SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (61467)12/13/2002 2:18:23 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 281500
 
Good column on the effect of Eastern Europe on the EU.

Very interesting column. The New York Times had a short article today that the EU had refused to even enter negotiations with Turkey. I read that as a serious mistake because it runs the risk of not linking Turkey's fortunes to those of Europe. Anyone have a different read? Or any comment on the significance of this vote?

European Union Turns Down Turkey's Bid for Membership
By ELAINE SCIOLINO


nytimes.com

COPENHAGEN, Friday, Dec. 13 — In a political defeat for Turkey, the 15 leaders of the European Union today rejected its demand to set a date to begin negotiations for its eventual admission to their exclusive club.

The decision followed a long debate at a summit meeting that began over dinner and continued until after midnight.

The organization's leadership rejected a compromise fashioned by France and Germany under which the leaders of the European Union would meet at the end of 2004 to decide whether Turkey had met the criteria necessary to begin negotiations. If so, negotiations would have opened six months later.

Under the agreement reached this morning, the Europeans agreed only to meet in December 2004 to decide whether Turkey, a largely Muslim country of nearly 70 million people, was democratic enough and respectful enough of human rights to begin negotiations. But no date for possible negotiations was set.

The decision is expected to be deeply disappointing to Turkey's new government. Prime Minister Abdullah Gul, who is in Copenhagen for the summit meeting, has insisted on a firm date for negotiations to begin in 2003, well before 10 new countries — most of them poor and from Eastern Europe — are scheduled to formally become members.

In announcing the decision at a news conference this morning, the Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the current president of the European Union, neither praised it nor expressed disappointment. He said only that if the leadership decided in December 2004 that Turkey had fulfilled formal criteria for all candidate states set out in a 1993 document "then we will open accession negotiations with Turkey."

When asked when the negotiations would begin, Mr. Rasmussen appeared to grope for the right words. "Well, it's a very clear message," he said. "The answer to that, well, you ask me, when. It is a good question and the answer is very clear. As soon as possible. Because we stick to principle. We stick to principle that Turkey can get a date for the start of accession negotiations when Turkey fulfills the political criteria."

A draft communiqué, which has not been made public, is more vague and says nothing about opening negotiations with Turkey "as soon as possible" after it fulfills the requisite conditions, said a senior European official.

The decision is also a defeat for President Bush, who, along with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, had thrown the weight of the United States behind Turkey and lobbied hard for a fixed date for negotiations to begin and Turkey's eventual membership.

Earlier this week, Mr. Bush received Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the popular politician who is the leader of Turkey's new governing party, and pledged that the United States would work side by side with Turkey as it seeks membership.

On Wednesday, Mr. Bush telephoned President Jacques Chirac of France and Mr. Rasmussen to lay out Turkey's case for membership. Secretary Powell called his Danish counterpart on Thursday.

The struggle over what to do about Turkey had threatened to overshadow what is supposed to be a historic meeting in which the European Union celebrates the largest expansion in its history. Mr. Rasmussen, determined to get the Turkey issue off the table on Thursday night, presented his own proposal, which was almost identical to the decision that emerged, European officials said.

If final haggling over money for the expansion is resolved, the organization will today formally invite 10 countries to join in 2004: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Under what are known as the Copenhagen criteria, because they were adopted in Copenhagen in 1993, a candidate state must be judged to follow democratic principles and fully respect human rights. It must also be well on its way to meeting certain economic and institutional standards before it can begin negotiations to join.

Turkey has been praised for laws adopted in August to abolish the death penalty in peacetime, permit greater freedom of expression and increase the rights of ethnic Kurds. But a number of union members resisted setting a date in Copenhagen for accession talks, saying that Turkey first must carry out the reforms.

In the last few weeks, Turkey's new government, which has Islamic roots, has tried to persuade the European family that it is a secular state committed to democracy. Mr. Erdogan's trip to Washington capped visits to the capitals of member countries of the organization, where he warned repeatedly that they should not discriminate against a country whose people are Muslim.

"Turkey has been waiting at the gates of the E.U. for 40 years, but countries that applied only 10 years ago are almost becoming members," he said in Brussels last month. "We think we have to go beyond that and not look at the E.U. as a Christian club."

By all accounts, the lobbying by the Bush administration on behalf of Washington's key Muslim ally in NATO did not help Turkey's cause. The Europeans saw it as a cynical ploy to push for Turkey's admission to the organization in exchange for political support and access to military bases in a war against Iraq.

Mr. Rasmussen, normally a soft-spoken conciliator, made clear that the United States had no role to play. "I would like to stress that this is a European decision," he said in a news conference before the summit meeting opened.

To make sure his message was heard, Mr. Rasmussen added that when Mr. Bush called him on Thursday to plead Turkey's case, "I made it clear to him that this is an E.U. decision," and then repeated for a third time, "This is a European decision."

The European leaders were also faced tonight with haggling over money by Poland and some of the nine other countries that are being invited to join.

Mr. Rasmussen warned Poland on Thursday not to push too far and appealed to all the candidates to accept the deal on the table or risk delaying their entry from May 2004, when admission is now scheduled, until 2007 or even longer.

"I'm not saying it's a question of now or never," Mr. Rasmussen said. "But it's a question of now or postponement for years, maybe for many years."



To: LindyBill who wrote (61467)12/13/2002 2:26:03 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
For a more nuanced view of these recent proposed changes in the EU, including some of the pros and cons from the older EU countries as well as same from the newer ones, this article in today's New York Times is very helpful.

In Vast Expansion of the European Union, Pluses but Also Perils Lie Ahead
By IAN FISHER


nytimes.com

PRAGUE, Dec. 12 — No one questions that this is a historic moment: Not quite all of Europe, but most of it from the Atlantic Ocean to the Russian border, is all but certain to agree this week in Copenhagen to fulfill a decades-long dream and fuse itself into a single entity in the name of peace and prosperity.

The trouble is that few people — either in the 15 nations already in the European Union or in the 10 others being invited to join by 2004 — are entirely sure this is a good thing.

"It depends what you mean by good," said Charles Gati, professor of European studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins. "If your ideal objective is to see Europe as a united entity, that is good for peace and stability, then this is an extraordinary move."

"If you look at it from a short-term perspective," he added, "there will be serious problems."

The rubble from the Berlin Wall fell 13 years ago in huge piles of hope. But the reality is proving, as ever, more complicated. The current, relatively wealthy members of the European Union are facing fears of being overwhelmed by new members in the east that are far poorer, and that may send waves of immigrants westward, taking jobs and creating new pressures on economies that are, at the moment, far from robust.

While the leaders of the 10 prospective new members — most from the former Soviet bloc — largely support the union, many of their own people fear becoming second-class citizens in a club they have little control over. Joining the European Union is less a romantic aspiration of the excluded, but a hard-nosed evaluation of benefit versus cost.

In last-minute negotiations today, those tensions rose to the top as Poland, the largest of the prospective countries and a potential powerhouse in a new European Union, continued to hold out for more subsidies to its farmers and aid to its government.

Poland's bottom-line complaint is the same, merely louder, that many other candidate countries have: that what they call harsh requirements for entry essentially relegates them to a lower tier of Europe.

"The unusually difficult conditions dictated to us means that accession to the European Union, maybe not generally, but immediately, may be in doubt," said Lech Kaczynski, the newly elected mayor of the capital, Warsaw, who campaigned with a heavy helping of Euroskepticism.

Few experts believe that the summit meeting will fail, predicting that the final knots will be eased by Friday or Saturday. At the same time, though, the union's commissioner for enlargement, Günter Verheugen, warned today on German television that it was "now or never" for the planned expansion. "If we don't succeed now, it will become more difficult in the future," he said.

John Palmer, political director of the European Policy Center, a research organization in Brussels, said last-minute bumps always accompanied expansions of the union. It is not surprising, he said, given the huge ambitions of this project — to swallow in one gulp Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Cyprus.

"I genuinely do think it's historic," he said. "This is the de facto unification of Europe under conditions of democracy and the rule of law. It does finally bury any prospect of war in Europe."

The 15 members of the European Union are preparing to take in 75 million more people, almost half of them in Poland. Many of those 10 countries have made enormous strides since then: Prague, the Czech capital, is now to the eye quintessentially Western European. Poland is busily expanding its roads and business culture. Tiny Slovenia is quietly and industriously pulling itself to the top of the heap, as the rest of the former Yugoslavia grapples with the dislocations of war and corruption.

Still, the countries are largely poor. The second richest, the Czech Republic, has an average gross domestic product of $8,900 per capita, less than a third of its neighbor, Germany. Slovakia, once half of Czechoslovakia, has a G.D.P. per head of only $4,900. Corruption remains endemic, Soviet-style bureaucracy crushing, the infrastructure lacking, commitment to Western-style democracy often questioned.

Part of the theory of accepting new members is that they will more quickly approach Western European standards — as Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland have done.

But more grandly there is the idea, half a century after the last terrible war in Europe, of expanding what union bureaucrats call the "zone" of security and prosperity and thus prevent another war.

The potential new members have a more layered view. On one hand, many felt cheated living under Communism for 40 years and see Europe as their rightful place. Some simply see no option other than the European Union.

"There is no alternative," said Elemer Hankiss, a political scientist in Hungary. "You can join Ukraine or Kazakhstan or the union. The union is not the Garden of Eden, but certainly it's a better option than the other one."

At the same time, many in Eastern Europe — ruled for centuries by Soviets, Austrians and Ottomans — fear another empire where the center of power is far away. Even the benefits of joining may not be felt for many years.

Many prospective members, and especially Poland, are also angry about what they see as strict conditions for joining, giving initially smaller subsidies to farmers compared to those already in the union and delays for seven years the right to move and work inside the union.

"You don't want countries getting in that are angry, or unnecessarily angry," said Milada Anna Vachudova, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "The population is going to be much more emotional and short-term about their views of E.U. membership."

The big test will come next year, when the applicant countries hold referendums on whether to join. Public opinion polls show most people support joining, but public education on the issue is low.

In all the internal European debate about the expansion, an often overlooked issue is how it will affect the United States — and many experts are slowly concluding that it is very much in America's interests. For one, they say, a Europe with so many more members will be better able to shoulder military obligations, like peacekeeping in the Balkans.

But it also has the potential for diluting power from Western Europe, which has largely grown more hostile to the United States, in favor of Eastern European countries that have long viewed America as their protector against Russia.

"There is concern in Central and Eastern Europe, too. about some American policies," Mr. Gati of Johns Hopkins said. "But America has more friends relatively speaking in Central and Eastern Europe today than in Germany and France.

"Therefore, these countries being in the E.U., and especially if they do something about pro-American Turkey — it is good for us," he added.