The EU's Catch-22

COPENHAGEN: Worrying signs are mounting that the European Union’s enlargement process is losing steam. Bringing into the EU applicant countries from Central and Eastern Europe, as well from the Baltic region, however, remains the single most important item on the European agenda in our time. It would be a mistake of historic proportions to delay it. For stalling could pose a serious threat to European stability far out of proportion to enlargement’s costs.

Enlargement will undoubtedly pose many practical problems. But the magnitude of the economic costs should not be exaggerated: after all, the aggregate GNP of the 10 applicant countries from the former communist bloc is smaller than the GNP of Holland! Structural support to new members from current EU members, indeed, is expected to be less than 4% of Dutch GNP. Transfers of wealth on the scale of what took place between West and East Germany won’t happen. Indeed, enlargement’s total cost will be less than the annual increase in the EU Commission’s own resources which "normal" economic growth provides.

Costs, of course, are not the only difficulty. One additional problem concerns the establishment within applicant countries of administrative and democratic structures compatible to those that exist in today’s EU. But if present EU members erect conditions on membership that are too harsh for newcomers to meet, they run the risk of creating a "Catch-22" situation. In his novel of that title Joseph Heller described the situation faced by some fighter pilots in WWII: medics can ground anyone who is crazy, provided that the pilot requests to be grounded. Because fear in the face of danger is a normal human reaction, however, anyone who requests grounding cannot be crazy and so cannot be grounded. That’s "Catch-22".

The same might be said about joining the EU: if you can only become a member by living up to the standards of the Union, you will never become a member, since you need membership to entrench those standards.

Keep in mind that European integration is a political endeavour. Economics are the means, politics the purpose. This was made clear in the preamble to the Treaty of Rome more than 40 years ago: "...pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty....". The six founding members - Germany, France, Italy, and the Benelux-countries - waged war against each other several times during the first half of the 20th century. Nowadays, however, war between members of the EU is not only unlikely and unbelievable, but also impossible. This proves the point: European integration is first and foremost an instrument to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty.

This was the guiding principle behind past enlargements to include democracies that were, at the time of their admission, new and fragile: first Greece, then Spain and Portugal. It is in full conformity with its original vision that the Union now be enlarged to include the new democracies of Eastern and Central Europe and the Baltics. This process must not be delayed by lack of perspective.

Subscribe to PS Digital
PS_Digital_1333x1000_Intro-Offer1

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

One corner of Europe is in particular need of prompt action: the Baltic Sea Region. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania cannot join NATO for the foreseeable future. Therefore it is necessary to bring them into the EU as soon as possible in order to make it absolutely clear to their big neighbour, Russia, that in today’s Europe Aspheres of interest” no longer exist; that the Baltic three are equal members of the European family.

When you discuss this issue with our American allies, they fail to understand why an EU of 350 million people hesitates to absorb less than 8 million people in order to mend historic fences. Bringing in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia would strengthen stability in the Baltic area, because the rules of the game would be crystal clear to everyone, both with regard to security and to human and minority rights. There would be no room left for adventures on either side.

Alas, as always, the Devil is in the details: the EU’s institutions were originally designed for 6 members, but within a decade or two the EU will probably have 25-30 (perhaps more) member states. So reform is vital. But calls to reform can also be used as delaying tactics. When I listen to the grand, visionary speeches about Europe’s future put forward recently by some EU political leaders - President Chirac’s recent speech to the Bundestag being the most otherworldly - I am struck by the thought that these visions are worthless if designed to cover up a lack of enthusiasm to face the challenges of enlargement.

Now is not the time to discuss far-reaching visions, nor to start constructing "inner circles" in the Union. Now is the time to give concrete direction and pledges regarding enlargement. For Europe’s task is to maintain and strengthen structures of cooperation that retain the advantages of diversity and independence without reviving the old curse of the European nation state: xenophobia, bloodshed, and war. A stronger, wider EU must be our priority.

https://prosyn.org/WKWWFoR