GUNTER VERHEUGEN Member of the European Commission Responsible for Enlargement Avrupa Komisyonu Genişlemeden Sorumlu Üyesi EU MEMBERSHIP, A DRIVING FORCE IN THE REFORM PROCESS On 31 March 1998, during the UK Presidency, the accession negotiations were opened. Three months ago, in Copenhagen, the negotiations were concluded with ten candidate countries. The Heads of Governments and States of the present and the future members are expected to sign the Treaty. And in less than 14 months if everything goes well, 10 new members will enter the EU. Over a timespan of six years we will have reshaped Europe. We will have taken significant step towards a new Europe. A Europe that is free, democratic and dynamic. A Europe in peace and not least a Europe that is whole. Peace, security and prosperity is unfortunately not something that will come about by itself. I remember well the euphoria of many who saw the end of the Cold War as automatically meaning the beginning of an everlasting peace. But there is nothing like the end of history. The Balkan conflicts and tragedies of the 1990s showed this all too clearly. It was in Sarajevo that we were reminded of the fury that can be unleashed by the dark forces of division. Suddenly we had war again in Europe. Millions were forced to flee. The Balkan war also reminded us that conflicts in Europe always spill over, that the destabilisation of any part of the continent inevitably becomes a threat to the whole. The lesson for us was that there is no alternative in order to create peace and stability in this large area of Europe but to extend towards the East, the Northeast and the Southeast the structures of European integration. This is what the enlargement of the EU is all about. The reforms of the societies in Central and Eastern Europe have been impressive. The peoples in those countries have embarked on a unique transformation. Modern democracies based on rule of law and modern administrations have been built out of literally nothing. Bankrupt centrally planned economies have been restructured into competitive market economies. Over a relatively short time span most of the future Member States had mastered this process to such an extent that their integration into the European Union is possible. I am convinced that the prospect of EU membership is a driving force in the reform process. The desire to be part of the EU-family ensured that reform fervour did not fade. It made it easier for people to suffer the often heavy social costs of restructuring. The prospect of accession also made it clear that the road towards Europe of co-operation was open. The decisions in Copenhagen concluded the negotiations with Cyprus, The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. It marked the end of the most complex negotiation the EU ever embarked upon. I must admit that there were times when we all despaired. But through determined action and a strong political will we did get through. The result is good, for the present Member states, for the future member states and for the EU as a whole. It safeguards a smooth phasing in of the new member states into the various policy areas that make up the EU. It takes into account the constraints they have in meeting the investment heavy legislation, be it in environment or energy. And it provides for a substantive and increasing transfet of funds from the old members to the new, a transfer that will make the Marshall plan look modest. But the Treaty does also meet perceived and real concerns in the present Member states, be it the consequences for the labour market or safe guards in respect of food safety. We are now in the process of finalising the process. There will be one Treaty for all 10 countries. It is an impressive document. Over 5500 pages. It will be translated into all the 21 languages of the future European Union. The Commission gave its positive opinion. The European Parliament will give its assent on 9 April. And the Treaty is expected to be signed by Heads of State and Governements in Athens on 16 April. The process is well on track, but there is no room for slippages. The Treaty will be ratified by all present and future Member Sates. In addition Malta and the Central Europeans felt it politically necessary to hold referendums. If unified there will also be a referendum on Cyprus. Contrary to common wisdom the support for enlargement is stable and increasing in the candidate countries. Overall there are support levels at around 60% or above. In Poland for instance the support is close to 70%. But although this looks reassuring, we should not take it for granted. As regards present member States, I don't foresee any major problems. None of them plan referendums. But again there could be some difficult discussions during the parliamentary ratification. There has been extensive public debate on enlargements in the candidates, but very little in the present Member Sates. Inevitably fears will be raised about immigration, criminality, jobs going east and costs. Another concern is the general lack of knowledge of the new MS. I got one example recently on one of these question and answer shows on TV. On the question whether it was Poland or the Czech republic that borders the Baltic, the participant replied the Czech republic. Assuming the ratification goes as planned the 10 new Member Sates will accede on 1 May 2004. But their arrival on the EU scene is more imminent. Already from 16 April they will enter into all working groups, Council formation and other meetings in Brussels. They will have the right to speak and they will, like present member states, establish policies and have views on the initiatives planned or on the table. On accession they will take their full place in the EU. They will get a vote, a Commissioner and Members of European Parliament. The efforts to reach a settlement on the unification of Cyprus will continue right up to the signing of the Treaty. But let me be clear on one point. With or without a settlement Cyprus is expected to accede to the EU by 1 May 2004. Our preference is clear. We hope that it will be a united Cyprus that we will welcome as member. We therefore strongly support the UN led efforts to reach a solution. We have reiterated at several occasions the EUs willingness to accommodate the terms of a settlement in the Treaty of Accession in line with the principals on which the European Union is founded. The UN proposal on the table would benefit all Cypriots. It would also bring peace and stability to Cyprus and the whole region. The parties should therefore seize this unique opportunity. It will not come back. It is not only about peace and stability. No settlement would lead to continued economic decline and isolation for the northern part. We can also expect that the affluent Turkish Cypriots will leave the island. The massive demonstrations we have seen over the last weeks show the concern in the Turkish Cypriot community. Turkey is also well advised to reflect over the consequence of a non-settlement for its EU-aspirations. I made this point very clear at my recent visit to Turkey. After 1 May 2004 they would face a situation where Turkey does not recognise one of EUs member states. It is difficult to see how it would be possible to start accession negotiations under such circumstances. For our part we are prepared to give a substantial support to the northern part of the island once an agreement has been reached. I have also taken initiative to a donors conference immediately after a settlement. The conference would raise funds for meeting costs relating to in particular the resettling of Turk-Cypriots on the island as well as resettling of Turkish settlers in Turkey. If we don't have a settlement, the Treaty will include provisions making it clear that the EU legislation does not extend to the northern part but with an enabling clause making an extension possible in the event of a settlement in the future. With regard to Bulgaria and Romania we will continue the negotiations. They are part of the same inclusive and irreversible process. However they have another timetable, accession 1 January 2007. We support their efforts and we will in the coming year have to reflect on how the negotiations can be brought to an end and how they will interact with the work on the next financial perspective. What is clear is that the negotiations with both countries will be based on the principle of own merit. Their individual progress in meeting commitments will in the end determine if they will be Members from 1.1 2007. When talking about commitments let me say one word on monitoring. This enlargement is different from previous ones in that it not only concerns commitments given at the negotiation table. This time we have also put substantial efforts in supporting and monitoring that the commitments are implemented. It concerns everything from the hygiene standards in slaughterhouses to the computerisation of the customs. The scrutiny of the candidate country is far reaching, probably more far reaching than what any present Member State would ever accept. We will present a comprehensive report on the situation in October. If despite all efforts it turns out that there are deficiencies by accession we have and will apply safeguards. We have finally one candidate country with which negotiations are pending. This is Turkey. The European Council in Copenhagen established a time frame for the Turkish accession process. If the political criteria are fulfilled by the end of 2004, accession negotiations will begin without delay. This political roadmap provides a chance for Turkey. It is the same chance as the one all the other candidate countries had and used. The sequence is clear, first the political criteria and then negotiations. Turkey's progress is impressive. However despite the reforms, there continues to be important restrictions in light of the Copenhagen political criteria. It concerns for instance freedom of associations, freedom of speech freedom of religion and the role of the military. And it concerns implementation such as the suppression of torture on the ground. I recently visited Ankara. I met with former Prime Minister, other ministers and chairman ERDOGAN. I also met with parliamentarians and with the leader of the opposition. There was a new atmosphere. They all showed an impressive determination in meeting the political road-map from Copenhagen. But the time is short and there is no room for delays. In order to encourage the reform process, we will present a revised accession partnership setting out the priority action Turkey needs to take. It will be accompanied by a proposal for a substantial increase in the financial support to Turkey. On our side we need to start to seriously discuss what EU with Turkey as a member would imply. Even though a Turkish accession is far from imminent, the negotiations will take several years, the public opinion in the EU as well as in Turkey needs to be prepared. On two things we can be sure, the Turkey that will join the EU will be different from Turkey of today and the EU that Turkey joins will have to be different from EU today. The 70 million people that will join the Union in 2004 will change EU. It will affect policies, the way we make decisions and it will affect our day to day life. It is difficult and highly speculative to embark on trying to map out what this could imply. However what is clear is that it is a win-win situation. Not only will enlargement lead to a stable, democratic and peaceful Europe. It will also make Europe more dynamic. Even though the economic strength of Europe will only be increased by less than 5%, the economy of Europe will alter. The impact will grow gradually over the coming years. We have already seen impressive growth throughout the economies of the future members. Their growth rate has been significantly higher then in the EU. It will continue. The structural changes they have undertaken will gradually further increase their growth potential. Estimates by the European Central Bank put their medium-term growth potential in the 4-6% range. A lot of the integration with the west has already occurred. But we will see it accelerate, as membership becomes a reality. We can expect that the new MS want to join the Euro area as soon as they are ready. In theory this will at the earliest be the case in 2006, after two years in ERM 2. However this date may very well be the actual target date for several of the new Member States. Countries like Hungary, Slovenia, Estonia and even Poland are already close to meeting the Maastricht criteria. They are better off than what Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy were three years before they introduced the Euro. But that being said, the future member states are well advised to take the time necessary and nut rush the process. They will in the coming years have to stretch their budgets. They need to make heavy investments in the environment and infrastructure. Joining prematurely risks being negative both for the new Member State and the monetary union. The enlargement is likely to influence the common foreign, security and defence po-licy. It is still in its infancy although we have seen a remarkable progress over the last years. In the coming weeks the first EU led peacekeeping mission will be dispatched to FYROM. It will replace the successful Nato led operation. Two months ago the first EU led police mission began its operations in Bosnia Herzegovina. This development needs to continue. We must show the political will and determination to act together when we need to act together. I am convinced that the enlargement will have a strong and positive impact. The future members will bring in new dimensions and new assets for the policy. I am thinking in particular on the relations to Russia and our other eastern neighbours. I am also thinking of the Mediterranean where Cyprus and Malta will bring the EU closer to northern Africa and the Middle East. And I am thinking of the transatlantic relation. Many of the future Member States have very close ties with the USA. They retain strong memories of the solidarity America showed them, during the Cold War, and when they were applying for NATO membership. As Europeans, we should capitalise on that. America's roots are in Europe. We are getting a new opportunity and we should make the most of it. If we shall be successful in exploiting this potential, we must show the political will to move ahead. We did just that on Iraq. Yes there was some surrounding discord, but the EU established a credible and clear line. And let's be frank. A decade ago, this would have been highly unlikely. More immediately their arrival is likely to impact on Agriculture and Regional policy. Above the inevitable calls for as much of any available funding that they can get, the new member Sates will be interested in policies that meet their particular needs. In general I think this will mean support for simplification which is fine. But we can also expect them, once the referenda are over, to come back on what they see as an imbalance in the present system. Poland will be quick to point out that the accession deal from Copenhagen gives them around 60 Euro per capita a year, while Spain, much richer, get over three times as much per capita. Contrary to common wisdom I do not believe that the enlargement will make reforms of the CAP more difficult. Most of them will be positive to simplifications. And as they will apply a support regime that already is decoupled and where rural development is more predominant than for EU 15, they will probably favour similar reforms for EU 15 as a whole. What I don't think we can expect is that they will be enthusiastic to general reductions in support levels. We know that it will be more cumbersome to co-operate between 25. In purely formal terms, the Treaty of Nice created the institutional framework for enlargement. But it is not sufficient for the EU of tomorrow. It is by its very nature a transitional solution. What we now need is a text that is clear and as comprehensible as constitutional texts can be. We need a document that spells out to all the 400 million citizens what the Union can do and what it can't do. And we need a governance structure that better than today strikes the balance between the twin requirements of efficiency and democratic legitimacy. This is the purpose of the ongoing work in the convention on the future of Europe. It would be premature to try to second-guess the outcome of this great reform debate. However what is clear to me is that we need to come to a conclusion soon in order for the new treaty to enter into force without delay The EU exerts a strong attraction on its neighbours. We have already agreed to welcome the Western Balkan countries into the European Union once they are prepared and equipped for it Ğ and we are ready to assist them along the way. Croatia handed over its application and we will now start the procedure. It will take the time needed. For others of our neighbours the challenge is to design a qualitatively richer relation than at present. We must avoid that the frontier between the EU and its neighbours become a cleavage between prosperity and poverty. We need a form of co-operation, which can offer a substantial part of the content what is EU without going as far as membership. The Commission will on Wednesday present ideas on an EU neighbourhood policy encompassing all of our closest neighbours be it in the east or in the south. The approach will be progressive, differentiated and conditional. It will build on our experience with enlargement. The future Member Sates will need to be closely involved in this project already from the start. They will be particularly keen to put forward their ideas on the matter, as Poland has long demonstrated. After all the policy will concern their immediate neighbours. This discussion is often said to be about drawing "Europe's borders" as if it the final shape of the European Union could be set down in stone, now. I think we would be well advised simply to concentrate on the foreseeable future in which EU membership would not be feasible for either party. I began by referring to the five years that has gone since the negotiations began. In politics this is a long period, but in the European adventure it is short term. It will undoubtedly take several years before we can assess the full effect of enlargement for the EU. What we can be assured of is that with this enlargement we have taken a giant step for ward in bridging the artificial divide from 1945. We are on track for creating a Europe that is free, democratic and dynamic. A Europe in peace and not least a Europe that is whole. REFORM SÜRECİNDE İTİCİ GÜÇ OLARAK AB ÜYELİĞİ Avrupa Birliği'nin (AB) genişlemesine olanak tanıyan katılım müzakerelerine 1998 yılında başlandı. Üç ay önce Kopenhag'da gerçekleştirilen zirvede ise 10 aday ülkeyle müzakereler sona erdi. AB'nin genişleme faaliyetleri barış, istikrar ve demokrasiyi kıtanın bütününe yaymayı da hedefliyor. Nitekim özellikle 1990'lı yıllarda Balkanlar'da yaşananlar, Avrupa içinde yaşanabilecek ayrılıkların kıtanın tamamı için bir tehdit oluşturabileceğinin bir göstergesi. Genişleme sürecinde Orta ve Doğu Avrupa ülkelerinde şu ana kadar gerçekleştirilen reformlar gerçekten de oldukça başarılı. AB'yle entegrasyon bu ülkelerdeki reformlar için önemli bir itici güç teşkil ediyor. Kopenhag'da alınan kararla müzakereleri sonuçlandırılmış olan ülkeler Kıbrıs, Çek Cumhuriyeti, Estonya, Macaristan, Letonya, Litvanya, Malta, Polonya, Slovakya ve Slovenya. Her şey planlandığı şekilde gerçekleşirse bu ülkeler 2004'te birliğe kabul edilecekler. Elbette buna Kıbrıs da dahil. Mevcut Kıbrıs sorunu çözülmüş olsa da olmasa da Kıbrıs'ın üyeliği gerçekleşecek. Ne var ki, adada bir çözüme ulaşılmadan ve iki kesimin birleşmesi sağlanmadan üyeliğin gerçekleşmesi durumunda bir diğer aday ülke olan Türkiye açısından kabul edilemez bir durum ortaya çıkacak: Bu durumda Türkiye, üyelik için başvuruda bulunduğu AB'nin üyelerinden birini tanımayan bir aday ülke olacak. Kısa süre önce Ankara'ya bir ziyarette bulundum ve yeni iktidarla birlikte olumlu bir atmosferin hakim olduğunu gördüm: Kopenhag siyasi kriterlerine uyumun tam olarak gerçekleşmesi için her türlü çabayı sarf etmeye hazır bir ortamla karşılaştım. Ancak bu sürecin gecikmeden bir an önce gerçekleşmesi gerekiyor. Şunu da unutmamalıyız ki Türkiye'nin de katılımıyla AB bugünkünden farklı bir AB olacak. Çok daha barışçı, demokratik ve dinamik bir Avrupa ile karşı karşıya olacağız. Bu arada yeni katılımlarla birlikte 25 üyeden oluşacak bir AB'de elbette daha fazla işbirliğine ihtiyacımız olacak ve birliğin işlerliği açısından anayasal özellikler taşıyan bir metne de gerek duyacağız. Nitekim mevcut Konvansiyon şu anda böyle bir metnin oluşturulabilmesi için gerekli zemini hazırlamaya çalışıyor. Diğer yandan, AB olarak komşularımızla ilişkilerimizi geliştirmek için de çaba sarf ediyoruz. En önemli amaçlarımızdan biri, AB'nin coğrafi sınırlarının refah düzeyi farklılığını belirleyen bir çizgi olmasını önlemek. AB, 1945 yılında kıta içinde çizilmiş olan yapay sınırların ortadan kaldırılmasını sağlayacak en önemli adımı yalnızca bu tür çabalarla değil, en önemlisi kendi genişleme süreciyle atmış bulunuyor. Genişlemenin tam etkilerini görmemiz için yıllar geçmesi gerekeceği açık. Ancak daha şimdiden daha özgür ve daha demokratik bir Avrupa'ya doğru sağlam adımlar atmış bulunuyoruz.