COMMENTARY

Summer 2010

by Pawel Swieboda

RELATED ARTICLES:

---

More than five years into their membership of the EU, what sort of influence do the not-so-new central European states exert? Are they changing Europe from within and have they managed to reap rich rewards themselves? Pavel Telicka suggests the best is still to come, and is critical of what he sees as the Czech Republic’s and other new members‘ lack of a “conceptually sound European policy“. They have, he thinks, been punching below their weight and nor are the prospects for change too bright.

There’s certainly no doubt that the newcomer member states have not become the EU’s new centre of gravity. And nor are they brimming with ideas on how to make the European project more dynamic. They tend to be introverted, with their chief focus on catching up with more affluent Western Europe. They often seem to see EU policies like climate change as luxuries they can’t themselves afford.

There are nevertheless four reasons why Telicka’s judgement may be a little too harsh. First, they have done a tremendous job in adapting to their own changed circumstances. No country has ever had to travel a longer distance to become an EU member. Second, the EU is itself in flux, and even the most well-established actors are finding it difficult to navigate the more troubled waters of today’s very confused Union. Third, the new members have had an enormous, if not widely publicised, influence in allowing the EU to test itself on its home territory against the pressures of globalisation; enlargement forced many European companies to improve their competitiveness. Fourth, the newcomers have with some notable exceptions, been fairly constructive and unproblematic, and have now begun to come up with new ideas. The Eastern Partnership has been the first tangible political project launched within the EU by the new members, and it’s possibly a sign of things to come. In foreign policy, the central Europeans may also have been more useful than they are given the credit for in stripping the EU of illusions over its Russia policy.

One caveat that has to be made is that the EU’s new members are no longer a cohesive caucus. Some of them are in the eurozone, others have a long way to go. Some are deeply affected by the economic crisis, but the largest newcomer, Poland, has hardly felt the impact. This reflects the different mix of economic policies and the divergent strengths of the new members, even though there are some things they still have in common. They tend to be climate change sceptics and will also be demandeurs in at least another round of EU budgetary and financial negotiations. Only when they move up in the economic hierarchy will the new member states start to feel more comfortable inside the EU.

Pavel Telicka is right in stressing that the Czech presidency was more effective than is commonly assumed. Its image was tarnished beyond repair by the political crisis and by the country’s maverick president, but across the board the Czech performance was solid. It was a useful warning, though, of the importance both of political stability and of clear chain of command during an EU presidency.

Will the new members’ record change signficantly over the next five years? Not this year, but 2011 will tell us more; Hungary and then Poland at the EU’s helm for two successive presidencies could be a game changer.