Bulgaria and Turkey Move to Secure Accession to the E.U.
06 March 2006
Some important diplomatic moves regarding further E.U. enlargement are scheduled this week. Bulgarian Foreign Minister Ivaylo Kalfin will officially meet his British counterpart today in London. Two days later, on March 8, an E.U.-Turkey meeting will take place in Vienna. The Austrian government, which took the helm of the rotating E.U. presidency in January 2006, will be represented by Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik, who will meet Turkey's counterpart, Abdullah Gul. E.U. Commissioner for Enlargement Olli Rehn and Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja will also be attending.
Both Sofia and Ankara are enhancing their diplomatic means to increase their influence among E.U. decision makers. A faster tempo in bilateral and multilateral negotiations concerning the new enlargement is an expected result.
Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Turkey are all working to meet E.U. demands (the so-called Acquis Communautaire) in order to join the Community. They do so, however, at a time of crisis in European politics. Romania and Bulgaria will probably join in 2008 rather than 2007, Croatia possibly in 2009, whereas the problem with Turkey is that some key E.U. members, such as France, may stop its accession.
Political Analysis
The political elites in the Southwestern Balkans, both those of former communist countries and of Turkey, are eager to join the European Union. Such determination has not been stopped by Western Europe's increasing dissatisfaction with the E.U.'s functioning or by French and Dutch refusals of the proposed E.U. Constitutional Treaty. [See: "Intelligence Brief: European Constitution"]
The reasons for their pro-European stance are many. First of all, accession to the E.U. is viewed as having achieved Western standards in democracy and economic performance. This would boost their prestige and political influence at home. Secondly, their economic and financial interests are increasingly tied with European and Euro-Atlantic networks; this makes integration the best way to secure these interests. Third, Bulgaria and Romania, especially, are searching for a double security guarantee (N.A.T.O. plus Europe) against Russia's political and strategic goals in Eastern Europe.
The main problem is that even though the whole area connecting the Adriatic Sea with the Caucasus -- via the Black Sea -- is considered to be unified by geoeconomic and security imperatives, the political and cultural perceptions of its different regions differ significantly among Western European public opinion and decision makers.
In fact, notwithstanding that the failure of the E.U. Constitutional Treaty has cooled down enthusiasm about a larger Europe, it is safe to say that most E.U. elites are favorable to Croatia's, Bulgaria's and Romania's accession, whereby they have much more complicated and ambiguous feelings about Turkey.
In Western Europe, three primary different visions of Europe have been competing for the past 15 years -- all of them are akin to well-established, traditional concepts of continental integration.
The first one was the British preference for an enlarged Europe marked by free market policies, loose political unity, and N.A.T.O.'s unambiguous preponderance in security and defense matters. Such an approach has been the most successful in the post-1991 international context.
The second one was the French view of a European superpower. The fundamental political and strategic orientation of this proposed superpower would be to play an autonomous role in a multipolar world by building up a continental security and defense policy coupled by strong political unity. Friendship with the U.S., in this view, would not mean U.S. strategic hegemony over the West. In the last decade, Paris' approach has suffered various setbacks.
The third vision was the German goal of creating an enlarged European federation marked by increased German economic and financial power, in accordance with the United States, and strategically based on a European defense policy embedded into N.A.T.O.
The real novelty since the 2004 enlargement is that even the "British Model of Europe," that seemed to be triumphing, is in crisis. To begin with, in the last few years, economic nationalism suddenly resurfaced in France, Poland, and elsewhere. In addition, European elites and the public are beginning to perceive European integration as a source of troubles, instead of as a power and interest multiplier. [See: "Economic Brief: French Protectionism"]
At the moment, the political context cannot ignore the end of "Euro-enthusiasm." As a consequence, the new E.U. candidates are working in a difficult environment. The crucial issue is that in all E.U. states, parliaments must approve of the new member's accession treaty in order for it to become effective. Western elites, however, are divided over the next enlargement. Such divisions are a window of opportunity for a charm offensive by E.U. candidates.
Bulgaria , which already expressed its nervousness about a possible delay of its E.U. membership, launched a public initiative and began to hire consultants. The consultants are being asked to identify parliamentarians and opinion-makers in E.U. states where the ratification of the Bulgarian Accession Treaty is considered more problematic, such as in Germany, France, the Netherlands and Denmark
The European Commission will issue its report on Bulgaria and Romania in May 2006, and a negative assessment of the countries' political, juridical and financial fundamentals may cause national parliaments to postpone ratification procedures.
Geopolitical Analysis
From a geopolitical point of view, the significance of the proposed new enlargement lays in the restructuring of political and security contexts in the Southwestern Balkans and in the Black Sea region. Eastern Europe remains a decisive region, spanning west from the Eurasian block dominated by Russia. The United States and its closest allies, such as the U.K., are striving to reshape this once Soviet-dominated area into a liberal, free-market oriented, pro-N.A.T.O. (or N.A.T.O.-embedded) macro-region.
From North to South, the inclusion of Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey will mean the construction of a political and strategic unified theater from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean Sea. This has tremendous implications for post-Cold War geostrategy. N.A.T.O. and the U.S. are actually trying to secure the Black Sea regions for their security goals, as confrontation with Middle Eastern and Eurasian countries (see Iran, Iraq, Syria Afghanistan) is now at the center of their preoccupations.
Also, in spite of new, post-Soviet relations with Russia, energy-related and strategic matters will continue to cause friction between Washington and Moscow. The area from the Adriatic Sea to the South Caucasus will, therefore, acquire even more importance in light of the E.U.'s quest for energy security and new investment opportunities in the former communist world. [See: "Intelligence Brief: Russian Gas Dispute"]
Additionally, by letting Turkey, Bosnia, and Kosovo into the E.U., Washington and Brussels hope to provide a model of democratic integration of Muslim countries into the West, which could, in the coming decades, ease the struggle against Islamist militants and religious-inspired terrorism.
Nevertheless, perceptions of such an issue are various. Many in the West hold the view that integrating Turkey will definitively destroy all hopes to create a coherent political entity in Europe because of the huge cultural differences and Turkey's expanding demography. There are, nonetheless, other perceived geopolitical hindrances to Turkey's integration. For instance, Turkey borders Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq, Syria and Iran, widely perceived as unreliable actors in the West.
There is also the Kurdish question, which is directly related to the thorny issue of Ankara's human rights policy. Another major issue is Cyprus, whose situation is still unsettled. Finally, Turkey's accession could open the way to further enlargements (for instance, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia). Even though the rationale for such ulterior integrations might be obvious for geopoliticians and decision makers, it is not the same for European citizens, which makes the cultural issue increasingly complicated.
The bottom line is that the possible role of Turkey's accession for the improvement of Western relations with Islam and for Europe's energy security does not appear convincing to all key players in Europe. [See: "Will Turkey's Democratic Reforms Falter After August 2006?"]
Conclusion
Notwithstanding the recent disillusionment with E.U. integration and enlargement, it is to be expected that Bulgaria and Romania will join the Community in the next two years, although accession in 2007 appears to be slightly more difficult than only 12 months ago. Croatia and other Balkan countries will see their chances to join enhanced by such an event.
However, the Austrian E.U. presidency will very likely avoid to accelerate decisively the process of Turkey's accession. It is typical for European decision makers to keep good relations with Ankara while passing the buck of Turkey's issues to their successors, and there are few concrete signs that Vienna will act otherwise.
A crucial moment in the Turkish issue will be the French presidential election of 2007. Some candidates, like Nicolas Sarkozy, have expressed negative views on Turkey's accession. As it often happens, Paris will hold the key to determine the new European political landscape.
Report Drafted By: Dr. Federico Bordonaro
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This report may not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written permission of inquiries@pinr.com. All comments should be directed to content@pinr.com.
Black Sea countries must resist terrorism in area themselves - Russian Navy chief
MOSCOW. April 30 (Interfax-AVN) - Russia is opposed to the spread of the NATO Operation Active Endeavor to the Black Sea, Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief Adm. Vladimir Masorin has told Interfax-AVN.
"Russia's stance is that we are ready to participate in Active Endeavor in the Mediterranean but in the Black Sea only countries of the region should be involved and the maritime operation Black Sea Harmony initiated by Turkey is aimed at that," he said.
"Russia has nothing against foreign ships making friendly visits to the Black Sea. It is even not opposed to short exercises," he said. "But we are strongly opposed to large-scale exercises and the permanent presence of ships of third countries, that is not littoral countries," Masorin said.
He reminded Interfax-AVN of the 1936 Montreaux Convention that restricts the passage of the Turkish Straits by outside naval vessels and their stay in the Black Sea in class, displacement and duration of stay.
"We have excellent relations with the Turkish Navy Command but even we are not given any concessions as far as the fulfillment of the Montreaux Convention provisions is concerned," he said.
He said that purely formal matters remain to be settled to launch joint efforts in the framework of Operation Black Sea Harmony. "Letters to be exchanged between the governments of the two countries are expected to be signed in the nearest future and after that Russian and Turkish ships can start joint missions in the Black Sea," Masorin said.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
