Now that enlargement is a reality, we can change the tone. In the column which was published on the very day that the new Member States entered the Union, I played up the significance of the event and the historical turning-point this represents for Europe. Others did the same thing at the same time, much better than I no doubt, and the time for celebrations came and went. It will be followed by others, notably next month if the Constitution is approved. We'll see. For now, we have to face up to the problems. Certainly, the Accession Treaties cover most of them due to the principle of the application of all of the Community acquis by the new Member States. But on the ground, nothing's easy.
The first things that occurs is that there are now 6,000 km of new borders delimiting the Union to the east. They go from Koper in Slovenia to Norva in Estonia. The EU's new neighbour countries are Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia (which already neighboured Finland in the extreme north, on the other side of the Baltic Sea). Some curious journalists wanted to see for themselves. On behalf of the French press alone, two journalists visited the eastern border: José-Alain Fralon, an old friend of the united Europe, for "Le Monde", and Claude-Marie Vadrot, who wanted to drive all 6,000 km for "Le Journal de dimanche".
Some painful realities. Their reports are fascinating, but some of the realities they show up are rather painful. Borders which had been open must now be partially closed, crossings which used to be free are no longer so, between Hungary and Ukraine, for example, or Poland and Ukraine, Belarus and Poland, Lithuania and Belarus, Estonia and Russia (although 90% of the inhabitants of the Estonia city of Narva are of Russian origin, and families are divided between Narva and Ivangorod, just across the border). There were Romanian gypsies desperately trying to reach Hungary before 1 May, on foot, but the border was 100 km away. Almost everywhere, new border posts have been built, using EU funding (according to the signs). Trade of all kinds were flourishing: smuggled cigarettes and alcohol, trade in vegetables, meat and other agricultural products. Small farmers are pessimistic, because all of this will end, but this small-scale subsistence farming is their way of life. Often, people on either side of the border don't seem to understand what is happening, and the line that separates them seems artificial. "But for one kilometre, today I would be a European", one inhabitant of Brest (Belarus) told Fralon, somewhat wistfully. This comes on top of the pride of the Serbs, who feel discriminated against and remain silent. At the same time, other new borders are a cause for celebration. In the small Hungarian town of Szeged, on the border with Romania, the people see themselves as "the gateway to eastern Europe: until yesterday, our geography was a handicap, now it's an opportunity". However, everything will change again in two years, when Bulgaria and Romania join.
Two "cancers of democracy". Reinforcing checks is vital in order to apply free movement of persons within the enlarged Union. Otherwise, with the prospects of open access to western Europe, the eastern boundaries would become a gateway for the unfettered import of organised crime, traffickers of all descriptions, drugs and, worst of all, terrorists. How can all of this be managed in a spirit of understanding and justice?
The specific issue of drugs was raised by the Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Georges Estievenart, in an interview with "Le Figaro". He feels that the risks are enormous: dealers will be able to move around more easily, legal chemicals which can be used to produce artificial drugs will be easier to hijack, the free movement of capital will make money laundering much simpler. Poland and, to a greater extent, the Baltic States, are major routes for opium from Afghanistan (3,600 tonnes in 2003!). Against these dangers, "the EU has only weak, fragmented powers, which are under-used due to a lack of political will". Mr Estievenart feels that a "drugs" article must imperatively be included in the Constitution, and a European agency set up (or a specialist operational service), to face this "time bomb" which threatens the enlarged Union. Equally worrying judgements have been passed on the "cancer of endemic corruption". The old Member States of the Union have no lessons to give because they have also seen their fair share of scandal, but they have more experience in fighting this "gangrene of democracy", which reduces the legitimacy of politicians and respect for the State. Something must be done as a matter of urgency. (F.R.)