Development and Future of the European Union

In order to adequately discuss the European Union or EU for short, it is necessary to first present a brief history of how the EU began. Moving forward, the research will then examine the pros and cons of the EU, reasons for EU expansion, and new member nations.

Because of Europe's history of war and destruction throughout the late 1800's into the mid 1900's, many European leaders believed that the best way to secure a lasting peace throughout Europe was to create an economic and political bond between her nations. In 1950, it was proposed that the coal and steel industries of Western Europe be united. In response, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was formed in 1951 by Belgium, West Germany, Luxembourg, France, Italy and the Netherlands. Because of the success of the ECSC, its member nations formed the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) and the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, with a goal of creating a common market (Europa-EU at a Glance). Moving ahead to 1992, the Maastricht Treaty laid groundwork of cooperation between European nations on such items as defense and justice, which when combined with the earlier strategic alliances, created the EU. Over time, the EU has expanded to include nearly half a billion people from 25 member nations (Borowiec). As with any other organization that is so revolutionary and far reaching, there are pros and cons to the expansion, which will now be discussed.

The Pros of the Expansion of the EU

It is estimated that at least a dozen countries will join the EU over the next decade or so, in part because member nations of the EU enjoy a wide range of benefits which are significant in a modern world that is threatened by international terrorism, war, and economic/political instability. Most noteworthy benefits of joining the EU, and which expansion of the EU would seem to magnify are free movement of goods/services/people/capital, stable price structures, and internal and external security. Also, a move is underway to improve social conditions, employment prospects, and industrial conditions for citizens of member nations(Ahrens and Hoen). Through these benefits, the EU hopes to create an environment of robust economic activity, an excellent quality of life for workers and their families, and an assurance that the rampant terrorism that has dominated the world stage in recent times will subside. Aside from these goals, the EU also seeks to enlarge to gain more world influence and attract foreign investment, which will spark further growth. The EU as a whole, if properly expanded, could attract workers from Eastern Europe, thereby creating a pool of relatively low paid labor to produce the goods that will be in high demand should the EU gain significant economic standing in the rest of the world. Eastern Europeans could migrate en-masse to nations that are members of the EU to benefit directly from the "EU boom". Theoretically, peace and safety realized through managed growth of the EU could benefit all the nations of the world, as the war on terrorism knows no borders.

Successful expansion of the EU would of course benefit long time members, but will also have some unique benefits for new or potential members. For example, a nation that is politically, economically, or socially unstable could gain some firm footing by joining the EU. If a nation seeks to join the EU, but is clearly negligent of the rights and well being of its people, reforms may be initiated in an effort to earn the right to join the EU. General improvements in the quality of life in any nation world wide also translates into a safer, more productive world; as people become more independent and educated, their self sufficiency rises, as does their contentment with everyday life. This could lead to harder working people who are more respectful of their global neighbors; pride in one's own country also leads to more prosperity, as citizens work harder to contribute more to their nation's output.

In all honesty, the pros of the expansion of the EU are typically presented in a highly optimistic fashion. By taking a closer look at the cons of EU expansion, a more balanced discussion can be facilitated.

Cons of EU Expansion

When the Pros of EU expansion were presented, it was noted that expansion would be of particular value to Eastern Europe, who strives for advancement and improvement. However, the desire of Eastern Europe to become a bigger part of the EU can hurt the EU when all things are considered. The freedom in Eastern Europe that was created with the fall of communism in the 1990's also resulted in chaos for Eastern European nations. With the collapse of the communist regimes, some nations, such as Russia, became uncontrollable, corrupt and full of crime and poverty. To a point, an influx of Eastern Europeans into EU nations seeking employment and a better standard of living is desirable from the standpoint of an adequate labor pool which is essential for economic growth. However, when the job market is overloaded with available workers, overall wages drop, quality of life decreases, and crime and poverty emerge, duplicating the conditions that caused the Eastern Europeans to emigrate in the first place.

Another aspect to consider in the cons of expansion is the fact that new members of the EU may not be treated as equals, a prominent example of which is the EU Common Agricultural Policy. This policy's original intent was to ensure that an adequate food supply existed in Europe following World War II by offering subsidies for farmers to raise crops, livestock and process dairy goods, thereby ensuring that those Europeans displaced by the war would not starve. Unfortunately, the mindset of promoting production of agricultural products through subsidy and incentive has continued into the present day, when food shortages in Europe are not as much as concern as is overproduction in the agricultural marketplace, leading to low prices and lack of profits for those producing them. Because the market is flooded with low priced commodities, new members to the EU are not able to enjoy any subsidies or other incentives for agriculture, and any attempt to offer such product within the EU is harmed by the fact that prices for the goods they offer are not sufficient to be profitable. If this trend is allowed to continue, those who have quality product to bring to the marketplace may abandon agriculture in favor of more attractive alternatives, which may cause the shortages that the Common Agricultural Policy was created to avoid. Also noteworthy, as with many other programs that are politically driven, it has been suggested that some members of the EU receive preferential treatment under the policy, while others find themselves being treated poorly. As the EU grows, this problem as well could be magnified. Eastern European countries wishing to join the EU and benefit from the Common Agricultural Policy may suffer because of their small relative size and political/economic instability within their respective borders.

There have also been efforts to grant new membership into the EU without granting the benefits of the Common Agricultural Policy. An example of this is Poland. In 2000, the argument was made by the EU that since Poland had not been given farming subsidies in the past, that there was no need to grant them to Poland in the future, which in effect removes the Common Agricultural Policy from the EU benefit package, so to speak. On the practical side, however, it should be noted that this action may have been prompted by good intentions to protect the EU's overall interests due to the fact that giving Poland agricultural subsidies would increase the number of farmers within the Common Agricultural Policy by several million, as Poland has a substantial farming community within its borders (Ahrens and Hoen).

Restrictive Admission to the EU

Beyond limiting the benefits that new EU members are entitled to, there has also been a move toward a more selective membership into the EU in general. For all of its "open" policies and objectives aimed toward a unified Europe, not every nation has been welcomed into the EU with open arms or wallets. A classic example of this ironic paradox is the nation of Turkey.

Strictly speaking, Turkey is not a Middle Eastern country, nor can it be classified as a European country (Muftuler-Bac), which leaves it somewhat without classification. Upon closer study of Turkey, however, this seems to be the smallest hurdle to admission into the EU. Several factors reflect poorly on Turkey's worthiness for EU membership, including the Turkish government's positions on military actions, human rights, religious tolerance and political diversity. These factors are best viewed within the context of Turkey's past history with the EU.

When Turkey was formed in 1923, its founders identified acceptance as a European state as a major priority for the new nation, leading to numerous legal, social, monetary and political reforms, leading into the late 1930's. In the mid 1940's, Turkey adopted a multi-party political system, but its political environment has been disrupted in later years by war and military takeover of the government. In the early 1950's Turkey was initiated into NATO, giving the new nation some credibility on the world stage. Moving forward to 1963, Turkey became an associate member of the EU, which may have given the false impression that full membership and recognition as a European state was soon to follow. During a 1997 EU summit, it was decided not to grant Turkey full admission to the EU, creating a great deal of tension between the Turkish government and the EU itself, especially in light of the fact that Greece, once a bitter enemy of Turkey, was granted full membership in the early 1990's after becoming an associate member around the same time that Turkey did (Springer). Following the summit, in the midst of Turkish outrage against the EU for the exclusion, the EU recommended reforms that Turkey must adopt in order to be given further consideration for EU membership. Turkey maintains that the reforms are excessive, and they are only being proposed because of discrimination against what is predominantly a Muslim state, turning the tables on the EU's assertion that Turkey's intolerance of Kurds, for example, is outright discrimination and makes EU membership unacceptable for Turkey. Furthermore, Turkey argues that being considered a European nation is strictly based on religious orientation, and Muslims are not considered European, therefore a mainly Muslim nation like Turkey will not be considered European, and therefore unsuitable for EU membership. However, a closer look at the inner workings of Turkey sheds more light and substance on this argument.

As a matter of constitutional law, Turkey restricts the formation of political parties based on religion, social class, or ethnic background, which in itself puts a strong limit on political activity and makes it very difficult for like minded Turks to realize strength in numbers and therefore political advantage. Efforts to form such parties within Turkey in the past has led to court rulings outlawing the parties and as a result, leading to their demise. The political system in Turkey is also restricted, and in some cases complicated, by the Turkish military's substantial role in civilian life. Under the premise of protecting its citizens from terrorism, whether right or wrong, the Turkish military has placed strong restrictions on Turks, echoing the constitutional restrictions that were previously imposed. Non specific legal rulings have given the military a great deal of latitude in being able to participate or interfere (depending who is asked) in the daily lives of the Turks.

The daily lives of the Turks have also been disrupted by the imprisonment of political dissidents within Turkey, which has also been done in the name of protecting the greater good and preserving the state against such problems as terrorism and other modern concerns. Because of this type of activity, the free expression of ideas has been suppressed to a great extent which in some ways also restricts economic activity, which is also viewed unfavorably by the EU. However, one of the biggest dilemmas for Turkey both from the EU perspective and in general is the question of Kurdish rights and recognition.

Simply put, there are two aspects to the Kurdish situation. The first is related to the definition and treatment of minorities. Technically speaking, Turkey does not identify Kurds as a minority as it does Greeks, Jews and Armenians (Muftuler-Bac). Based on events that have taken place, however, the Kurds have not been given equal treatment in Turkey, evidenced by the fact that the eastern part of Turkey, where most of the Kurds live, has not been economically developed as have other parts of the country, leading to accusations of socioeconomic discrimination in a nation where the "official" minorities are afforded more benefits than the Kurds. Partly in response to this accusation, the Turkish government has taken steps to recognize the Turks more fully, including the tolerance of a strictly Kurdish political party and a lifting of a previous ban on the speaking of the Kurdish language in public, but the promotion of Kurdish culture, history, language and tradition is still being restricted by the prohibition of education in Kurdish. The Kurdish political party has gained momentum by winning seats in the Turkish Parliament in recent decades, giving the Kurds a voice in Turkey's government, which may also lead to increased freedom for Turkish Kurds. The bottom line on Turkish full membership in the EU is that the issue has a long way to go toward resolution. Turkey must figure out a way to acceptably reform its country to conformance with EU standards without losing its identity, safety and strength. It surely will be an interesting issue for many years to come.

The Future Expansion of the EU-Experts Speak Out

The Turkish question in regard to the EU has led to some very definite opinions among experts as to whether or not the EU will continue to expand-or even survive. Otto Lambsdorff, Honorary Chairman of Germany's Free Democratic Party has been quoted as saying, "unless Turkey is allowed in, the European Union does not deserve to survive" (Brittan). Others, however, cite other issues as more important to the expansion, or lack of expansion of the EU. One key issue being debated is the strength of the Euro as an accepted currency within the EU. Economic strength is a key attribute for any nation or alliance of nations. If the EU can achieve sustainable strength for the Euro, this will give the EU a sizeable advantage upon the world stage, influencing trade and commerce. It is possible that this could allow the EU to overcome surpluses, for example, in the area of agricultural products, guaranteeing stable prices and prosperity for the producers of these goods. This could keep the interest in the EU viable and strong.

Closing Thoughts on the EU

The EU, for all of its complexities, disputes and problems, has the potential of an economic diamond in the rough. Properly handled, cultivated and presented, it will become the crown jewel of the world economy, and will contribute to prosperity, which promotes peace, stability, tolerance, and improves the lives of each and every person on earth.

Works Cited

Ahrens, Joachim, and Herman W. Hoen. A Club Theoretical Perspective on an Enlarged European Union. Diss. University of Goettingen and U of Groningen, 2002. n.p.: privately printed, n.d.
Borowiec, Andrew. "EU Expansion Sows Doubt About the Future." World and I October 2004: 10.
Brittan, Samuel. "International Economy." 18 3 (2004): 34+.
Europa-EU at a Glance. 2005. Europa. 2 Dec. 2005 .
Gorvett, Jon. "Now You See It, Now You Don't." The Middle East Nov. 2003: 20+.
Muftuler-Bac, Meltem. "Impact of the European Union on Turkish Politics." Eastern European Quarterly 34.2 (2000): 159.
"Out of Sight, out of Mind." The Birmingham Post (England) 17 Nov. 1998: 12. Questia. 6 Dec. 2005 .
Springer, Beverly. The European Union and Its Citizens:the Social Agenda. Westport, CT: Greenwood P, 1994. 02 Dec. 2005 .