Not only the internal structure of the enlarged EU is unknown, but it also seems that the EU does not have any idea which countries are going to become its members. The today’s stance of the EU is that any country may be considered as an applicant as long some part of its territory lies in Europe. Though this condition sounds reasonable, it is strictly bureaucratic and it does not convey any vision of the future of the EU. The new pre-condition for membership should consider the common values with which the community of the European nations is imbued; common heritage and culture. However, it should also take into account stability, security and economic efficiency of the enlarged European Union.
27 + 4 + 5 = 36
Today, the EU comprises 15 members, but, if everything goes well, it is enlarging to 25 this May and, with accession of Romania and Bulgaria, to 27 in 2007. There is no doubt that the few Western European countries that have not joined the EU yet, namely Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, would satisfy the criteria. The economies of these countries are so convergent with the economies of the EU member states that their ultimate accession to the EU seems only to be a matter of time. The next step that does not seem to be especially controversial is the expansion to the South. Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia and Albania seem to fit into the EU. The mere prospect of accession has already acted as an incentive for the peoples of Serbia and Croatia to democratise their countries. Such an enlargement would definitely help to defuse the “Balkan keg” and to finally end the age of ethnical, national and religious conflicts in the region. This could also provide a lasting solution for Kosovo, which is protected by the European police and already uses the European currency. Considering substantial economic and political differences between those states, the Southern Enlargement is not likely to proceed in one or two turns, as it is with the Eastern one. However, it seems to be fairly certain, as this would contribute to the general stability and security of the whole European continent. Europe cannot allow itself to have any more war of the Kosovo-style. Finally, the expansion would bridge Greece to the rest of the EU.
What about Islam?
The EU is primarily a Christian club now. Can it allow itself to admit countries with strong Islamic traditions? We should answer this question against the same criteria as above. If the admission of Turkey will add to the security and economic efficiency of the EU, this country should not be left out. The criterion of the common culture and tradition should not exclude Islam altogether. The common European values include above all liberal democracy, a clear division of religion and state and human rights. In the case of Turkey, these criteria are not yet met, but it does not mean that the conditions would not be satisfied in 10 or 15 years. Turkey has already been a secular country since 1928 and has a strong and lasting relationship to Europe. It is a Muslim country, but so are Albania and Bosnia. Though its democracy and economy are not sufficiently stable, the mere possibility of future membership is remedying those defects even now. Besides, if Europe wants to be faithful to one of its underlying principles, namely pacta sunt servanta, it should fulfil its promise given to Turkey in 1973. However, considering the pace of Turkey’s evolution to stability and democracy, the final accession should not proceed soon.
Further East?
The EU should pay more attention to such big countries as Turkey and the Ukraine. Both of them are too large and too important for their regions to be left alone. Otherwise, they could become a future source of disturbances. They are too small and too weak to become regional points of gravity. Their internal situation may deteriorate pretty easily and they are big enough cause a lot of problems not only for the EU. The future of the Ukraine, but also of Belarus and Moldavia is not settled yet. All three countries are under a varying degree of Russian influence. All of them have unstable democracies and weak economies. Alexis de Tocqueville said that small populations and small countries always follow their bigger neighbours. It would be impossible to make a “buffer zone” between Russia and the EU out of the Ukraine, Moldavia and Belarus. If those countries followed Russia, the economic stability and democracy of this region would be endangered. The EU needs to offer those three states at least a distant chance of membership. Unfortunately, Belarus, or at least its president, seems to have made its choice.
Anyone else?
There is a few more countries which have been considering joining the EU, namely Israel, Morocco and Georgia. Those countries lie outside Europe and their membership should be ruled out. Admission of Israel would not help in any way to solve the Middle East crisis and could even deteriorate it, whereas Morocco with its absolutist regime and polygamy does not go along with the basic European values. The biggest advocate of Georgia’s membership is America alone. Georgia is a small, but a very unstable country in terms of economy, democracy and security. If this country was admitted, there would be no reason why Armenia and Azerbaijan should be left out. This would result in the EU’s overstretching itself. There is no place for those countries in the EU in the foreseeable future.
The European Union should work out at least a “roadmap” for its future. Without a clear vision of who may become its member, the EU may start losing its identity and values. The EU should elaborate a clear vision of its future and purpose.
How far can the European Union expand?