Another element for reflection. The new debate on further EU enlargement is now open. The last progress report from the European Commission (commented on in this column in bulletins No 9779 and 9780) will be discussed by the Council and debated by the European Parliament. Parliamentary Rapporteur Elmar Brok was highly critical of and expressed reservation regarding the Commission's document, mainly stating that no new accession is possible until the Lisbon Treaty comes into force. National parliaments will also be involved in the debates (each new accession must be ratified by all member states), as well as political parties, the public, and of course the candidate countries themselves.
I would add a further element of reflection to those already on the table: the fragmentation of certain candidate countries. Serbia was a single country which has now split into three (Serb Republic, Montenegro and Kosovo), and one cannot predict how things will develop in Bosnia Herzegovina and even Cyprus. There was one such case in the past: the EU had begun to negotiate the membership of Czechoslovakia when it was a single state. On the way, it became two, each with its own commissioner, its MEPs and so on. What should be done in similar cases in the future? Reflection is needed on this.
In the meantime, the number of stances and analyses put forward keep on growing. I shall very largely use that of Jean-Guy Giraud, published on 15 November on the Paris website of the European Parliament.
1. Council Presidency guidelines. The two 2009 Presidencies (Czech Republic and Sweden) have included enlargement among their priorities and they plan to step up the pace of talks underway.
2. Support from European Commission. The Commission considers that the enlargement process must be actively pursued for several reasons to: - respect commitments taken, stabilise and democratise the internal order of the candidate countries (this being a matter of urgency in some cases); ensure the stability of vast regions neighbouring on the EU; enlarge the internal market to the advantage of both candidate countries and the EU itself; and preserve the “European feeling” of the public in candidate countries.
3. Delay incurred by candidate countries. Studies show that the candidate countries or those aspiring to accession are even less prepared for the great leap than those that joined only recently. The economic and financial crisis increases the doubt on their current ability to respect free market rules and free competition. The EU's tendency to focus on a few details (delimitation of fishing areas) or on past events (arrest of generals responsible for war crimes) causes perplexity.
4. Conditions on EU side. The “Copenhagen criteria” stipulate that any enlargement of the EU must be compatible with the rate of European integration in the interest of member states and candidate countries. This rate implies: the aim of closer and closer Union, good institutional functioning and the availability of adequate budgetary resources to develop joint policies. The current deadlock over the Lisbon Treaty in fact casts doubt on institutional reform, and the results of the next negotiations on budgetary resources for post 2013 remain uncertain. Public support, which is essential if enlargement is to be a success, is not always there, and the lack of geographical borders of an EU dimension maintains the impression of unlimited range The Commission's affirmation whereby enlargement would represent one of the most powerful means of action available to the EU for safeguarding its strategic interests and strengthening its prosperity, causes bafflement under the present circumstances.
Acceleration or pause? For the Balkan States, it is not a matter of changing the aim of accession but of taking elements cited into account. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty remains a compulsory prerequisite for any further enlargement (except, according to largely divided public opinion, for Croatia). The European Parliament should speak out in coming weeks by deciding whether the process should be speeded up or whether there should be a pause. In the meantime, links of economic and political cooperation with the candidate countries can be tightened and the Lisbon Treaty will provide additional instruments in this direction.
Once again, the case of Turkey calls for a separate analysis - but that will be for tomorrow. (F.R./transl.jl)