TF6 Final Report - European Ideas Network

European Ideas Network
Task Force 6: External Borders of the European Union
Post Cadenabbia draft—almost final
Lead Organization:
Constantinos Karamanlis Institute for Democracy
Participating Organizations:
Foundation Pour L’ Innovation Politique
Austrian Institute For European Security Policy
Szazadveg Foundation
Free Europe Center
Konrad Adenauer Foundation
Robert Schumann Foundation
Framework
Five years after the end of WW II, six European states decided to establish a
closer community of the peoples of Europe to safeguard peace and prosperity in the
region. This effort through the founding and evolution of the ECSC led to the
establishment of the EU, where states converge around common values, norms,
regulations and decision making procedures. During that process, the Member States
of the EU faced the very difficult task of overcoming traditional national policies for
the benefit of the integration.
Successive enlargements created additional challenges to the process of
integration. As a result, the issue of the External Borders of the European Union is
of vital importance not only in regard to specific EU policies (i.e. security,
immigration, etc.), but also because of the challenges the Union will have to face as a
consequence of future enlargements. The crucial issue remains that of the European
Project and how it will evolve: Is it going to be just an open market area? Or is the EU
going to develop into a stronger political entity? In either case it must maintain
clearly definable and secure external borders.
This realization became more apparent last Spring, when the draft treaty for
establishing a constitution for Europe was rejected by two Member States (after
having been adopted by 15), thus creating a political crisis which impacted its
institutions in a manner that could have halted any further integration of the EU as
well as its future enlargement process. Crucial issues concerning the budget, the new
Member States and the new candidate states posed such great dilemmas to the EU that
the very essence, orientation, limits as well as capabilities and prospects of this unique
economic and geopolitical entity came into question.
Moreover, survey results indicated a dramatic decline of the European’s
acceptance of the EU and the policies it pursued in the past decade (perhaps including
the recent enlargement with ten new Member States), thus portraying growing
1

eservations towards the absorption of additional new members. All this demonstrates
that the process of European integration has arrived at a critical point. In order to
overcome this crisis, the EU has to clarify in what direction it intends to develop and
where its geographical borders are located, since many argue that the Union’s
capacity to decide and act has already been stretched to its limits. Any additional
major enlargement would increase the EU’s internal heterogeneity and widen the
spectrum of divergent interests, creating an enormous risk of gradual paralysis, if not
future disintegration. Consequently, it is important to focus on the task of the Union’s
internal cohesion.
The Union’s Cohesion
The question of how much social and cultural diversity within the EU can be
absorbed must be cautiously evaluated. If the condition that enlargement must
“strengthen the cohesion of the Union” is supposed to remain valid, since the peoples
of the EU aspire for a strong Europe, then the issue of its internal cohesion must take
priority. A strong Europe means efficient institutions and decision making processes,
which are able to solve the problems and address the challenges the European society
is facing today, while effectively defending the interests of the Union on a global
scale. Moreover, the EU must gain the trust and acceptance of EU citizens, present a
clear vision of its projected geographical borders, allow for solidarity with the
weakest Member States, institute a common foreign policy, and improve the Union’s
institutional capability.
Considering the latest developments in world affairs, it is obvious that the
citizens of Europe need a clear perspective on their future and they will only develop
acceptance of the EU, if they have a clear picture of its project, i.e. its direction and its
limits. Europeans cannot be expected to support the idea of European unity, unless
they have an outlook of what the EU will look like in the short, medium and long run,
as well as which of the existing problems it can solve.
Thus, further enlargements must not only be considered and judged by the
political Copenhagen Criteria, because experience shows that these criteria were often
applied very flexibly. Instead, account must be taken of the very fundamental
objective of its establishment, as expressed in Art. 1.1 of the Constitutional Treaty,
which reflects the will of the citizens and states of Europe to build a common future.
Originally, the desperately needed improvement of the Union’s institutional
and political capacity to act was supposed to take place parallel to the enlargement of
the ten new Member States. Institutional capability to act, therefore, assumes that
before the EU faces further enlargement beyond Bulgaria and Rumania, issues of the
Union’s cohesion and functionality must be resolutely addressed. The EU must pursue
all necessary reforms in order to attain further integration.
Citizens of EU must have the impression that the Union is capable of solving
pressing problems. This means: creating new jobs; generating more economic potency
and modernity in order to overcome the challenges of globalization; fighting more
effectively against terrorism and international crime; and handling environmental and
energy problems more successfully. In that aspect, the ambitions of the Lisbonstrategy
are still valid: flexible labour markets; completion of the Single European
Market; robust advancement of scientific research; continuous improvement of
professional qualifications. The acceptance of the Union by its people will increase,
once the citizens realize that the EU is much more successful in dealing with global
challenges, than Member States can do on their own.
2

Above all, it appears that there is now a need to reinforce a common and
strongly felt European identity. In fact, it is paramount to nurture a “we” feeling.
And for that purpose the norms and values on which the EU is based must strictly be
followed and further cultivated. Otherwise, it would be hardly possible to ask the
European citizens to submit to the necessary supranational governance and accept
common policies, which demand at least short term concessions and sacrifices of
national interests. One of the main tasks is to develop a European public space and
transnational debates on European issues.
Any discussion of further EU enlargement, must address the crucial issue of
the Union’s absorption capacity. And even so, a necessary first step is to tackle the
notion of Europe’s “internal” absorption capacity, that is its ability to ‘bring to the
fold’ the ten new members.
Economic and Social Cohesion -“Internal” Absorption Capacity
By absorption capacity, we shouldn’t simply mean the capacity of the
European Union to accept new members. When the subject of cohesion is discussed
in the context of the European Union and its enlargement, we should not forget that
besides external borders there are also internal disparities. As a result, when we
consider the ways that the EU could accept new candidates, attention should also be
paid to the full ‘absorption’ of its present members.
Specifically, there are two issues that should be considered: First, due to the
different pace of integration, not all Member States participate in every common
policy (for example, different memberships in the Euro or the Schengen zones.)
Second, as a consequence of the 2002 Copenhagen accession treaties, there are still
strong dividing lines between old and new Member States in several policy areas (in
agriculture till 2013; in structural funds till 2007; in free movement of labour till
2011; etc.) The phenomenon of staggered integration is not new in the EU, however,
as the experience of Greece, Spain and Portugal indicates, these internal
differentiations can be gradually eliminated, when they are properly addressed.
Hence, priority should be given to the elimination of still existing social and
economic differences among the Member States. The EU should never neglect to
concentrate its efforts on implementing its basic principles, such as solidarity and
equality of its members. Consideration should be given to the threat of drawing
dividing lines within the European Community (i.e. separating the member countries
according to their level of development) that could undermine the entire process of
bringing the peoples of Europe closer together.
We need and desire a strong Europe. We must then agree to 'maintain the
momentum of integration', and to reinforce the internal cohesion of the EU. Therefore
convergence of those who are lagging behind at the moment should be given priority.
As a consequence, every EU endeavour has to be judged from the point of view of
what its effect on the internal cohesion will be. The EU budget must henceforth be
aligned with the increasing challenges of globalization, while continuing to allow for
solidarity with the weakest Member States.
3

Absorption Capacity for New Candidates
The three criteria for the accession of new members, which have been
determined at the Copenhagen Council on June 21 st 1993, have over time been
defined in every detail. Concerning the criteria of absorption capacity, however, there
are no more than three phrases. The European Union should be able to absorb new
members, while at the same time “maintain the dynamic of the European integration.”
Furthermore, “the enlargement [should] strengthen the process of continuing
integration” and “every effort should be made to maintain the cohesion and
effectiveness of the Union.”
In a resolution adopted in March 2006, the European Parliament called on the
Commission to submit a report by 31 December 2006 setting out the principles, which
underpin the concept of the EU’s absorption capacity. According to the MEPs,
“defining the nature of the European Union, and including its geographical borders, is
fundamental to understanding the concept of absorption capacity.” The text approved
by the Parliament also said that “the capacity for absorption of the Union… remains
one of the conditions for the accession of new countries.” It seems then that the term
“absorption capacity” must be clearly defined.
There can neither be a regressive development of the EU (for example in the
direction of an upgraded free-trade-area), nor should the present state of integration be
simply held up. Rather, the cohesion, effectiveness and capability to act must be
improved and the integration process must be further deepened. If the concept of
absorption capacity is supposed to be more than an empty phrase, it must now be
specified in detail, especially regarding any future enlargements beyond Bulgaria,
Rumania and Croatia.
It will thus be necessary to fully apply the accession criteria, including the
criterion of the Union’s absorption capacity (see Annex), to all new candidate
countries. It has to be obvious for everyone that no political or other considerations
can overrule these criteria and their full implementation is an imperative for every
new candidate. We must put emphasis on the clarity of the content of the term “the
membership's political conditions”.
When the accession of a European country is on the agenda, the potential
consequences of financial and other costs of membership have to be carefully
evaluated. All EU policies have to be analysed from the point of view of what the
implications of the accession of a certain European state would be for that specific
policy. The implications on the institutional architecture, above all the effective
functioning of the Union’s ability to decide and act efficiently, should be accessed.
The preservation of this ability would have to be assured. Unless this lengthy and
difficult work is done, no justifiable decisions on any further accession can be taken.
Specific criteria adopted to define the Union’s absorption capacity should be
based on the following parameters:
• The impact on the nature of the European project – how would it be effected,
can it be preserved and the momentum of integration maintained? Priority to
be given to the consolidation of the existing Union.
• The effect on identity-building, i.e. the impact on cultural cohesion and the
preservation and strengthening of the “We” feeling.
• The candidate member’s political and social compatibility with the values and
structures of existing Member States and the Union as such.
4

• The acceptance by the people, i.e. effect on the identification of citizens with
the European project, which in turn presupposes cultural, political and
economic cohesion, clarity about the Union’s borders and not only with its
geographic, but also cultural and political dimension.
• The impact on the functioning of the Union, i.e. its ability to decide and act
efficiently. This is a precondition for ensuring that the EU is a political and
institutional order with strengthened supranational structures and procedures at
least at a level as conceived in the Constitutional Treaty.
• The size of the candidate country and its impact on the internal balances of the
Union.
• The financial implications, i.e. financiability.
• The impact on individual EU policies and strategies.
• The impact on external and internal security: a pre-eminent function and aim
of the Union is to ensure external and internal security. The question of a
secure Union is therefore crucial. In the context of the external borders, the
potential security risks have to be given special attention and must be
answered clearly.
Moreover, priority must be given to receiving satisfactory answers as far as
the criteria of the absorption capacity are concerned before evaluating and
deciding the question of candidate status on the basis of the accession criteria as
laid down in the Treaty and the Copenhagen Criteria. In the future, the political
Copenhagen Criteria have to be strictly and credibly fulfilled before negotiations
can be taken up. In addition, EU Institutions should take full account of the
opinion of the Union’s citizens when they are examining any new candidate states
for membership.
Further, the EU should insist that priority must be given to the establishment
of a monitoring mechanism to be applied during negotiations as well as after
negotiations, and until there is a complete and unequivocal compliance with all
terms and conditions by the new member(s).
The case of Turkey
The case of the Turkish accession has amplified the growing concern about an
unmanageable and boundless EU. After all, if the EU should become a direct
neighbour of Iran, Syria, and Iraq after Turkey’s accession, this would raise serious
questions about both the inner and the outer security of the EU.
Many argue over the capability of the EU to successfully absorb Turkey in the
European community in the near future. In any case, Turkey should continue its
reforms towards meeting the criteria for entry into the EU zone, while keeping in
mind that “Membership requires that the candidate country has achieved several
conditions: stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy; respect for the rule of
law, and human rights; respect for and protection of minorities; the existence of a
functioning market economy; as well as, the capacity to cope with competitive
pressure and market forces within the Union. Membership presupposes the
candidate’s ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to
the aims of political, economic and monetary union.” As to the timing of the process,
all aspects of the Union’s absorption capacity must be fully considered. Then and in
addition, only full and unequivocal compliance by Turkey of all terms and conditions
5

for full membership (there should be no rebates or discounts on political criteria), can
lead to Turkey’s entrance into the Union.
Remaining European States
The Constitutional Treaty, which has not yet been ratified, declares the basic
perspective that the “Union is open to all European states respecting its values and
willing to collectively further these values” (Art I-1-2). However, it will have to be
estimated in every single case whether or not and to what extend the EU is capable to
absorb the accession of another state at a specific date, judged on the basis of its inner
development.
Enlargement must not be conceived as the only political instrument to promote
democratic reform and create stability in the Union’s neighbourhood. At any cost, it
must be avoided that the Union by enlarging itself, it is weakened and becomes itself
an object of destabilization. Therefore, incremental forms of cooperation within
specific timeframe may be developed for Balkan countries, which encourage them to
converge toward EU norms and ideals. Without discounting at all, strict inclusion
criteria or compromising the EU’s absorption capacity, remaining European States
may be offered the prospect of future inclusion to the European family.
Hence, the inclusion of all Balkan states in the EU should remain on the
agenda, provided that they satisfy the Copenhagen criteria. This development could
safeguard peace and stability in the region. After all, it is also in the security interest
of the EU, if the states of the western Balkans have the prospect of joining the Union.
In addition, this will certainly relieve the EU from further diplomatic and economic
burdens.
In the Balkans, the recent wars have created new divisions between peoples
and nations and the process is not over yet (see developments in Montenegro and
Kosovo). The future integration of these new states in the EU will reduce the new
divisions between them, and as a result, accelerate the process of rapprochement and
reconciliation in the entire region. In other words, it will be easier for them, to accept
the creation of these new dividing lines between Serbia and Montenegro or Kosovo as
they anticipate their inclusion into the Union. This is why the prospect of their
integration has to be very clear and reaffirmed, in order to relax any negative effects
of the current process of new border creation.
In that aspect, the EU must introduce clear-cut commitments and a specific
framework for action that will guide the remaining Balkans states through specific
procedures towards their inclusion in the European Union. Road maps should be
drawn indicating the necessary steps for the proper preparation for future
membership. These roadmaps should be meaningful and their implementation should
be a must for each candidate.
“Good Neighbourhood”
It has been argued that if the European Union comes to the conclusion that it is
not capable to accept an application of full membership of a certain state because of
its inner conditions, this must not be a question of “pass or fail.” Rather there are
interim solutions and alternatives for a closer relations like close, privileged
partnerships which should be “tailor-made” according to the necessities and needs of
the respective partners.
6

At this point, we should mention that EU frontiers should not be necessarily
associated only with the enlargement procedures and the inclusion of further
European states into the EU. Instead, we should also devote our attention to the
special and “privileged” relations of the EU with its neighbouring countries. “Good
Neighbourhood Offices,” are necessary to the success of this procedure, since we
strongly believe that we need to improve our relationships with the remaining
European countries that are not to join the EU family.
In its Communication "Wider Europe Neighbourhood: A New Framework for
Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours,” the Commission proposed that
"the European Union should aim to develop a zone of prosperity and a friendly
neighbourhood … with whom the European Union enjoys close, peaceful and cooperative
relations… Over the coming decade and beyond, the Union’s capacity to
provide security, stability and sustainable development to its citizens will no longer be
distinguishable from its interest in close co-operation with the neighbours.” The
development of such a policy is a logical consequence of enlargement, which, as
stated in the Communication “gives new impetus to the effort of drawing closer the
385 million inhabitants of the countries who will find themselves on the external land
and sea border, namely Russia, the Western NIS, and the Southern Mediterranean."
As a result, the Good Neighbourhood policy of the EU is focused on
interdependence with these countries that have recently found themselves at the
Union’s frontiers as well as those that will be in the future. Such issues as illegal
immigration, human trafficking, and human rights remain the most important to be
examined. Promotion of free trade and cooperation in the mentioned issues of
interest, among the Union and its neighbours should help ensure greater prosperity
and stability at the new EU borders. However, the issue of terrorism and security
should attract our greatest attention in the immediate future, as the EU expands
towards the turbulent Middle East.
Conclusion
The issue of the Union’s external borders and future enlargements is fully
interlinked with its absorption capacity. Clarifying the question of absorption capacity
of the EU does not as such aim at averting new members. It is a strategy to preserve
the cohesion of the Union, to maintain its capability to decide and act, and a s result
to assure the full support of its citizens. A strong, effective, efficiently functioning
Union enhances determinedly its general absorption capacity for future enlargements.
As we attempt to define the term ‘absorption capacity’, we should keep in
mind that besides setting straight the limits, the vision and the orientation of the EU,
we must focus on the nature of the relations of the Member States within the Union
and the danger of separating the “new” from the “old” Member States, whereas these
two groups could end up experiencing separate levels of integration. The impact on
the internal unity of any further enlargement has to be evaluated. Enlargement should
not be pursued at the expense of cohesion.
The enlarged EU, in its present state of uncertainty over its institutional
reforms and adaptations, indispensable for its functioning and problem-solving
capacity as well as the full integration of its new members, should seriously consider
a period when internal consolidation enjoys a clear priority over continued
enlargement activities and considerations. In addition, the effective entry into force of
the institutional reforms in particular as foreseen by the Constitutional Treaty, is to be
considered the a priori condition for further enlargement.
7

In summary, the issue of EU External Borders should be considered and
evaluated within a framework which is based on the following essential principles:
• There is a need for a strong EU, able to decide and act efficiently and to
develop the integration process further towards the objective as laid down in
the Treaties.
• The European Union has always been more than a mere economic project. The
European peoples unite and work on the basis of shared core values. This has
also been clearly and unequivocally stated in Art. 6.1. TEU which forms the
basis on which the EU is founded.
• The main goal of the European integration process is to overcome traditional
power politics based on the national interests of the European nation-states by
building a new European order established on a common framework of
European law; common institutions and procedures; and an independent
European judiciary which would guarantee that in the future the rule of law
should govern relations among member states. The purpose of the European
integration process is not only to create a European zone of economic welfare
and strength, but to establish a stable order of peace. Its political finality is to
develop an ever closer Union of the peoples of Europe.
• The realisation of the European integration project demands a gradual though
dynamic process of pooling partial national sovereignties and competences
which are then exercised in the Union’s institutions to shape common policies
in order to solve common problems and safeguard Europe’s interests on the
global scene.
• The EU is more than a multilateral organisation and has created a political
Community which establishes interrelationships between the Member States,
common institutions and the European citizens.
• Its finality was already laid down in the Rome Treaties. The Treaty of
Maastricht established a new quality in the integration process; the EU was
established, and the building of a political Union became an agreed objective
of EU Member States.
• A perceived European identity and the awareness of common interests and a
common fate are indispensable for the acceptance of the integration process by
the European citizens. It is a precondition for their readiness to agree to the
pooling of national sovereignty and national competences which in turn is
indispensable for preserving and strengthening the Union’s capacity to decide
and act, i.e. its problem solving capacity.
• Each enlargement inescapably leads to additional internal disparities thus
widening the spectrum of divergent interests and increasing internal
heterogeneity. The latest enlargement has practically doubled the Union’s
membership and further increased the degree of internal disparities. This
underlines the urgent need to build a strong European identity, politically
effective in terms of forming a firm and endurable basis for common action.
8