The horror of two world wars prompted France, West Germany and other countries to unite and create what is today the European Union. Seventy years later, war has returned to the continent. And from the Ukrainian rubble emerges again a sentiment similar to that which animated the founding fathers of the European Union. The negotiations are now about the admission of up to nine new members, including Ukraine. Joining the world’s most successful club of peaceful and prosperous democracies would put the war-torn country (and other challengers in the Western Balkans, Georgia and Moldova) on a promising new path.
For the European Union itself it would be something historic, since it would complete a great continental union and culminate a process that began with the victory over the Nazis. In the absence of one or two future candidates (perhaps one day including Britain), the shape of the European Union would be broadly established. However, community functioning will have to change.
Expanding from 27 to, say, 36, will be a complicated process. Now, after a long period during which the idea of ??enlargement has remained latent (Croatia, the last country to join, did so a decade ago), that possibility is once again on the table. Leaders from across the continent (including representatives of aspiring countries) will meet on October 5 in Granada. The next day, those who are already part of the club will present the reforms necessary to maintain functional integration with more (and more diverse) members. The process will be laborious. Changes will have to be made in the candidates and also in the community machinery. The year 2030, the date proposed to complete the expansion, is optimistic, but it is worth striving to achieve that goal.
Leaders considering the future shape of the Union should remember that enlargement has been its most successful policy. Large projects such as the euro, the single market and the regulation of technology giants are important, but much of their value is due to the fact that their scope is not limited only to France and Germany, but extends to Finland, Greece, Slovakia or Spain. Let’s imagine how much less powerful the European Union’s aid to Ukraine would have been if it had not already included four countries bordering the war zone. A new enlargement will increase Europe’s geopolitical weight, as French President Emmanuel Macron, once skeptical of expansion, now appears to recognize.
The Union can no longer afford to delay the nine aspiring members and let their applications drag on without a realistic hope of membership. Keeping European neighbors in a gray zone opens the door to those who want to destabilize the continent, starting with the Russian Vladimir Putin. That unhealthy dynamic has fueled the cynical and sometimes dysfunctional politics of the six Western Balkan countries and the other three applicants. None of them will be easy to integrate. In Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine there are Russian troops occupying part of the territory (as happened in Germany until 1990). The American think tank Freedom House considers all candidates to be “partially free” countries. (Turkey, although technically still a candidate, is unfortunately far from ready.)
In embarking on such a mission, the European Union will have to make three firm commitments. The first is a message of hope to the candidates: as long as they undertake the reforms necessary to be worthy members, they will be let in. A similar promise was made to the Western Balkans in 2003, but was soon forgotten. Applicants must not fail to meet the same criteria that others have met to enter the community club; in particular, the defense of democracy. The conditions for entering the euro must be strict. Although those who make a good faith effort should receive more help as they progress on their journey. Some accession benefits could be granted gradually as economic reforms, including access to the single market, take hold. At the same time, it must be clear that the final destination is full membership of the European Union, not a limbo abroad.
The second commitment is that the Union’s internal reforms must not delay the accession of those who are prepared to join. Indeed, the Union has to rethink its internal functioning: a larger European Union will not be better if it is paralyzed. Once expanded to 36, it would be absurd to allow the government of a single country to veto collective action, as is now the case in foreign affairs and taxation. The Common Agricultural Policy, which absorbs a third of the bloc’s budget, will have to undergo drastic reform and reduction to prevent too many subsidies from ending up in the hands of Ukrainian oligarchs who operate farms the size of some EU countries. Allowing in poorer members will divert development funds away from some current beneficiaries. However, the European Union must not keep its door closed while it puts its house in order.
The last imperative is to learn from previous extensions. Most of the countries that reform to join the European Union stay on the right path, grow and end up being freer and more prosperous. However, a few have taken a bad path: Hungary and Poland have defied the community rules to which they had signed up. If the club wants to take a chance on new members who have a history of unstable governance, it must have mechanisms in place to punish bad behavior. A good starting point would be to make it easier for unreliable regimes to withhold European funds. It is something that has already started to happen.
The prospect of welcoming an entire group of newcomers is intimidating. However, Europe, after much thought, has already jumped into the unknown before and made it all work. Greece, Portugal and Spain joined about a decade after leaving behind cruel dictatorships and now constitute vigorous democracies. Between 2004 and 2007, the bloc welcomed a dozen new members, most of whom had been under Soviet rule. That almost doubled the number of countries in the Union and increased its population by 27%, almost double what is proposed now. What seemed impossible then is now remembered as inevitable and vital.
Above all, if Europe wants to count as a force in the world, it needs to demonstrate that it has the capacity to act. Delaying enlargement because it is too difficult to achieve will weaken the continent and therefore the union at its core; especially if today’s Russian aggression is followed by tomorrow’s American isolationism. However dire, the circumstances of the war have created the impetus for a European Union that is both bigger and better. Europe must find a way to build it.
© 2023 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved
Translation: Juan Gabriel López Guix
