EU must strive to be more than a European old boys’ club
Nicholas Ross Smith says a new round of enlargement would serve to reinvigorate the bloc
Speaking in Strasbourg recently, French President Emmanuel Macron laid out a new vision of European integration while stressing that it would take “decades” for Ukraine to join the European Union proper.
This contrasts starkly with the optimism of European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, who has expressed a desire for Ukraine to become a full member as soon as possible.
Macron clearly remains an enlargement sceptic. He vetoed plans in 2019 to open accession talks – the last stage before full membership – with Albania and North Macedonia.
Macron’s attitude is emblematic of the enlargement fatigue that has gripped many “old members” since the mega enlargement in the 2000s, when the EU grew from 15 to 27 members.
The fatigue was generated by the mass migration from east to west, the apparent democratic backsliding in some new member states (especially Poland and Hungary), and the (erroneous) notion that enlargement contributed to the economic crises that gripped the EU in the 2010s.
In truth, the mega enlargement must go down as one of the EU’s greatest achievements; undoubtedly its greatest since the Cold War. Forget the hyperbole of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize and the
EU’s self-congratulatory narrative of presiding over six decades of peace on the continent, including as the European Economic Community (somehow forgetting its comically bad handling of Yugoslavia’s disintegration).
Where the EU made the clearest difference is in former communist countries in central eastern Europe and the Baltics which were lucky enough to be considered for membership in the 1990s.
Comparing, for instance, Romania and Ukraine’s trajectories helps demonstrate the EU’s influence. In 1990, they had roughly the same gross domestic product per capita but, 30 years later, Romania’s is more than three times higher. Politically, Romania has also had its challenges but is seen as more democratic than Ukraine.
The power of conditionality is behind the EU’s success. Membership has been an incredible incentive to speed up political and economic transition, although it is not perfect.
Furthermore, enlargement has been a net benefit for the EU, increasing its internal economic dynamism and external economic competitiveness. Some of the “best performing” EU member states are from its mega-enlargement cohort, especially the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Malta and Slovenia.
However, the likes of Macron fail to see that the EU’s power was always in its ability to inspire and that, in recent decades, it has significantly lost such “capital”. That is why this situation is an opportunity to reinvigorate the EU.
And it should focus not only on Ukraine but also the Western Balkan states that have spent two decades trying to meet the EU’s difficult and largely arbitrary accession criteria. It is also likely that the survival of nations such as Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo rests on eventual EU membership.
This is not to say that the EU should simply grant membership to Ukraine or the remaining western Balkan states.
Macron is right that any road ahead would be arduous.
Although many, especially in the media, characterise Ukraine as a noble democracy repelling an evil Russian empire, it has never been a democracy (unless you take a minimalist definition that equates democracy solely with elections). Zelensky, for all his incredible leadership, was not driving Ukraine on a path to democracy. But, seizing the moment requires binning dull technocratic requirements and making bold decisions. In this, the EU has a good track record. The accession of Greece, Spain and Portugal in the 1980s was actually quite whimsical and done to seize the moment in aiding their transition from military dictatorships.
Perhaps the problem lies in perceptions among older member states that the likes of Ukraine and the western Balkan states are not truly European.
But the EU was always envisaged as a pan-European project. Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome (1957), the EU’s foundational document, states that: “Any European state may apply to become a member of the community.”
An embrace of French politician General de Gaulle’s definition of Europe as being “from the Atlantic to the Urals” rather than western Europe’s “old boys’ club” is sorely needed. Reinvigorating the EU with a new wave of enlargement would reinstate it as an inspiring model of how regionalism might be an antidote to the growing pressures of great power competition. The EU was, after all, an inspiration to regional bodies elsewhere, most notably Asean, but in recent years the expected growth has retreated.
Professor Gary Marks once said that what the EU did better than previous European integration projects (such as Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany) was that it combined scale benefits while respecting the importance of communities (through subsidiarity).
Such a blueprint could find fertile ground again in the Indo-Pacific, particularly in the potential to reinvigorate Asean and, perhaps, greater integration among the Pacific Island states. After all, the EU desperately wants to forge “a stronger Europe in the world”, so what better way than returning to its strengths.
Macron has proven to be a man of ideas since he became French president in 2017 and he has talked a big game on resuscitating the EU, economically, politically and militarily. However, he appears to be missing the obvious avenue. This is a shame as any bold EU transformation must have strong Franco-German backing.
It appears that Ukraine – despite its heroics in standing up to Russian aggression – will have to wait and see about its EU future. Another case of the EU being a proverbial “hobbled giant”.
Any bold European Union transformation must have strong Franco-German backing