E.U. and “Made Eastern Europe Reform”: from old perestroika (restructuring) to new European (construction)

For European Union and Eastern Europe, the immediate legacy of the Cold War was the decisive torn-parts of the world history, because the dangerous „ myth of the red cell” and the Soviet collapse in 1989 announced the new foreign policy of East. This analysis searches to be a key instrument for E.U. - Central and Eastern European countries political approach and economic adjustment. For the West, the communist system’s failure was evident and emphasis a new aspect for the East relations. In particular, this new Central and East reality concerns three concentric circles: The first circle: Initially skeptical because of past experience, Eastern European transition announced a rethinking of national interests. After 1990, this „made Eastern Europe reform” potentially more dangerous that other predecessor, saves the East from the dangers of its own traditionally thinking. E.U policy- makers call it „the bad side of freedom”: perestroika (restructuring) turned into katarastroika, a neologism that was heard more and more on Moscow’s streets as reform program faltered and then failed. The second circle: From the national economic reality … For E.U., the freedom’s advantage, its flexibility and tolerance for change, does not ensure that the recovery will be long and satisfying. It may-or not…Jobs might be lost to cheap imports from China or from West, because the reform cycle creates some anomalies-jobs, for instance. In this period, the severity pressures coming from communitarian programs, the new economy, the rising living standards and class distinction become rigid. The nearly ten years of market reforms have failed to transform agriculture and industry, and the devaluation of the national currency has made imports of food and goods much more expensive, further straining budgets. The third circle: ... to E.U. technical and financial assistance: For E.U. that was the moment to promote and develop a private sector in each Eastern country: this plan was designed as a framework for a communitarian action: the operation PHARE, the support for transition to open market reforms coming from Bank for Reconstruction and Development, because, after 1990, this „made Eastern Europe reform” potentially more dangerous that other predecessor, is the major opportunity to save the East from the dangers of its own traditionally socialist thinking. The E.U. needs to ensure that the costs of economic change to the new economy posture do not overwhelm the benefits, to carrefully think and calculate the reform programs, in all their dimensions, because, each strategic period shares a political responsability from E.U. communitarian major assistance has to adapt to each economy and has to emphasis new previsions for european integration. „European agreements” create a new dimension for communitarian commercial and economic support, because East faced major challenges preventing hyperinflation, productivity, the severity of competitive pressures causing companies to keep reducing employment even after modest economic growth resumed in late 2000, the privatization and, for Russia, obtaining a better price for oil exports. This analysis agrees the significance of Eastern economic transition, predicting that it was about to become a „system change” and that their crisis completes the image of the „regional crisis of Eastern”. The combination of politics, external influences, inefficiencies and system’s corruption could force the self-destruction of reform programs. While emphasising the importance of reform, this analysis also examines E.U. political strategies to push the reform process forward in different countries. E.U has to face East challenges: one of the most important factors missing from the Eastern reform program is a widespread knowledge of capitalism, new social classes, etc. For East, its new transition goal was to reach a consensus on E.U. policy reform goal