Enlargement schedule under pressure

Date: 16/01/1997

By Mark Turner

Uncertainty over wording is fuelling doubts as to whether negotiations on EU enlargement really will kick off at the beginning of 1998.

Despite an apparent commitment by Union leaders at the 1995 Madrid summit to begin talks six months after the end of the Intergovernmental Conference, it is still unclear how substantial they will be and who will be invited to them.

These questions are becoming increasingly crucial as, in theory at least, the IGC enters the final straight.

Alongside the IGC and monetary union, The Hague has given the “thorough groundwork” necessary for eastward expansion top priority during its six-month presidency.

As preparations take a more pragmatic turn, pressure is mounting from the countries of central and eastern Europe (CEECs) for some hard and fast decisions on the enlargement timetable.

During the Madrid meeting and the Florence summit in June 1996, EU leaders called on the European Commission to prepare its opinions on the CEEC countries as soon as possible “so that the initial phase of negotiationscan coincide with the beginning of negotiations with Cyprus and Malta, six months after the end of the IGC, taking its results into account”.

The vagueness of this wording has left some applicants rather confused.

When delegates to an EU-Czech joint parliamentary committee asked Foreign Affairs Commissioner Hans van den Broek to elucidate last month, he was evasive. “We should have a look at this,” he said, but advocated retaining a degree of flexibility on the issue.

This kind of response has provoked a feeling among some CEEC diplomats that the Union is playing an opportunistic game, waiting to interpret the Madrid formula to suit prevailing political winds.

Van den Broek assured Czech parliamentarians that “we are not trying to devise formulae to delay membership”.

But there is as yet no definitive interpretation of what “the end of the IGC” means, how its results will be taken into account and what an 'initial phase' of negotiations would entail.

Differing nuances of the formula's translation into the 11 working languages of the EU do not make life any easier.

It is clear, at least, that if the IGC does not reach agreement on crucial institutional questions such as voting systems and the number of Commissioners it will be very difficult for the Union to start serious talks with potential new members.

Both Commission President Jacques Santer and Trade Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan have recently warned the UK that IGC foot-dragging could cause destabilising delays to the enlargement process.

“How can we enlarge to perhaps 20 or 25 members without making the Union more effective, more democratic and more transparent?” Santer asked British Premier John Major.

The Netherlands, which took over the Union presidency at the start of this month, is keenly aware of the effect that a failure to address these issues would have.

“Let us imagine that you have a very minimalist IGC, where there is no agreement on a system for enlargement. If there is not sufficient preparation, then negotiations will not start six months afterwards,” explained a Dutch diplomat.

These gloomy warnings do not convince everyone. Estonia's Ambassador to the EU Clyde Kull said: “We expect that the EU will keep to the Madrid summit decision. I am confident negotiations will begin in the first half of 1998. The formula gives some room for interpretation, but it does reflect a firm political commitment.”

Similarly, Czech Ambassador Joseph Kreuter is convinced that talks will begin “during the first months of next year, perhaps during March 1998”.

But even if Union leaders press ahead with the enlargement process despite a half-baked IGC, brisk negotiations are far from guaranteed.

“The first phase of talks could take many forms,” said the Dutch diplomat. “The negotiations are not result-oriented. Meetings could take place every day, or they could take place once every six months.”

A question mark also remains over whether negotiations with the ten CEEC applicants will all begin at the same time, even if it is already apparent they will not end in tandem.

There is a growing feeling amongst eastern officials that only the front runners will go to the negotiating table.

“If you start talks, you have already made a commitment that that country is able to take on the acquis,” says Kull.

Bulgarian officials, on the other hand, are adamant that talks with all applicants should begin at the same time, even if they do not end concurrently.

“It is unfortunate that we hear cries from time to time from high places which do not coincide with Madrid,” said one diplomat. “We feel strongly that there should be no 'A' and 'B' states; the EU should give a political signal that all are given equal chances.”

But Kreuter believes it is too soon to tell. “Both approaches are equally in the balance,” he says. “Besides, this is pure speculation. In my country we have ten laws for forecasting; the first is that if you can, avoid it.”

Until things become clearer, would-be Union members will have to content themselves with watching the preparation of the Commission's opinions on their applications. These avis are expected between the summer and autumn of this year, and will be supplemented by a composite paper on the repercussions of enlargement for EU policies and finances.

There could be delays, however, due to growing quarrels between the officials who coordinate the analyses and experts in specific sectors.

The Commission is also expected

to suggest ways of improving the 'pre-accession strategy' to prepare the CEECs for membership soon. Before these are made known, Van den Broek is unlikely to release any precise figures about the cost of enlargement, or indications as to which countries are most likely to join.