Foreign policy key to expansion

Date: 17/04/1997

By Mark Turner

THE Union's plans to expand eastwards could be thrown off course if governments fail to strengthen its embryonic common foreign and security policy within the next two months.

The warning from one of the Commission's most senior officials, Günther Burghardt, the director-general in charge of relations with central and eastern Europe, underlines how much is at stake in the current Intergovernmental Conference negotiations.

One of the key decisions which will have to be taken when the IGC talks come to an end at the June summit in Amsterdam - if all goes according to plan - is whether the reforms have gone far enough to enable an enlarged Union to operate effectively.

IGC watchers have tended to focus their attention on issues such as the extension of qualified majority voting and the current battle over the size of the Commission in an enlarged Union in considering this issue.

But Burghardt believes the decisions taken on the future of the CFSP will also be crucial.

“If there is no substantive progress on a common foreign and security policy, that may not in itself be a sufficient reason not to enlarge, but an enlarged Union unable to project its influence will affect its political credibility and thereby water down the Union process,” he said in an interview with European Voice.

“Enlargement will not be facilitated if we remain in the state of incompleteness that we are in,” he added, referring to the obstacles member states now encounter when trying to agree a united stance on key foreign policy issues.

The failings of the Union's CFSP, especially in the former Yugoslavia, have been a source of embarrassment for the EU. Supporters of closer European integration insist the Union must be given the means to avoid a repeat performance. “The IGC's success will depend on whether, on the basis of its results, it will allow maintenance of the momentum of the integration process. Common foreign and security policy is part of the test,” said Burghardt.

He believes that many public statements on enlargement have failed to appreciate the complexities of the debate. “At the moment, people speak about enlargement without the kind of proper analysis the Commission has been asked to come up with. Member states will have to assume their responsibilities once the opinions and the other documents come out. The speeches will then have to give way to a more sophisticated evaluation,” he said.

The Commission's opinions will go a long way towards setting the tone of the enlargement debate in the second half of the year, although the final decision on whether or not the EU expands is firmly in the hands of national governments. Member states remain vague about precisely what the IGC must achieve to permit enlargement, although they agreed at the Madrid and Florence European summits that a 'substantial' outcome was necessary.

A senior German official explained: “We all know that we have to get fit for enlargement. To achieve this fitness, our decision-making process must become faster and more streamlined.”

A Dutch diplomat, echoing Burghardt's warning, confirmed the inherent pitfalls of an IGC which left some of the major problems on the EU agenda unresolved. “Let us imagine you have a very minimalist IGC, with no agreement on a system for enlargement. If there is not sufficient preparation, then negotiations will not start six months afterwards,” he predicted.

While most commentators expect at least some enlargement negotiations to begin next year whatever happens, the pace of talks is still open to question.

Ironically, the member state most opposed to further Union integration - the UK - is also one of the most enthusiastic about expansion to the east.

“We believe enlargement entails the same things the Union needs even if it does not expand, such as more efficient CFSP procedures and a planning secretariat. We do not accept that it needs anything like an extension of qualified majority voting,” said a British official.