Eniko Landaburu is concerned. The Union's enlargement to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe does not have the necessary support from public opinion either in Member States or in candidate countries. It will happen anyway, as that is the political will of those that have the power to decide; but, if the atmosphere does not change, not in the desirable conditions. The lack of convinced public opinion, difficulties and disputes would then emerge each time the enlarged EU comes up against problems, which will be inevitable at times.
These considerations by the Director General responsible for negotiations within the European Commission take on a particular significance having been made at a time when the Commission is preparing to adopt its new report on the subject. Speaking at a colloquium organised in Lausanne by the Swiss Institute for Comparative Law, he considered that enlargement negotiation were taking place in almost general indifference, hardly concealing no little reluctance: there is neither popular nor political galvanisation, not even of the "live forces" of the economy (trade unions and industrial organisations). The reasons that explain and justify enlargement need to stating and explaining non-stop; it's a moral obligation towards countries that for half a century were artificially separated from Europe and that were able to free themselves from a tyrannical regime imposed from the outside; it's a political necessity. So as to enlarge the area of peace, stability and freedom: it's a unique opportunity to create a laboratory as a European response to the shortcomings of inadequately controlled globalisation, and it is a historic possibility offered to Europe to regain the lost political weight. Enlargement therefore responds to a "vision of Europe", and that's what needs explaining to public opinion, instead of opposing to this grand design minor budgetary concerns, border complications, or other detailed national interest.
One has not for that to believe that Mr. Landaburu is recommending that the EU charged towards enlargement without concern for the conditions. He set out three conditions that remain essential.
a) no candidate country nay be admitted for geopolitical reasons. This means that they must all be able not only to accept but especially implement the "acquis communautaire" (possibly with transitional periods). Landaburu admitted that, in the second half of the year, he expected "strong pressure from powerful Member States" for negotiations with some candidate country or another being completed by end-2002. He hopes that the Commission will be able to withstand such pressure with the backing of the European Parliament, as accessions for geopolitical reasons would weaken the Union as a whole.
b) an effort at financial solidarity by the EU towards its new Member States. The fears of exorbitant costs are not justified. Mr. Landaburu recalled that the GDP of the ten candidates that could (could…) complete negotiations by the end of next year corresponds to the GDP of one average member of the Union (the Netherlands). The countries of Central and Eastern Europe are in the process of making a hard and at time painful effort to meet the accession criteria; for its part, the EU has a duty to pursue its "cohesion policy" (which, we know, aims to align the levels of prosperity and activity of Member States). Without specific support, there is a risk that the former political divide in the middle of Europe (the Iron Curtain!) is replaced by a long-lasting economic divide that would be just as inaccessible. I asked Mr. Landaburu if of "4% rule" - by which the support of the Community budget for the less well-off Member States does not exceed 4% of the GDP of each - could guarantee sufficient support without excessively weighing on the Union's financial balance. He replied that that would already be a good outcome, stressing that a Community budget attaining the percentage of 1.27% of the Union's GDP (ceiling already accepted but never in fact attained) could be sufficient to apply the "4% rule", on condition, of course, that some third of the budget be devoted, as today, to the regional and cohesion policy.
c) revision of the way Union works institutionally. This will be the goal that will be at the centre of the next Convention and Intergovernmental Conference in 2003. In case of failure, enlargement would transform Europe into a free-trade area. Mr. Landaburu added that, were a vanguard be created in the EU open to all Member States that have the political will to participate and that can do so, at least one or two countries of Central and Eastern Europe should be part so as to avoid the new Members having the impression of being a "second category" of Member States.
(F.R.)