Symbolic step on long road to expansion

Date: 24/09/1998

By Simon Taylor

FIFTY-three years after the great powers divided up the continent at the Yalta Conference on the Black Sea, the European Union is taking the first tentative steps towards reuniting western and eastern Europe.

In an event of symbolic rather than material significance, EU foreign ministers are hoping to close the first stage of the lengthy negotiation process at a meeting in November.

So far, the five candidate countries from central and eastern Europe (CEECs) plus Cyprus have set out their negotiating positions on seven of the 31 chapters of EU law covered in the 'screening' process.

But while the process appears to have got off to what Nikolaus van der Pas, head of the European Commission's Enlargement Task Force, terms a “good start”, the sectors tackled in this first stage have been relatively straightforward.

The unspoken consensus is that the real battles lie ahead over key issues such as the environment, agriculture, justice and home affairs policy, and the free movement of capital and workers.

Nevertheless, the fact that member states are prepared to launch formal negotiations sends an invaluable signal to the countries concerned, against the backdrop of economic crisis and political instability in Russia.

Opinion is still divided over the precise implications for EU enlargement of recent events in Moscow. East European leaders are at pains to stress that very little of their trade is done with Russia, but this has not stopped financial markets selling the Hungarian forint and the Czech krone in reaction to the turmoil.

Significantly, France made an important gesture recently by dropping its opposition to starting actual negotiations with the six 'first-wavers' until substantial progress had been made on the more difficult chapters.

Some would argue that those opposed to rapid progress on the road to enlargement have nothing to lose by allowing the Austrians to gain a feather in their cap by starting the negotiations during their EU presidency, given that so little is at stake at this stage, both politically and materially.

The launch of the process has nevertheless been welcomed by firm believers in the mutual benefits of expanding the EU, who argue that the further the process goes, the more difficult it will be for reluctant member states to undermine it.

There are fears, however, that political willingness to push ahead could be dampened by viewing enlargement purely in terms of its impact on employment, immigration and law and order.

For the process to maintain momentum, say its supporters, enlargement must be seen as primarily an issue of security and political stability. If EU member states appear to be dragging their feet about letting in new members, central and eastern Europe might begin to heed the warnings from nationalists about where its political future lies.

But where does the start of formal negotiations for the first wave of candidates leave the other five applicants who have expressed fears about being left behind?

François Lamoureux, deputy head of the Commission's Directorate-General for external relations (DGIA) and the man with special responsibility for the second wave of applicants, stresses that there is no formal obstacle to the rearguard moving up into the front line provided the countries concerned have made sufficient progress in bringing their national legislation into line with EU laws.

“The criteria are very well-known and the decision on whether any more countries can be added will be made in the most objective way possible,” he told European Voice.

The Commission's team expects to finalise its 'progress reports' on the second-wave countries by 15 October so that a final decision on whether to admit any new applicants to the first wave can be taken at the Vienna summit in December.

Many observers believe that the EU's handling of Malta's application for membership - which was revived earlier this month by the new Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami - will be a key test of whether the political will exists to expand the list of front runners.

While the Commission must first review its 1993 opinion on Malta's suitability for EU membership, insiders do not expect there to be any major problems from a legal or technical point of view. The decision on whether to admit it to the fast track will be seen as an important indicator of the chances of others following suit.

Interestingly, those countries which have been most insistent about a wider 'lead' group - Sweden, Denmark and Finland - are reserved about extending the list to include the other Baltic States, Lithuania and Latvia, until the Commission has delivered its recommendations, even though the governments of both countries claim to have made major strides towards qualifying for the first group.

Slovakia, barred from the first group for failing to meet the EU's conditions on democracy, the rule of law and minority rights, maintains that it is making rapid progress towards the key requirements, but acknowledges that the Commission is not planning to write the political chapter of its progress report until after the country's elections this weekend (25-26 September).

Some other second-wave applicants, such as Romania and Bulgaria, seem happy to get on with reforming their own legal and financial systems rather than pressing to be in the first wave. Commission officials say they appear to accept that there is no point joining the Union before they are ready to compete on an equal basis with EU firms.

Meanwhile, the six countries already in the first rank are preparing themselves for a much bumpier ride on the more difficult dossiers which have yet to be tackled.

Free movement of capital will be one, closely linked to the rights of foreigners to buy land and property in the applicant countries. Fears of outsiders buying up farm land and holiday homes could make liberalisation an explosive political issue.

But while much is made of the challenges faced by the applicant countries in meeting the EU's environmental standards on water and air quality, in reality these will almost certainly not be a bar to accession. It is in the interests of both existing and new member states to agree realistic goals on environmental standards.

Adjusting to the Union's agriculture rules has always been billed as one of the most difficult challenges for the candidate countries, where farming involves a bigger share of the population and workforce.

But these countries face pressure to restructure their agricultural sectors for the usual commercial reasons, as their farms are simply too small or short of investment to provide a decent living for the numbers they support.

However, while Fischler argues that farmers in the CEECs have no claim to compensation payments because they have not been hit by price cuts, east European governments will clearly insist on their entitlement to the payments, at least as part of their negotiating strategy.

Of course, the success of enlargement relies on the EU agreeing its own internal reforms under the Agenda 2000 process, especially on the future arrangements for funding Union policies.

While it is difficult at this stage to see how the competing demands of the member states - such as Spain's threatened veto of changes to regional funding and Germany's bid for a cut in net contributions - can be reconciled, overall agreement is possible, although mammoth negotiating sessions will be needed next year to hammer out the details.