Bulgaria and Romania: Second Wave or Second Class?
Heather Baird (Central and Eastern European Studies: University of Glasgow)
| 1 |
On May 1st 2004, the European Union expanded from 15 member states to 25 making it the biggest enlargement since the Union was created. The aspirations of the former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe to become part of the European family were finally realised. The new member nations now enjoy free movement of capital and labour as well as full access to the European market. Although technically the European Union has enlarged her borders, there still remains an East/West divide. During the Cold War this divide was geopolitical, whereas now it is distinctly economic. This paper will focus on the second wave candidate countries, Bulgaria and Romania, which are set to join in 2007. They will be the poorest countries to join the EU to date and this large economic disparity has detached Romania and Bulgaria from their richer European counterparts, arguably creating an 'underclass.' This divide has been evident in four key areas which will be examined - the costs of the enlargement, public opinion in member states, the negotiation process and the neighbouring relations between members and candidates. The root of the divide is economic yet the paradox is that as long as the EU sustains internal borders based on wealth; cohesion and stability in the EU will be undermined. This in turn may threaten the functioning of the community which could delay Eastern Europe's income convergence with Western Europe. |
| 2 | In 1989, when a wave of revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe finally ended communist rule, Western Europe rejoiced with a storm of enthusiastic approval. However, despite rhetoric, eastern enlargement has never been top of the EU agenda. Other policy areas like the Economic and Monetary Union have taken priority.[1] Enlargement is also the only major policy area not to have a clear timetable. Now that the first wave applicant countries have joined this year, the second wave countries face further subordination as additional enlargement in 2007 is shrouded in even more uncertainty. Much depends on the Union's ability to cope effectively with the impact of ten new members. The inevitable problems that the first wave enlargement will cause the EU is likely to produce a sense of 'enlargement fatigue' which could mean a further delay in second wave enlargement; so Bulgaria and Romania face a very real risk of being left out in the cold. In 1989, when a wave of revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe finally ended communist rule, Western Europe rejoiced with a storm of enthusiastic approval. However, despite rhetoric, eastern enlargement has never been top of the EU agenda. Other policy areas like the Economic and Monetary Union have taken priority. |
| 3 |
This uncertainty is a result of predominantly financial concerns which are the central issues in European enlargement and have divided rich from poor. The accession of ten poorer members into the EU will undoubtedly put a strain on the EU's current institutions and finances. Romania and Bulgaria's potential membership relies on how successful the EU is in absorbing these new economies. GDP per capita of Bulgaria and Romania is only around 7% of the EU average compared to 16% for Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic Estonia and Slovenia.[2] As well as being poorer, Romania and Bulgaria are also more agrarian; 44% of the Romanian workforce are employed in agriculture.[3] Thus, the economic circumstances of the second wave applicants are likely to cause the EU significant problems due to the added pressure on structural funds. Proposals to increase the EU budget by 25% to pay for enlargement has been met with staunch opposition from the richest members who are demanding their contributions be reduced.[4] Bulgaria and Romania lag much further behind than the first-wave countries so require more assistance in order to meet EU criteria by 2007. In February 2004, Brussels proposed a dramatic increase in aid - £56 million to support the national administrations of Bulgaria and Romania after accession and £236 million to hire translators.[5] Again, these proposals have been met with vociferous opposition. As a result of such recurring financial rows, there have been calls to suspend membership talks with Bulgaria and Romania leaving these countries with a prevailing sense of impatience and disillusionment. This is a stark contrast to the warm reception they received from Western Europe after the 1989 revolutions. As Catherine Lovatt describes in Romania's case,
EU membership has now instead become dominated by economic concerns, which has put Romania and Bulgaria in an extremely disadvantageous position. It may take more than three decades just to halve the income gap with current EU members.[7] They look set to remain the 'poor states' and the new enlarged EU will be divided by 'borders of prosperity' in which Romania and Bulgaria will most certainly be on the wrong side. |
| 4 | So far, the negotiation process with Bulgaria and Romania has reflected the discrimination that is entailed in being the 'second wave' candidates. Prior to May 1st 2004, when all of the Central and Eastern European candidates were around the negotiating table, there was a growing competition among candidates to limit requests for 'temporary concessions' from the EU. They each feared that their country could be left as a second class member of the Union if they indicated they were not ready for quick adaption to the EU.[8] However, this is exactly the position that Romania and Bulgaria find themselves in now. A lack of European expertise prevents them from becoming an effective side in the negotiation process with any bargaining power, so they tend to be subordinated in a process in which the EU holds all the cards. The European Commission has set extremely high standards through the aquis communautaire; meeting the requirements has been a monumental upheaval, particularly for Romania and Bulgaria who were much worse off at the end of communist rule. Nevertheless they have made remarkable progress in meeting the requirements yet the Commission has still not equalled this with additional aid, or even a clear accession timetable. The European Community's problem with Bulgaria and Romania is that their economies are inefficient, flawed, underdeveloped and riddled with corruption and thus still a long way from the Western-style market based economy required to be part of the EU. Yet the irony is that if Romania and Bulgaria remain outside the EU, the economic deficiencies they are currently experiencing (which Western Europe regards with such disdain) will be aggravated. During negotiations the European Commission has maintained that conditionality is the most effective way to ensure transition economies meet EU provisions due to the expected economic gains of EU membership. The estimated total value of the benefits of EU directives for candidate countries will range from $134 to $ 681 billion.[9] Yet with limited access to export markets and a lack of foreign direct investment (FDI), unemployment and economic discontent will remain an ongoing feature of the second wave candidate countries. A second wave enlargement is currently looking more vague and provisional on the course of the first wave enlargement, so conditionality is a less effective tool in ensuring the required market restructuring. The perception of the EU in Eastern Europe has been described as "more and more concerns - less and less hope".[10] Only a guaranteed accession in 2007 can ensure Romania and Bulgaria will be on course to achieving a fully-functioning market economy and income levels comparable with the rest of the European Union. Yet there is an extreme lack of commitment among member-states to a further enlargement. In addition, it is has been speculated that the EU has in fact been inventing more obstacles to delay the second wave enlargement, especially if the first wave enlargement sets off a number of internal crises and disputes that could threaten the Union's internal cohesion. For example, the introduction of a new monitoring system, designed to ensure commitments made during negotiations are implemented now has the power to delay accession.This is a different approach to the monitoring process experienced by the first wave applicants.[11] |
| 5 | Economic might determines influence and status within the EU - the Union is dominated by the 'gang of six' - Britain, France, Germany, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands.[12] It is clear that it is not enough for Central and Eastern European countries to fulfil enlargement criteria, they also need to lobby for their acceptance. The current attitude in Western Europe is disconcertingly negative. Western media is dominated by anti-enlargemant sentiment espoused by demagogues and anti-enlargement lobbies. The issue which dominates the media is immigration, which is often the source of the growing backlash against an enlarged EU. The fear is that existing members will be flooded with mass migration which will lead to job losses and pressures on welfare systems. Again, it is the economic disparity between the East and West that has caused the scepticism amongst EU citizens who are cynical about the benefits of an additional ten, much poorer member states. According to the Euro barometer, 77% of EU citizens are not in favour of an enlargement that would cost existing member countries more and 47% don't think applicant countries should get aid.[13] This reflects a prevailing attitude that the West does not owe the East a living. By contrast, support for EU membership still remains high in the second wave applicants, strongest in Romania where 76% of Romanians say they would vote favourably in an EU referendum.[14] Hence, Danica Fink Hafner describes CEEC-EU relations as "We love you, but you reject us."[15] The economic returns from accepting Romania and Bulgaria into the EU are expected to be much less for existing members, which explains the flagging enthusiasm for their entry in 2007. |
| 6 | Relations with neighbouring countries have also adversely affected the position of Romania and Bulgaria in Europe. Western European countries have favoured the geographically closer and more promising economies of Eastern Europe, like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - four fifths of the region's aid and investment went to these three countries between 1989 and 1992.[16] EU member states stand to gain more from them in trade, particularly Poland which will provide a large new market for Western producers. The benefits to be gained from Bulgarian and Romanian entry are far less tangible. David Phinnemore notes that a significant reason as to why Romanian/Bulgarian entry has been deprioritised is because they have no 'champions' among current members. From the early 1990s, Germany pushed for Polish, Hungarian and Czech membership; Italy and Austria championed Slovenia's application and Finland and Sweden argued for the inclusion of the Baltic countries in the new enlarged EU. Being further away and offering less economic benefits to their neighbours, support for Romania and Bulgaria tends to be 'routine diplomacy' [17] and their prospective membership has mustered indifference at best among current member states. Furthermore, some neighbouring relations have been somewhat antagonistic, particularly for Romania, which could pose a major hurdle to gaining membership. Hungary is less than keen to see Romania as a new European partner due to Romania's treatment of Hungarian minorities. The large-scale contamination of the river Danube in 2000 and other prolific cases of pollution have been due to Romania's ineffective environmental laws and have seen neighbouring relations deteriorate. Hungary alone is claming $30 billion in damages over the Tisza contamination and Hungarian environmental groups are determined to see Romania cut out of EU negotiations until environmental standards are improved.[18] To some European countries, Romania and Bulgaria are becoming increasingly regarded as a liability as their economies do not meet Western standards. Austria sees them as two impoverished countries that will pose a threat to the European Union unless there are tighter border controls. Austria claims to be besieged by Bulgarian and Romanian thieves who are crossing through Hungary, which has reinforced their reputation as sources of illegal workers and gun-runners.[19] This xenophobic attitude has engulfed the EU and only in the past couple of years have Romania and Bulgaria been taken off the visa blacklist despite their official status as candidate countries. |
| 7 | To conclude, the historic enlargement of the European Union that took place in May 2004 has heightened the sense of being in an increasingly integrated and globalised world where national borders seem to have been rapidly disintegrating since the end of the Cold War. However, this in reality is not the case. There still remains an East/West divide between 'old Europe' and 'new Europe' but instead of being ideological it is now economic. This has adversely affected the second wave candidates - Bulgaria and Romania who have become marginalised, essentially creating an 'economic iron curtain.'[20] The cost of a second wave enlargement and its implications have dominated the enlargement agenda, well above global stability and security concerns which were the main issues when the Union was created. Continual financial disputes have in fact threatened the course of a second wave accession, leaving the current candidates in a subordinate position of dependency where crucial decisions about their European future are entirely in the hands of the wealthier member states. The negotiation process has illustrated this also - Romania and Bulgaria have received less financial assistance in meeting the membership criteria than the first wave applicants and there is no clear timetable for a second wave enlargement. Western European attitudes also reflect a rich/poor divide where the incorporation of much poorer countries into the EU has been met with resistance. Neighbouring relations have also been a significant factor in the two-tier approach to enlargement. Romania and Bulgaria have fewer economic ties with current EU members and can offer less in the form of potential economic benefits, so have had no EU countries to 'champion' their inclusion. Their current relations, especially the Hungarian/Romanian disputes have also endangered their acceptance. Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, whether in 2007 or beyond, is therefore unlikely to tear down the economic iron curtain. Only when they achieve fully functioning market economies with GDP levels comparable with the rest of Europe can they expect to be equal partners within the European Union. |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Andras Inotai (2003): 'Some Reflections on Possible Scenarios for EU Enlargement', Problems and Perspectives in Management, vol 1, pp. 67-87.
[2] David Phinnemore (1999): 'The Challenge of EU Enlargement: EU and CEE Perspectives', in Karen Henderson (ed.), Back to Europe: Central and Eastern Europe and the European Union. UCL Press, London, pp. 71-88 (p80).
[3] Centre for Economic Policy Research (2002): 'Who's Afraid of the Big Enlargement?', Centre for Economic Policy Research, London (p14).
[4] Ian Black (2004): 'EU Rich and Poor Split over Budget Increase', The Guardian, 11 February 2004.
[5] Oana Lungescu (2004): 'Brussels Plans Bulgaria Romania Aid', http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3473369.stm (accessed 2nd June 2004).
[6] Catherine Lovatt (1999): 'Romania's Only Way Ahead', Central Europe Review, vol 1 (see http://www.ce-review.org/99/5/eu_lovatt5.html).
[7] Centre for Economic Policy Research (2002): 'Who's afraid of the big enlargement?' Centre for Economic Policy Research, London (p16)
[8] Danica Fink Hafner (1999): 'Dilemmas in Managing the Expanding EU: The EU and Applicant States' Point of View', Journal of European Public Policy, 6 (5), pp. 822-38.
[9] 'Activities of the European Union', http://www.europa.eu.int/pol/enlarg/overview_en.htm (accessed 19th May 2004).
[10] Hafner (1999) p. 830.
[11] Oana Lungescu: 'New system "May Delay EU Entries" ', http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3729353.stm (accessed 19th May 2004).
[12] Ian Black (2004).
[13] Hafner (1999) p. 830.
[14] Heather Grabbe and Kirsty Hughes (1999): 'Central and East European views on EU Enlargement: Political Debates and Public Opinion', in K. Henderson (ed.), Back to Europe: Central and Eastern Europe and the European Union; UCL Press, London.
[15] Hafner (1999) p. 833.
[16] Stuart Croft, John Redmond, G. Wyn Rees and Mark Webber (1999): 'The Enlargement of Europe'; Manchester University Press, European Union Enlargement'.
[17] Phinnemore (1990) p. 81.
[18] 'Romania: Environmental Issues', http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/romaenv.html (accessed October 2003).
[19] 'Austria Tells Romania, Bulgaria to Keep Thieves at Bay or Forget Joining the EU', http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/030924160641.0euno2w7 (accessed 30th June 2004).
[20] Mark Milner and Nikhita Mahajan (2004): 'New Customers to Redraw Borders of Prosperity', http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/html (accessed 29th April 2004).
eSharp issue: autumn 2004. © Heather Baird 2004. All rights reserved. ISSN 1742-4542.