A Mayday Call for Enlargement

An EU project that is both successful and vital to Europe should not be jettisoned. by TOL 6 June 2005 May began with celebrations in the EU’s eastern half, and ended with deep deflation on the EU’s western front. In Central Europe and the Baltic states, the first year of EU membership was seen by the political elite and most of their populations as a success; in the west, it seemed to have added an unexpected combustibility to underlying uncertainties about Europe’s future.

Much now depends on how this contrast is interpreted. The EU’s problems seem to be wide-ranging, fundamental, and far from simple, with uncertainties about most everything – about Europe’s political leaders, Europe’s direction (toward a free market, a multi-speed Europe, or a federal Europe), the constraints imposed and changes required by the EU (by, for instance, the euro and by budget requirements), the size of the EU (further enlargement), and its cultural unity (symbolized by Turkey).

The danger, already very apparent in the French referendum in particular, is that the east’s happiness and the west’s malaise will be interpreted as a sign that the problems within the EU can be simplified to the notion of a New Europe versus an Old Europe, of an Anglo-Saxon Europe versus a European social model – and that the conclusion will therefore be that Europe was mistaken to enlarge.

THE GREAT EU PROJECT IS…

That simplification needs an antidote. One message is that, if some voters want a smaller Europe tailor-made to national interests and others want a looser Europe, the only way to avoid a permanent rip is to seek a new and looser arrangement. It would be better to formalize the loosening than to see it undermined (as Germany and France have done with the Stability Pact) or to pursue agendas with no prospect of success (such as common taxes and a French-style social model).

The danger for Europe – and for the countries in its eastern half, still in need of solidarity as they strive to continue their post-1989 recovery – is how to loosen ties without unraveling the EU.

That danger seems large since the range of arguments that prompted the Dutch and the French to vote “no” seemed to suggest that they want the EU – as well as its constitution – to be sent back to the drawing board for some major redesign.

Still, going back to the drawing board offers Europe’s leaders an opportunity to focus on the EU’s founding principles, its goals, and to focus on successes. Those suggest that there is one EU project that is vital and successful but also in danger of being jettisoned.

Europe’s leaders should insist on founding principles, such as solidarity and the free movement of goods, services, capital, and people. To some this liberalization might seem like just part of the other unwelcome -izations, such as globalization and Anglo-Saxonization, but this liberalization is rooted in the notions of cooperation. To some in Western Europe, solidarity with the new member-states – in the form of structural funds – may seem like a zero-sum game. But, when the EU budget for 2007-2013 is discussed, it should be generous to new members: Voters may eventually realize that helping Poland become wealthier may be as good as helping Ireland proved to be.

They should focus on the EU’s founding interests, which were to increase security and prosperity, through cooperation and solidarity. They should therefore continue to put forward that ideal, by supporting enlargement to include the countries of Europe left outside by the Cold War and by the wars in the Balkans.

It should also focus on its strengths, and one of those is that the EU is a club that is both appealing and stringent. In other words, the enlargement process – and the transformation of societies in trouble – is not just good in itself, but Europe’s most appealing way of showing the world it is attractive, strong, influential, meaningful, truly a global force for change. Continuing that drive – into the Balkans and beyond – will demonstrate Europe’s power more effectively than any other foreign-policy notion currently on the table.

In short, while Europe struggles to find an overarching idea and a system that it is happy with, the great EU project should be enlargement. That might seem an implausible, possibly even a Quixotic cause for any leader to champion at this point. It might also be seen as unresponsive to the messages sent by the French and Dutch.

It need not be. Europe’s leaders need to respond by explaining the founding principles and the goals of the EU and showing more clearly that those principles and goals can help Europe in future decades just as they have in past decades. They should also point out that a Europe that cannot even adapt to and manage competition within Europe has little hope of controlling, responding to, and competing with the forces of change outside the EU. That is principled, rather than unresponsive leadership.

In any case, the messages about enlargement sent by the “no” votes may prove exaggerated. Over the coming months and years some of the very same discontents that have fed the antipathy towards enlargement, prompted the rejections of the constitution and contributed to Germany’s malaise may transform Europe’s political landscape, by bringing to power more reform-minded leaders in Germany (Angela Merkel) and in France (Nicolas Sarkozy).

As Europe’s sputtering “motor” goes through those national debates, the EU’s would-be members need to be encouraged to reform and to prepare themselves for membership. If Europe’s leaders then feel that they need a referendum before future enlargement and if the vote is then “no,” so be it: Years of trying to join the EU would have helped the transformation of the western Balkans, Ukraine, Moldova and – hopefully, one day – also Belarus.

A rejection of further enlargement, though, would show that some of the post-World War II divisions in Europe persist. If that is the case, the end of the post-war period could be traced back to 29 May 2005. Perhaps it is appropriate that there was also another anniversary this May: the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II.