What should developing nations make of  EU-25? Muyanja Ssenyonga

It is easy to underestimate the feeling palpable joy visible on the effusing from many face worn by a national of the 10 former Soviet bloc countries on May 1, 2004 in celebration of their countries joining the hitherto 15 member  European Union EU turning into an expansive, if fledgling,  25- member strong union. Many saw it as the last nail in the coffin of communism and its proponents who still despite all odds to the contrary, still nurse hopes of some day regaining supremacy in the kaleidoscope of politics in former autarky based , impoverished nations.   It was a battle between those who fought for  extending the freedoms won since the outpourings of late 1980s which were sown by Golbachev’s Perestroika and Glanost, which eventually cost him not only an empire but more importantly his throne; and those diehards by and large, thrown into despondence and deep frustration  by the rapid, one would say not-often-thoroughly-well-thought-out introduction of the  market economy in economies where months earlier what to produce,  who to produce, how to produce , and for whom, were the monopoly of the  one power that was-the state. The hope had been that the unfulfilled promises, experienced by many nationals in former Soviet states would swing the balance in favor of maintaining arms length relations with the European Union. To be approached when wanted and ignored when things were gong well. Yet at the end of the day, the gruesome remembrance of the deprivation, de jure disenfranchisement, deep economic malaise, arbitrary government authority   ensured that most nations in the candidate countries decided strongly in favor of join the strong western neighbor. The nations among the old 15 members may waver in their decision, definitely not the apparently free nationals in the new 10 members.  It is difficult to imagine a result other than acceptance /ratification of the accession to EU by nationals of new entrants. Reasons for the revelry are not hard to find.

Many citizens of former  Soviet Union nations  still recall vividly the scarcities of consumption goods and services the likes of foodstuffs, mediocre health, education, and other social services during the sickle-and-hammer era , little technological development meant minimal support  factors  for workers, and hardly any innovation which translated into low productivity, low output, low income, and high underemployment(officially there was no open unemployment). It became clear over the years that the only way out was to flee to the west, in response to which came down the now infamous iron curtain. Failing to deliver provisions to their citizenry, former Eastern bloc countries opted for the policy of containing the faint-hearted and  ‘foot-loose’ by establishing police states to monitor, eavesdrop, incriminate, and incarcerate whoever was thought not to be  very faithful to the cause. The beckoning from EU was seen by many as the opportunity in a lifetime to shake off the shackles of repression for ever. Many former Soviet bloc nations have been led by former communists- turned-democrats, who didn’t relish relinquishing all the power to determine the fates of  their citizenry in one go. They came to power through western style general elections, definitely helped by the strong bureaucratic machinery that has controlled governments for almost six decades.  Nationals in such states saw the prospect of joining EU as the last straw that should break the weird notion harbored by former communists to reign in their subjects once again. Adherence to EU principles precluded that entirely.

Former Soviet union nations have not had ample time to develop strong civil society manifested in strong NGOs, interest groups,  advocacy groups and so on. This hampered efforts at checks and balances  of the strong state machinery. Joining the union opens the gates of the 10 members to well financed and organized NGO from the 15 EU nations and beyond. The economies of the 10 members depend mainly on agriculture, and as is the case with other nations in developing world, have been facing bleak conditions for some time due to low prices for agricultural commodities, rising cost of inputs, declining interest of the young in agriculture related activities, rural de-population, environmental degradation. Joining the union enables them to become beneficiaries of EU agricultural policy , one of the best and  well conceived agricultural policies in the world. The 10 members as well as the 15 old members are beneficiaries of a policy underpinned by aims that encompass “… secure a multifunctional, sustainable and competitive agriculture…including regions facing difficulties, …maintain landscape and countryside… make contribution to vitality of rural communities…respond to consumer concerns and demands about food quality and safety, environmental protection and maintaining animal welfare standards.”  To achieve the above aims EU agricultural policy uses instruments and programs under the common agricultural policy CAP under which a staggering amount  EURO 42 760 billion in  2003 to  EURO 41 660  in  2006 has been set aside to pay for accompanying measures which embrace payment(subsidizing)  early retirement of farmers, agri-environment adoption and afforestation, and improvement of less favored regions ; finance measures to modernize and diversify agricultural holdings   which encompass subsidizing  farm investment, new farm set-ups by young farmers, training, investment aid for processing and marketing facilities, additional assistance for forestry, promotion and conversion of agriculture. All issues that influence farmer’s production decision ranging from input procurement to marketing, from farm size to food safety  and  quality, from living and working conditions to efforts at generating alternative employment opportunities in the countryside, and of course from designing policies on foodstuff imports to providing food aid in emergencies. Stabilizing farmers income with an average increase of 4.7 %,, increase quality of products, improve holdings, tackle environmental issues are guiding principles of  EU policy on agriculture. Farmers in the new member nations are to join their colleagues to coordinate efforts at ensuring the continuation of financial and technical support   embodied in CAP to increase output and quality, enhance technological adoption, tackle environmental concerns and generally be more . competitive in Europe and in the world market. The benefits are hard to  exhaust. What is important to note is that what is applicable to the agricultural sector is even more so in manufacturing, financial  services, health and educational services  and trade, More EU support will come the way for producers in all manner of economic activities , which should productivity and increase competitiveness. Higher incomes will ensue. Well not a little for the loss of some independence on economic, social and political policies.

The question in the mind of many people in the rest of the developing world is the impact the expanded EU will have on their economies. Surely a lot if the above narration is anything to go by. New members come with new commodities and products which must be added to the list covered  under CAP , implying extension of subsides to production, technical service provision, and marketing them. This implies higher barriers to other developing nations as the EU becomes self-sufficient in yet many products (mostly agricultural products as most new members have agricultural economies.

The increase in EU membership should enhance its leverage in multilateral talks and definitely weaken further developing  nations, which are yet to wake up  and join forces to bolster their bargaining power. Provisions will continue to go in favor of the strong because they have the option that weak nations lack to opt out any multilateral arrangements considered not in the interest of their citizenry. Well, the hard task of charting the development path for the new EU members is still under the control of their governments, but has become easier due to the availability of deeper coffers, stronger EU management and watchdog bodies ,  the  parliament, Commission and Council. For other developing nations, the new larger EU should provide a larger market for goods. The problem is more money will go to developing the new members to bring them in line with the 15 old members, more subsidies will be spent to overhaul production, transportation, marketing, and rural development. The prospects perhaps have never been bleaker.