EU gives little encouragement
The air attacks on Yugoslavia have overshadowed a whole range of important events on the domestic and international political scenes. The most significant of which was the recent Berlin summit, the capstone to Germany's six-month tenure atop the European Union (EU). It was a meeting whose tone should have been watched with great anticipation and attention by associate EU member-states such as Poland.
The main topic for that summit was the so-called Agenda 2000. The EU is addressing this agenda primarily with an eye to further expansion. The second item on the agenda, which has been paid less attention but was on the minds of many, was discussion of a new round of talks on a global lowering of customs tariffs within the framework of the World Trade Organization. The results of the EU country leaders' meeting so far have been disappointing. The compromise that was presented to the public appears, first and foremost, to be a consensus on minor and painless changes - despite the usual insistence by politicians to the contrary. The outcome of the Berlin summit is not good news for fans of an expanded union.
But first we must take a step back. Before the prime ministers and presidents began discussions on Agenda 2000, they named a new head of the European Commission. Former Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi replaced the unsuccessful Luxembourger Jacques Santer. A majority of Western European commentators, regardless of ideological orientation, agree Prodi was a solid choice. He is a hard-working individual and an informed economist with experience at two prestigious American universities, Harvard and Stanford. He is also, by all accounts, an honorable politician - he has never been tainted by even the slightest whiff of suspicion, something that is truly amazing in Italian politics. It is also important that Prodi is a completely new face within European Union bureaucracy, and we might expect some refreshing approaches and attempts to "air out" the stale administration of Brussels. Prodi demonstrated his fortitude once already by ushering Italy into monetary union and winning the battle against those who would have given ground in that country's budgetary discipline. He was also, with just one exception, the longest-serving Italian prime minister in that country's post-war history - which alone seems a superhuman feat, in light of the reputed hot-bloodedness of local politicians and the rapidly changing mood of their electorate. Some conservative politicians within the European Union are disturbed that Prodi has propounded tax harmonization within the EU, but his opinion on that issue has reportedly undergone some change of late. What is important for us is that this Italian economist-cum-politician is likely to stand squarely on the side of expanding the union.
The selection of a new commission head came surprisingly quickly and easily. Unfortunately, precisely the opposite can be said for the primary theme of the summit. "We must urgently conclude Agenda 2000, at the very least to protect the union from a deep crisis in the eyes of the public." Those are the words of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in a letter to summit participants on the eve of the conference.
After 20 hours of debate, the heads of state agreed on an Agenda 2000 that is truly watered down beyond recognition. The EU budget will total ECU 97 billion. The monstrosity known as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) makes up more than 42% of that budget. Without radical reform of the CAP (or a further liberalization in world agricultural trade), expansion of the EU will not be possible, since an application of CAP to the candidate states alone would cost EU taxpayers a further $15 billion annually.
The Berlin summit only brought agreement that the CAP budget would not grow after the year 2006 and will plateau at ECU 40 billion. Subsidies for the production of beef will gradually be reduced over the next seven years by around 20%. The EU heads of state also agreed that within the CAP framework, funds for expansion would be put aside and not used for other purposes.
Other reforms simply did not pass. Subsidies to grain products will be reduced over the next seven years by 15%, not 20% as originally proposed. Reforms to milk and dairy production were scratched completely, just as the proposal for reducing the CAP budget from next year by a fixed annual percent was swept off the table. Similarly, the proposal to return one quarter of the CAP to the governments of the respective member states, who could presumably use them more effectively, was rejected.
The Wall Street Journal considered the concessions to the agricultural lobby surprisingly large, given that the current EU presidency is led by Schroeder, who has no major ties to farmers. The Journal added that the agreed CAP budget for next year would almost certainly be surpassed.
On the whole, a majority of commentators consider the Berlin summit a victory by French lobbyists over their German counterparts. Unnoticed was that EU aspirants certainly were not in the winner's circle.
The main topic for that summit was the so-called Agenda 2000. The EU is addressing this agenda primarily with an eye to further expansion. The second item on the agenda, which has been paid less attention but was on the minds of many, was discussion of a new round of talks on a global lowering of customs tariffs within the framework of the World Trade Organization. The results of the EU country leaders' meeting so far have been disappointing. The compromise that was presented to the public appears, first and foremost, to be a consensus on minor and painless changes - despite the usual insistence by politicians to the contrary. The outcome of the Berlin summit is not good news for fans of an expanded union.
But first we must take a step back. Before the prime ministers and presidents began discussions on Agenda 2000, they named a new head of the European Commission. Former Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi replaced the unsuccessful Luxembourger Jacques Santer. A majority of Western European commentators, regardless of ideological orientation, agree Prodi was a solid choice. He is a hard-working individual and an informed economist with experience at two prestigious American universities, Harvard and Stanford. He is also, by all accounts, an honorable politician - he has never been tainted by even the slightest whiff of suspicion, something that is truly amazing in Italian politics. It is also important that Prodi is a completely new face within European Union bureaucracy, and we might expect some refreshing approaches and attempts to "air out" the stale administration of Brussels. Prodi demonstrated his fortitude once already by ushering Italy into monetary union and winning the battle against those who would have given ground in that country's budgetary discipline. He was also, with just one exception, the longest-serving Italian prime minister in that country's post-war history - which alone seems a superhuman feat, in light of the reputed hot-bloodedness of local politicians and the rapidly changing mood of their electorate. Some conservative politicians within the European Union are disturbed that Prodi has propounded tax harmonization within the EU, but his opinion on that issue has reportedly undergone some change of late. What is important for us is that this Italian economist-cum-politician is likely to stand squarely on the side of expanding the union.
The selection of a new commission head came surprisingly quickly and easily. Unfortunately, precisely the opposite can be said for the primary theme of the summit. "We must urgently conclude Agenda 2000, at the very least to protect the union from a deep crisis in the eyes of the public." Those are the words of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in a letter to summit participants on the eve of the conference.
After 20 hours of debate, the heads of state agreed on an Agenda 2000 that is truly watered down beyond recognition. The EU budget will total ECU 97 billion. The monstrosity known as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) makes up more than 42% of that budget. Without radical reform of the CAP (or a further liberalization in world agricultural trade), expansion of the EU will not be possible, since an application of CAP to the candidate states alone would cost EU taxpayers a further $15 billion annually.
The Berlin summit only brought agreement that the CAP budget would not grow after the year 2006 and will plateau at ECU 40 billion. Subsidies for the production of beef will gradually be reduced over the next seven years by around 20%. The EU heads of state also agreed that within the CAP framework, funds for expansion would be put aside and not used for other purposes.
Other reforms simply did not pass. Subsidies to grain products will be reduced over the next seven years by 15%, not 20% as originally proposed. Reforms to milk and dairy production were scratched completely, just as the proposal for reducing the CAP budget from next year by a fixed annual percent was swept off the table. Similarly, the proposal to return one quarter of the CAP to the governments of the respective member states, who could presumably use them more effectively, was rejected.
The Wall Street Journal considered the concessions to the agricultural lobby surprisingly large, given that the current EU presidency is led by Schroeder, who has no major ties to farmers. The Journal added that the agreed CAP budget for next year would almost certainly be surpassed.
On the whole, a majority of commentators consider the Berlin summit a victory by French lobbyists over their German counterparts. Unnoticed was that EU aspirants certainly were not in the winner's circle.
