Future’s European Union

Columnist Ansar Mahmood Bhatti discusses the EU in the future as it is likely to be.

Ten new countries, most of them former Russian bloc states, have formally signed the Accession Treaty whereby they will join the European Union in May 2004. The countries ready to join EU include Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia. Romania and Bulgaria will presumably join the bloc in 2007. With the inclusion of these new states the total population of EU would reach 450 million.

Poland is the largest of the 10 countries ready for entry with 39 million population. Completing difficult entry talks on critical budgetary and farm aid chapters posed one of the greatest challenges in the membership sprint. Also getting what most Poles see as a fair deal on farm and budgetary aid is essential to bolstering support for a yes vote in Poland’s own referendum scheduled for May 2003. Hungarians and Lithuanians have already voted a big yes.

Among others, Greek Cyprus has also signed the Accession Treaty thus making the unification chances almost bleak. The Union, however, reiterated its preference for a reunited Cyprus to join the European Union on the basis of a comprehensive settlement, though there is no clear-cut assertion in the Athens Declaration, in this regard.

The move has greatly disappointed the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey as well. “The Turkish Cypriots are left with very few options now. There has never been any wish on the part of the Greek Cyprus to resolve the long-standing issue.  The Greek Cypriots do not want a solution and why should they, since they have been admitted to the EU without a solution. The European Union has exercised bias by admitting Greek Cyprus into the fold” were the observations of Mr. Kemal Gur, the Ambassador of Turkey in Pakistan, which he made during one of his recent interviews.

The European Union also deferred Turkey’s application for membership under the plea that Turkey still has to do a lot in the fields of human rights, social and economic reforms etc. One of the stumbling blocs in the way of Turkey’s EU membership, of course, remains the unresolved Cyprus issue. “The Cyprus issue has nothing to do with Turkey’s application for EU membership. These are two different issues. Turkey’s political, economic and social situation is far better than the countries admitted in the EU. It’s not at all a clever decision on the part of the EU mandarins. They seem to have been caught in a Turkey-phobia and want to avoid the reality of Turkey’s becoming a member of the European Union, which, of course, they can’t”, remarked Mr. Kemal Gur.

Similar views were expressed back in Ankara about EU’s decision to defer accession talks with Turkey. Unlike, the Greek and Turkish sides have opened their borders and people have been allowed to cross the Green Line, by presenting certain identity documents. Regardless of the pros and cons of opening of the borders, it’s being taken as a good step towards right direction, which ultimately will bring closer both the communities. That may also send positive signals to EU bigwig, responsible for the enlargement.

A common foreign and security policy and changes in the current system in which the EU Presidency rotates, are the core issues the enlarged European Union will be facing. The Iraq war, among other things, has also exposed the vulnerability of Europe’s common security and foreign policy. The situation reached an extent that the concept of old and new Europe emerged. The way the EU countries expressed their stances on the Iraq issue, does not need any further elaboration.

Most of the Eastern European countries happened to side with US for considerable financial and economic gains and of course due to their longstanding partnership with the United States. The Athens Summit, nevertheless, proved a success in the sense that all the upcoming and existing members decided to work hand in hand in the future EU foreign policy matters. “ We are committed to facing up to our global responsibilities. We will support conflict prevention, promote justice, help secure peace and defend global stability. We are determined to work at all levels to tackle global terrorism and stem the weapons of mass destruction…The Union pledges its support to the United Nations and its efforts to ensure international legitimacy and global responsibility”.

The member states also vowed, in the Athens Declaration, to work for One Europe. The Athens Summit proved that the Europeans are like a family and therefore difference of opinion, on certain matters, does not necessarily mean permanent division. Britain, after the end of Iraq war, has been working for easing of tensions with the rest of the EU countries, spearheaded by Germany and France. Britain called for a key UN role in the reconstruction of Iraq along with other EU countries, a stand that was absolutely against the wishes of the Americans. The United States, however, has its own agenda in Iraq that is why UN has hitherto been unable to do anything in the war-ravaged country. 

Another challenge for the future EU is change in the existing system of rotating EU presidency. With the Convention on the future of Europe well under way, the weight of opinion seems to indicate that the office will be abolished. The convention is drawing up a EU constitution, which will include the role of union institutions. With the EU now consisting of 25 member states, and the presidency lasting only six months that means that each country would come to the presidency once every 12 1/2 years. Critics say the result would be a lack of continuity and inefficiency, with much time being lost as each country settled into its short span of office.

Powerful members Britain and France want the rotating presidency abolished. The European Commission, however, wants to retain it, but with the period of office extended to one year, as well as other changes. That general line also has the backing of another powerful member, Germany. The eventual recommendation of the convention is likely to be the deciding factor in whether the rotating presidency survives in the enlarged EU.

The smaller countries, especially from former Russian bloc are likely to be the major beneficiaries of the EU membership. Their economies are going to have a quantum leap towards socio-economic development. The economic condition of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Malta, may well be below the EU standards, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Kemal Gur, the Turkish Ambassador, but even then they have been given the EU membership since they are very small ones and thus easy to manage. It would not cost much to the European Union in terms of further development of these states and bringing them at par with the EU standards.

Financing of the future’s EU is another thorny issue, which needs careful handling. Germany, so far, has been the biggest contributor in terms of funding to the EU and has constantly been calling for sharing of the burden. As I earlier mentioned, most of the new entrants badly need EU financial assistance in order to prop up their economies. Therefore, a system has to be devised whereby equal contribution of funding could be ensured.

Many hold the opinion that the enlargement would strongly harm the transatlantic relations. This is not the case. There is no denying the fact that most of the new countries have excellent relations with US and the Iraq war has proved this. These countries, nevertheless, cannot afford to have solo flight. They can never ever achieve their objectives by severing of ties with the rest of the Europe. They can surely contribute towards cementing of transatlantic relations.