians, we hope it will occur with the Rumanians and the Bulgarians. Why should it not occur with the Turks?

The cultural problem is real, but also relative. All the Turks I know are excellent professionals with brilliant minds and are totally identified with Western culture, they speak languages, travel, know Western countries and they are all graduates of Carnegie Mellon, MIT, INSEAD or METU. Nevertheless, I must admit that these are a minority and that the masses in rural Turkey are different. Eastern Turkey is the East for Western Turks, sociologically speaking.

We must recognise and value the enormous Turkish efforts to approach Europe. What would we think if they asked us to change the alphabet and begin to use Arab characters, to change the calendar and pass from the solar to the lunar system, to alter our weekly holy day and celebrate it on a Friday instead of a Sunday, to change our metric system, to change our legislation and Constitution with Roman-Germanic roots and adapt them to the Islamic Sharia, to change our way of dressing and wear a turban?

All this, inversely, is what the Turks did under the leadership of Ataturk in order to come closer to Europe. They abandoned the Arab alphabet and adopted Latin characters; they changed the calendar to the Gregorian one; they changed the weekly day of rest from Friday to Sunday, they adopted the decimal system and abandoned the Sharia in order to adopt laws taken from continental Europe, inspired by the Swiss Constitution and Italian Civil Law, as well as adopting European dress. Now they are working hard to comply with their National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis (NPAA) and has adapted its Laws to those of the Union. Turkey has given more than sufficient proof of its European vocation and is endeavouring to comply with the political prerequisites which Europe has laid down for it to begin negotiations. However, the accession process is not easy.

We defend a Europe made up of modern, lay, free states. Are we going to exclude possible members of the EU for religious reasons? Or on dietary reasons? Or is the problem emotional, psychological, fear of the unknown or the unfamiliar? What will happen with Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia, Bulgaria or Marseille, Granada or Almeria? All of these have extensive growing Islamic populations. Now that the Europe of beer has been reconciled with the Europe of wine after so many wars, are both of them going to marginalise the Europe of yoghourt?

Europe is mediatised by its history, but it is not conditioned by it. The European Union is a future project, where diverse historical roots are united and enrich each other as they merge in the same trunk which rises towards a common future. Turkey had a list of reforms to carry out before commencing the negotiation process and still has a long list to attend to in order to conclude this process. The Turks do have the border problems, the Kurdish question, the closed border with Armenia, army control of politics, deficiencies concerning human rights, economic problems and serious financial problems, but they are aware of these and working on them. They know the prerequisites for accession and are working on their NPAA. If they comply, they should be welcomed on board. Moreover, there is an assumed commitment to accept them if they comply.

I know Turks who live, perfectly integrated, in Berlin and Madrid. I know that they are Turks because they have told me, although they do not differ at all from the rest of the Euro-Mediterranean peoples. They could be Italians, Spaniards or Greeks. Of course, they all speak German  or/and English as well as the language of the country of residence, they are good professionals, intelligent, hard working and academically well trained. I also met Turks in Ankara, who were intelligent, welcoming and Europhiles, impatient to have their country integrated into the European Union. Why should they be denied the right to the option to be Europeans after so much sacrifice and hard work? Certainly, after the triumph of the AKP party, the question must be asked whether Europe will be capable of assimilating 68 million persons with 34% potential fundamentalists. Europe must consolidate its internal unity and the more standardised its values are the fewer the difficulties will be. However, Europe cannot leave aside a powerful military ally and neighbour at the risk of encouraging even greater radicalisation in Turkey.

The fact is that, although slow progress is being made towards the accession of Turkey. The first steps towards accession to the Union date from the Ankara Agreement, signed on September 12, 1963. The protocol establishes a Customs Union in three phases, beginning with a Financial Protocol. The Customs Union between the EU and Turkey was signed in 1995. The agreement was institutionalised in a council of Association which meets regularly. The Agreement of Association was complemented with an Additional Protocol, signed on November 23, 1970. The European Council of Luxemburg in December 1997 confirmed that Turkey was a suitable country to be considered as a candidate to the EU and, on April 14, 1987, Turkey applied for membership of the then European Community. On June 7, 1990 the European Commission adopted the "Matutes Package", a number of measures which intensified financial, technological, industrial, political and cultural cooperation. On July 15, 1996 the Joint Committee for Customs Union was created. At the Foreign Affairs Council in Apeldoorn, the classification of Turkey as a valid candidate for potential membership of the Union was reaffirmed. More importantly, the EU recognised Turkey as a candidate for membership at the summit meeting of the European Council in Helsinki in December 1999 on condition that it complied with the criteria of Copenhagen and, since then, it has participated in Community aid programmes and at meetings with the candidate countries, and was present at the Convention on the future of Europe. Turkey is progressing in the adaptation of its legislation to the acquis[3] of Community Laws should shortly be able to start negotiations for accession. The 2000 Agenda  considers that the European Union must continue to support Turkey so that it can overcome the problems which prevent it from joining the Union. On March 19, 2001, it adopted the National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis (NPAA). This is an arduous legislative task as it involves adapting all Turkish legislation to the legislation in force in Europe, that is to say, it must assume in a short period of time the common legislation which the Member States have been assuming throughout the existence of the Union. In June 2001, an agreement was adopted whereby Turkey was allowed to participate in European programmes and funds were allocated for the pre-accession process.

It is true that the Turks are finding it difficult to comply with the criteria of Copenhagen. Copenhagen includes respect for human rights and the protection of minorities, but progressively fewer laws, the question of Cyprus and the Kurdish problem are still obstacles to accession.

It is also necessary to consider the economic conditions of the country, with per capita earnings  of €2,700 in 1999, this is now 28% of the Community average and there is a high level of illiteracy, therefore, generous investment in education is required. The Turkish impact on the economy of the whole Union would be minor as its GDP is only 2% that of the European Union, however, with the current CAP they would receive substantial aid for agriculture as this constitutes practically half its economy. The CAP has to be reviewed before Turkey becomes a member.

Turkey must incorporate to the process of union, but, would it not be better to do so as the head of a new Regional Union, instead of as the scapegoat of Europe? I wonder if it would not be a solution to all the real and psychological difficulties to help Turkey to constitute a federation in the image and likeness of the European Union with the former Soviet Republics derived from the Ottoman Empire: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrigistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, and constitute a new confederation with the European Union, the new Ottoman Federation and Russia? More and more Turks are looking towards the ex-Soviet Turkish Republics than to Europe and more and more citizens of these republics, now that the fever of recent independence has subsided, claim a federation with Turkey. The act that they share the same language is an enormous advantage and measures are being taken to assume the Turkish spoken in Anatolia as the standard language for all.

A good solution for Turkey could be to use the fractal structure, constituting a Union of the European Union and Russia with Turkey. We must bear in mind that there was a project for a confederation of Turkey with Russia of the Turkish President Turgut Ozal which was cancelled due to American pressure after a visit Ozal made to the United States. On the other hand, the current Economic Confederation of the Black Sea, which, apart from Russia and Turkey, includes other countries on the Black Sea coast: Greece, Bulgaria and Rumania, could be the basis for a strong Black Sea Confederation in which the European Union would participate, replacing the Member States of the Union which are now members of the current economic confederation, together with Russian Union which could include other neighbouring countries related to Russia and the Grand Turkish Union we spoke of above, which could be made up of Turkey and the ex-Soviet Republics of Turkish origin.

Serious consideration must be given to the debatable incorporations of Russia and Turkey to the Union, which would not have to be done at the same level as the rest of the member countries nor should it not be done. Both are really special and thought should be given to an ad hoc union for both. The possible solution proposed here is to create a triple confederation which the European Union, as a whole, would be a member with the other two blocks, this would resolve the structuring of a wide area of cooperation and would boost a large area of freedom, security and justice with no risk of diluting the identity of any of the three parties. This confederation could be open to other incorporations, such as a future united Arab world with democratic bases,  India or China, and become a component of another broader superior structure, and the focus of the crystallisation of a future world order.

The fractal model is a good structural model, the best for structuring communications systems. The current European structure can be analysed as a fractal organisation starting from the German federal structure and reproducing this at continental level. The fractal model should be considered as a model of the new world order arising from the positive experience of the European Union.

Conclusion

 Creating a Confederation of Black Sea between Russia, the EU and Turkey, would solve the problems of undefined of the European borders implicit in treaties EU generate about its eastern border and would eliminate potential conflicts of interests with Russia that is expected to originate from the applications for integration in the Union by countries of great strategic value for Russia. Better safe than sorry. A great Confederacy of Black Sea would constitute a zone of peace and cooperation, with a huge potential for cultural, scientific, and economic development. The institutionalisation of the relations of the European Union with Russia and Turkey should culminate in the creation of a successful Confederation of the Black Sea.

---

[1] Cicero, De Republica. Book I-43.

[2] Cicero, OP. cit. Book I-48.

[3] The set of standardised laws in all the European Union.