EU applicants bide time over IGC

Date: 12/09/1996

By Mark Turner

THE ten Central and Eastern European countries queuing up to join the Union are watching developments - or the lack of them - at the current talks on EU reform with cautious interest.

Although the Intergovernmental Conference could have profound implications for their bids to join the EU, most candidate governments are biding their time before making their views known.

There are many reasons for this reticence. Some feel it is simply too early to comment, pointing out that even the existing EU member states are slow to make definitive statements. Others are wary of jeopardising their membership applications through misplaced remarks, while a third group claim their concerns are shared by enough current members to represent their interests.

And in many cases, the candidates' administrations have had little time to formulate a position. From April to July this year, it was all they could do to answer a 165-page questionnaire from the EU to support their applications.

It would be wrong, however, to imply that all would-be members are equally shy.

Poland would like to take part in the debate, but feels stifled. Its frustration was underlined by MP Jan Borowski, speaking at a recent EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee meeting, who said: “We are paying close attention to the results of the work of the IGC. We have tried to be observers, but unfortunately this is a wish which was not fulfilled. We do not really have a forum where we can have an exchange of views.”

Such sentiments are a cause for concern, say Commission sources. They suggest, however, that despite the lack of institutionalised channels for doing so, no one is preventing interested applicants from presenting a position paper to the IGC.

“Such a document would clearly be listened to,” claimed one official. “There is a Communautaire way of doing things, through cooperation and trust, which the CEECs must learn to master.”

Hungary and Estonia, by contrast, have assumed a relatively proactive role in the debate. The Hungarian delegation presented its views orally in June and the Estonians circulated their 'points of view' widely earlier this year.

For the most part, however, the applicants are playing a waiting game: their prime political goal is to join the Union, rather than to shape it. When diplomats do express opinions, they tend to veer towards the institutional and general, rather than the political and specific.

Juris Kanels, Latvian ambassador to the EU, highlights the primary concern for all CEECs, saying: “The general expectation is that the IGC will result in an EU willing, ready and capable to receive new members.”

That is not to say that experts from the applicant countries have not followed the debate in more detail. In line with a resolution agreed at last December's Madrid summit, the Council of Ministers briefs the ten CEECs, Cyprus and Malta on the latest IGC developments every 40 days. This has not, however, been quite the forum some would have wished for.

“They are too general in nature,” complained one diplomat. “We only hear a presidency presentation, without contradictions. We can imagine that there are many different views clashing with each other, but we only hear a short summary.”

Despite these misgivings, which have diminished with time, most candidate countries say there has been adequate communication between existing and would-be member states.

For their part, Commission sources say they are not aware of any muted voices struggling to be heard. “It is one-sided. They come to obtain information, not give information,” said one official.

Of the issues under discussion at the IGC, it is perhaps the debate on the relationship between small and large countries which is most avidly followed by the applicant countries.

Poland, with a population similar to that of Spain, most closely identifies with larger member states, and would like to see smaller member states have an influence less disproportionate to their size.

The biggest concern for Latvian citizens, however, is the prospect of losing their hard-won independence to yet another megalithic body. The Estonian foreign affairs ministry is also anxious about calls for cuts in the number of Commissioners.

“Although they are meant to renounce national policies as soon as they enter the college, Commissioners are seen as the national representative in Brussels,” said one diplomat, explaining the concern.

This does not, however, imply an impractical approach to decision-making.

Estonia accepts that the current EU presidency system would run into trouble in a Union of 20 or more member states and suggests instead a system of collective, one-year, team presidencies, “where in principle all participating states are treated equally”.

Cyprus and Malta, somewhat further down the road towards accession, also identify with the concerns of smaller mem- ber states. Maltese Foreign Affairs Minister Guido de Marco stressed recently that the IGC had to “find a balanced approach between the sovereignty of states within the EU and the sovereignty of its peoples”, adding: “It would be logical to expect a degree of over-representation in favour of the smaller member states in the European Parliament.”

Such concerns are, however, far from universal. “Fears about joining the EU are simply not there,” says Lithuanian Ambassador to the EU Jonas ääCiäcinskas.

“The problems of small nationhood were well known to us in the Soviet Union. Membership of the EU is very favourable by comparison.”

Hungarian Ambassador Endre Johasz also takes a pragmatic approach. “There is a realisation in the modern world that there is a limit to sovereign will, both economic and political. Life is full of compromises,” he says.

That perhaps is the overriding feeling among the candidate countries. Until they are home and dry, almost any EU would be better than the alternatives.