Accession countries begin to take part in Union life. Europeans run the risk of getting lost in all these enlargement celebrations and of no longer understanding when the decisive moment will be. At every stage in the long procedure for the accession countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus and Malta, citizens are swamped in declarations on the reunification of Europe. Also, during recent times, there have been no lack of opportunities: first of all the end of negotiation, then the first positive referendum followed by the (indispensable) vote of the European Parliament and the signing, on Wednesday, of the Accession Treaty. Each time, the citizens learns that the Iron Curtain (or the Berlin Wall, if you prefer) has fallen for ever and that Europe is finally reunited after half a century of separation. And it is not over yet, as referenda will be continuing in the accession countries and the current Member States have still to carry out their national ratifications. What will official sources have left to say early May 2004 when accessions become effective? The impact could be blunted by too much early celebrating.
If I have chosen to speak of this today, it is because the signing of the Accession Treaties has already had a concrete impact of prime importance: the new States are immediately beginning to take part in Community life. They have already been represented at the Convention. Now, they have observer status within the Council and its bodies, and a considerable number of their parliamentarians will take part (without voting right or right to speak in plenary, which is only logical) in the work of the EP: - 54 Polish deputies, 24 Hungarians , 24 Czechs, etc. Furthermore, measures have been taken to involve representatives of their regional authorities and of their "civil societies" in the work of the Committee of the Regions and the European Econmic and Social Committee. April 16th is therefore a date that is not only significant (oh, so significant) at political level, but also operational. I therefore seize this opportunity to make just a few remarks.
What has already been acquired. My first remark concerns the importance that the accession prospects have had and the unfolding of negotiations, irrespective of the result. The aim in itself has played a leading role in the stabilisation and democratisation of several countries of Central and Eastern Europe: - a choice of direction, intensified effort, overcoming differences and mutual bitterness, all this has been largely determined or at least accelerated (with the support of the EU itself) by the goal of accession. And in the Union, before the collapse of the Berlin Wall, new generations were losing the notion of the deep historical and cultural unity between Western and Eastern and Central Europe. The Iron Curtain was demolishing the European spiritual identity of the younger generations (some writers, like Milan Kundera, expressed their anxiety over this). The opening up of the borders and the prospect of EU membership has allowed the physical Iron Curtain to disappear to be followed by the disappearance of the spiritual Iron Curtain.
A 25-member Europe, and then a 27-member Europe, is what matters. My second remark refers to the essential significance of the "European Area", with 25 or 27 or maybe more members. No-one today can foresee what the Union will experience, if it is confirmed that some achievements are not wanted by all and that they are implemented in a smaller circle. But it is necessary to reject with the utmost severity the impression that the European area is a sort of "second division" Europe. On the contrary, it represents what is essential. Once again I shall take up the concept of Jacques Delors who sees an enlarged Europe according to three fundamental objectives: 1) an area of peace and security (including the safety of persons); 2) a framework for sustainable development, involving not only the greater market but also cooperation and solidarity, and covering environmental policy above all; 3) an area that respects national diversities and identities, allowing them to bloom (see page 4 of our bulletin of 18 March). These three main objectives involve, quite naturally, full participation in the European institutions and hence the government of this for-ever pacified Europe, that is free, democratic and prosperous, and is in addition the model for controlled and hence successful globalisation.
This concept, although it covers neither single currency nor the Defence Europe (open to countries that want and that can take part), presupposes a very strong and global feeling of European solidarity. It rules out the idea that the EU is purely an economic entity, leaving the political aspects to one side. No Union country, whether current or new member, should imagine that economic solidarity (represented by cohesion policy, Structural Funds, common funding of agriculture, the support of infrastructures, etc.) would manage to survive alone in a Europe which is doomed to slide toward simple intergovernmental cooperation.
Accession countries are highly interested in Defence Europe. My third remark concerns the very sensitive issue of Defence Europe. Ideas are beginning to take shape and the Praesidium of the European Convention has finalised its project which provides for three levels of participation (see this heading in yesterday's bulletin). In my opinion, it would be totally mistaken to consider that the second and third levels are in practice reserved to part of the current Member States. This idea, this impression, was largely born in the positions taken by candidate countries over the ups and downs of the Iraq affair. But one must look reality in the face and take it into account. Reality is that, for now, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe only have one guarantee against possible aggression from third countries: the guarantee of NATO. And those which are not yet part of NATO have nothing and they know that their accession must, above all, have the approval of the US Senate. It is in this light of reality that their stances must be evaluated. All the more as, at the same time, a number of these countries vigorously expressed themselves in favour of a Defence Europe. They even consider it to be urgent, and they call for its achievement to be accelerated (the last to take a stance along these lines is Prime Minister of Hungary Mr Peter Medgyessy).
Why should these countries not take part in the "mutual defence clause", the third level of Defence Europe according to the scheme set out by the Convention Praesidium?
Fresh impetus for the united Europe? Not only will the new Member States not put a brake on the progress of the Fifteen toward integration, but it is even possible that they will give it fresh impetus. There is someone who knows the moods, aspirations and intentions of candidate countries and their peoples better than anyone else: - that man is Commissioner Günter Verheugen who, in his capacity as officer in charge of negotiations has been in constant contact with them, has discussed with their authorities on all aspect of membership, has sounded out the feelings of their parliaments and also, in part, of their public opinion. On 9 April, speaking before the European Parliament, Mr Verheugen noted his experiences and the conclusions he has drawn. Let me quote: "The new members want a strong Community in their own interest. They will strengthen rather than weaken the Community idea. … These are peoples who have fought for their freedom. They do not need lessons in democracy. The new members will not be guided by narrow national interests". Will they take part in common foreign policy? "Yes, emphatically so. The problems we have had in recent months did not arise because the new members did not want to fall in line. They arose because the question of what was the common European position that might be adhered to could not be answered. It is clear what this means for the new members: only a strong common foreign policy can protect them from such conflicts. That is why they are all in favour".
This last affirmation by Mr Verheugen is in line with what Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Medgyessy writes: "The new Member States will give Europe new force, new impetus. Not against the old Europe - which is legitimately proud of its traditions - but under the sign of strengthening the European idea.
Gaps should not be over-dramatised. Mr Verheugen also recognised that there were delays and gaps, and the need for additional effort to be made on the part of the Central and Eastern European countries in order to fully meet the conditions needed to be part of the Union without the Union adopting precautionary measures toward them. Among the sectors where intervention is needed, he mentioned: the effectiveness of administrations and judiciary systems; the fight against corruption; certain aspects of human rights and the protection of minorities; and the application of gender equality. The problem of corruption has sometimes been highlighted, and assimilated in its gravity with that of people smuggling. It is justifiable to be alarmed as the classification of "International Transparency" locates the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (except Slovenia and Estonia) among the most affected by "officialdom corruption". However, after several years of ineffective effort or of no effort at all, we are beginning to see the first results of the action taken, not only in cigarette smuggling but also with regards the embezzlement of pre-accession aid. I do not believe that, at the end of the day, with just a few exceptions, the situation will be more serious in one year's time in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe than in some Member States. We must not forget that, after half a century of Communism, these countries have had to rebuild national administrations worthy of the name from nothing. Their citizens have agreed to enormous sacrifices and Commissioner Verheugen commented that he would like, today, to find, in Member States, a little of the same courage in favour of reform that is to be found in these countries. And we must not neglect the impressive scores in favour of accession noted in Slovenia and Hungary - which speak for themselves.
(F.R.)