Global Insight: EU must find courage to enlarge

The 2004-2007 enlargement of the European Union from 15 to 27 countries is an achievement of which all EU governments should be proud. But the outlook for future enlargement is darkening, thanks to some pig-headed behaviour among members and applicant states.

Consider the manifesto that Germany’s Christian Democrats – the party of Angela Merkel, chancellor – adopted last week for June’s European parliament elections. It says that, because the EU’s latest expansion required such formidable efforts, “the CDU stands for a phase of consolidation, during which the strengthening of the European Union’s identity and institutions takes precedence over further EU enlargement”.

True, the CDU makes an exception for Croatia, whose admission it would not delay. But Croatia’s membership bid is in trouble anyway. That is because Slovenia, hoping to force concessions from its former Yugoslav neighbour in a bilateral maritime border dispute, paralysed Croatia’s accession negotiations in December. Nationalist rhetoric on both sides has restricted the scope for compromise.

All other EU governments oppose Slovenia’s blatant attempt to exploit its membership at the expense of a future entrant. But the EU operates by consensus, so Slovenia is getting away with it.

So, too, is Cyprus – or to be precise, the internationally recognised Greek Cypriot government of the divided island. The Greek Cypriots are obstructing Turkey’s accession talks, partly because they have always been hostile to Turkish membership, but also because they hope to gain leverage in their negotiations with the Turkish Cypriots over a settlement for Cyprus.

What is more, they know that Ms Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s president, oppose full Turkish membership of the EU.

In defence of their behaviour, the Greek Cypriots can point to the presence of 30,000 Turkish troops in the island’s Turkish Cypriot north. By contrast, no military logic underpins Greece’s refusal to let the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia’s aspirations make progress.

The country has been an official EU candidate since 2005. But Greece objects to its neighbour’s use of the word “Macedonia” in its name. It says this implies a threat to Greece’s territorial integrity, cultural heritage and national identity.

Athens has prevented the start of Macedonia’s talks by not giving the green light for the European Commission to express an opinion on the country’s readiness for membership. But the blame does not entirely rest with the Greeks, as is illustrated by a bizarre episode involving, of all people, Alexander the Great. Macedonia’s leaders have renamed the section of a main north-south trans-European highway that passes through their country after Alexander. It is a way of claiming the renowned ancient Macedonian leader as a hero with links to their modern state, with its Slav Macedonian majority. When this news reached Brussels, EU officials despaired. Nothing was more certain to harden Greek attitudes.

Bosnia-Herzegovina’s EU hopes are being damaged by the narrow-minded rivalries of its nationalist political leaders. But in Serbia’s case, it is the Dutch government that is blocking the path to the EU. The Dutch want Belgrade to hand over Ratko Mladic, the fugitive Bosnian Serb general accused of war crimes in the 1990s, to the United Nations tribunal in The Hague.

Other EU governments think the Serbs have co-operated closely enough with the tribunal to deserve full implementation of its stabilisation and association agreement, a milestone towards EU entry that Serbia signed with the bloc last April. But once again, the EU’s consensus rule means that nothing will happen unless the Dutch, or the other 26, budge.

The history of EU enlargement shows that, when economic conditions in Europe falter, public and political support for embracing new countries goes down. Never since 1945 have conditions been as precarious as they are now.

But the EU must summon the courage to resolve the disputes blocking enlargement. The Balkans and Turkey are politically fragile, economically vulnerable but strategically important parts of Europe. If they receive the message they are unwanted, the price the EU will pay will be all the greater.