EUROPE'S WORLD DEBATING FORUM
In reaction to Ioannis Varvitsiotis' “Let’s build on neighbourhood policy with an EU-backed ‘Commonwealth’"
Summer 2006
After the latest EU enlargement in the year 2004, European architecture is in the process of redefining. The new constitutional arrangement, supposed to provide an appropriate institutional framework for EU 25+2, is under question. In the Mid-term Financial Perspective for 2007-2013 resources under the heading Europe as a global partner (comprising Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policies) have been considerably reduced. The EU absorption capacity for further enlargement became an issue.
In that context, the proposal to build on neighbourhood policy with an EU-backed “Commonwealth” seems to offer an advanced version of the European Neighbourhood Policy intensifying multilateral cooperation with the EU and among all countries concerned (east European and Mediterranean). Moreover, for unsuccessful, slow or refused candidates (and potential candidates) the Commonwealth could be a “safety net” before improved efforts or new accession attempts. When Romania and Bulgaria, and most probably, in a not so distant future Croatia, join the EU, in the western Balkans will remain “weak”, “failed” or “unfinished” states (Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro) and Turkey which will need (for different reasons) significant time and efforts to join the EU. These countries were recently offered “phased accession”, “intermediate step towards full membership”, “privileged partnership”, “European Economic Area plus”, “light membership”, “long-term European perspective”, “broader spectrum of operational possibilities” and finally, joining the “EU–backed Commonwealth”.
How much time will the European Union need to consolidate and be ready for new expansion? Will the level of integration be the same for all members? Are the EU geopolitical, demographic, infrastructural or investment interests related to further enlargement (i.e. western Balkans), strong enough? Is the “light membership” proper answer for stability concerns?
At this moment, it seems that there is no adequate absorption capacity for further enlargement, either political, or functional or financial. Moreover, mentioning for the first time the size of the countries aspiring for membership as one of the future criteria, the European Parliament is obviously sending a message to Turkey (and Ukraine). With all previously mentioned proposals and decision of the European Parliament to reconsider Enlargement Policy and define final borders of Europe before the end of 2006, the EU is getting breath for introspection. Hopefully, member-states will agree that further enlargement is beneficial also for the EU, and will better communicate the enlargement issue to their citizens. Otherwise, there is a risk for the EU of losing credibility and trustworthiness if the changes in the Enlargement Policy would be considerable, with a very distant outcome.
That would also imply a risk of renewed instability in the western Balkans, especially in the year when status issues are expected to be solved (Kosovo, Montenegro, revision of Dayton Agreement). The western Balkans could remain a ghetto of poverty and instability, surrounded by EU members. Fragile states could lose one of the most powerful leverages of transformation – a clear European perspective. The reforms could slow down, as well as popular support for difficult structural changes which are in the initial phase. The problem of size of these countries does not exist. But the size of problems they could provoke could be considerably greater than the problem of preparing them intensively for European integration. Stability and security issues are still of primary concern, although the message of the International Financial Institutions is that the whole region of south eastern Europe could become one of the most attractive investment areas in Europe. This would be possible only if the firm structure of the association and accession processes are preserved. Whatever the name of arrangement would be, in the coming months and years the western Balkans will need even stronger EU involvement and support. Otherwise, some new options could emerge in the region, as well as political radicalism and anti-European attitude.