|
The march of the continent came to an abrupt halt after it was ravaged by two gruesome world wars, claiming millions of lives and throwing the economy in tatters. European glory of the last three hundred years was on the brink of extinction. The golden period of Europe from the shores of renaissance, speeding along the tracks of industrial revolution and carrying the torch of enlightenment, entered a tunnel by the middle of 20th century where darkness seemed eternal. The glow of the torch fathomed to find an exit from the morass of death and despair.
World War II led to the division of the continent into two contending blocs and saw the iron grip of socialism strangling the eastern bloc. That the twains will ever meet remained a dream till the collapse of the Berlin Wall in the last decade of the previous century. The crumbling of the wall brought back visions of Europe in her pre-war days – a strident economy with a commanding position in the old world order when transatlantic American economy was still nascent, peasant Russia was reeling under the yoke of a czarist regime, the Middle East did not look beyond the golden sands of Sahara, and Zionist flames were yet to engulf the Arab world. The geography of Europe is centred around these different ‘worlds’.
By the turn of the century the geo-politics of the world had changed. America became a unipolar military might, socialist Russia had collapsed, missiles flew and tanks rolled over the golden sands of Baghdad. The world had a new terminology – Post 9/11.
In the light of this tumultuous past, enlargement is the biggest challenge the Union is facing at the beginning of the new millennium. And it is without any doubt one of the key priorities for the European Commission and other European institutions. The socio-political and economic ramifications of this challenge will determine Europe’s role in the new world order of American ‘big brother’.
Despite the political significance of completing the reunification of Cold War-divided Europe, the enlargement of the European Union will have a mixed bag of economic benefits and pose major challenges for the region. Though enlargement will bring a single Market of over 500 million consumers and a border-free area where goods and services can circulate freely, decades will be required for the 10 new members that joined the EU—most of them former Soviet bloc countries—to close the income gap with their richer, older counterparts in Western Europe.
The economic gap between the Union and the accession candidates has never been so wide before. The 10 new members are considerably poorer than the 15 older ones, with an average per capita GDP that is less than 40 percent of theirs. GDP per capita in percentage terms of the Union’s average varies between about two thirds for Slovenia 68 percentand the Czech Republic 60 percentand less than one third for Lithuania 31 percent, Latvia 27 percent, Romania 27 percentand Bulgaria 23 percent. Inflation rates vary between normal or moderate rates—Czech Republic 3.5 percent, Poland 6.5 percentand exorbitant rates of 40 percentin Romania or even more than 80 percentin Turkey.
But the countries of Central and Eastern Europe—Malta, Cyprus and Turkey—have shown a determination for change. Their economies are increasingly integrated with that of the Union and huge efforts are being made by all actors, parliaments, governments, the public and private sectors, to help them deal with the rapid change in economy due to acceptance of the Euro.
Economy
The Euro or single currency, as it is also known, will unite member states by creating a common currency. The installment of a single currency in Europe was an aim drafted in the Maastricht Treaty (1992). It has implications on almost every level. Governments, economies, businesses and individuals will all be affected in their own way. The treaty formed a plan that involved the monetary and economic integration of the member states of the European Commission. The strive to integrate Europe has been evident since World War II after it was in a state of political and economic ruin. There was an urge to create political harmony on the basis of interdependence. The alliance between countries would make war or political unrest undesirable, and unrest would ultimately have a self-destructing effect.
The economic aim of the Euro is to create responsive economies existing in a more equal environment. The Euro will provide Europe with a major economic business tool to compete with the two other major trading blocs of North America and the Pacific Rim. Economists argue that the single currency will increase efficiency leading to Europe becoming more competitive in world markets. Another goal of the single currency is to increase trade and investment flows. A single currency would unite Europe trade wise and increase its market size massively. The EU is very active in Canada and has recently secured a highly favourable free trade agreement with Mexico although it is a backyard member of Washington’s own North American regional block. In the world market, the EU has secured its own free trade agreement with South Africa, the most significant economy in Africa, an agreement that it is also using as a model and an influence in the rest of the continent. Trade relations with South Africa directly affect Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Namibia: fellow members with South Africa in the Southern African Customs Union (SACU). Apart from this it is also pursuing its own comprehensive reciprocal free trade agreements through so-called Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with all 77 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries.
EU is now by far the most important trading partner for member states. Their imports from the EU and exports to the EU range between 50 percent for countries like Bulgaria and Lithuania to more than 70 percent for Poland and Slovenia. The US is starting to feel EU’s increasing clout. Over the last year alone, the conservative party coalition that dominates the European Parliament has found common ground with Socialists and Greens in supporting policies that challenge the way American companies produce chemicals, manufacture cars, conduct genetic research and handle financial services. US corporate titans like Microsoft were fined US$600 million for anti-competitive practices; Philip Morris agreed to pay US$1.25 billion in July to resolve accusations that it had helped to organize smuggling of its own cigarettes into the EU. Trans-Atlantic corporate mergers have been trumped repeatedly by EU’s Competition Commission.
What does Europe gain from an extended European Union? What are the political benefits?
The enlargement process is vital for securing political stability, democracy and respect of human rights on the European continent as a whole. An attempt to create a transatlantic community of democratic nations defending common values on a global scale is being made.
Political stability and freedom will be increased throughout Europe. Against the background of many years of crisis in the Balkans, the integration process is given immense importance. The only way to achieve lasting stability in Europe is further integration.
The enlargement process also contributes to greater political stability within and between candidate states. This will reduce the risk of potential regional conflicts. Today, minorities in candidate countries are better protected than only a few years ago. The situation of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia has improved and language laws including safeguards for the Russian minorities in Estonia and Latvia are being drafted.
Security in the new world order
Europeans are having some difficulty in adapting to the new international context created both by terrorist threats and by political and military developments in the US after the attacks. Over-militaristic and hyper-unilateralist America has somehow become a destabilising factor in traditional European security thinking.
But it would be a mistake to conclude that the momentum for implementing a European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) within the EU framework is dead. The momentum is changing, simply because the rationale for ESDP is today totally different from what it was in 1999.
For the European Union—a body recently divided over the pre-emptive use of military force in Iraq—adoption of a muscular foreign policy doctrine marks a new departure. The strategy represents a more self-confident Europe, determined to match the US, if not yet in military force, then at least in global influence. The EU doctrine echoes some of Washington’s concerns by stressing the danger of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. It takes a hawkish tone by allowing for “robust intervention” to combat threats when diplomatic efforts fail, and by calling for the build-up of Europe’s military capabilities and defense budgets. But it diverges from the US strategy with a strong endorsement of multilateralism and the UN, as well as an emphasis on diplomacy and aid. And the document does not endorse the American approach of forcing regime change on rogue states; calling instead for the promotion of “good governance”. The new doctrine is not just empty words. With 60,000 peacekeeping troops and the expected appointment of a foreign minister, the EU is becoming a more unified and powerful global actor.
The reality of EU readiness for military action is more modest, however. Defense expenditure remains low in most European states. Governments across the bloc have to move faster to transform their huge Cold War armies into smaller, faster and more efficient fighting machines, capable of tackling threats both inside and outside Europe. And despite their current small peace missions in the Balkans and Africa, European troops have not undertaken high-risk, high-intensity military operations. EU defense experts admit that governments must work harder to fill a list of capability shortfalls, and Javier Solana has called on EU nations to pool their resources and stop duplication of assets such as tanks and helicopters.
Work on more ambitious projects has begun. European governments agreed last year to launch production of the Airbus A400M transport aircraft: the bloc’s largest joint military project. European armed forces, which have had to rely on renting large Antonov transports from Russia, will have the new Airbus transport systems as of 2007. In May this year, meanwhile, the European Space Agency launched the Galileo satellite navigation system, which will help guide cars and planes.
How are relations with the neighbours of an extended Union shaping up?
Politically speaking, the present enlargement process will have a profound impact on the Union’s relations with countries of the Western Balkans as well as with its neighbours to the East, Russia and Ukraine in particular, and to the South. With Russia and Ukraine, the Union will establish strategic partnerships and seek contractual relations with Mediterranean countries, with the perspective of establishing a free trade area.
The only bone of contention in the Union is the accession of Turkey. To the discomfort of its small Westernized secular elite, it remains Asian and Muslim not only in the bulk of its land mass but more importantly in its common people’s culture, religion, and way of life. Although it has managed to hold onto a small piece of Europe’s southeastern corner in the aftermath of the Balkan wars almost a century ago, its recent history validates Samuel Huntington’s verdict that modern Turkey is a “torn country.”
Despite the fact that German and French leaders are holding talks with Turkey, there is heavy opposition to its joining the Union. In France, the opposition to Turkey’s membership is 56:36, with the rest undecided. In Austria, whose people are even better equipped to make this judgement, as the country has many times more Turks than France, three-quarters of respondents adamantly oppose Turkey’s EU membership. The Dutch also oppose it by two-to-one. If there was to be a pan-European referendum on the issue, Turkey would never join.
But join it will. For ideological reasons, EU leaders need to maintain the pretense that a Muslim country can and will become democratic, tolerant, modern, and nice. They have eagerly accepted, at face value, Erdogan’s assurances that he has given up on political Islam.
In the midst of all the celebrations there are some problem areas that Europe needs to look at. The dispute over the selection of executive members for the European Commission needs to be looked at. The governance problem is epitomized by the conflict between the European Parliament, which is an elected body, and the European Commission, which has a great deal of power but is not an elected body and increasingly represents the interests of national governments.
Paris and Berlin have taken the lead in forging a common agenda for the current inter-governmental conference (IGC). They have ensured that the IGC will tackle “flexibility” (also known as “enhanced co-operation”). But as far as large sections of the British press are concerned, an old pattern is being repeated. France and Germany call the shots, and Britain has to choose between accepting their flawed designs for an ever closer union, or stand alone in splendid isolation. Tony Blair’s constrictive attitude towards this has helped to make Britain a serious player in Europe’s politics. But his close proximity to Bush does not augur well for Europe. It would be ironic if, just when EU politics is opening up, British obstructionism helps to create the very situation that Eurosceptics love to hate: sustained Franco-German leadership over core Europe. The best way for Tony Blair to avoid this scenario is to be bolder ‘on the euro and more flexible on flexibility.’
Nevertheless, the champagne that flowed in Brussels last June, when 155 million people voted for the European Parliament, was testament to a new feeling in Europe these days: that despite US opposition, international initiatives are moving ahead. First there was Kyoto, then the International Criminal Court, then the Land Mine Treaty. Snubbed by the Bush Administration, these initiatives are nevertheless gaining international legitimacy without American participation. While the Iraq war highlighted Europe’s differences with the US, the Union has been pursuing an independent foreign policy on other fronts as well, quietly extending its influence through trade pacts, human rights and peace initiatives in Latin America, Africa and Asia.
|
