André Bretón Carrillo

174443
Tratados Internacionales
Dr. Raúl Bringas Nostti

Is it a good or a bad idea to continue the EU's enlargement process?

A brief lesson of history:

The European Union is an international organisation which comprehends 28 state members
and a common governing system that allows for economic, social and security policies to be
applied on all participant nations. In the beginning, the EU originally confined to the western
bank of European countries but through the years it has become a robust group that, today,
covers central, eastern and occidental Europe and it is the most developed regional trade
agreement in the world.
At first, back in primary decades of the XX century, every conflict that turned Europe
into a bath of blood was conceived between France and Germany. It was not until after the
bloodiest conflict in history ended, the second world war, that a man from both German and
French ancestry, Robert Schuman, saw an opportunity to end hostilities once and for all
between France and Germany. Schuman At that time, Schuman was serving as Foreign
Minister of France and given his knowledge of international relations, he saw that the friction
between both powers could be resolved and healed through commercial exchange. Because
of this, in 1950, specifically on May 9, Schuman made his beliefs public and with this Europe
began to work on mending the continent.
Subsequently, it was not until after a laborious year that the powers reached an
agreement, finally a peace had been achieved that was transmitted throughout Europe and not
a peace like the one left by the First World War, this was truly sincere and The most
interesting thing was that it had not been done by outdated means, it was innovative, through
a commercial agreement. In 1951 the Treaty of Paris was signed, which included duty-free
passage of coal and metal through Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and, of
course, Germany and France; this is how the European Coal and Steel Community was born.
The newly signed ECSC placed the coal and steel production of the 6 participants under one
authority, just like a single country.
This, quite successful introduction to peace through trade, motivated the member
states of the agreement to implement the same commerce measurements to other products
and after 7 years the ECSC became a customs union and, naturally, this renovation of the
framework for trafficking in tariff-free products was rebranded to the European Economic
Community with the signing of the Treaty of Rome. The goals set by the new and renowned
commercial organisation were truly serious because they wanted to forge a continental idea
never seen before, a common market so that not only certain products could move freely but
also other concepts such as labour, economic capital and services could enjoy the same
commercial skills. Fortunately, the proposals worked and attracted the attention of more
countries in the region, which is why as the year 1979 progressed, other powers decided with
harmony and caution to present their annexation to the European Economic Community.
Those accepted were the lions of the United Kingdom, the swans of Denmark and the red
deer of Ireland.
With the successful incorporation of these 3 countries, this same year the first
continental elections were held to select the leaders of the different organisations that would
now direct the union on its course to face the growing Russian threat. More and more nations
expressed their intentions to join the new economic grouping of Europe, in 1981 Greece
made its promise and annexed the European Union.
1985 is, to date, one of the most important years in European history as the Schengen
Agreement was signed and paved the way for putting into practice concepts that until then
had only been imagined. The agreement shocked the continent by now having open borders
without the use of passports between member states and some others that were not yet. The
next year, Spain and Portugal officialized the Single European Act and formally bonded
themselves to the EU. Following the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc in 1990, the former East
Germany was included into the newly united Germany and consequently made its way into
the agreement.
As good as it may get, in 1993 the EEC became known as the European Union
through the Maastricht Treaty, which came into force on the first day of November of the
year in question. By establishing a single currency (the euro), a united foreign and security
policy, shared citizenship rights, and improved cooperation in the fields of immigration,
asylum, and judicial affairs, the treaty aimed to strengthen political and economic unity even
more than it already has throughout Europe. The European Communities, the Common
Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and collaboration in the areas of justice and home
affairs (JHI) formed the three foundations of the European Union.
Furthermore, the treaty included and contemplated the possibility of territorial
enlargement from former communist states in the central and eastern parts of Europe. More
countries came to join the union in the next couple of years with Malta, Cyprus, Austria,
Finland and Sweden as the new members. The settlement also embraced the idea of a
common currency and in 2002 the EU issued the first samples of the Euro which came to
replace the national coins of 12 member states; since then the Eurozone has increased its
power to 20 countries.
Over time, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,
Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania made their way into the annexation
of their territories. In between these events, more specifically in 2009, the European Union
had its biggest legislative structural change in its history; that year the Lisbon Treaty entered
into force by merging the previously mentioned three main pillars into a single legal entity
provisioned with legal personality, which is worth to mention was one of the main claims the
United Kingdom did not like and progressively turned into one of main causes for Brexit.
Despite this lovely and charming part of history not everything is great. Since the
beginning of the 2010 decade, a number of problems have put the European Union’s
cohesiveness to the test, such as the financial crisis in some of the Eurozone’s member states,
an increase in immigration from Asia and Africa and the UK’s decision to leave the EU.
Besides, following the COVID-19 pandemic-related economic downturn, EU leaders first
decided to issue a shared debt in order to fund the European Recovery Program called Next
Generation EU.
Lastly, the violence displayed between Ukraine and Russia is another matter that has
really taken a place in the agenda of the organisation. In addition to imposing harsh sanctions
on Russia, the European Union decided to provide Ukraine with a combined military aid
package for deadly weaponry, which would be paid for out of budget through the European
Peace Facility.
Even though it has been a truly difficult path to travel, the European Union insists that
its main objective is its expansion; in fact, there is a goal of member states that must be
achieved by 2030, 35 member states. Reforms to the budget and institutions are currently
being discussed so that the union is prepared for the arrival of the next participants.

Summary of the reading:

The European Union's (EU) position on enlargement has undergone a substantial change, as
noted by Magdalena Frennhoff Larsén. The EU now supports expansion with greater vigour
and agreement, especially in the aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This change is
likely to propel the EU's expansion initiatives forward in 2024, since accession talks with
Ukraine and Moldova are about to start, and there are rumours of parallel talks with Georgia,
which was just awarded candidate status.
However, the road to expansion is still complicated since prospective members have
to pass strict requirements of political and economic governance in addition to fully
complying with current EU laws. The need for unanimous consent from all member states at
every stage of the process adds to the complexity and makes enlargement dependent on
unanimity of support.
The EU has already experienced expansion weariness, especially after the 2004–2007
Eastern enlargement, which prompted questions about the union's ability to integrate.
Member states frequently used their veto power for purposes unrelated to the reform
advancements of candidate nations. They were not hesitant to use it. A few notable instances
include Greece's protracted veto over discussions with North Macedonia over a bilateral
name issue and Croatia's blockage over negotiations with Serbia until promises were made
for textbook translations.
Since the start of the crisis in Ukraine, the geopolitical environment has drastically
changed, highlighting the increasing relevance of expansion as a geopolitical need. The EU
today recognises the strategic significance of its surrounding areas, especially in light of the
growing sway of superpowers like China and Russia. The EU institutions have become more
committed as a result of this realisation, and even once doubtful members like France are
now in favour of expansion as essential to the EU's strategic autonomy.
The Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen, has been instrumental in reviving the
enlargement process and presenting it as an integral element of the European Union's reaction
to the crisis in Ukraine. The vast Western Balkans growth plan is one example of how Von
der Leyen's Commission has underlined the need of not leaving the region behind.
Enlargement attempts have gained impetus because of this proactive approach, which
contrasts with years of dissatisfaction caused by member states' persistent vetoes and
apparent leadership voids within the Commission.

Is it worth it?
Is it really worth increasing the number of nations in the European Union? Is it fair for
economic powers to annex inefficient states or even those with socialist policies? My answer
would be no; and I can justify this assertion with 3 key reasons. First, it is better for Europe to
tackle current internal issues such as lack of natality and economic stagnation. Secondly, it is
not fair for efficient governments and economies to extend several lines of life to inefficient,
stagnated and corrupted nations that do not comprehend the effort that it takes to build a
prosperous state. And thirdly, it is surreal that the present cheering for European unity comes
from an external factor, from Vladimir Putin. It is important to highlight that the European
Union has many internal problems to resolve before thinking about its territorial expansion.
Even worse, it is not possible to conceive the idea of continuing to expand justifying itself
with the growing Russian threat.
Today the European Union is stuck in one of the most uncomfortable scenarios that
could have been imagined since the birth of this organisation; lately it has been inundated by
internal challenges that threaten its unity. Even though expansion is marked as one of the
main future objectives, specifically for 2030, it is implausible to think that this trajectory can
be conceived without first remedying problems such as the lack of birth rates in European
societies and the stagnation of its economies continent. It is natural to denote the
demographic trends throughout all the member states of the European Union, since the state
of the birth rate is alarming, not enough babies are born to prosper a territory with so much
history and so much relevance at a global level. Low fertility rates are grouped with high
numbers of elderly populations and this poses, in addition to a population risk, a large-scale
socio-economic problem. This situation could lead to immense pressure on public health and
pension systems and a lack of labour, which without a change could drastically change the
course of Europe. Many might think that the natural solution to this predicament is simply to
invite migrants from other nations outside Europe to replace the irresponsibility of young
Europeans. But this is not the case, uncontrolled migration brings with it a greater number of
problems, among which one of the current cancers of the nation that gave birth to Napoleon
Bonaparte stands out. France is experiencing a very complicated situation with violence in
the streets, and I am not referring to the constant protests against continental and national
reforms, but to the growing threat that at any moment a migrant could attack you or even
leave you dead. The reasons why they attack are unknown but the results of these attacks
cannot be overlooked. Another case is Spain, particularly Barcelona, the illegal and
uncontrolled arrival of migrants from Africa and the Middle East have made the city of
Barcelona a true nightmare for tourists and even more so for Spanish residents. Property
owners, agencies that are dedicated to real estate are being attacked by "Okupas"; Illegal
migrants who enter the country and literally occupy property without permission and without
documents, something that meets the parameters of illegality. This, while frightening national
residents, has taken up treasury resources and increased the amount of taxes that citizens
must pay, causing a decline in economic activity and therefore stagnation. Since 2015 Europe
has granted entry to more than 2.4 million refugees. Remember this, if the course is not
changed, European Christianity and all the good that has been achieved through it such as
universities, free belief, mercantilism, etc., will fall not because of weapons, but because of
the birth of Arabs.
Secondly, it is not fair for the European Union to make members of nation states that
are not economically efficient. It was not long ago that Greece was literally saved from the
financial abyss by mismanagement of public debt, unsustainable fiscal and trade deficits, and
corruption on unimaginable scales among many other disruptions to the budgetary order.
Now, those who were responsible for the aftermath of the collapse of the Hellenic country,
clearly the economic powers of the European Union and the International Monetary Fund,
that is, Germany and France. It is not right that these nations were forced to save, to send a
lifeline to Greece through the sacrifice of millions of people with citizenships, mainly, of
Germany and France. Translated to our context, would it be fair, in the hypothetical case that
something like the European Union existed in Central America, that Mexican citizens were
forced to work hard and pay exorbitant amounts of money to the herary to save the financial
mismanagement of Guatemala?, would you feel good that instead of your taxes being used in
the continuous improvement of your nation, they were invested in the collective rescue of a
nation economically inferior to yours even when there are highly urgent problems in your
city, I think that It is not a fair distribution.
Lastly, since if the war with Ukraine had never started, the countries that are now
candidates would not have the urgent need to belong to the organisation and, finally, the
European unity cannot depend on external factors such as these war conflicts to feel like a
Europe without fissures and that will address the problems in unity and harmony, what is
experienced today is a merely artificial feeling caused by Vladimir Putin and not a deep one
that touch the soul of all European citizens. The most recent reports from the international
press indicate that Europe has been unified in sentiment and agreements to confront the
Russian threat led by Vladimir Putin. But is it logical to think that this communal feeling will
last forever? The answer is a resounding no. The formation of the European Union occurred
as a result of diplomatic and commercial intervention to, in this way, avoid possible wars
between France and Germany, not to confront an external power. It is because of this that it is
irrational to conceive the idea that Europe will always remain united. It is a feeling with an
expiration date, the day Putin disappears from the world political map that will mark the end
of one of today’s most celebrated pillars of European amalgamation; the "great feeling of
European unity" will come to an end. The trend, and even more so after the departure of the
United Kingdom with Brexit, was that member states were increasingly dissatisfied with the
management coming from Brussels. The cause of this boom is the president of Russia, not
European sentiment itself. Or what? Once Putin loses relevance, from Brussels will they look
for a threat to rekindle the same flame? As European citizens, we must recover our national
identity and feel proud of our roots and not feel sorry for them. May our pride be greater than
the fear we have of Russia.

Conclusion
My argument can be summarised as 3 simple arguments. First, the need to overcome different
problems that put pressure on continental stability, the principle of justice between member
states and the lack of national and European pride that is needed to prevent Europe from
succumbing to the fear of external threats such as Russia. The European Union must
prioritise solving internal challenges, mainly low birth rates, economic stagnation and poor
immigration management. These problems pose a socioeconomic and political challenge that
urgently require efforts and resources to be resolved. Without first redirecting these internal
issues, future expansion entails incalculable risks that may compromise the stability of the
economic region. Second, throughout the EU's decision-making procedures, the notion of
equity among member states must be respected. As seen by the instance of Greece during the
financial crisis, it is unjust for economically efficient member states to be forced to shoulder
the responsibility of rescuing financially unstable countries. Such acts not only put a burden
on the resources of the contributing countries, but they also sow discontent and undermine
confidence in the union. Furthermore, cultivating a feeling of cohesion and identity among
the populace requires a return to European and national pride. European countries should
embrace their cultural history and traditions while also realising the significance of
collaboration and solidarity inside the EU framework, instead of giving in to fear of foreign
dangers like Russia. It would be wiser to strengthen present security projects like Poland
signing the “military Schengen” deal alongside Germany and Netherlands. To put it simply,
the EU has to put its citizens' pride and sense of identity first, maintain principles of justice
among member states, and give priority to resolving internal difficulties. By doing this, the
union will be able to fortify its base and guarantee that it will remain relevant and successful
on the international scene.
Bibliography:
Astier, B. H. (2023, October 19). EU bids to tighten migration rules after attacks in

Arras and Brussels. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67160740

BBC News Mundo. (2023, June 8). Un hombre apuñala a 4 niños en un parque en el

sur de Francia. BBC News Mundo. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-

internacional-65843851

Datos sobre migración en Europa. (2023, May 31). Portal De Datos Sobre Migración.

https://www.migrationdataportal.org/es/regional-data-overview/europe

Euronews. (2024, February 9). Poland signs “military Schengen” deal alongside

Germany and Netherlands. Euronews.

https://www.euronews.com/2024/02/09/poland-signs-military-schengen-deal-

alongside-germany-and-netherlands

Gabel, M. J. (2024, February 11). European Union (EU) | Definition, flag, purpose,

history, & Members. Encyclopedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/European-Union

González, J. (2018, August 27). Unión Europea: el enemigo está dentro | ValUE.

ValUE. https://value.universidadeuropea.com/union-europea-el-enemigo-esta-dentro/

Principles, countries, history | European Union. (n.d.). European Union.

https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history_en

Robinson, J. (2023, October 17). Brussels 'on highest terror alert' and football fans

told to stay in stadium after two shot dead. Sky News. https://news.sky.com/story/two-

people-wearing-football-shirts-shot-dead-in-brussels-belgian-media-report-12985711

World Bank Open Data. (n.d.). World Bank Open Data.

https://datos.bancomundial.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CBRT.IN