August 1997, I

A place for Eastern Europe in Europe

Eastern Europe in Europe

Europe, especially Eastern Europe has to live up to the new demands of a new era. They have to make the choice of integrating into Europe or go their own way. The Balkan, “little” Yugoslavia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia and Albania have however no choice. They are dependent on the goodwill of Western Europe and the U.S. and will be in the short term no candidates to become a member of Europe’s most important organisations.

The political-economical situation has changed dramatically since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. A sharp division between the rich West and the poor East has come into existence. The countries of eastern Europe have applied for membership of the two most important western/European organisations, NATO and the European Union.

They consider membership as a tool to satisfy their security needs and to improve their deplorable economic situation. But sometimes one might think that they do not correctly estimate the full implications of being a member of those two organisations.

TheWest on the other hand wants to support the reconstruction of the East but their approach is characterized by caution and political games.

There is however one great misunderstanding, the East expects to much of the membership and the West is limiting the burden of the enlarged organisations to the financial question.

NATO

NATO experienced some difficulties after the bankruptcy of communism. They had lost their “raison d’etre”. NATO had to re-direct their goals. A new threat had to be “invented”. There are numerous threats available in this world, so NATO enlarged its area of responsibility and first targeted terrorism, international crime, fundamentalism and socalled rogue states as the primary sources of danger to the security in the world.

The end of the superpower status-quo turned many dead believed conflicts and hatreds alive again. And an organisation as NATO is badly needed against so many threats.

Europe also needed NATO to solve or stabilise the continent. The war in former Yugoslavia is an example of the necessity of NATO. But there was another reason for the existence of NATO, the former communist states in Europe wanted to become members of this highly succesfull security alliance. They want to be protected against the might of Russia and at the same time belong to the European family.

The West was very cautious in their actions. Yes, they wanted to enlarge the NATO eastwards, but slowly and only with the most advanced countries. Advanced in the sense of that they possessed the best track record with the introduction of democratic government, a capitalistic economy and reforms in the armed forces. The other countries have to wait for the next round.

This caution is ofcourse sensible but it discourages the other countries in their development and it will give Russia an opportunity organise its resistance better against any further enlargement of NATO. The limited enlargement, with Poland, Hungary and Czechia, is from a strategic point of view also not very effective. It not only weakens the alliance and Europe in a possible conflict but it also splits the alliance because some European countries wanted other countries like Rumania to enter NATO. The U.S. were however against any enlargement with other countries. By stating that there was a conformity over Poland, Hungary and Czechia all other proposals had no chance. Indirectly, it was the U.S. who decided who was allowed to enter NATO. The U.S. president has to persuade the U.S. Congress about the enlargement of NATO. And a way to get the approval of the U.S. Congress was to minimise the cost, so only three countries were invited.

The costs of enlargement is not yet specified. There are several estimates, but none of them is applicable because there is not any certain policy of how to integrate the newcomers. The level of standardisation in equipment and doctrines and the construction of logistic support is still not determined. The cost factor is a bad argument to limit the number of new entrants to three.

The greatest burden to the West is not financial but it will be more of keeping the East in line with the policy of the alliance. There is a potential danger that the new members view NATO as an element they can use as needed and that the bill is paid by the alliance.

The political instability and the still large government controlled economy is a better reason to keep the South-East European countries out of NATO. The reason to keep the Baltic states out for the moment is not to upset Russia. But this will prove to be very ineffective, an enlargement of NATO with the Baltic countries in the future will be more difficult because of the regained power of Russia at that time.

NATO can be an effective instrument to promote peace and stability in Europe. The number of partners should be as large as possible. All partners in the alliance should have the same rights, and more important, understand the rights and above all the duties which grow out of NATO membership.

European Union

The European Union has created a peacefull area in Europe where the economy of its member states can prosper. The free-trading area has slowly developed itself to a union with independent states who have chosen to co-operate which eachother and are even willing to surrender power towards the E.U. This becomes clearly with the introduction of the European currency, Euro, at the turn of the century. Even when some countries do not participate at the start of the Euro, probably they will do later, the European Union is becoming more and more an established entity in this world.

One of the leading ideas of the E.U. is the promotion of economic development. Through the years, economic less developed areas were supported by the E.U. Most countries of Eastern Europe want to become members of the E.U. The reasons for this membership are: they want to belong to Western-Europe; they want an entry to the large market and they want the support of the E.U. to develop their economies.

But the situation is partly equal as with the NATO, the countries who want to be members expect a lot of suppport of Western-Europe. But as a member of the E.U. the member states have to surrender some of their national power to Brussel, follow directives from Brussel and respect the rules of democracy and human rights.

The surrender of national power could be difficult for countries who just regained their rights to govern themselve. The new elected governments may have the tendency to consider every infringement to their national power as unjust.

The members of the European Union have put the entry card into the union to high for some countries. The potential members should accept the rules of a democratic state, respect the human rights and transform their economy. The level of change is, as with NATO, the decisive factor.

The countries invited to become a member on the short term are limited to five, the ones who have maid the biggest progress to change their societies. So Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia and Letland are invited to join the E.U. on the short term. The other interested countries will have to wait for another eight to ten years.

The E.U. should, between the introduction of the first and second group, support the countries who are not allowed in as much as possible to make the entry of those countries as soon as possible. The E.U. and the NATO should not hold those nations out of the European group but involve them in the enlargement process, even if they are not yet a full member. It is very important to stimulate them to change their country into a democratic market economy.

The new members should not expect to much financial support from the E.U. The E.U. has to change its management, agricultural- and structure fund policy to survive on the long term with so many new but relatively poor members.

But being a member will be good for the economy of the new members. They will get an entry to the large internal market, be a member of Western Europe and they still will receive substantial support from E.U. structure funds.

Conclusion

Most East European countries wish to become members of NATO and the E.U. They consider membership vital to their development and their security.

Only the most promising countries will be allowed to become members of both organisations. The old and new members should not expect to much of the enlargement of both organisations.

The new members should not expect to receive security and financial support as something natural. They also have to make a contribution to NATO and the E.U., the new member have to comply to the rules and participate in NATO and the E.U.

The West, or old members, of both organisations should not underestimate the burden they will have to carry because of the enlargement. The burden will not only be financial as the level of financial suppport is still not determined because there are no detailed plans available which are feasible and politically acceptable to be implemented. The West should also help with advice and co-operation to promote democracy and the market economy in the East.

The West should actively support Eastern Europe to bring them into the fold of the NATO and E.U. Only if those countries accept and implement the values of both organisations a peacefull and socially acceptable economic recovery is feasible.

The West should try to incorporate as much countries as possible into the E.U. and NATO. This will induce all nations to do their best in attaining Western standards in their policy which increases the chance for a bright future.

Caution and a balanced approach towards the enlargement is very good but to much caution will destroy the dynamics of the development process in Eastern Europe. A new Europe has to be in place before new and more serious dangers will surface on the long term. A united Europe which strong connections to the East, Russia, can guarantee freedom and prosperity in our part of the world.