Forever Expanding Union

Forever Expanding Union? Exploring the Reach/Limits of European Integration “Empirical meets Theoretical” Ernest Pegram Georgetown University Washington, DC December 19, 2003 1 Copyright 2003 by Ernest Pegram All Rights Reserved 2 CONTENTS Abstract Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 5 Specifying problem and research objective ................................................................................... 14 Specification of variables and research strategy ............................................................................ 21 Case selection ................................................................................................................................. 41 Variance of the variables ................................................................................................................ 42 Focused Questions .......................................................................................................................... 46 3 Forever Expanding Union? Exploring the Reach/Limits of European Integration “Empirical meets Theoretical” Abstract With regards to enlargement of the European Union, many discussions share center stage; in particular, empirical discussions or the eastward enlargement, and theoretical discussions of where will it end? The process of European integration has entered another phase of eastward expansion. During the past fifty years, we have witnessed deeper economic and political integration of Western Europe coupled with southern, northern and Mediterranean expansions. While the process of Western European integration is incomplete, member states are concerned with extending the EU’s zone of democracy, prosperity and stability into Central and Eastern Europe. In Brussels, member states speak in terms of deepening and widening the EU. With a focus on the EU side of the enlargement equation, the dissertation research project seeks to describe the enlargement process and analyze some key issues. In addition, the research project will present a theoretical analysis rooted in the literature of political science, international relations, international political economy, and historical institutionalism with regards to contemporary debate on European Union openness, limits and external frontiers. Thus, the purpose of the dissertation research design is to integrate the disciplines of political science, international relations, international political economy, and history to provide an historical and analytical account of the eastward enlargement process and generate a theoretical framework that relate to contemporary debates on the frontiers of the European Union. It is intended to contribute to the growing field of literature by researching some areas that are neglected by most books and articles, while blending together the views of both practioners and academics, thus empirical meets theoretical. The dissertation research project has three main themes: • • • an examination of the enlargement process as viewed by member states; a survey of the Copenhagen criteria; an exploration of the frontiers of EU enlargement. 4 Introduction Empirical Analysis: Current State of Affairs, Eastward Enlargement The end of the cold war provided the continent of Europe with an historic opportunity. Many Europeans have dreamed of a united Europe, yet this has proven to be an elusive goal. The sudden collapse of Communism and the Soviet Union Empire in Eastern and Central Europe has given Europe, perhaps, its best chance of realizing the age-old dream of a peaceful, united democratic Europe. At the Copenhagen summit in June 1993, the EU accepted an eastward enlargement in principle by declaring that those countries that meet certain economic and political conditions shall become members of the EU. With regards to enlargement (widening) to include the CEECs, “we (the EU) have committed ourselves to a robust open door policy.” The Treaty of Maastricht, which determines EU policy, says little about Central and Eastern Europe only that any European State may apply to become a member; however, “European state,” is not defined in the EU treaties. The events and divisions of Europe after WW II provide insights. According to Mike Mannin, Pushing Back the Boundaries, the Cold War has divided Europe into two dangerously armed camps in which the East-West dichotomy has dominated European state relations. Mannin uses the concept of “coming home to Europe” to help illustrate the change in relations among the EU and the CEECs following the collapse of the postSecond World War Communist order in Eastern and Central Europe. 5 Though the idea of “Europe” has been around for more than a thousand years, there is still little agreement as to what it actually means. According to the 19th century German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, it is a mistake to speak of Europe, as “a mere geographical expression. Europeans have been conscious of their part of the world for a long time—its boundaries, topography, languages and ideas have been recognized and debated for at least 1,200 years. For many, Europe is not just a place but an ideal of national independence and political and cultural freedom.” “With regards to European identity, the Commission recognizes the definitional characteristics – geography, historical and cultural elements, ideas, values, proximity and interaction…it is neither possible nor opportune to establish the frontiers of the European Union, whose contours will be shaped for many years to come.” The European Commission has left the boundaries/definition of Europe subject to review by each succeeding generation. According to Philomena Murray, Europe: Rethinking the Boundaries, since the 1980s, there has been a renewed interest in the meaning of ‘Europe.’ The main reason is the European Union; “the meaning of Europe and detaching geographical boundaries…it is not possible to continue to talk about ‘Europe’ and European Union without discussions of international relations and history…it has become clear that the West European use of the term ‘Europe’ referring to the EU alone is no longer acceptable.”1 1 Murray, Philomena and Holmes, Leslie, Europe: Rethinking the Boundaries, page 5, Ashgate, 1998. 6 My research addresses the topic of the external frontiers of Europe Union, and empirically, it is firmly rooted in the works of Jeffery Anderson’s, “Europeanization and the Transformation of the Democratic Polity, 1945-2000.” Anderson’s research suggests the presence of tangible, political limits to the reach of European integration. In addition, Richard Baldwin, Expanding Membership in the European Union, uses economic analysis with regards to limits of EU enlargement. According to Baldwin, “there is reason to suspect that economic integration of Europe may actually increase the temptation among existing EU members to keep potential entrants out so as not to spread the gains from membership to widely.”2 Moreover, Baldwin suggests rather than join the EU, some countries, such as Norway may undertake their own radical liberalization of their economy to outperform the EU. According to Baldwin, EU membership and the extent of economic benefits associated with integration is inversely related. Baldwin’s argument reflects the economic argument for limited EU membership, while Anderson’s work reflects the political argument for limited membership. According to Anderson and Baldwin, the limit of European integration, i.e., the external frontiers of EU enlargement are rooted in the nature of political economy. For many East European leaders, there is a perception that the tough entry requirements laid down at the Copenhagen summit were deliberately designed to be impossible to meet, and to halt the eastward expansion of the EU. The EU is trying hard 2 Baldwin, Richard, Expanding Membership of the European Union, page 50, Cambridge University Press, 1995. 7 to reduce many of these disparities and structural differences before the accession dates and pressure is mounting to speed up the accession process. When compared to the Western Europe integration experience, it is inevitable that some of the admission criteria with regards to eastward enlargement are going to be compromised. While the economic and political implications of further enlargement have received much attention, another basic problem of further EU enlargement is the EU’s institutional framework. The EU basic institutional structure is rooted in the Treaty of Rome, which provides organization for the original six members. Most institutional problems are generated by questions of future enlargement that stem from finding a balance of representation between small and large members states, and how new entrants will be represented. It is important to address the positive benefits of EU enlargement. EU enlargement will extend the zone of stability in Europe, thus contributing to security and peace throughout the continent; an enlarged EU will carry greater weight in world affairs and it will be a stronger partner in international trade negotiations. In addition, the extension of the Single Market from 370 million to 470 million consumers will stimulate economic growth and provide new markets for business throughout Europe. “A hundred million eastern consumers with rising incomes is a bonanza for western European business, but as Richard Baldwin suggests stagnant or falling incomes could foster widespread disillusion with market economies and democracy.”3 8 “Europe presently stands at yet another crossroads. With enlargement and constitutionalization firmly on the agenda, European elites and citizens are engaged in lively passionate discussions about what the continent should be and should do.”4 3 4 Gower, Jackie and Redmon, John, Enlarging the European Union, page 85, Ashgate, 2000. Anderson, Jeffrey, Europeanization and the Transformation of the Democratic Polity, 1945-2000. 9 Theoretical Analysis, Paradigm for Future Frontiers Contemporary European Union integration and association literature suggest we need to have a fresh new look at the European Union and its interest. Many scholars such as Brian Denny put forth arguments of a “new imperialism in new clothes.” He suggests the conditions are right for a new European “Union” empire similar to the Roman empire or the British empire; in particular, Denny suggests the revival of old European empires. The Victorian Empire upon which “the sun never set” included 11 million square miles and 390 million peoples stretching the entire globe; and according to Denny, the conditions are right for such a European Union empire. As represented by the African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries, that are “quasi” members of the European Union, economic and political interests have blurred the lines between international and sub-state boundaries/territories, e.g., the case of the banana wars. The struggle between the “heartland and the “rim-land” is a main source of tension among member states with regards to the EU’s authority to incorporate, cooperate and associate with former colonies, territories and other regions that span across traditional EU geographical and cultural frontiers. The RPR (Gaullist) Senator for Haut-Rhin, Hubert Hagenel, considered in 1998 that French interests would be better served by cooperating with neighboring French regions rather than transfrontier co-operation. Moreover, Senator Hagenel argues that the EU could become an “undesirable Europe of 10 the Regions.”5 However, economic forces are stimulating transfrontier cooperation and encouraging belief in its value with regards to associations with the external frontiers. France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Denmark provide illustrations of the complexity of the frontiers of a modern nation state in conflict with cohesion efforts of the European Union. The conflict is rooted in the degree to which external frontier policy is integrated into the framework of the EU and how the states can defend its interests in overseas territories. Using the Five Tasks of Research Design, the purpose of the research design project is to analyze the Copenhagen criteria against the backdrop of Central and Eastern Europe; most importantly, the inquiry, rooted in a comparative analysis, seeks to explore the limits of applying the Copenhagen criteria to the major regions of the world. The Copenhagen criteria are system level structural variables that affect the roles and actions of leaders, and thus affect the outcome of the political structure of the CEECs. The sub variables for analysis are: 1.) the role of former authoritarian leaders; and 2.) the role of reformers in civil society. The two sub-variables determine the political structure of the CEECs and are represented as an Algebraic expression. Through a comparative analysis using the ten accession countries as a unitary region, the purpose of the inquiry is to analyze and measure implementation of the Copenhagen criteria among the ten accession countries seeking membership in the EU. 5 Anderson, Malcolm and Bort, Eberhard, The Frontiers of the European Union, page 83, Palgrave, 2001. 11 With a combined population of nearly 100 million, the ten accession countries represent the major nations of Central and Eastern Europe, thus generalizations derived from theses countries can be used to draw conclusions of the entire region. The inquiry focuses on the role of the Copenhagen criteria with regards to the causal link between the process of democratization in the region and potential EU membership; some scholars point to the third wave of democratization. One promising approach for case analysis is the idea of “pattern matching” as described by Donald Campbell. The “pattern matching” approach is applicable to the analysis of the ten Central and Eastern Europe countries because all of the nations share similar characteristics and experienced similar outcomes with regards to experiments of democratization with aspirations for gaining membership in the EU. The research will conclude with a model, rooted in historical experiences, that outlines paths/transitions to democracy and EU membership that can be applied to other countries in the Central and Eastern Europe region that wish to become members in the EU. While conducting research, it became apparent that it is important not to view the CEECs experience in isolation. The experience of the ten accession countries can have many important implications for other countries of Central and Eastern Europe. In this context, it will be important to make comparative analysis. The first part of Phase I of the research design sets the stage for the analysis by specifying the research “problem/puzzle” and the “research objective”; the second part of Phase I will specify the variables and research strategy by defining the variables to be 12 used in a multiple case analysis; part three of the research design is case selection and an assessment of how the cases fit into a typological theory. Part four provides a description of the variables used in the comparative analysis; the final part of Phase I, part five, is the formulation of focused questions to be asked of each individual case that are representative of the region. The five parts that make up Phase I of the research design model specifies: 1.) the research puzzle and research objective; 2.) the variables and research strategy; 3.) the cases for analysis; 4.) the variance/measure of the variables; 5.) the structured, focused question(s). The inquiry is an ongoing project that will be developed into a Ph.D. dissertation via incorporation of Phase II and Phase III of the research design, i.e., implementation of the research design, and drawing theory building conclusions from the case studies that can be applied to the entire region, in general. In the backdrop, my research suggests there is an “enigmatic” connection between former authoritarian rule, the process of democratization and implementation of the Copenhagen criteria in Central and Eastern Europe; preliminary research points to a quiet struggle for economic and political liberalization; reform efforts in Central and Eastern Europe are not without contentious politics. 13 1. Specifying the problem and research objective: What is the puzzle? The fall of the Berlin Wall and the events that resulted in the collapse of communism in Central and Eastern Europe made possible the region’s potential integration with Western Europe. At the center of the concept of a unified Europe is the role of the European Union (EU) and its efforts to construct a united democratic Europe. The EU is considered to be a major reason that the countries of Western Europe have enjoyed peace and prosperity. Today, since the economic and political integration of Western Europe, the EU is the world’s largest trading bloc and its citizens enjoy some of the highest living standards in the world. The formation of the EU is often cited for the spread of democracy and prosperity in Europe as well as bringing a peaceful resolution to long-term enemies such as France and Germany. Due to the formation of the EU, war among Western Europe states is considered virtually impossible. For many years, the eastward expansion of the EU’s zone of peace, democracy and prosperity was prevented by the Cold War and Europe’s division into hostile “political-military” blocs. The boundary of EU enlargement ceased to be the wall that divided Germany. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, ten Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) had formally applied to join the EU. The Treaty of Maastricht, which determines EU policy, says little about Central and Eastern Europe only that any European State may apply to become a member. 14 For the newly independent Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs), joining the EU became a primary goal as membership offered new economic opportunities and the hope of attaining Western levels of welfare and prosperity. The first applications were submitted in the spring of 1994 by Hungary and Poland. Romania and Slovakia applied in June 1995, followed by, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania and Bulgaria. The Czech Republic and Slovenia applied in January 1996. The Mediterranean states of Malta, Cypress and Turkey applied in 1990 and 1987 respectively. At the Copenhagen summit in June 1993, the EU accepted an eastward enlargement in principle by declaring that those countries that meet certain economic and political conditions shall become members of the EU. “Of all of Western Europe’s multilateral groups, the European Union has promised the most and delivered the least to Central and Eastern Europe in the eight years since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Nor is there much prospect in the near future of the EU matching its rhetoric with a realization of the East's hopes for early membership. That discouraging assessment is widely shared not only by many historians and analysts, but also by some high EU officials, although they will not say so in their own names.”6 In fact, many analysts say, the trend in Western Europe has been to turn inward rather than outward to the East, in the jargon of Brussels, to “deepen” rather than “widen” the EU. Apart from the Czech Republic and Slovakia not a single transition country had a fully functioning market economy. The eastward enlargement process will be much slower than expected because of the initial starting points. 6 EUROPA, The Official European Union site for European Union Enlargement, http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement. 15 Officials in Brussels who favor enlarging the European Union strongly deny the EU’s record is worse than the other West European multilateral organizations. Louisewise van der Laan, spokeswoman for EU Commissioner Hans van den Broek, who handles relations with the 10 Central and Eastern European country candidates (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia) says that unlike NATO, which has so far invited only three Central European nations (Czech Republic Hungary and Poland) to accede, “the most important thing we’ve done is to make clear that we expect all 10 applicant countries to become members of the EU. Considering that eight years ago these countries were, so to speak, our enemies, that’s an amazing political gesture.”7 Adding to the challenge of enlargement (widening) is the EU’s parallel attempt to deepen integration among its member states. Efforts include the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and a more effective Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) which includes a common defense. Each wave of EU enlargement has generated debate with regards to the relationship between “widening” and “deepening”. Although the processes of deepening and widening sometimes conflict, both processes are consistent with “the EU’s basic treaties, which commit the member states to achieving an ever closer union and invite the application for membership from any European State respecting certain 7 EUROPA, The Official European Union site for European Union Enlargement, http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement. 16 democratic principles.”8 With regards to enlargement (widening) to include the CEECs, “we (the EU) have committed ourselves to a robust open door policy.”9 The EU’s openness to new member states has its limits. These limits are determined by the economic and political conditions that the EU sets for membership as well as the requirement that potential members, most importantly, must be a “European state,” a term that is not defined anywhere in the EU treaties. Thus, one component of the following research is to explore, via a historiography exercise, the evolution the “European state.” In addition, the research will analyze the Copenhagen criteria that outline the conditions that must be met by the CEECs in order to become members of the EU. Moreover, the research inquiry with regards to the EU’s enlargement to the East is to explore the extent in which the economic, political and geographical boundaries can be expanded; the attempt is to determine the reach of European economic and political integration. The events and divisions of Europe after WW II provides insight on states who once considered themselves part of Europe that was once republics of the former Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, one can observe an orientation of the CEECs to Western ideals and institutions. “In historical terms, EU membership symbolized the return of the (CEECs) to the western European political, economic, and cultural mainstream after more than forty years of enforced separation. It also offered 8 A Wider Europe: The Process of and Politics of European Union Enlargement, Michael J. Baun, page 1, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, United States, 2000. 9 Pushing Back the Boundaries, The European Union and Central and Eastern Europe, page 205, Manchester University Press, Manchester 1999. 17 them increased security and a way of permanently escaping the Russian sphere of influence. For the Central and Eastern European countries, EU membership means “returning to Europe.”10 According to Mike Mannin, Pushing Back the Boundaries, the Cold War has divided Europe into two dangerously armed camps in which the East-West dichotomy has dominated European state relations. However, “the East-West view has been replaced by the triumphal liberal democratic paradigm that seemed to be reflected in the successes of the European Union.”11 Mannin uses the concept of “coming home to Europe” to help illustrate the change in relations among the EU and the CEECs following the collapse of the post-Second World War Communist order in Eastern and Central Europe. Based on this observation, I integrate the concept of “coming home to Europe” into the process of European Union enlargement. “The marked separation of the western and eastern halves of Europe started as early as the middle-ages. The regions of Greek Orthodox and Western Catholicism have run different paths.”12 “For instance, Poland’s historical links with Western Europe can be traced back for over 1,000 years. From the fifteenth century onwards close cultural and political links developed, ranging from the enthusiastic adoption of architectural, artistic and musical styles, through to sharing important ideas in Catholic theology, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and Humanism.”13 Though the idea of “Europe” has 10 A Wider Europe: The Process of and Politics of European Union Enlargement, Michael J. Baun, Introduction, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, United States, 2000. 11 Pushing Back the Boundaries, The European Union and Central and Eastern Europe, Introduction, Manchester University Press, Manchester 1999. 12 An Enlarged Europe, Regions in Competition, Sally Hardy, Mark Hart, Louis Albrechts, and Anastasios Katos, page 35, Cromwell Press, Great Britain, 1995. 13 Pushing Back the Boundaries, The European Union and Central and Eastern Europe, page 297, Manchester University Press, Manchester 1999. 18 been around for more than a thousand years, there is still little agreement as to what it actually means. According to the 19th century German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, it is a mistake to speak of Europe, as “a mere geographical expression.” Europeans have been conscious of their part of the world for a long time; its boundaries, topography, languages and ideas have been recognized and debated for at least 1,200 years. For many Europeans, Europe is not just a place but an ideal of national independence and political and cultural freedom. The populous of Europe have always had their own self-definition of what it means to be “European” that binds them together and distinguishes them from their neighbors. The main historical features of “European” are: Christianity, the heritage of the Roman Empire, and various natural boundaries. There has always been a Mediterranean Europe, an Atlantic Europe, a Northern Europe, and a Southern Europe, distinguished by more than geography alone. There has also, for many centuries, been a “mainstream” Europe defined by economic wealth and democratic political regimes. Also, there has always been a “marginal” Europe defined by poverty and vulnerability to imperial domination. The definition Europe or European state remains elusive; however, it is more than just geographical boundaries. “With regards to European identity, the Commission recognizes the definitional characteristics; geography, historical and cultural elements, ideas, values, proximity and interaction …it is neither possible nor opportune to establish the frontiers of the European Union, whose contours will be shaped for many years to 19 come.”14 The European Commission left the boundaries/definition of Europe/European state subject to review by each succeeding generation The research puzzle has a dual nature; empirically, the EU’s cautious approach towards eastward enlargement; and theoretically, the lack of direction/policy with regards to the final contours of the European Union. “The frontiers of Europe returned, in the 1990s, to the center of political debate as the European Union member states took further steps towards closer cooperation…economic and political integration and interests have blurred the distinction between international and sub-state boundaries.”15 “Thought provoking discussions of “what is Europe?” by William Wallace leads to the crucial debate of clash civilizations promoted by Samuel Huntington,”16 in which researchers and scholars ponder the question of, what are the limits of European integration? “Where does Europe, i.e. ‘European Union’ End?”17 14 Pushing Back the Boundaries, The European Union and Central and Eastern Europe, page 33, Manchester University Press, Manchester 1999. 15 Baldwin, Richard, Expanding Membership of the European Union, introduction, Cambridge University Press, 1995 16 Murray, Philomena and Holmes, Leslie, Europe: Rethinking the Boundaries, page 5, Ashgate, 1998. 17 Popson, Nancy, Global Studies: Europe, page 239, McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2004. Nancy Popson is deputy director for the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute. 20 2. Specification of the variables and the research strategy: What are the dependent and independent variables?; Are any of the cases most likely, least likely; Is the study to be a single case or multiple cases?; If multiple cases, what is the nature of the comparison: most similar, least similar; or cases for each type in an typology? What are the theoretical assumptions? What are the major definitions? Article 237 of the Rome Treaty, Article O of the Maastricht Treaty, and the Copenhagen criteria outline provisions for gaining membership into the European Union. The Copenhagen criteria are among the chief engines that drive enlargement politics in the EU. Although a great deal of research has been devoted to the topic of European Union integration and enlargement, many scholars such as Philomena Murray argue that the term/definition of ‘European state’ has yet to receive adequate attention and much remains to be covered in a systematic way. According to Murray, the future direction of the European Union enlargement process, cannot really be analyzed, explained, and understood without knowing what the concept of ‘European state’ means to the people, culture and traditions; the deeply embedded ideas about Europe affect every aspect of life in Western Europe. Through an exercise in historiography, the inquiry explores the evolution of ‘European state.’ As the Berlin Wall fell, many scholars felt the EU was erecting another line dividing Europe; in particular the term ‘fortress Europe’ became synonymous with the EU. “Academics have attempted to explain the gap between Sunday speeches and daily actions and between deeds and words…Havel condemned how one wall 21 replaces another.”18 Torreblanca ponders why “did the EU fiercely resisted the mere idea of an Eastern enlargement if the original aim of the EU was to assure the success of the political and economic reforms in Central and Eastern Europe and to guarantee the stability of the region and hence, its own security.”19 Torreblanca ponders an excellent question; a question I will explore by integrating the role of the polity and their attitudes towards EU enlargement,20 coupled with concepts of historical institutionalism and path dependency. “Principles were expressed or embedded in norms and were closely related to EU’s identity.”21 “At the Yalta Conference on February 11, 1945, the Declaration on Liberated Europe promises free elections and democracy for every European Country, however, the Allies agreed to allow the USSR to maintain positions in Central and Eastern Europe.”22 On September 19, 1946 at the University of Zurich, Sir Winston Churchill advocated setting up a sort of United States of Europe. “We must set up a sort of United States of Europe…We all need to put the horrors of the past behind us and turn to the future…If at first all the states are not willing to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can…The mighty America and I hope the Soviet Union, too, must be friends and protectors of the new Europe and defend its right to live and prosper.”23 Torreblanca, Jose, The Reuniting of Europe, introduction, Ashgate, 2001. Torreblanca, Jose, The Reuniting of Europe, introduction, Ashgate, 2001. 20 Member States Eurobarometer provide a series of quarterly polls on attitudes and knowledge of enlargement in the EU member states. 21 Torreblanca, Jose, The Reuniting of Europe, introduction, Ashgate, 2001. 22 Pushing Back the Boundaries, The European Union and Central and Eastern Europe, page 320, Manchester University Press, Manchester 1999. 23 A Chronological History of the European Union 1946 – 1998, Wim F.V. Vanthoor, page 2, Edward Elgar Publishing, United Kingdom 1999. 19 18 22 The EU’s enlargement process poses a risk of increasing isolation of Russia from the rest of Europe. The danger of creating a new dividing line across Europe is widely recognized by practioners and scholars; and the challenge is to find ways of ensuring that Russia and the EU will develop a long-term relationship. Currently, the European Union’s eastern enlargement is not expected to extend as far east as Russia. In his opening remarks at the EU-Russia summit in October 1999, Vladimir Putin stated, “as a world power situated on two continents, Russia should retain its freedom to determine and implement its domestic and foreign policies.”24 Russia’s commitment to Asia confirmed by its agreement to join the Shanghai Five. The European Council meeting in June 1993 at Copenhagen marked a new beginning for the future of the European Union and the continent of Europe as a whole. With the launch of the eastward enlargement process we see the dawn of a new era, i.e., the end of the divisions of the past and an expansion of the European integration model to encompass the whole of the continent is a pledge of future stability and prosperity. In a report on enlargement to the June 1992 Lisbon European Council, the European Commission argued that there are three basic conditions for EU membership, European identity, democratic status, and respect for human rights. However, “there does not seem to be a clear idea about the future shape and orientation of a larger Union.”25 “While in theory all European states are, under the right conditions, eligible to join the EU, the member states did not generally favor the vision of a united Europe 24 Ross, Cameron, Perspective on the Enlargement of the European Union, page, 76, Brill, 2002. 23 spreading to the Urals and beyond. It became clear that the line for EU membership will be drawn at the border of the Soviet Union and the Commonwealth of Independent States.”26 Today, “the process of eastward enlargement will extend the EU into Russia’s sphere of influence and, with the accession of the Baltic States, into the area of the former Soviet Union.”27 So far, Russia has generally reacted positively to the prospect of their central and east European neighbors becoming members of the EU, in a noted contrast to Russia’s total opposition to them joining NATO. However, there is some concern in Russia that the CEECs accession to the EU may have some negative consequences on Russia’s economic and political interests in the region. According to Werner Hoyer, either the EU can export democracy, wealth and prosperity to the (CEECs) or they will export instability to Western Europe.28 In July 1997, the Commission of the European Union presented its Agenda 2000. This study concludes that the European Union has become an anchor for the CEECs that promote stability, peace and democracy. The European Union has always been based on the concept of securing peace in Europe via economic and political integration. “Enlargement is one of the most important opportunities for the European Union at the beginning of the 21st century. It is a unique, historic task to further the integration of the continent by peaceful means, extending a zone of stability and prosperity to new 25 The European Union and Central and Eastern Europe, The Implications of Enlargement in Stages, Susan Senior Nello and Karen E. Smith, page 20, Ashgate Publishing, England, 1998. 26 The Enlarged European Union, Ian Barnes and Pamela M. Barnes, page 398, Longman Group, England 1995. 27 A Wider Europe: The Process of and Politics of European Union Enlargement, Michael J. Baun, page 3, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, United States, 2000. 24 members. Enlargement is both a historical opportunity and an obligation for the European Union and therefore one of its highest priorities. It is my ambition to see first accession becoming a reality as soon as possible during my mandate as Enlargement Commissioner. The current enlargement process is more than just another increase in the number of EU member states. Beyond the economic, political and security benefits of this enlargement, it will mean a peaceful reunification of European countries that share common values and objectives, but which had remained artificially separated over a large part of this century. Eastward enlargement of the European Union will be an important factor of stability and prosperity. This is in the interest not only of Europe itself, but of the international community as a whole.”29 (Gunter Verheugen, Director General for European Union Enlargement) The EU can look back on a history of successful enlargements. The Treaties of Paris (1951), establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), and Rome (1957), establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) and EURATOM, were signed by six founding members: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Since its founding as the European Economic Community (EEC), the European Union (EU) has experienced four “official” enlargements. The first enlargement occurred in 1973, with the entry of Great Britain, Ireland, and Denmark into what was 28 Werner Hoyer is the German Minister for Foreign Affairs: Pushing Back the Boundaries, The European Union and Central and Eastern Europe, Introduction, Manchester University Press, Manchester 1999. 29 EUROPA, The Official European Union site for European Union Enlargement, http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement. 25 then called the European Community (EC). The addition of these three countries to the EC’s six founding member states (France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg) brought the total number of member states to nine. The second enlargement occurred in 1981 with the entry of Greece, followed by Spain and Portugal in 1986. The inclusion of Greece, Spain and Portugal is often referred to as the “Mediterranean” or “southern” enlargement. The fourth, and most recent, enlargement occurred in 1995 with the entry of Austria, Sweden and Finland. This “northern” enlargement increased the total number of member states to fifteen. A fifth, “unofficial” enlargement occurred through German unification. All enlargements stipulates that the accession of countries is conditional upon the candidate states agreeing to fully accept and apply the acquis communautaire, i.e., the EU’s ever-expanding body of rules regulations and standards. Each wave of enlargement generated debate with regards to the relationship between widening and deepening. Opposition against enlargement is rooted in the argument that a wider Europe would be weaker, less cohesive and that the EU would lose its original identity and sense of common purpose. However, each enlargement was accompanied by further deepening by the creation of institutions and policies to respond to the problems that widening has created. For instance, Britain’s accession led to the creation of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and a new regional policy to redistribute EU funds. The first enlargement also created the European Council, the regular meeting of heads of state and government member states that has become the EU’s top political body, and by agreement on the Single European Union Act (SEA), a treaty that launched the Single Market. The accession of Greece, Spain and Portugal led 26 to the rapid expansion of the Structural Funds and the creation of the Cohesion Fund, programs aimed at promoting social cohesion and assisting the EU’s poorer regions. “In other words, widening has not precluded deepening, but it seems to have gone hand in hand with it, perhaps even promoting it.”30 While previous enlargements presented many problems for the EU, the eastward enlargement presents new challenges. “As a group, the ten CEECs have a per capita GDP that is only 40 percent of the EU average and less than half that of the EU’s four poorest member states (Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Spain)…Their combined population is greater than 100 million, the EU would increase its population by 28 percent.”31 In addition to the number of countries trying to join the EU and the potential economic impact, most of the former Communist countries have little or no previous experience with democracy; as a result, they face the difficult challenge of building liberal democratic and economic institutions while engendering a new liberal political culture. Four decades of Communist rule have left the CEECs without any experience with the concept of the market economy and Western economic and political norms. At its summit in Luxembourg in December 1997, the EU formally launched the process that will make an Eastward and Southern enlargement possible. It embraces the following thirteen applicant countries: Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Turkey. The European Council meeting in Luxembourg on 12 and 13 December 1997 30 A Wider Europe: The Process of and Politics of European Union Enlargement, Michael J. Baun, page 3, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, United States, 2000. 27 marks a moment of historic significance for the future of the Union and of Europe as a whole. With the launch of the enlargement process we see the dawn of a new era, finally putting an end to the divisions of the past. Extending the European integration model to encompass the whole of the continent is a pledge of future stability and prosperity. Security issues have always been the focus of EU-CEEC relations. The end of the Cold War bipolarity has created uncertainty and anxiety with regards to European security. Enlargement is viewed as an important method of exporting security and economic and political stability to Eastern and Central Europe, however, it also has the potential to import instability to western Europe by admitting countries with unresolved internal and external conflicts. “While not exactly a parallel process, the expansion of the EU’s borders into Russia has altered its security relations with Moscow. In addition, NATO’s eastward expansion has played a large role in EU decision making on eastern enlargement.”32 All CEECs applicants for the EU have also expressed a desire to join NATO; however, there has been no formal coordination of EU and NATO policies towards the CEECs. Divided between policy makers who believe that Russia and the CEECs needed to be deterred, the United States was very reluctant to include non-NATO members in the EU. After intense discussions and debates, “the principle of enlargement was endorsed, 31 A Wider Europe: The Process of and Politics of European Union Enlargement, Michael J. Baun, page 5, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, United States, 2000. 32 A Wider Europe: The Process of and Politics of European Union Enlargement, Michael J. Baun, page 7, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, United States, 2000. 28 unilaterally, by President Clinton during his 1994 re-election campaign.”33 As a result, at the 1997 Madrid Summit, NATO decided to extend membership to the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. The CEECs did not seek NATO membership solely for military security reasons, but as a process for completing the transformation to Western ideals. “There is a tendency and psychology to see Western structures, chiefly the EU and NATO, as functions of smoothly working democracies and economies. Membership would not only be an emblem of success, but also would largely guarantee a successful completion of the remaining phases of a difficult transition. Membership would be the decisive symbol, not merely that one epoch has ended but that a new and favorable one has begun.”34 In 1994, NATO launched its Partnership for Peace (PFP) initiative. It involves a series of bilateral arrangements with the CEECs, which are based on military cooperation and socialization for aspiring members. There are two broad approaches on the road of inquiry, one is called the normative approach, and the other is called the empirical approach. The normative approach focuses upon ideologies, philosophies, and norms, and asks questions of “what should be? The empirical approach relies on measurement and observation, and focuses on “what is?” The research design integrates the two broad approaches by analyzing the ideologies, norms of the European integration process and explores questions of “what should be?” In addition the research will present empirical evidence that explains, “what is?” for the Central and Eastern Europe region. In conclusion, the inquiry will compare 33 Pushing Back the Boundaries, The European Union and Central and Eastern Europe, page 204, Manchester University Press, Manchester 1999. 34 Pushing Back the Boundaries, The European Union and Central and Eastern Europe, page 199, Manchester University Press, Manchester 1999. 29 the normative “what should be?” to the empirical “what is?” in the Central and Eastern Europe region and draw connections to determining the limits to European integration. Using the Copenhagen criteria as variables for analysis of potential applicant countries, the study is undertaken through a comparative method defined as Mill’s Method of Agreement. Mill’s method of agreement is the most straight forward comparative method. The inquiry adopts Mill’s strategy by focusing on the Copenhagen criteria and its impact on the process of enlargement for the CEECs. The “method of agreement” is employed in the inquiry; and the inquiry focuses on the Copenhagen criteria as main variables because it is requirement for applicant countries. In addition, the Copenhagen criteria are causal mechanisms for leaders with regards to implementing reform efforts for their respective countries seeking to gain membership in the EU. One of the major challenges of developing a research design is employing the right tools. Mill’s method of agreement appears to be a right comparative tool because it states, if a researcher wants to know the cause of a certain phenomenon, in this inquiry, what is the criteria for gaining membership in the EU, the researcher should identify instances of the phenomenon. The research design inquiry identifies ten perhaps twelve instances in Central and Eastern Europe in which political and economic reforms are guided by the Copenhagen criteria with hopes of gaining membership in the EU. In summary, Mill’s method states a researcher should look for variables that are common to all observations aiming for the same outcome; the variables common to all observation are the Copenhagen criteria. The Copenhagen criteria impact each country aspiring to 30 become a member of the EU; the Copenhagen criteria foster a common political and economic system. The Copenhagen criteria fostered transitions to independence and efforts to democratize; the countries wanted to be free from authoritarian rule and the countries implemented democratic reforms under European Union auspices. The research design inquiry meets the criteria for the application of Mill’s Method of Agreement. The research design is further rooted in the promising approach of “pattern matching” as described by Donald Campbell, where theoretical propositions may be formulated from patterns. Economic reforms Hungary Poland Romania Slovakia Latvia Y EU identity or association Y efforts to democratize Y Similar goals of EU membership Y Accession Negotiation s Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Estonia Y Y Y Y Y Lithuania Y Y Y Y Y Bulgaria Y Y Y Y Y Czech Republic Slovenia Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Figure 1. Table that captures the Copenhagen criteria in pattern matching for gaining EU membership. 31 The inquiry employs the methods of “pattern matching” and “most different systems” designs, in which the researcher selects two or more systems to compare that may or may not be similar (in this analysis, similar systems); instead of looking for differences between two or more similar systems, this researcher looks for similarities. The selected cases of Central and Eastern European countries all share elements of the Copenhagen criteria such as, efforts to liberalize their economy, efforts to democratize, and elements of a European state, with emphasis on gaining membership into the European Union. Since the period of independence from authoritarian rule, the period covered by the inquiry, the ten applicant countries embarked on similar paths which resulted in similar outcomes, i.e., each country entered negotiations to become members of the European Union. I have presented the foundation of the research design by outlining the comparative approaches of “pattern matching” and “method of agreement”/“method of difference.” The study is explanatory in the fact that it describes the process of gaining membership into the European Union, namely the role and implementation of the Copenhagen criteria. Rooted in comparative methods, the study aspires to be prescriptive in attempts to develop a model/paradigm for analyzing the limits of European integration, thus enlargement. In this context, it will be interesting to make a general comparison with various regions/countries with European identities or associations. 32 Even though the research inquiry is one of contemporary history, I became more aware that it is necessary to delve into earlier history of Europe to provide a broad, comprehensive perspective of the present situation and developments. Until the fall of the Soviet Union Empire, the regions of Central and Eastern Europe were not exceptional. Only with the gradual process of southern, northern, and Mediterranean EU enlargement did Central and Eastern Europe appear to be lost in a vacuum as a result of the post-Cold war order. As a region, Central and Eastern Europe covers more countries than I selected for my case analysis; however, I have selected the countries that are, in many respects, representative of the entire region, in addition, they are countries that have entered into negotiations to become members of the European Union. I attempted to be direct in my research inquiry; European Union enlargement politics cannot be fully explained without incorporating the roles of the polity and their attitudes toward enlargement policy. The intersection of culture and politics is analogous to a characteristic of comparative politics, i.e., a field of study defined as having an “eclectic messy center.” Moreover, I adopted a regional scope in order to paint a political picture of the region; this scope is plausible because the peoples of the Central and Eastern Europe share a “unique” unity based on a shared socio-political culture; and there exists a pattern of continuity in the Central and Eastern Europe region in which one can justify approaching the research inquiry based on a regional scope. 33 The analysis is based on a regional scope but compared to what?; when compared to the major regions of the world. Using the tools of comparative analysis, I will, based on a regional scope, compare the major regions of the world against the Copenhagen criteria. From the comparative analysis, I hope to provide insights into the external frontiers of the European Union. Given the enormous challenges of eastern enlargement, one may ask: Why enlarge? Why not create a Central European Union, an Eastern European Union and establish cooperative institutions, i.e., intergovernmental cooperation on the basis of bargained agreements between the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the EU? As an alternative to enlargement, French President Mitterrand proposed the idea of a “European Confederation”. The confederation would exist parallel to the EU and embrace all European states, including Russia. The arrangement would serve as a multilateral forum for European political, economic and security issues. The European Confederation proposal was discussed by EU member in Prague in 1991. In addition to France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg agreed with President Mitterrand’s proposal, however, the idea was rejected by the CEECs who felt the European Confederation would only be a “second-class” association. The CEECs wanted full membership in the EU, and they viewed affiliated membership or other such partial membership arrangements as schemes, only as a way to postpone membership. Germany, Denmark, and Britain shared this view. “The Kohl government claimed that Germany had a special moral obligation to promote the integration of the 34 CEECs, deriving from its historical record of aggression against the countries to its east as well as its special debt of thanks to the peoples of Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia for making unification possible through their actions of 1989.”35 As Chancellor Kohl frequently stated, a united Germany did not want its border with Poland to remain the eastern border for the EU. Germany wanted to be surrounded by friendly countries in which it had developed economic and cultural ties. Denmark because of its close historical and cultural ties to the states along the Baltic rim strongly supported eastward enlargement. Also, supporting EU enlargement was Britain, mainly because it felt that a “wider” Europe would be less prone to a federal state. “In her famous antifederalism speech at the College of Europe in Bruges, Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had called for a wider Europe that stretched from across the Atlantic to the Urals, arguing that a more tightly integrated EU would be less capable of responding to the needs and aspirations of the Central and Eastern Europeans.”36 “According to former External Affairs Commissioner Hans van den Broek, an enlarged EU will bring increased security, stability and prosperity to Europe.”37 Enlargement also offers economic opportunities for the EU and its member states. In the words of German Foreign Minister Hans-dietrich Genscher, “If Eastern Europe fares badly, Western Europe will not prosper.”38 The political and economic health of Western Europe is linked to the stability of Eastern and Central Europe. The accession of the 35 A Wider Europe: The Process of and Politics of European Union Enlargement, Michael J. Baun, page 41, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, United States, 2000. 36 A Wider Europe: The Process of and Politics of European Union Enlargement, Michael J. Baun, page 23, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, United States, 2000. 37 A Wider Europe: The Process of and Politics of European Union Enlargement, Michael J. Baun, page 8, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, United States, 2000. 35 CEECs would expand the EU’s internal market by 100 million consumers. However, the driving force behind the eastern enlargement can be described as the “idea of Europe.” The “idea of Europe” is a concept that is rooted in the idea that Europeans have a distinctive geographical, cultural and historical identity. Despite the fact that there is no agreement on the question of what is “Europe” or where the proper borders lie, the concept of a unified Europe has been the driving force for integration and enlargement. Wide differences of opinion exist with regards to the European Union and over what territory to include. These differences exist because the region is defined by culture and not by geography. Cultural regions do not have distinct borders as do geographical areas; however, the cultural region defined by Europe Union takes form as minimalists and maximalists definitions. The minimalists say that the European Union is formed by the region of Western Europe in which the process of European integration began with the Berlin Wall intact. The maximalists start with this area and add to it all the external frontiers associated with members of Europe, i.e., areas that are politically, economically, and culturally connected to the minimalists region. Historically, the ten applicant countries selected for this study fit both minimalists’ and maximalists’ definitions. Democracy is a social movement and sometimes a revolutionary movement. War and conflict represent the highest form of struggle (Mao) and democracy is a struggle that involves personal risk taking, mobilization and sustained commitment by a large number of citizens. Democracy is not achieved by the hidden process of elite bargaining, socio- 38 EUROPA, The Official European Union site for European Union Enlargement, http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement. 36 economic development, and masks of democratic procedures as proclaimed by some former/current authoritarian leaders of Central and Eastern Europe. Liberal democracy requires the following: • • • • • • freedom of belief, expression, organization, demonstrations, and other civil liberties, including protection from political terror and unjustified imprisonment; a rule of law under which all citizens are treated equally and due process is secure; political independence and neutrality of the judiciary and of other institutions of horizontal accountability that checks the abuse of power; an open, pluralistic civil society that gives citizens multiple channels for expression and representation of their interests and values; freedom of cultural, religious, ethnic and other minorities to speak their languages, practice their cultures; and civilian control of the military, and a constitution that is supreme law.39 The basic legal provision for EU enlargement is Article O of the Treaty on European Union (TEU): “Any European State with a system of government founded on the principle of democracy may apply to join the union.”40 Enlargement will depend on whether the applicant state meets certain conditions which were laid down in June 1993 by the Copenhagen European Council: • the applicant state must have a functioning market economy with the capacity to cope with competitive pressures and market forces within the Community; 39 Leduc, Lawrence, Niemi, Richard, and Norris, Pippa, Comparing Democracies, page 213, Sage Publications, 2002. 40 The Enlarged European Union, Ian Barnes and Pamela M. Barnes, page 395, Longman Group, England 1995. 37 • the applicant state must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities; • the applicant state must be able to take on the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of economic and monetary, and political union; and • the EU must be able to absorb new members and maintain the momentum of integration.41 In addition, “Article 6(1) declares: “The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human tights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, however, no article provides a definition of Europe nor attempts to define Europe’s geographical boundaries.”42 The enlargement process begins with the formal application from the non-member state. After the formal application is received, the European Commission will issue an opinion. The opinion is a detailed analysis of the preparedness of the applicant country. After receiving the Commission’s opinion, the European Council will decide whether to begin the accession negotiations. The accession negotiations are an intergovernmental conference between the member states and the individual applicant country. Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome (1957) specifies that any European state may apply to become a 41 The European Union and Central and Eastern Europe, The Implications of Enlargement in Stages, Susan Senior Nello and Karen E. Smith, Introduction, Ashgate Publishing, England, 1998. 42 A Wider Europe: The Process of and Politics of European Union Enlargement, Michael J. Baun, page 11, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, United States, 2000. 38 member of the Union if certain conditions are met, i.e., European identity, stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, the existence of a functioning market economy, respect for human rights, willingness to accept the acquis communautaire as well as the ability to take on the obligations of membership. The European Council (member states) have some discretionary powers in the decision making process, however, if the conditions are met, any European state can become a member of the Union. Currently, there is no veto power for member states to deny membership such as the case with Ireland. Ireland voted against eastward enlargement; however, the process will continue. “European integration has always been in the hands of national elites. That is why the treaties on which the European integration is based are complicated or incomprehensible to the person in the street.”43 This phenomenon gives support to the EU’s democratic deficit as the polity is left out of the policy making process. From six to fifteen members, the European Union (EU) has been confronted to the enlargement issue since its very creation. It constitutes now one of the main questions to be discussed at the Inter Governmental Conference (IGC). The negotiation efforts of the CEECs, which started in March 1996, have to prepare the European Union to face the new demands of accession coming from a series of neighbor countries after the end of the Cold War. 43 Eastern Enlargement of the European Union, Sweet Lemon or Sour Grapes?, Miroslav N. Jovanovic, Brown Economic Review, page 15, Spring 1999. 39 Enlarging the Community is not a new challenge in itself; from the very inception of a multinational cooperation among European states, enlargement is one of the inherent principles of the treaties, as the Community did not intend to remain a closed entity. In the aftermath of the Second World War, the goal of the European Union is to integrate the maximum of European countries in order to constitute both an economically and a politically powerful and stable region. Central and Eastern Europe’s interest in EU stems from the economic strength of the Union as well as serving as a model for their own transformations and as a source of assistance and support. The accession of the former Soviet Union Republics of Ukraine, Belarussia and Moldavia into the EU, currently, seem to be unlikely, as they depend directly on Russia for support and assistance. Also, these countries have not expressed any interest to become part of the EU. Successful conclusions of the current enlargement negotiations will almost double the number of European Union members. The Europe of 15 will become the Europe of 28. Many EU politicians and policy makers will want to call a halt there; they already harbor serious doubts about the union's ability to cope with even 12 new members. But drawing a line may prove impossible. 40 3. Case Selection: What is the assessment of which cases fit into a typological theory? Does the case selection fit the research objective and specification of the variables? In analyzing the EU enlargement process in Central and Eastern Europe, the ten applicant countries fit the research objectives and specification of the variables; all CEECs emerged from a strong central authority. Currently, when placed in the political typology of societies based on their place in the political governing continuum, the political typology in the region Central and Eastern Europe is defined as: • • • • • • • • • • Hungary – Parliamentary Democracy; Poland – Republic; Romania – Republic; Czech Republic – Parliamentary Democracy; Slovenia – Parliamentary Democratic Republic; Slovakia – Parliamentary Democracy; Latvia – Parliamentary Democracy; Estonia – Parliamentary Republic; Lithuania – Parliamentary Democracy; Bulgaria – Parliamentary Democracy. In addition, each country has implemented the Copenhagen criteria for EU membership. 41 4. Describe the variance in the variables: Are the variables to be measured and described qualitatively, quantitatively or both? Despite the fact that democratic forms have taken root in Central and Eastern Europe, many argue, that the legacies of authoritarianism, which are deeply embedded in the socio-political culture prevail and create obstacles to the process of democratization. On the other hand, some find an agenda for democracy. These two polar extremes provide four different general situations within which the legacies of authoritarianism and the forces of democracy interact: 1. 2. 3. 4. revolutionary opposition to the existing political system; legal or cooperating opposition operating within the existing political system; active participation in government alliance or coalition with other political forces; yield to the existing political system.44 Independent variables, the application of the Copenhagen criteria and its impact on the dependent variable, the process of meeting the accession goals for entry into the European Union can be measured both qualitatively and quantitatively; qualitatively with regards to the “normative” and “materialistic” measure of relative power between the traditionalists/power holders and reformers of society; quantitatively with regards to measuring the empirical data of operational indicators of economic liberalization and political liberalization/democratization in Central and Eastern Europe. The quantitative measurements can be expressed by the degree of competition in the political system; percentage of electoral participation; deaths from political violence; civil disorder index; number of cabinet members; changes in the Executive cabinet; level of personal rights and basic freedoms. 42 The political systems of Central and Eastern Europe emerged from dominant, authoritarian regimes; two features once characterized the region: 1.) the powerful influence of authoritarianism on the political environment and, 2.) the limited nature of democracy. The dependent variable, democratization in the CEECs, is correlated to the relative power/influence of the independent variable, the practice of the Copenhagen criteria. A representation of the interplay between the variables is demonstrated in the following Algebraic description. Basic Assumptions: • • • • • • • 2 units of analysis – ruling elites and civil society; 2 units are composed of reformers and non-reformers; 2 units in combination determine the political structure; x, y, z are coefficients derived from a power function; CS – civil society; RE – ruling elites; “r” – reformers; “nr” – non-reformers General Algebraic expression: X(civil society) + Z(ruling elites) ~= political structure the representation implies that a combination of civil society and ruling elites determine the political structure of a government. An Algebraic expression of Central and Eastern Europe is: X(csr+csnr) + Z(rer+renr) ~= political structure where “r” designates reformers within each unit and “nr” designates the non-reformers in the CEECs; each unit is composed of reformers and non-reformers. Without being too parsimonious, the expression can be reduced to reformers in the ruling elites and 44 Esposito, John L. and Voll, John O., Islam and Democracy, page 33, Oxford University Press 1996. 43 reformers in the civil society verses the non-reformers in the respective units with regards to implementing reforms to the political order. The Algebraic expression represents a balance of power “function” between reformers and non-reformers, where x and z are the “power” coefficients of civil society and ruling elites. There is an integral connection between civil society the ruling elites that determine the political structure of the CEECs. “Civil society speaks in a myriad of voices. The vanguard of civil society has been human rights activists, artists, writers and professional groups of lawyers, doctors or engineers who insist on governmental accountability and expose the excesses of authoritarian rulers…the rallying cry of the bourgeoisie has been liberalism.”45 In addition, civil society embraces the free market for differentiation from the state. According to Augustus R. Norton, a vital and autonomous civil society is a necessary condition for democracy. Based on the above paradigm of competition between the reformers and nonreformers in the CEECs, the inquiry aspires to develop a model that captures the paths to democracy in Central and Eastern Europe via Algebraic expressions. 1.) reformers of society becomes so powerful that it can overthrow the current political order without conflict, peaceful transition; 2.) reformers of society have enough power to overthrow the political order via violent conflict; 3.) reformers of society have equal power relative to the political order and engage in bargaining, power sharing; 4.) reformers of society do not develop enough power to challenge the political order and the status quo remains. 45 Norton, Augustus, Richard, Civil Society in the Middle East, page 8, E.J. Brill, 1995. 44 The variables share both quantitative and qualitative values; quantitative with regards to empirical measures of democratization indices; qualitative with regards to capturing the power, will and commitment of the people to make sacrifices in order to achieve democracy in the CEECs. Democracy is a social movement, sometimes a revolutionary movement in which war and violence is viewed as the highest form of struggle. Using realist terms, the element of power lurks in the background when analyzing resistance to the process of democratization in the CEECs. Preliminary research suggests a relationship between the goals of former authoritarian leaders, who favor a centralized state and centralized control, and resistance to democratic reforms. Throughout Central and Eastern Europe, former authoritarian leaders hold great political influence and power. In order for democracy and economic reforms to take root in Central and Eastern Europe, the reformers must balance against the forces of the non-reformers and those of the autocratic machinery. 45 5. Formulation of additional questions: a. Copenhagen criteria or Fukuyama’s End of History? “When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, a euphoric vision briefly captured the American imagination. Liberalism had triumphed over its competitors and no new challengers are in sight. Empires and dictatorships are collapsing. Democratization is sweeping formerly authoritarian countries in Latin America, southern Europe, and Eastern Europe, and even making inroads in East Asia. This victory of liberalism, as it was claimed, would usher in the end of history.”46 With the end of the Cold War, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the declining appeal of “Eastern” ideas, the hope of further expansion of democracy to Central and Eastern Europe increased. According to Larry Diamond, Consolidating Democracies, in the past quarter century, no global trend has been more powerful and transformative than the expansion of democratic forms of governments in the world. Since the inauguration of Samuel Huntington’s “third wave” the number of democracies in the world has tripled; in 1974 there were 39 democracies; in 2000 there were 120 democracies. In the 1970s, democratic transformations were mainly confined to Southern Europe and a few Latin American countries; during the 1980s, the democratization process became rooted in Asia by expanding to the Philippines, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Pakistan; by the 1990 the entire Western Hemisphere had freely elected governments. Still, most countries had authoritarian regimes; however, the dramatic events of 1989 changed everything, the collapse of the Soviet Union sent ripples through the world, undermining communism and authoritarianism. Are reform efforts in Central and Eastern Europe the result of the third wave of democratization or the Copenhagen criteria? 46 b. East or West for Russia? Russian society is currently divided as to whether Russia can or should aspire to become part of Europe again. Russian foreign policy elites also articulate two paths, West or East for Russia’s strategic orientation. As former Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov explained, Russia must decide whether it wants to be the weakest link in the core powers, the eighth power in the Group or Eight, or the strongest power among the “developing” countries. Russian President Valdimer Putin himself struggles with these two impulses of East or West pulling in opposite directions. He consistently states that Russia must become more integrated with European institutions, however, at the same time he undertakes antidemocratic policies, i.e., centralizing authority and control in Russia. This may make it more difficult for Russia to join the EU. As noted with the United States reluctance to include non-NATO members in the EU, the United States continues to be very influential in European affairs. In order to facilitate Russia’s accession into the EU, the United States President must express faith in Russia's ability to rejoin Europe as a democratic state with a market economy. Many within Russia believe the United States want to see Russia as part of the West. 46 Snyder, Jack, From Voting to Violence: Democratization and Nationalist Conflict, page 17, W. W. Norton & Company 2000. Here, Snyder cites Francis Fukyama, “The End of History.” 47 According to former President George H. Bush, “Europe will only be whole and free, if Russia is a member.”47 Russia is now decades away from qualifying for membership in the European Union or NATO. Members of the Western community of democratic states have respect for basic human rights and do not slaughter their civilians in rebellious provinces, or restrict basic freedoms by controlling the press. The only real questions are whether Russia can make the necessary changes to join Europe again, and whether Russians want to join Europe again. Many Russians hope their country can become a full-fledged member of Europe and derived the benefits of membership in the EU, i.e., economic and political stability. “Prime Minister Victor Chernomyrdin had unexpectedly declared at a press conference in Brussels that Russia’ long-term goal was to become a member of the European Union. No one, at least officially, would question Russia’s right to apply for EU membership if it could meet the Copenhagen criteria.”48 In conclusion, one limitation of European Union enlargement is defined by the future direction of Russia. If Russia decides to rejoin Europe, in the words of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a wider Europe will stretch from across the Atlantic to the Urals. However, if Russia decides against rejoining Europe, in the words of Sir Winston Churchill, Russia must be friends and protectors of the new Europe and defend its right to live and prosper. For Churchill and various member states, it became clear 47 48 West or East for Russia, Michael McFaul, Washington Post, June 9, 2001. Ross, Cameron, Perspectives on the Enlargement of The European Union, page 76, Brill, 2002. 48 that the line for EU membership would be drawn at the border of Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States. c. The Cases of External Frontiers: The external frontiers and territories of Europe returned in the 1990s to the center of political debate. Economic and political interests blurred the lines between international and sub-state boundaries with regards to the EU’s authority to cooperate, incorporate, integrate, and associate with former colonies and territories, which represents tension among members in the struggle between the ‘heartland’ and the ‘rimland.’ The EU external frontiers are linked to a number of complex arguments; however, “the frontier is located where states decide it should be drawn. One-hundred thousand Hong Kong nationals of British dependency were deemed British nationals.”49 Article 227 of the Treaty of Rome provides that the Treaty should apply to member’s republics in its entirety: • • • The Case for French Republics; The Case for British Republics – the British Commonwealth of Nations; The Case for Spanish Republics. d. The process of Europeanization, i.e., the neutralization of territory so it becomes part of Europe, free of any particular nation. (World Book Dictionary) Any nation-state seeking to enlarge its territory in the way that the European Union is doing would have been accused of imperialism, however, the process of EU enlargement has generated little opposition. Most nations are in favor of EU 49 enlargement, because they recognize that the European Union has played an important role in creating peace and prosperity. The enlargement of the EU is about preserving and enhancing stability across Europe. 49 Baldwin, Richard, Expanding Membership of the European Union, page 17, Cambridge University Press, 1995. 50