Opening to the East: Enlargement Perspectives of the European
Union
by Peter Hobbing
End of the Cold War
Soon after the end of the Cold War, the one-time members of COMECON
and former "satellites" of the USSR turned their eyes
westward: the countries of eastern Europe became not only the
target of a "European Marshall Plan" (the so-called
PHARE program) to upgrade their economic and democratic infrastructure
but also expressed their immediate interest to join the European
Union.
Originally the European Commission just served as a coordinator
of Western aid given to Poland and Hungary on the basis of a mandate
obtained from the 1989 G-7 summit in Paris. The aid was to come
from a group of 24 countries (the G-24) consisting of the then
EC and EFTA states plus Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand,
Turkey and the US. Then in December 1989, the European Council
decided to launch the PHARE-program ("Poland-Hungary-Assistance-for-Reconstruction")
which was soon extended and eventually covered all central and
eastern European countries including Albania, the Baltic states
and Slovenia. The funds provided were considerable: they rose
from $640 million given in 1990 to an annual amount of $1.3 billion
in 1996. But the beneficiary countries wanted more than just financial
aid. They also claimed closer contractual ties. The EU responded
to this claim by concluding a number of "Europe-Agreements,"
i.e. association agreements in the sense of Article 238 of the
Rome Treaty (TEC): Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1991,
Bulgaria and Romania in 1993, the Baltic states in 1995, and finally
Slovenia in 1996. Formal applications for full EU-membership were
submitted by all preceding countries between April '95 and June
'96.
Dealing with the applications for EU-membership
How does the EU deal with these applications for membership? Article
F of the Maastricht Treaty (TEU) stipulates that any acceding
country must have a system of government founded on the principles
of democracy. Furthermore, Article 3a (1) of the TEC provides
that new members adopt an economic policy which is conducted in
accordance with the principle of an open market economy based
on free competition. The Copenhagen Council of June 1993 which
first treated the question of new members from Eastern Europe
clearly recalled these accession conditions and set out a concrete
check list for the candidates. The following five criteria must
be fulfilled: stability of democracy and its institutions (the
rule of law, a multi-party system, respect for human rights, protection
of minorities, pluralism); a functioning market economy to cope
with the competitive pressure within the Single Market; the ability
to assume the rights and obligations arising from the EU law;
adherence to the aims of the political union and the economic
and monetary union; and finally the capacity to be absorbed by
the EU without the latter loosing the momentum of integration.
The Madrid Council of December 1995 further specified that the
Commission should continuously monitor the developments made by
the applicant countries and establish a final report on each country
by mid-1997. Accession negotiations with the qualified countries
should start during the course of 1998.
Besides looking at the qualities of the accession candidates,
the EU also needs to review its own procedures. Taking into account
that most of the candidates have a predominantly agricultural
infrastructure, fundamental reforms of the Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP) must be envisaged. Already in 1994, about half of
the EU budget was spent on agricultural subsidies: adding further
members with a basically agricultural orientation would clearly
go beyond the limits of what the EU can afford in budgetary terms.
The strategy paper "Agenda 2000" established by the
European Commission in 1997, on the basis of the new Amsterdam
Treaty, therefore addresses a number of reforms in the agricultural
system as well as regional funds needed before the accession of
new members may take place. Other urgent reforms are mentioned
by the Amsterdam Treaty itself. This concerns the streamlining
of European institutions: the EU cannot afford a number of Commissioners
greater than 20, the members of the European Parliament (MEP)
must be limited to 700, and finally there is the question of the
linguistic procedures: up to now there are 11 official languages
(whereby one third of the EU-staff by now consists of translators
and interpreters). Further languages would trigger off an explosion
of costs far beyond the budgetary resources available.
Why consider enlarging the Union?
Taking into account that some of the potential members will have
problems reaching the benchmark of 75% of the EU average per capita
income within 15 years, the question is often asked as to whether
it really pays off to consider the general inclusion of Eastern
Europe into the EU. The answer is not an easy one. Certainly
sacrifices will have to be made and considerable funds put into
the accession area to make it fit for full EU-membership. But
there is the threat of what the preamble of the Amsterdam Treaty
refers to as "migratory pressure". If the living conditions
in the eastern neighbor countries are not considerably upgraded,
immigrants from the poor neighbors will continue to knock on the
doors of what they consider to be the "Golden West".
Border controls, even if reinforced, can do something about this
phenomenon, but they cannot eliminate it. The tragic incidents
recently leading to the killing of two German customs agents at
the German-Polish border underline this fact. Also there is the
assumption that an impoverished Eastern Europe will provide for
a permanent threat to peace in the European region. What better
solution thus than improving the living standards at origin --
and what better means to achieve this objective than including
the target countries directly into the EU economic and political
system?
Evaluation of the candidate countries through the "Opinions"
delivered by the Commission
In compliance with the decisions of the European Council of Copenhagen
and then Madrid, the Commission thus elaborated a detailed document,
the so-called "Opinions," which was published in July
1997 as part of Agenda 2000. The document scrupulously evaluates
the progress made by the candidate countries and their capacity
to be members in good standing of the EU. Often the "Opinions"
are referred to as a teacher's report card given to more or less
qualified students, something that would not appear in compliance
with courteous behavior on the international level. Nevertheless,
the "report cards" are now out in public, the candidates,
despite some criticism, have accepted the grading and are furthermore
comforted by the assurance that no one is ruled out, but membership
negotiations are just postponed.
The detailed "grading" for each applicant
The following grading was given to the candidate countries:
- Bulgaria: not qualified for immediate negotiations
Although Bulgaria now possesses stable democratic institutions
and provides for sufficient integration of minorities (except
the Roma), its economic achievements are considered not at all
satisfactory. In fact, it is seen only at the beginning of the
process of structural transformation. There are the problems of
negative growth (-10.9% in 1996), worsening public deficits, a
situation of hyper-inflation (311% in 1996), and depreciation
of currency. The per capita GDP is at only 24% of the EU average.
Regarding its capacity to take on the obligations of membership,
Bulgaria implemented only a small part of the acquis of fundamental
elements of the Single Market, with specific deficiencies in the
telecommunications, agricultural sectors as well as other areas.
Therefore, Bulgaria can be considered for accession negotiations
only when substantial further progress is made.
- Czech Republic: qualified for negotiations
The Czech Republic, presenting the characteristics of a stable
democracy and a functioning market economy, as well as having
sufficiently implemented the Union acquis, is considered qualified
for negotiations to begin in 1998. There is continuous economic
growth (4.0% in 1996), a reduced inflation rate of now 8.8% and
the per capita GDP is considerable (55% of the EU-average). Efforts
still have to be made in the areas of agriculture, environment
and energy. All other requirements are well met.
- Estonia: qualified for negotiations
Estonia, just like the Czech Republic, complies with the three-fold
accession criteria and therefore qualifies for immediate negotiations
in 1998. There was a continuous economic growth (4.0% in 1996),
decreasing inflation rates (still at 23.1% in 1996), and the per
capita GDP is at 23% of the EU average. Additional efforts will
still have to be made in the field of administrative infrastructure,
environment, and justice and home affairs.
- Hungary: qualified for negotiations
Hungary, like the Czech Republic and Estonia, complies with the
three-fold accession criteria and therefore qualifies for immediate
negotiations. There is continuous economic growth (1.5% in 1995,
1% in 1996), a stabilized inflation rate is now at 19.8%, and
the per capita GDP is at 37% of the EU-average. Efforts still
have to be made in the areas of environment, consumer protection,
and customs controls. All other requirements are well met.
- Latvia: not qualified for immediate negotiations
Latvia complies with the democracy criteria, but not with the
requirements of a functioning market economy and the capacity
to take on the obligations of membership. In the first three years
of independence its output declined by 50%. In 1996, the growth
turned positive again (2.8%), but there is a high trade deficit.
GDP per capita is at only 18% of EU average. The weakness of its
public administration affects the pace of approximation of legislation
as well as the quality of its implementation and enforcement.
Particular difficulties exist with regard to the naturalization
of the Russian-speaking non-citizens as well as the areas of environment
and agriculture.
- Lithuania: not qualified for immediate negotiations
Lithuania complies with the democracy criteria, but not with the
requirements of a functioning market economy and the capacity
to take on the obligations of membership. In the first three years
of its independence there was a serious decline of output. In
1996, the growth turned positive again (3.6%), and the inflation
rate is now down to 24.6%. GDP per capita is at 24% of EU average.
Particular difficulties, including investment, exist with regard
to the areas of environment, energy and agriculture.
- Poland: qualified for negotiations
Poland, just like the other qualified candidates, is considered
to comply with the three-fold accession criteria and therefore
qualifies for immediate negotiations. There is continuous economic
growth (6.0% in 1996), a stabilized inflation rate of now 19.9%,
and the per capita GDP is at 31% of the EU-average. Efforts still
have to be made in the areas of agriculture, environment, consumer
protection and transport as well as the procedures for compensating
those whose property was seized by the Nazis or Communists. All
other requirements are well met.
- Romania: not qualified for immediate negotiations
Romania complies with the democracy criteria, although a fuller
respect of the rule of law at all levels of government, especially
fundamental rights, must still be established. Romania does not
yet comply with the requirements of a functioning market economy
and the capacity to take on the obligations of membership. There
is a diminishing rate of growth (1995: 7.1%, 1996: 4.1%), and
an accelerating inflation (1996: 56.9%). The GDP per capita is
at 24% of EU average. Particular efforts are still needed in the
areas of environment, energy, transport, social affairs, justice
and home affairs as well as agriculture.
- Slovakia: not qualified for immediate negotiations
Slovakia is the only candidate country which does not comply with
the democracy criteria: the Commission, in particular, points
to the instability of Slovakia's institutions, their lack of rootedness
in political life, and shortcomings in the functioning of its
democracy. The report asserts that the "government does not
sufficiently respect the powers devolved by the constitution to
other bodies and too often disregards the rights of the opposition".
There is a permanent tension between the government and the President
of the Republic. Equally, the government repeatedly ignored decisions
of the Constitutional Court. A number of recommendations by the
European Union, also regarding the treatment of the Hungarian
and Roma minorities, have been ignored.
This circumstance is all the more regrettable as Slovakia meets
the economic criteria in quite a convincing manner. Slovakia has
achieved high levels of growth (1995: 6.8%, 1996: 6.9%), while
inflation has been drastically reduced (1996: 5.4%). Its GDP
per capita is at 41% of the EU average. Also Slovakia is seen
as firmly committed to take on the EU acquis, in particular concerning
the internal market.
- Slovenia: qualified for negotiations
Slovenia, just like the other qualified candidates, is considered
to comply with the three-fold accession criteria and therefore
qualifies for immediate negotiations. There is continuous economic
growth (3.1% in 1996), a falling inflation rate, now 9.1%, and
the per capita GDP is at 59% of EU-average. Efforts still have
to be made in the areas of environment, employment, energy and
social affairs. All other requirements are well met.
The relationship between EU- and NATO-enlargement
The question is often asked to what extent EU and NATO enlargement
will have to be synchronized. With the objectives of both organizations
being different, there is certainly no automatic parallelism "neither
in the timing nor in the choice of candidates", as recently
confirmed Hans van den Broek, EU Commissioner responsible for
Central and Eastern Europe. The EU aiming for a more complete
economic and political integration quite naturally feels that
it has to proceed in a more selective manner than the military
alliance. Negotiations for NATO-membership may be expected "a
lot shorter" than those for the EU, as stressed US-Ambassador
to NATO, Robert Hunter. Nevertheless, with the EU since Maastricht
also focusing "on the security of the Union, including the
eventual framing of a common defense policy," the differences
may not be so great after all. This is confirmed by the fact that
three out of five primary EU candidates are also found on the
top candidate list as established by NATO at its July 1997 summit
in Madrid, namely Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland. Furthermore,
both organizations pragmatically coincide in offering the secondary
candidates some consolation in form of the NATO Partnership for
Peace (PfP) initiative on the one, and the Europe-Conference on
the other side.
The further road to enlargement
The further road remains largely in the dark. What we know by
now is that the first negotiations are to start within the first
months of this year -- but when will they be completed? Agenda
2000, the strategy paper of the Commission, mentions 2001 as possible
moment for the first completed accessions, but admits that 2002
or 2003 may be more realistic. The further convergence of the
candidates with the EU accession criteria will continue to be
closely monitored all through the negotiation process, and it
is unlikely that any accession will occur without full satisfaction
of the acquis-requirements. There is no deadline nor fixed order
of procedure -- and as high-ranking EU-officials have pointed
out, those that come later to the accession process may be among
the first to complete it.
It may be reasonable to believe that history books of the future
will refer to the period between 1994 and 2014 when speaking
of the EU eastern enlargement. This makes sense all the more as
Europe's last frontier is not reached yet with the eastern border
of Poland: Ukraine, Belarus and Moldavia might equally decide
to join -- and who would categorically exclude a membership application
lodged by Russia?
Peter Hobbing is a senior official at the European Commission in
Brussels, with specialisation in recent years on enlargement issues,
notably in the field of justice and internal security. During the 1997/98
academic year, he is teaching European Studies at the University of
Washington. He received his J.D. (Dr.iur.) in comparative criminal law
from Freiburg University in 1982.