 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
|
| I N S I G H T -------- Out of Ideas? AR al-Habib Environmentalism Michael Berliner Nationless Others Kate Huber Caucasus Fears A Abdurasulov Media Warfare JA Taylor Confront It... Salman Rushdie Jack Jihad C Beenfeldt The Goliath S Froestchel |
The EU Commission moves to redefine ''absorption capacity''
By Krzys Wasilewski
Posted: June 26, 2006
Having absorbed 10 new countries in 2004, the European Union has been encountering a series of
challenges. It will take years until the difference between the old and the new is reduced to tolerable
amounts. When Bulgaria and Romania are about to join the EU, the question arises whether the
European balloon will not blow up.
1st May 2004 was a symbolic day for the entire Europe. It was something more than the biggest
enlargement in the EU's history. It was a definite end of the Cold War that for half a century superficially
divided the continent. For countries such as Poland, Hungary or Lithuania joining the European Union
meant not only multi-billion Euro subsidies; it meant, first and foremost, a comeback to the family of
independent democratic states. The family they once belonged to and forcefully were separated from.
The moment celebration ended, the problems began. The European Union of 25 countries -- countries
with different experience, traditions and interests -- could no longer work as a club of mutual
understanding and easily achieved compromises. To tell the truth, it had never been one, but what
might have been a “friendly row” in the good old days, has become a frustrating daily grind.
The first test for the enlarged EU was the Iraq war. At the outset, Great Britain led a pro-American
coalition – the New Europe as Donald Rumsfeld put it - consisting mostly of Central and East
European states.
In a response, the Franco-German duel quickly assembled a group of countries traditionally
unfavourable to the Bush Administration. The former acted too hastily and recklessly, the latter lost cold
blood accusing the rebellious new members of “not using the chance to shut up.”
Not all the wounds had been healed when the EU suffered another blow. This time, however, there
could not be an American scapegoat for troubles. The European Constitution was to be a mile-step in
the integration; eventually it stuck in the mud of renewed nationalisms. “No” to the constitution, so
explicitly expressed in France and Holland, showed how far European politicians had differed from
their constituencies.
Either it was no for President Chirac, liberal market, or “Polish plumber” (personifying cheap labour
from the East), French and Dutch voters threw the constitution to the bin and now nobody dares to dirt
their hands and reach out for the document.
And here arises the question of soundness of giving Bulgaria and Romania the green light to join the
European Union. That the both countries were promised it many years ago is true. Just as true is the
fact that the Bulgarian and Romanian governments have made a lot of effort to come up with tough EU
restrictions. But reality remains harsh.
In Bulgaria, corruption has become so widespread that some find it hard to imagine the state working
without it. Moreover, recent car bombings show how great a role the local mafia play in internal politics.
Despite high economic growth in both the countries, national income per capita is almost twice as low
as in the poorest EU members.
Finally, Brussels wonders whether the people of Bulgaria and Romania are ready to accept liberal
values and give up newly rediscovered nationalism. Considering that the both countries have
unresolved problems with numerous ethnic minorities, the EU anxiety is excusable.
The European Commission is to redefine “absorption capacity.” That means no major enlargements
in the nearby future. While the accession of Bulgaria and Romania is rather definite, other countries,
such as Ukraine, may adjourn their dreams of a quick membership. The EU balloon, flexible as it is,
needs renovation before absorbing any more air.
### ### ###
Krzys Wasilewski is a Global Affairs Intern, The Atlantic Affairs.
By Krzys Wasilewski
Posted: June 26, 2006
Having absorbed 10 new countries in 2004, the European Union has been encountering a series of
challenges. It will take years until the difference between the old and the new is reduced to tolerable
amounts. When Bulgaria and Romania are about to join the EU, the question arises whether the
European balloon will not blow up.
1st May 2004 was a symbolic day for the entire Europe. It was something more than the biggest
enlargement in the EU's history. It was a definite end of the Cold War that for half a century superficially
divided the continent. For countries such as Poland, Hungary or Lithuania joining the European Union
meant not only multi-billion Euro subsidies; it meant, first and foremost, a comeback to the family of
independent democratic states. The family they once belonged to and forcefully were separated from.
The moment celebration ended, the problems began. The European Union of 25 countries -- countries
with different experience, traditions and interests -- could no longer work as a club of mutual
understanding and easily achieved compromises. To tell the truth, it had never been one, but what
might have been a “friendly row” in the good old days, has become a frustrating daily grind.
The first test for the enlarged EU was the Iraq war. At the outset, Great Britain led a pro-American
coalition – the New Europe as Donald Rumsfeld put it - consisting mostly of Central and East
European states.
In a response, the Franco-German duel quickly assembled a group of countries traditionally
unfavourable to the Bush Administration. The former acted too hastily and recklessly, the latter lost cold
blood accusing the rebellious new members of “not using the chance to shut up.”
Not all the wounds had been healed when the EU suffered another blow. This time, however, there
could not be an American scapegoat for troubles. The European Constitution was to be a mile-step in
the integration; eventually it stuck in the mud of renewed nationalisms. “No” to the constitution, so
explicitly expressed in France and Holland, showed how far European politicians had differed from
their constituencies.
Either it was no for President Chirac, liberal market, or “Polish plumber” (personifying cheap labour
from the East), French and Dutch voters threw the constitution to the bin and now nobody dares to dirt
their hands and reach out for the document.
And here arises the question of soundness of giving Bulgaria and Romania the green light to join the
European Union. That the both countries were promised it many years ago is true. Just as true is the
fact that the Bulgarian and Romanian governments have made a lot of effort to come up with tough EU
restrictions. But reality remains harsh.
In Bulgaria, corruption has become so widespread that some find it hard to imagine the state working
without it. Moreover, recent car bombings show how great a role the local mafia play in internal politics.
Despite high economic growth in both the countries, national income per capita is almost twice as low
as in the poorest EU members.
Finally, Brussels wonders whether the people of Bulgaria and Romania are ready to accept liberal
values and give up newly rediscovered nationalism. Considering that the both countries have
unresolved problems with numerous ethnic minorities, the EU anxiety is excusable.
The European Commission is to redefine “absorption capacity.” That means no major enlargements
in the nearby future. While the accession of Bulgaria and Romania is rather definite, other countries,
such as Ukraine, may adjourn their dreams of a quick membership. The EU balloon, flexible as it is,
needs renovation before absorbing any more air.
### ### ###
Krzys Wasilewski is a Global Affairs Intern, The Atlantic Affairs.
| (c) 2006 New Criterion Foundation, London |
| Security. Ideologies. Multiculturalism. |