And We’d Like to Thank … Romania’s Integration into the European Union, 1989–2007

Abstract

Conditionality is formally a key determinant of many non‐member states’ relations with the EU. It is particularly so for states intent on membership. As the case of Romania shows, the EU’s use of conditionality is far from consistent. Relations can develop and accession take place without the requisite conditions being met. This follows from the use the EU makes of the flexibility evident in its evolving and generally vague definitions of the conditions that need to be met. Hence it was often extraneous factors over which Romania had either limited or no influence that were responsible for key developments in relations. These factors include the geopolitical and strategic interests of the EU and its member states, the actions of the Commission and the agenda‐setting and constraining effects of rhetorical commitments and timetables, and the dynamics of the EU’s evolving approach to eastern enlargement.

Key Words:

• Romania
• European Union
• enlargement
• Europe agreement
• conditionality

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Peter Siani‐Davies, Anneli Ute Gabanyi, Tim Haughton, Karen Henderson, Erhan İçener and Raduţa Matache for their comments on earlier drafts of this article as well as the subsequent comments of two anonymous reviewers. The paper draws on a range of sources including interviews conducted with officials of the European Commission, officials of the Romanian government and journalists at various intervals between 1997 and 2008.

Notes

1. Also influencing the moves to start negotiations was the widespread criticism of the EC’s emerging Ostpolitik. This, it was argued, was providing insufficient support for the economic and political reform processes in CEE countries. Hence, there was pressure on the EC to establish closer ties, particularly with the non‐Visegrád states, in an attempt to help secure their transitions.

2. Also of note is the EC’s tendency to deal with Romania in tandem with Bulgaria (see Verheijen 1994). Actually proceeding to exploratory talks and negotiations with Bulgaria was to Romania’s benefit since it dissuaded the EC from holding back on progress with Romania.

3. See the comments of the Finnish Foreign Minister, Tarja Halonen to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Assemblée Nationale on 27 October 1999: ‘Member States seem to hold the opinion that negotiations should be opened with six candidate countries’ (emphasis added).

4. Several interviewees suggested that Rehn’s approach contrasted with that of his predecessor, Günther Verheugen, whose alleged comments on the likelihood of closing negotiations before the end of November 2004 had led to accusations in Romania that he was not only aiming to secure closure before his term of office as Commissioner for Enlargement ended but also seeking to boost the prospects of the Romanian Prime Minister, Adrian Năstase, and the Social Democrats in the forthcoming presidential and parliamentary election (Agence Europe, 19 November 2004, point 7). Rehn’s more technocratic approach was a reaction to these events and designed to distance him from the more political Verheugen and re‐establish the credibility of the Commission as guardian of the acquis.

5. The timetable was, however, nearly upset on 16 December by Iliescu’s decision, as outgoing President, to pardon Miron Cozma, leader of the Jiu Valley miners during their descent on Bucharest in 1990 and 1991 and during their attempted march on the capital in 1999. Under pressure from domestic and international sources, including the Head of the Commission Delegation in Brussels, Jonathan Scheele, the pardon was withdrawn on 17 December.

6. See, for example, the One Europe Declaration adopted in December 2002 that confirmed the ‘full support’ of the soon to be EU‐25 ‘for the continuous, inclusive and irreversible enlargement process’ and that its objective was ‘to welcome Bulgaria and Romania as new members of the European Union in 2007’ (Council of the European Union 2003, point 14).

7. See the comment of Jean‐Christophe Filori, Verheugen’s spokesperson: ‘The EU is exhausted after the last big bang enlargement in May. In Romania there are still big challenges’. Cited in The Wall Street Journal, 20 September 2004.