EU Enlargement: Implications for Europe, Cyprus, and the Eastern Mediterranean

The enlargement of the European Union and its recent efforts to embrace the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean is not a new phenomenon. In reality, since the 1950s when the original six signed the Treaties of Paris and Rome and established the three European Communities, Europe has been going through a more or less continuous enlargement process. The six became nine in 1973, ten in 1986, and fifteen in 1995.

What is today the EU was envisioned by pioneers like Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, who were determined that there should not be another French-German war. The idea was to create a safe, stable, peaceful, and prosperous region, which would act as an anchor of stability in a continent that had known nothing but wars. The latest wave of enlargement, therefore, was the natural consequence and continuation of the policy prescribed by the founders of modern Europe to create a union of all European nations, in which all will be treated equally and contribute according to their abilities to the common cause. The experience and achievements of the founding countries acted as a magnet and kept attracting new members. By 2004, the EU will embrace at least twenty-five nations with a population of nearly half a billion people. At last Europe will be a continent at peace, projecting peace and stability to the peripheral region.

The question is not whether enlargement should take place, because for Europe this is a one-way road, but rather, when enlargement will take place and what implications this will have on Europe and neighboring countries. As things stand today, the target date of 2003, set when negotiations with the first six candidate countries started back in 1998, no longer seems to be realistic. The year 2004 or at the latest 2005 are now the new dates as the EU has already committed to the position that the first to enter will participate in the European Parliament elections in the summer of 2004.

It is obvious that the Europe of twenty-five will not be able to function in the same way as the Europe of six or ten. The institutions have to change, more democracy has to be introduced in the system, the relationship between the European Parliament, the Commission, and the Council have to be rethought, and the competence of the union and of the states has to be more clearly defined.

A controversy is now raging as to whether the forthcoming changes should lead toward a more federal Europe or a Europe of cooperating states. My opinion is that this depends on which angle you look at the issue from. If you are a federalist you can interpret every move and every decision as a step toward this direction. However, if you support a Europe of nation-states, you can claim that the more Europe changes the more it remains the same. Europe is a free union of sovereign nations, which have agreed to combine their sovereignty on a number of issues in order to acquire a bigger say and be more effective. Personally, I do not expect the controversy to be resolved in the near future. Europe will look more or less the same after five or ten years but will have better, smoother, and more effectively functioning institutions.

In addition to the institutional changes that enlargement will bring about, Europe, as a continent, will be much more stable and secure and all countries, members of the union, will enjoy a healthy economic development. They will all together have a bigger and much more effective role in world affairs, and they will also be able to contribute more efficiently to the development of the Third World, and particularly to the Lomé Convention countries.

In the Balkans the enlarged EU will help to promote stability, strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law, and promote peaceful coexistence among the various nationalities in the former...