Details

Eingangs konstatierte Kommissar Rehn eine grundsätzliche Malaise in der europäischen Debatte. Der derzeitige europäische Diskurs sei dominiert von einer ablehnenden Haltung zu Veränderungen. Ausdruck finde dies in der wiederholten Debatte um Grenzen und Abgrenzung. Die Erweiterung der EU beschrieb Rehn selbst als äußerst wichtig und positiv. Sie bilde den Kern der sogenannten „soft power“ der EU. Die Erweiterungspolitik der EU und der Beitritt neuer Mitgliedstaaten fördere Zivilgesellschaft, Menschenrechte und Rechtstaatlichkeit. Die EU werde von neuen, stabilen Partnern profitieren. Rehn bezeichnete die Möglichkeit der EU, die neuen Mitgliedsstaaten zu unterstützen, auf eigenen Beinen zu stehen, als größten Gewinn des Erweiterungsprozesses. Die EU müsse sich auch der Herausforderung auf dem alkan stellen, auch wenn dies schwierig sei, um die stabile Entwicklung dort zu unterstützen. Ebenso wäre eine der EU zugewandte Türkei von größerem Vorteil für ein stabiles Europa, als eine Abschottung in diese Richtung.

Die vorherrschende „Vogel-Strauß-Politik“ widerspreche der wirtschaftlichen und geistigen Offenheit, die Jahrhunderte lang entscheidend für die Entwicklung der Menschheit gewesen sei. Seit dem Zeitalter der Aufklärung sei die intellektuelle Offenheit ein besonderer Vorzug Europas, der es ihm seither ermöglicht hätte sich den Herausforderungen der jeweiligen Zeit zu stellen. Rehn regte daher an, statt von Grenzen und Abgrenzung vielmehr von „Neuland“ zu sprechen. Damit würden Ideen beflügelt, aktives Handeln gefördert und der europäische Einfluss vergrößert.

Den Prozess, der einem Beitritt vorausgehe, präsentierte Rehn als einen besonders wichtigen Wert an sich. Auf diesem Wege hätten Staaten, denen ein Beitritt in Aussicht gestellt würde viel mehr Motivation die Kopenhagener Kriterien zu erfüllen, die für ein stabiles und friedliches Umfeld der EU sorgen würden. Der gegenseitige Nutzen, für die EU und benachbarte Staaten, wurde damit verdeutlicht.

Um die neuen Herausforderungen mit wohlverstandenem Selbstbewusstsein zu begegnen stellte Rehn drei Prioritäten heraus: Oberste Priorität habe der wirtschaftliche und soziale Aufschwung der EU. Des Weiteren sei es notwendig die internen Strukturen der EU zu verbessern, um die Union effektiver zu machen. Als dritten Schwerpunkt sprach Herr Rehn von einem Konsens über die anstehende Süd-Ost Erweiterung, den es zu finden gelte.

Die Reform und Verbesserung der Europäischen Institutionen sah Rehn als Notwendigkeit für die zukünftige Erweiterungen. Effektivität und die benötigte Aufnahmefähigkeit müssten seitens der EU sichergestellt werden.

Dass die EU dieser Herausorderung jedoch gewachsen sei, machte Herr Rehn klar, indem er als besondere Stärke der Union, die Fähigkeit hervorhob, sich an neue Situationen anzupassen. Die Aussöhnung nach den beiden Weltkriegen, das Ende des Kommunismus habe die Europäische Union erfolgreich gemeistert. Nun müsse sich die EU der Globalisierung als nächster großer Herausforderung stellen.

Herr Rehn beendete seine Rede mit den Worten, dass eine Erweiterung natürlich nicht von heute auf morgen stattfinden könne, es aber auf der anderen Seite dem eigenen Interesse widerspreche, interessierten Staaten ein vorschnelles „Nein“ zu signalisieren.

In der sich anschließenden Diskussion wurde die Möglichkeit von verschiedenartigen Mitgliedschaften besprochen. Die EU müsse gleichzeitig flexibler werden und ein Konzept finden, mit dem sich alle identifizieren können. Auf die Frage, ob es möglich sei die Mitgliedstaaten von einem Beitritt der Ukraine zu überzeugen, antwortete Herr Rehn, dass zuerst die internen Strukturen der EU für weitere Erweiterungen überarbeitet werden müssten. Allerdings wies er auch darauf hin, dass sich vor ein paar Jahren niemand den Beitritt der 10 in 2004 beigetretenen Staaten hätte vorstellen können. Des weiteren machte Rehn, in bezug auf die folgende Ratspräsidentschaft klar, dass ein besonderes Augenmerk auf eine einvernehmliche Erweiterungsstrategie und die Balkanregion gelegt werden müsse, um den demokratischen Prozess zu unterstützen.

Nachstehend die Rede des Kommissars. Es gilt das gesprochene Wort.

It’s a pleasure to be here at the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. I have long appreciated the work of the Stiftung in the enlargement countries, where your offices have been very active in promoting dialogue and debate between Germany and the new members and potential members of the EU. This is very important work to connect civil society across Europe, helping to prepare both past and future enlargements.

As Enlargement Commissioner for nearly two years now, I am convinced that enlargement is the essence of the EU’s soft power – its power to transform its nearest neighbours into functioning democracies, market economies, and true partners in meeting common challenges. As Konrad Adenauer explained it so well: “Die Weltgeschichte ist auch die Summe dessen, was vermeidbar gewesen wäre.”

Would the EU be better off without the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as stable, democratic and increasingly prosperous members? Would the EU be better off with a Turkey that turns its back on us and rejects democratic values? I strongly believe not. Can we afford the Western Balkans to become a new ghetto inside Europe? That is what we risk if we stop our accession process. The biggest benefit of the enlargement process is the EU’s ability to help the countries to stand on their own feet. The EU will have to be engaged in the Balkans, whether we like it or not. It is much more effective and cheaper to keep these countries on track by offering them the accession process than to run international protectorates and military occupation in the region. We also have an unparallelled opportunity to influence Turkey’s development, ensuring an open society with fundamental freedoms there and building a sturdy bridge to the Muslim world. A more European Turkey is also in our interests, given the country’s significance as an anchor of stability in a troubled region.

There is no headlong rush towards more accessions in the near future. The next likely country to join is Croatia, with others at different points along a long road. During the long period of preparations ahead, our biggest challenge is to keep these countries motivated – to pursue their reforms and to become better partners for us in tackling common challenges such as cross-border crime and environmental problems.

I have been reflecting rather deeply on these themes, and I have summarised my views in a book called “Europe’s Next Frontiers”. You won’t be surprised to learn that it is partly about enlargement. But it is also about the wider malaise afflicting Europe. I find there is an ostrich attitude in contemporary Europe, characterised by a defensive debate and a lack of the economic and intellectual openness that has been Europe’s fundamental strength since the age of the Enlightenment. Even a committed European must admit there is something very worrying about our utterly defensive attitude to change. Contemporary European discourse is overly dominated by ideas of the limits and borders of Europe – as if the whole world were

against us. Many people seem to believe that our problems could be solved simply by pulling up the drawbridge on Fortress Europe, shouting “Stop the world, I want to get off!”

Seldom has this ostrich attitude carried the day. Instead, for centuries, greater economic and intellectual openness has been central to human development. It has been one of Europe’s fundamental strengths since the age of Enlightenment. Instead of limits and borders – Maginot lines trying to insulate ourselves from global interdependence – shouldn’t we Europeans think in terms of their next frontiers?

I mean frontiers that open new avenues for innovative products and services, and thus for more idea-generated jobs. I mean frontiers that improve flexibility and security in the labour market, and thus the employability of Europeans in the face of global competition. I mean frontiers that cater for a new institutional settlement, and thus for a more effective and democratic Europe, better able to enhance the security and well-being of its citizens. And I mean frontiers that enable Europe to project its civilian power of democratic and economic transformation, especially in the countries that aspire to become members of the EU.

Needless to say, these frontiers are much more substantive and functional – even mental – than geographical. To overcome them, we need to focus on three issues:

The EU must pursue the economic and social revival of Europe by rebuilding economic confidence;

We must reinforce the functioning capacity of a deeper and wider Union; and

We should project the EU’s soft power through a carefully managed accession process for South-eastern Europe, and by building a new consensus on enlargement.

Let me explain these arguments. First, rebuilding economic confidence. Europeans’ sense of insecurity and weakness does not stem primarily from the fate of the Constitutional Treaty; rather, it is a product of the slow economic growth and high unemployment that Europe has long suffered from.

The 2004 eastward enlargement has been blamed for causing unemployment in the 15 old member states. The Polish plumber and Latvian builder suddenly became the bad guys. But making enlargement the scapegoat for Europe’s domestic economic and policy failures unfairly demonises the new member-states, and leads to the wrong policy recipe.

Enlargement has also been blamed for the EU’s institutional crisis, as if the EU functioned perfectly before 2004 and the draft constitution. But in fact, the EU’s great strength has always been its ability to adapt to new circumstances, including more members. Although the integration project began in the very different context of post-war reconciliation, it has also adapted Europe to meet the challenges of economic globalisation and the end of communism.

The EU is a living political animal, not a fossil. It must continue to evolve, and it can do this through practical steps to make the Union function better. The best way out of our constitutional deadlock is to focus on concrete measures to improve the way the EU works, not a long theoretical debate.

We should move forward with pragmatic and democratic functionalism aimed at building a Europe of results. This should also be a Europe that is open to the world, and an EU that is open to new members.

Having a debate about further enlargement is normal and healthy. In the EU, this debate is wide. Some ask for a pause to enlargement. There are those who have concerns about issues such as the effect on the labour market or the costs for the present Member States.

On 8 November, the Commission will set out in a report the areas that the EU will have to consider over the years ahead to ensure that it can continue to function effectively as it also continues to enlarge. Our concept of absorption capacity is functional rather than geographical. We have to consider the homework that the EU needs to do, as well as the work that the future members are undertaking to meet the rigorous requirements for accession. We take this issue very seriously, because the EU must function well, both for its future and its current members.

It is in this context that President Barroso clarified recently his view that a new institutional settlement should have been born by the time the next member is going to join the Union. While we prepare internally for further institutional reforms, the gradual and carefully managed accession process continues with the countries of South-eastern Europe, that is, Bulgaria and Romania, Turkey and Croatia, and other Western Balkans countries. We are cautious about taking on any new commitments, but we stick to our existing commitments to these countries.

The preparatory work by the enlargement countries has great value in itself, because it offers them the opportunity to transform themselves while preparing to join. Enlargement has proven to be one of the most important instruments for European security. It reflects the essence of the EU as a civilian power; by extending the area of peace and stability, democracy and the rule of law, the EU has achieved far more through its gravitational pull than it could ever have done with a stick or a sword.

Enlargement policy has allowed the EU to expand its frontiers both economically and politically. Let’s make the EU fit to reach out and embrace its next frontiers.

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your questions.