No Cause for Celebration as Yet
The EU Summit in Copenhagen was a success, judging by what leaders of EU member states and Union executives had to say, by European press reviews, and, notably, by statements of the leaders of ten countries soon to join the European Union. The summit marked an historic event for Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Malta, and Cyprus. Its outcome disappointed Turkey. Nothing has changed for Bulgaria and Romania. They will be invited to join EU in 2007 or thereabouts. Ukraine, together with Moldova and Belarus, are mentioned in passing as “Neighbors” in the closing document of the EU’s current Danish leadership. The document reads that EU supports the European aspirations of the Balkan states and plans “to strengthen the relationships with Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus.” Ukraine is offered a “new neighbor initiative,” whose concept is still to be developed. Oleksandr Chaly, state secretary of the Foreign Ministry, told The Day that Kyiv sees positive signs in the fact that, when drafting this concept, the Union intends to proceed from the assumption that each country — Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova — is different as to development level and its relationships with EU, meaning that there will be a different EU policy with respect to each country. As before, the EU adamantly refuses to discuss the possibility of Ukraine’s associated membership and to use the term integration in any bilateral documents with Ukraine. As before, it is anyone’s guess how the new European reality will impact both the situation in Ukraine and its relationships with Poland and other countries that will join EU; apart from the visa regime, scores of other limitations and problems are imminent. It is common knowledge that before long all agreements between Ukraine and the prospective EU members will be revised to adjust them to the EU standard. Also, EU and Ukraine are going to perform a technical analysis, before March 2003, to see how the Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation is being implemented before moving on to the political analysis. For the time being, EU insists that the agreement remain the fundamental instrument in the bilateral relationship. Kyiv believes that it does not reflect the changes that have occurred over the past few years and proposes to negotiate a new document.
Poland has a special occasion to celebrate. After blitz talks, Warsaw managed to secure another billion euros, thus increasing the EU enlargement budget to 41.5 billion euros. The Polish delegation came to the summit with a whole lot of unresolved issues, especially concerning agriculture as the most vulnerable sector. They were told point blank: either accept the terms offered or be ready to join EU on the enlargement wave-crest in 2007. What made the EU leaders reconsider their stand is anyone’s guess. Much was said during the summit about the need to redress historical injustice and the results of the 1945 Yalta Conference, about the need to reunite Europe, and about the sense of guilt of the West before Central and Eastern Europe. In this context, relegating Poland to the periphery of EU enlargement was out of the question. Summit participants even seemed to have no misgivings about the fact that little progress had been made in the unification of Cyprus on the eve of the summit. As of May 1, 2004, reads the closing document, all the ten countries will become new members of the European Union.
Until then, a document on their accession must be drafted. This agreement is expected to be signed when Greek takes over EU leadership, sometime in the first half of next year. In 2003, the countries invited to join EU will hold referendums on their accession to the Union. This relay race will start in Cyprus, followed by Malta, Hungary, where the idea of joining the United Europe enjoys the broadest public support, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states, and Slovenia. The formal accession of ten countries to the EU will take place under Irish leadership. A single-phase enlargement of the EU from 15 to 25 member states, analysts warn, will not only redress historical injustice, but also create a completely new geopolitical reality whose consequences cannot be foreseen and calculated overnight.
Hence statements to the effect that EU enlargement should have its limits, made among others by the European Commission President Romano Prodi. Neither EU, nor analysts are sure that the first stage of an ideologically new enlargement will pass off smoothly. In fact, officials in Brussels say even now that Poland’s membership spells big problems for the Union — unlike Hungary which is believed best prepared for the status. Also, that “Warsaw cannot expect that being as big and as poor as Spain, Poland will have the same influence in the EU.”
Clearly, geopolitical changes will bring about changes in trade and economic relations, although their consequences are hard to predict even in Poland. Poland and Lithuania promised to make every effort to bring Ukraine closer to the European Union, but they may find their efforts insufficient. In view of this, Kyiv is likely to consider building a pro-Ukrainian lobby in the EU as a top priority.
It is generally known why Ukraine was left out of this major European enlargement. European integration, calling for all-out efforts in all aspects of domestic evolution, did not become the ultimate goal of the Ukrainian elite, nor did it turn into a political paradigm. Add here Western Europe still regarding Ukraine as part of an altogether different civilization. Evidence of this attitude is in the recent statements of Romano Prodi and Commissioner Chris Patten of the European Commission. Both have actually made Ukraine ineligible as a candidate EU member. The Russian factor is also at play. All of the above arguments carry some weight.
It is also true, however, that a decade ago ten prospective EU members were told to give up all hope of joining the Union anytime before fifty years had elapsed.
