Amsterdam deal casts shadow over EU enlargement

Date: 19/06/1997

By Mark Turner and Rory Watson

DESPITE a firm commitment by EU leaders to start enlargement negotiations in early 1998, institutional battles inside the Union are threatening to delay its first wave of expansion to the east.

No sooner had this week's Amsterdam summit paved the way for the launch of the enlargement process than doubts began to surface about whether the restyled Union would be able to take in new members.

Without exception, the applicant countries are relieved that the way is now open for the negotiations to begin. But their relief is tinged with concern at the impact of this week's summit on the pace and direction of the accession talks.

The future has been thrown into doubt by the inability of EU leaders to agree key changes to the membership of the European Commission and national voting rights in the Council of Ministers.

This has introduced a major unknown into the enlargement negotiations, with applicants facing the unsettling prospect of either negotiating entry terms without knowing what influence they will wield as members in the EU's two key institutions, or risking a delay in completing the talks until the Union has agreed its own internal institutional reforms.

“If the applicants go for the first option and do not know how they will be represented in the Council and Commission, it could make ratification of the accession agreements difficult in the new member states. But the second option could delay their entry. It is certainly a complication,” admitted one senior EU diplomat.

Applicant countries will also have to negotiate facing a moving target. The Treaty of Amsterdam, which will not come into force before mid-1999 at the earliest, commits the Union to review at least two of its key provisions.

Member states must call another Intergovernmental Conference at some point in the future to review the common security and defence policy. They must also decide unanimously within five years of the treaty's entry into force whether to change existing rules on external border controls, asylum and migration. Both commitments will be harder to meet if they are not carried out before the next wave of enlargement.

Some central and eastern European applicants are already expressing concerns over the time the institutional changes might take. “Will these changes be any easier in a few years?” asked Poland's ambassador to the EU Jan Truszczynski. “Amsterdam does not necessarily augur well for a new IGC.”

“Explicitly, there is no change vis-à-vis enlargement, but implicitly the very proceedings of the summit indicate it is going to be more difficult than we expected,” said Jiri Sedivy, deputy head of the Prague Institute of International Relations.

The ball now lies squarely in the Commission's court. It is due to complete its opinions on the suitability of ten central and eastern European applicants for EU membership by mid-July and is analysing whether the Union's institutions can cope with the strains of enlargement, amid fears that without further reforms, the EU's decision-making process could be paralysed.

In an effort to keep the accession timetable on track, the Amsterdam summit eventually agreed that by the first wave of enlargement “the Commission shall comprise one national of each member state”, thus keeping the total down to 20 or under.

But last-minute Spanish objections ensured that this will only happen if governments can agree to reweight votes in the Council of Ministers to compensate member states which lose out as a result. A further proviso states that, “at least one year before the membership of the EU exceeds 20”, a new IGC will carry out a comprehensive review of the Union's institutions.

The clear implication is that although the EU can start enlargement negotiations now, it does not feel ready to take in up to five new members without changing its voting procedures and more than five new members without a fundamental rehaul of the institutions.

This interpretation was echoed by an aide to Foreign Affairs Commissioner Hans van den Broek, who said the treaty was “definitely enough to start the process of putting the opinions on the table and starting negotiations”, but admitted further work could be needed before new states actually joined.

Speculation that the treaty's wording meant the EU was preparing for a limited first round of a maximum of five new members was denied by Dutch Prime Minister Wim Kok.

“The message is that those who qualify and fulfil the various conditions ... will be welcome. We all know it will take time. Our agreement on the institutional changes does not mean a political decision on the size of the first wave has been taken,” he said.

Despite these assurances, the formula is fuelling speculation that negotiations will not all start at the same time. But while back-markers such as Bulgaria dislike the idea of phased talks, top contenders such as Hungary support early differentiation.