Ukraine, a case to be pondered. Should the EU initiate a far-reaching debate on its future size? Should it define today its possible limits for tomorrow? European Commission President Romano Prodi has called for such debate on several occasions. We have doubts, however, about the advisability of such an initiative in the present circumstances, for a number of reasons that we would like to outline, using the example of Ukraine.
A few months ago, Romano Prodi compared the case of Ukraine to that of Russia, hinting that accession was possible for neither one nor the other and that alternatives for close relations had to be sought. It was along these lines that we reported his remarks in this column. The Ukraine Mission to the EU found our interpretation too abrupt, assuring us that it had received from the Commission President's Cabinet reassurances along the lines of possible openness, and stating that accession represented its country's official and declared objective, approved by both the government and parliament. Ukraine was at the time in a pre-election period and one of the major issues of the campaign was precisely the attitude towards the EU and European construction. Clear positions from Brussels against candidacy could have been used as an election argument, for which reason we chose not to return to the subject even though other statements by Mr Prodi explicitly confirmed what we took as his meaning.
The elections having brought pro-European forces to office, Ukraine authorities once again tried to obtain an explicit response from the Community institutions in view of their country's candidacy. Up until the time the CFSP Representative, Javier Solana, observed that "questions had to be raised at the right time", and that this was not the right time to demand a formal and explicit response from the EU. The EU still has to "digest" its acceptance of the principle of Turkey's candidacy and adapt to an enlargement that could double the number of its members in a few years. The boat "mustn't be overloaded". Insistence upon an immediate answer could give rise to a "no", with the danger being that it could be hard to have that answer changed later. Given such a possibility, isn't it preferable, in the interests of Ukraine itself, not to insist for now? Wisely, authorities in Kiev followed Solana's advice and, in their most recent contacts at the highest level no longer insisted. Silence means that anything is still possible.
Frontiers will be determined by the development of the unified Europe. In our opinion, the EU should maintain a general reserved position in the present circumstances, avoiding launching the public debate the Commission President seems to favour. The size of the European Union will depend upon its future evolution, which for the time being remains obscure.
The united Europe could evolve into a simple free trade area, useful no doubt, and in a position to guarantee a certain political stability among participating countries over a very vast territory. But this would be a Europe without the ambition of playing its role in world affairs, without its own political will, under the keynote of intergovernmental cooperation, with common institutions lacking real powers. This is the Europe supported by the majority of British public opinion and some Nordic countries. Why should such a Europe freeze once and for all its frontiers?
The united Europe could evolve towards the "two-tier" solution already theoretically considered in the past (a Europe that is a large and relatively non-compact "area", and a Europe of "power" reserved to the countries keeping the ambitions of the initial project), achieved poorly through Amsterdam's enhanced cooperation and yet already a reality with the single currency and Schengen. Given the perspective of a European Union of over 30 members, this solution increasingly seems, to those looking reality squarely in the face, to be the only one capable of protecting the objectives of strength and cohesion and the current Council Presidency should be congratulated for having said so unmistakenly. According to Portugal's State Secretary for European Affairs, Mr Seixas da Costa, the "challenge of enlargement has changed the quality of the Union and reduced the ambition of the European undertaking". The error, in our view, is to consider that enhanced cooperation, with some improvements, would be enough to restore the initial ambition. In fact, a new project is needed, to be undertaken in parallel with enlargement, the one Jacques Delors defined as an open avant-garde. Some Heads of Government give the impression that they have understood this or at least have started asking questions. If the parallel project matures and progresses, the frontiers of the wider European Union must not be fixed and Ukraine -to mention the country already used in the example- would have its place therein, it being understood that the Europe "power" would remain open to all members of the Europe "area" which accept its principles and institutions and are capable of respecting its rules.
Regardless of the evolution between these two models, defining the frontiers of a future Europe today seems ill advised. Certain reactions to the principle of Turkey's candidacy demonstrated the extent to which opinions on the possible size of Europe are still divided. Political parties and scholars should be spared this dangerous exercise, likely to give rise to hard-to-control and useless passions, insofar as the the future frontiers will depend on future developments. There will be time to discuss size once the Union knows where it is going, where it wants to go.
Another image of Turkey. The divergences and controversy that followed the grant of applicant status to Turkey offered a foretaste of debate on the future frontiers. The Heads of Government took a decision and Jacques Chirac summarised as follows the reasons leading to their conclusion: "Turkey, because of its history and ambitions, is European". Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit considered as a very positive element the rejection of Samuel Huntington's ideas on the inevitable shock of civilisations. Others reacted quite differently, ironising over Chirac's reference to history, observing that it is true that the vicissitudes of the Ottoman Empire for centuries were closely tied to the history of Europe, but with objectives of conquest that brought this emire up to the doorstep of Vienna by land, and very close to Venice by sea; a strange objection, because it would be tantamount to challenging, for example, Franco-German reconciliation due to past wars. A major German political party has taken a stance against Turkish accession. The President of the European Parliament has called for exploration of possibilities other than accession for integrating Turkey into Europe and has explicitly raised the question of cultural integration.
At the same time, Bulent Ecevit has made remarks that deserve to be highlighted. His personality made a strong impression on the European media. For one, he seemed "more European than many Europeans"; another pointed out his background as a poet and a specialist in Sanskrit; all underlined the extent to which this kind and cultivated man offered an image of his country very different from the traditional superficial image often associated with Turkey. Mr Ecevit declared that the EU would enlarge further East, "towards Caucusus, Azerbaijan, Central Asia", and his Foreign Minister Ismaïl Cem stated: "Turkey has its culture and identity; it is out of the question for it to give them up". He therefore seems to understand that the idea Mr Ecevit and Mr Cem have of the enlarged EU is akin to the definition advanced recently by Jacques Delors ("The Objectives of a Europe of Thirty" at the Aspen Institute Conference, see EUROPE of 4 January, pp. 3-4.). It is unthinkable that Mr Cem would fail to recognise that Europe has the same will to protect its culture and identity that he demands for his country.
It is in this spirit, seemingly, that Turkey's future accession to the EU should be evaluated. And in that case, even the references to Caucasus and Azerbaijan become comprehensible.
(Momentary) End of the exercise. With this question of frontiers, we think that for the moment we have concluded the overview begun last week of the evolution of mentalities and opinions about the upcoming institutional reform, pending further developments. Now we need only conduct the most perillous exercise: the summary of important developments and the evaluation of the perspectives they offer. We will try to do that this week, or early next week at the latest.
Ferdinando Riccardi