Urgent warning on the hazards of enlargement

Date: 20/02/1997

“I DO not think we have ever had such a large number of problems which are all interlinked.” When

Max Kohnstamm speaks, it is with the voice of a different era. His dapper post-war elegance and a resemblance to famous British actor John Gielgud add to the sense that his pronouncements carry the authority of ages.

It is an impression which is not misplaced.

A close friend of 'founding father' Jean Monnet, Kohnstamm has played his part in helping the EU rise from the rubble of post-war Europe to become a 15-state global power, and remains a true believer.

But the Union's next phase of enlargement, adding up to ten countries from central and eastern Europe, gives even him pause for thought.

“When you consider we started with six, and slowly and gradually moved to 15, then now at once to have to deal with ten countries who want to enter ... one has to see eastwards enlargement as an enormous challenge.”

But despite the huge complexity of that challenge, he says, the level of public debate on enlargement has been surprisingly poor - prompting Kohnstamm and his friends to relaunch their think-tank cum lobby group Belmont as the 'European Policy Centre' last month.

To hear Kohnstamm speak is certainly a breath of fresh air. While most observers chase their tails over firm dates and timetables for enlargement, he takes the time to look at the big picture - and there are no doubts in his mind as to why the EU should take in its eastern neighbours.

“There are very good economic reasons - what better can happen to you than to find a south-east Asia on your border?” he asks.

“There is also a moral side, and some very strong political reasons. For Germany, for example, this is the first time in its history it can be united and surrounded by friendly nations.

“It is unbelievable that after what Europe has done to itself, we have got this chance again not just to have a peaceful climate, but to move forward economically and politically. But peace has to be organised.”

There is a serious danger, Kohnstamm feels, of a headlong rush into something that has not been sufficiently thought through.

“I am not saying we should not do things quickly. It is always dangerous when you have a chance and pass it up. But the magnitude of the operation sinks in only slowly,” he warns.

The problem is that the collapse of the Soviet empire took everyone by surprise and somewhat wrong-footed western Europe's leaders.

“If the whole thing had not come so unexpectedly, the lessons of the Marshall Plan might have been better applied,” says Kohnstamm, drawing parallels with the US aid programme launched in Europe after World War II.

“The Marshall Plan did not only help individual nations to start rebuilding; it forced those countries to work together.”

Kohnstamm fears that not enough is being done to encourage the countries of central and eastern Europe to work and trade multilaterally, rather than conclude bilateral deals with the EU.

But is the West's relatively hands-off approach not necessary, given the need for the applicant countries to breathe the air of independence after half a century of oppression?

Kohnstamm accepts this, but does not recant. “After all, joining the Union means that certain elements of sovereignty, which have lost their value anyhow, are more usefully pooled together,” he says.

His slow, deliberate phrases are delivered as if for dictation. But there is no mistaking the urgency of his message as Kohnstamm launches into what he sees as the crux of the debate.

While major problems impeding integration could still arise from the East's struggling economies, he insists that “with political will they are solvable”. The real concern, he argues, is institutional: Europe's supranational bodies are pitifully unequipped for the administrative burden they intend to take on.

A true federalist, Kohnstamm has some simple messages for Intergovernmental Conference negotiators.

“We need more majority voting; it changes the atmosphere totally. As long as there is unanimity, a civil servant comes to Brussels and does not budge from his instructions. When a majority vote is possible, negotiation occurs,” he says.

Kohnstamm believes that the weighting of votes is also crucial.

“We have never had an influx that changes the relationship between the big states and the small states so much as this next round of enlargement,” he stresses.

“I think by far the best option is the so-called 'double majority', where you have to have a majority of states and a majority of people. This gives decisions two roots - that of the state and that of the people. Its other enormous advantage is that since not all the eastern states will enter at the same time, you avoid having to re-weight votes every time.”

Kohnstamm also feels that the president of the European Commission should have a far stronger say in the make-up of his team, insisting Commissioners should not be spies for EU governments.

Neither should each state be guaranteed a seat on the Commission, “or it will degenerate into a second tier of the permanent representation”.

As for flexibility - the cure-all solution to the EU's difficulties currently being touted at the IGC - Kohnstamm regards it with nothing but scorn.

“I think this has all got off to a false start. It began as a theory rather than a practice. In reality, one should ask: who is going to want to do what and how can you organise that? The debate on flexibility in the abstract will never come to a conclusion,” he insists.

Finally, he says, in an enlarged Union, “I do not feel that people will feel themselves represented only by a European Parliament. If the people are not with us, they are against us. Much more thought must be given to seeing how, without complicating decision-making even more, national political leaders can feel that they are involved.”

Despite his focus on internal EU affairs, Kohnstamm is also keenly aware of the international context in which enlargement is occurring.

“Enlargement means you look very carefully at your relations with Russia. The Union should take in the Baltic states, but we have to make clear that all this is done alongside a deepening of relations with Russia,” he says.

Kohnstamm dismisses the notion that the EU has no foreign policy as a “nonsensical” idea, insisting: “The biggest foreign policy in the world is getting these [eastern] states into an organised structure in a way that does not look like an opposition to Russia or the United States.”

But he warns: “In relations with the US, we may well enter an uneasy period. The US has been put into a hegemonical position in the world. We will have to come back, at some stage, to a really equal partnership.”

Always the global thinker, Kohnstamm turns finally to a favourite theme, insisting that the world's only hope is to group itself into a series of geo-political blocs.

“The world is now in a chaotic phase and looking to see where it should go. This experiment of having constraining rules and regulations between sovereign countries is a very new and important concept,” he says, adding: “The Union's experiment is of world-wide importance.”

If Kohnstamm is to be believed, the next round of enlargement could be its toughest test yet.