ROMANIA/BULGARIA/EU: Tough times loom for candidates
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer warned yesterday that an anti-enlargement mood would weaken the EU. Although most EU heads of states and governments have reiterated their desire to respect the treaties promising Romania and Bulgaria full membership, the failure to reach agreement at the Brussels summit on the 2007-13 budget and the earlier rejection in France and the Netherlands of the constitutional treaty may provide both the European Commission and some governments with reasons to depart from the original accession timetable.
Analysis
Emerging from the Brussels EU summit (at which he participated as an observer) Romanian Foreign Minister Mihai-Razvan Ungureanu told journalists that his country and Bulgaria "are part of the club". However, behind the air of confidence, governments in Bucharest and Sofia are worried that their original timetable to join the EU on January 1, 2007, now looks doubtful.
Obstacles. In theory, there should be no cause for concern. The accession negotiations are concluded, and the documents were signed on April 25. The death of the EU constitutional treaty -- now a foregone conclusion -- should make no difference; the Treaty of Nice, which remains in effect, already envisages a Europe including Romania and Bulgaria. The current president of the EU, Luxembourg's prime minister, reiterated the Union's determination to "respect its legal obligations".
However, apprehensions have arisen, mainly because, in the EU's current political conditions, a number of obstacles are reappearing:
-
Ratification. The accession treaties with Romania and Bulgaria are still to be ratified by all member countries. The support of the eight former communist states is assured: all have an interest in keeping Europe's door open to future candidates, such as Ukraine or Croatia.
However, in France, Germany and the Netherlands, the backlash against enlargement is strong. The French government will find it difficult to ask parliament to ratify the treaties with Romania and Bulgaria this autumn, as originally planned; in any case, the French are angry with Romania's determined support for the United States, and do not feel that they owe Bucharest any favours. Germany's opposition leader Angela Merkel (almost certain to lead her party to victory in a general election in September) has already expressed doubts about Romania and Bulgaria. The original accession timetable may slip, simply because ratification could take longer.
-
Tougher line from Brussels. The European Commission has often been accused of being too formulaic in its membership negotiations: accession 'chapters' were opened and closed, not so much because candidates met requirements, but because they promised to do so. Theoretically, the Commission cannot reopen the accession negotiations. Yet commissioners know that the public mood in Europe requires demonstrations that enlargements are serious affairs. EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn recently demanded proof that obligations were being met; the Commission has issued warnings that progress is either insufficient, or not fast enough, to Romania (see ROMANIA/EU: Entrenched interests oppose court reform - March 23, 2005) and Bulgaria (see BULGARIA/EU: Sofia sees treaty making entry certain - April 26, 2005).
The snag for both candidates is that the areas in which they are supposed to improve their performance in the next twelve months remain highly subjective. Eliminating corruption is ill defined -- the yardstick could be Greece, Italy, Slovakia -- or Scandinavia. Judicial reform has to be completed, but may require more than independence of the judiciary. Pollution controls must be applied, possibly more stringently than what was demanded of Poland, with its belching steel mills. In the past, the Commission was lenient on such points. Leniency is no longer politically fashionable.
-
Worsening treaty conditions. Unlike the eight former communist countries that joined the EU in 2004, Romania and Bulgaria already have a worse deal, in the shape of 'safeguard clauses' in their treaties, envisaging that membership may be postponed by one year, if conditions are not ripe. German and Austrian politicians are now suggesting that such a postponement could be extended.
Whichever way the budgetary debate goes, Romania and Bulgaria will lose out. Under the Luxembourg presidency's compromise arrangement (which failed to be adopted at the summit), the two candidates would have seen their total allocation of structural aid funds over 2007-13 reduced to about 30 billion euros (36 billion dollars) from 40 billion; the sums can only go down even further (see EUROPEAN UNION: Budget agreement unlikely until 2006 - June 20, 2005).
Finally, there is free movement of labour. In the current climate, most Western European members will not allow Romanian and Bulgarian workers to move freely until many years after their accessions (see EUROPEAN UNION: 'No' votes raise concerns for CEE - June 3, 2005). In short, even if the two candidates do accede, their anticipated benefits are receding.
Outlook. In the current political situation in Brussels, predictions are risky, but a consensus seems to be coalescing around a strategy of:
- delaying the ratification process for the Romanian and Bulgarian treaties until early next year, when the current mood in Europe may improve;
- toughening the Commission's approach, in order to persuade ordinary Europeans that enlargement is not a frivolous exercise;
- distinguishing Bulgaria from Romania, by allowing it to enter on January 1, 2007, but invoking the safeguard clause for a delay of one year for Romania which is, in any case, a much bigger country with many more problems; and
- reassuring current EU citizens that no 'hordes' of Romanian and Bulgarian migrants will stream across borders for a number of years thereafter.
The approach dovetails with the political calculations of many European leaders, anxious to leave the door open to further enlargements, but also keen to take the fears of their electorates seriously.
Consequences for candidates. The consequences of delayed ratification/accession for the two candidates will vary:
- Bulgaria. Sofia is unlikely to suffer much, almost regardless of the ultimate scenario. The country goes to the polls this week, with the opposition Socialists now certain to return to power. If the accession process continues unhindered, nothing will change. Even if Bulgaria's accession is postponed by one year, the Socialists could blame their predecessors for this setback, and the damage to the government will be minimised.
- Romania. The EU question could prove explosive in Bucharest. A decoupling of Romania from Bulgaria would be perceived as a major national humiliation. More gravely still, no Romanian politician could guarantee that a delay of one year may not be lengthened even further. The blame would fall squarely -- if unfairly -- on the government of Prime Minister Calin Popescu-Tariceanu. Calls for fresh elections (see ROMANIA: Government struggles to preserve credibility - May 31, 2005) would become irresistible. The Social Democrat opposition, emboldened by the victory in Bulgaria, might stand a good chance of returning to power, especially since current leader Mircea Geoana, a former foreign minister, claims particular competence in European matters.
The European Commission is acutely aware of these complications. However, given current circumstances, it may decide that reassuring existing EU voters is more important than keeping the Romanians happy.
Conclusion
Both Romania and Bulgaria are pinning their hopes on the UK presidency of the EU, in the second half of this year. Yet the United Kingdom, despite its support for enlargement, cannot influence the ratification process in other EU states. The stage is therefore set for some tough negotiations with the candidates, not so much because they are in a worse position than some existing member states, but because the EU now needs to prove its toughness towards enlargement.