EU Set for Expansion

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

EU Set for Expansion

Commentary:
Expanding the EU in the Interests of the Big Powers

Irish Referendum Second Time Around

Rally: No Privatisation - No EURO

The European Commission said on October 9 that ten candidate countries will be ready to join the EU in 2004. The list includes eight East European nations – the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia – plus the Mediterranean islands of Cyprus and Malta.

"Thirteen years ago, Berlin was still divided by a wall of shame," EC President Romano Prodi said at the presentation of the Commission's annual progress reports on the candidate countries. "The wall has fallen. Our common destiny is to build our future together," he added.

Of the remaining candidates, two are seen as possibly entering the Union in a second wave of enlargement. The EU said it "takes note" of Bulgaria's and Romania's target date of 2007 and promised to support the two countries' efforts in preparing for membership.

"It is not our decision that Bulgaria and Romania will not be part of the first wave of enlargement. It is their own decision. They have said that they want to accede in 2007, and all the commitments assumed by them are linked to that date, not 2004," EU Commissioner for Enlargement Guenter Verheugen said.

Both countries reacted positively to the reports. Romanian Prime Minister Adrian Nastase called the EC assessment "balanced", while Bulgarian counterpart Simeon Saxe-Coburg said that negotiations with the EU were progressing in the right direction. But the report's generally favourable view of Bulgaria's accession hopes was clouded by an explicit statement that the country should meet its commitments on decommissioning the four oldest units at the Kozloduy nuclear power plant.

Turkey, which was named an EU candidate in 1999 but has not yet opened accession negotiations, was not given a date for initiation of talks. The Commission noted the significant progress the country has made recently towards meeting EU criteria for membership, especially in the area of human rights, but said a lot more needed to be done.

Speaking ahead of the formal release of the reports, Turkish Foreign Minister Sukru Sina Gurel warned of a possible setback in his country's relations with the EU if Turkey was not given a date this year for the opening of accession negotiations. Should this happen, Gurel suggested, Ankara could reconsider the trade agreement it signed with the EU six years ago.

"Of course the customs union arrangement will have to be reviewed" if Turkey experiences disappointment in the accession process, the minister said.

Gurel expressed hope that the EU would change its current stance so that a date for starting talks can be adopted at the Copenhagen summit in December. He also voiced Ankara's concerns about the inclusion of Cyprus in the first wave of enlargement, suggesting this could block reunification of the divided island.

The European Commission’s announcement was unwelcome for Western-minded politicians in Turkey. Coming less than a month before early parliamentary elections on November 3, analysts said, it could affect the outcome, possibly benefiting nationalist parties that are not keen to see their country in the EU.

The EC's report on Turkey was met with criticism in Washington. "We hope the European Union will begin accession talks with Turkey as soon as possible," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said. Other US officials expressed concern for the "lack of respect" the EU was showing to Turkey.

"We've long believed that Turkey's future is in Europe," Boucher said. "It's in the strategic interest of the United States and the European Union … that Turkey and the European Union build the closest possible relationship," he added.

The European Commission invitation to 10 countries to join the EU in the next wave of enlargement signals a hectic endgame of negotiations ahead of the heads of government meeting in Copenhagen on December 12 and 13. The EU heads of government have to endorse the Commission enlargement timetable and strategy as well as conclude the final entry negotiations. This means that they should be ready to join the EU in 2004.

The choice of 10 countries joining the EU all at once in the next wave of enlargement – in what has been termed the "big bang scenario" – makes the negotiation between current and future EU members on the terms and costs of enlargement vital in terms of the big powers of Old Europe maintaining their dominance.

Commentators have been pointing out that EU must agree on what is to be offered to the applicants in the all-important area of the budget no later than the extraordinary European Council in Brussels on October 24 and 25. The tactics of the big powers will be to ensure that they quickly conclude deals with the countries which present the fewest obstacles, while holding the threat of possible exclusion in this wave of enlargement from others. This exemplifies how the neo-liberal agenda is being enforced and the interests of the contending big monopolies are put in a dominating position.

Although, for example, Germany wishes to ensure its interests are dominant as against France and Britain, these big powers all see the necessity for the agenda of liberalisation and privatisation that enlargement should proceed at this time. This agenda is also closely paralleled by the agenda for NATO enlargement, which is the focus of the Prague Summit in November. This is another factor for ensuring the successful completion of the enlargement negotiations in December.

The enlargement also aims to tie the smaller countries hand and foot into this agenda of the big powers. It will be a gross fetter on their sovereignty. Far from their interests being served as a collective, these peoples will become further subject to the dictate of this agenda.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has welcomed the Commission's announcement that the 10 candidate countries should be able to complete negotiations this year. In his view these countries would soon "reap the fruits" of having "worked hard over the last 10 years to implement the political and economic reforms necessary to join the European club". But "reaping the fruits" of the so-called "political and economic reforms" is just what is causing the most militant opposition of the working people of Britain and other EU countries to the neo-liberal agenda.

This agenda is not about eradicating war and locking in peace and stability as the Foreign Secretary suggests. It is about fulfilling the dreams of the reactionary sections of finance capital for a Europe united under their domination – in other words, what the peoples of Europe shed their blood to prevent. But the peoples of Europe, including of the new applicant countries, will not be reconciled to remain incidental to this agenda of the big powers of Europe.

Neither will they remain reconciled to a Europe as a military superpower marauding the world, either under the aegis of the United States or for the interests of imposing the will of the European monopolies. The big powers in this respect put forward the prospect for the peoples of being bled dry as military expenditure increases and being used as cannon fodder in further aggressive adventures.

Tony Blair and the Labour government have been the most enthusiastic advocates of both EU and NATO expansion. They even speak of the creation of a "common European home", which is a concept shot through with Hitlerite resonance and racism, and speaks of the dreams of world domination and the elimination of national identities.

The British government in particular has been ideologising about strengthening the EU to combat, as Jack Straw puts it, "the three main threats to our security: the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; the scourge of global terrorism; and failed and failing states." His argument is that an expanded and modernised NATO would tackle these challenges, but that the stability of Europe would be equally dependent on the enlargement of the European Union.

He is happy that the applicants "have proved their commitment to the political and economic values which underpin the Union and the Alliance".

He has recently gone on record as supporting a written constitution for Europe, so that political change proceeds hand in hand with economic reform, attacking attachment to national projects. This is also a path toward the strengthening of the single market and the adoption of the single currency.

These goals cannot be accepted by the peoples of Europe, neither must the workers and progressive people in Britain let the remarks of Jack Straw and the agenda of the British government go unchallenged. They must put forward their own vision of a Europe of sovereign states, in which the working class plays the leading role. They must uphold the right of the peoples of Europe to their sovereignty, alongside the strengthening of the unity of the working class of all the European nations.

With the second Irish referendum now behind them, European Union leaders and candidate countries are settling down for the endgame of accession negotiations.

Though not strictly necessary for EU enlargement, a No vote by the Irish people on the Nice Treaty would have led the European Commission to the so-called "miraculous save" emergency solution. This would have been the expedient of including much of its content in the Accession Treaties with the individual applicant countries. It would also have been likely to knock the tight enlargement timetable off course.

However, its main message would have been a blow to the political establishment of Ireland and Europe, a signal that the political will of the Irish people is against the economic violence of the European club of the monopolies dictating the direction of the economy as well as the compromising of their sovereignty as a people. The fact that the Irish people rejected this course in the first referendum is a reflection that establishment propaganda and the bankrolling by financial interests was not sufficient to sway them from asserting their identity. It was a reflection of the disaffection with the established political process and institutions. This sentiment has not gone away. Rather, the establishment was determined to press ahead until the result favourable to them was reached. It appears that the politics of character assassination and scaremongering were brought into play. In other words, the establishment did everything possible to prevent a dispassionate consideration of the issues. Commentators are saying that the No vote won the argument despite the referendum result.

The Danish Presidency of the EU echoes the big powers of Europe when it says that with the result of the Irish referendum it has got the best possible point of departure for the negotiations with the candidate countries. By this it means to convince the applicants that the only future lies in coming into the EU at whatever terms. This gives the EU the room to manoeuvre, play the applicant countries against each other and ensure the domination in the EU institutions of the four or five major powers.

Rally: No Privatisation - No EURO Saturday 26 October 2002 1-4.30pm Speakers include Bob Crow - General Secretary, RMT John Cryer MP Doug Nicholls - General Secretary CYWU Caroline Lucas MEP - Green Party Anna McKeown - amicus Anthony Coughlan - National Platform, Ireland Brian Denny - Executive Committee CAEF (John Boyd - Secretary, Campaign against Euro-federalism is unable to speak) Speaker from UNISON A Leading Economist Meeting chaired by Denis Anderson Convened by Campaign against Euro-federalism Supported by Trade Unions against the Single Currency Friends Meeting House - Euston Road, London Further details - 0151 691 1746 or caef@caef.org.uk