Europe's stepchildren

Much hasn't been made, I believe, in the U.S. media about the stickier points of EU expansion, due this May.

While the enlargement of the European Union from 15 to 25 member countries has been much feted, and deservedly so, little ink has been spilled in the American press over the restrictions and limitations being placed on the new states from the former Eastern bloc.

It's a simple fact that Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary still aren't quite at the level of economic development and prosperity of the current EU states. Fifteen years of democratic government isn't long enough to fully recover from the myriad problems generated by four decades of Communist rule. These countries from "Old Europe" will have some catching up to do for several years yet, even after EU accession becomes a formality in a couple of months.

Still, it's criminal for the current EU states to be able and willing to thwart that process within the rubric of the European Union.

First it was a question of farm subsidies, and proposals to phase them in for new countries so that it took, for instance, 10 years before Polish farmers were receiving the same levels as their French counterparts.

But now it's just gotten daffy. Most of the member EU states are moving to bar the free movement of Eastern European workers come May.

In other words, European integration, with all its myriad benefits for commerce and culture, isn't going to be all it's cracked up to be. Perhaps that's not unreasonable, but it still strikes me as dubious that the Czechs will have member status within the EU, yet they won't enjoy the full rights and privileges becoming an EU member. Confused? Me too.

I'd be the first to point out that EU expansion -- especially the incorporation of the post-communist states -- will be rife with growing pains. And it's understandable that current members want to make the process of integration as painless as possible. But frankly, making the new states second-class citizens isn't the answer.

It just seems to be more logical to expand at a more gradual pace, with fewer members admitted and over a longer period of time. At least that way the shock effects are stifled, and the newly admitted member states can enjoy the full benefits immediately upon accession.

Or, alternately, they should just take in a lot more countries all at once. Acknowledge that the problems will come no matter what, accept the difficulties and get on the track to resolving them sooner, rather than later.

As it stands, Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Romania and Bulgaria, at the very least, are slated for subsequent rounds of EU expansion, tentatively scheduled for later in this decade. But at least by the current timeline, the growing pains wrought by the imminent 10-state expansion won't have fully subsided by the time those states gain entry. And frankly, adding some of those countries in 2006 or 2008 will come as a greater shock to Europe writ large than taking in the Czech Republic or Poland or Hungary or even Slovakia in 2004.

Ultimately I'm a great proponent of European integration. From my perspective, this is a tremendous first step toward greater global governance and strengthened international institutions. And I especially like the thought of an enlarged and integrated Europe serving as a sorely needed counterweight to the clout of the United States. As a sometimes student of comparative politics, I only foresee bad things resulting from having a single hegemon on the global scene, especially if that hegemon has an American address.

But it distresses me to see those dreams of a united Europe interrupted or watered down by the sorts of petty nationalist squabbles and prejudices the EU is supposed to transcend. I want the EU to succeed, but certain nations need to get over themselves to make that happen right now.