European Union The EU outlines the strategic route for enlargement

On June 16, 2022, the history of Europe changed. Everyone has in mind, and rightly so, the February night in which Russian troops crossed the Ukrainian border and the bombings began, since the sequence that was unleashed caused the greatest turn in international relations since 1989, led to the EU to a geopolitical awakening, facilitated the massive shipment of weapons and ammunition, a dozen rounds of sanctions or the disconnection of Russian gas or oil. All of this revolutionized the present. But the night of June 15-16, when Mario Draghi, Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz got on a train in Poland to wake up in Kiev and give their support to Volodimir Zelensky, the future changed.

Until then, the great European powers were clear that there would be no more enlargements, that there would be no more members in the community club for at least one or two generations, no matter how long the aspirants had been clamoring for. But in the darkness of an armored car, in the silence of the attacked borders, the continental leaders made a surprising turn and returned home digesting what everyone now takes for granted: enlargement is no longer an option, no It is an aspiration, it is an urgent need, a defensive obligation, a political, strategic and even moral imperative.

Until then, Germany and Holland were in conspiracy to stop any advance. But Macron, Zelensky and what he saw in person changed the minds of the German, and the rest of the skeptics in the chain. Almost 16 months later, the expansion is unstoppable, but there are as many obstacles as before, if not more. A dozen diplomats, officials and those responsible for the negotiations explain their concern, surprise or frustration at how the issue has gotten out of hand. “Before we were in control of this process, but now we are a piece of driftwood, pushed by the currents,” explains one of them. “Right now no one can say no. The pressure is too great, Zelensky is a master and everything revolves around the conceptual framework that he has been designing,” he adds.

In Granada, this Thursday, the heads of State and Government of the 27, and another 22 neighbors, met in what is known as the European Political Community, an invention by Emmanuel Macron conceived as a consolation prize and as purgatory, a intermediate place before accession. A format in which to talk face to face, as equals, in which to iron out rough edges, to get to know each other better. An intermediate phase where strong points can be recognized. But also a biannual meeting (the first two were in Prague and Moldova) in which to resolve all kinds of issues.

But if Thursday was the meeting with neighbors and applicants, Friday was a classic meeting, just between the Member States to talk about many things. To try to agree on a joint text, the Granada Declaration, which the Spanish Government dreamed of so that in a few years this moment will be evoked with almost the first step towards the new Europe. And if there was a main issue, in addition to migration, it was expansion. How to do it, when, to whom. And how to prepare the Union for the drastic changes it needs before opening the door once again. An appointment to list all the questions that need to be answered in the coming weeks

“Enlargement is a geostrategic investment in peace, security, stability and prosperity. It is a driving force to improve the economic and social conditions of European citizens, reduce disparities between countries and must promote the values ??on which the Union is based,” says the Granada Declaration approved this Friday. “Aspiring members must intensify their reform efforts, especially in the area of ??the rule of law, in line with the merit-based nature of the accession process and with the assistance of the EU. In parallel, the Union needs to lay the foundations and the necessary internal reforms. We will set our long-term ambitions and the ways to achieve them,” the text continues.

The objective is clear, but there is division on the path. “Enlargement means that the candidate countries have reforms to implement and know what they have to do. And on our side, on the EU side, we have to prepare,” said yesterday the president of the European Council, Charles Michel, the first in setting a deadline for entries: 2030. There are three questions that need to be addressed, said the Belgian: what we want to prioritize in the future, how to decide together and how to prepare financially for those ambitions. “Several countries want to join the Union, but we must do so responsibly. This means adhering to a process of lasting reforms and conditions, for example in the area of ??the rule of law. We must also reflect on the effects of enlargement. That is why the discussion is useful,” stressed the Dutchman Mark Rutte. “Enlargement is an opportunity to unite the continent. It should not become hostage to institutional issues. Given the geopolitical importance, we must first make decisions on EU enlargement and only then talk about institutional reforms,” ??replied Lithuanian Gitanas Nausedas, the country that is being clearest in its preferences.

The sequence is well marked. On November 8, the European Commission will publish its report on Ukraine and Moldova, countries that were given accession candidate status a few months ago. Everyone hopes that the ruling will be positive, even if they have reservations. And it is also expected that a few weeks later, at the European Council in December, the 27 will formally give the go-ahead to start negotiations.

Starting is not irreversible, but it has enormous symbolic and political value. The sources consulted explain that it is more than unlikely that there will be a no, but that the yes must be very careful. The teams of the 27 have been looking for the best way to proceed for months. And the Consensus is that the decision of the European Council must have three different parts: the green light, the conditions for entry and the conditions for the complete internal reform of the EU.

“The language is going to be a prodigy of diplomacy, narrative and escapism,” ventures one of the people who is working on it. She will say yes, but immediately there will have to be two clauses. The first is to remember clearly that accession is a process that is based on merit, not on will or urgency. And that he radically insists on the rule of law. It is the big problem today and it will be tomorrow. Money, the budget and even the decision-making process are very important, but they pale in comparison to the rule of law and the fundamental principles included in the treaties. With Poland and Hungary it has been a fiasco and the Union cannot afford more cases. Hence the obsession, the priority. Without very clear guarantees there cannot be a single step.

The second clause, the one that may generate fewer headlines, will ironically be the important one. According to some delegations, it is the one that will have to leave in writing that the expansion is subject to the internal transformation also being completed. In this way, not only will the necessary, essential changes be forced, but the control of timing will remain entirely in community hands. That is to say, this trick can be played to delay the process even if hypothetically a candidate were to complete all the required reforms and approve the requirements. “Now we are dragged by the current of the times, but with some mechanism of that style we could set the deadlines and ensure that until we are all really ready, applicants and those within, there will be no movements,” he summarizes.