John Palmersurveys a possible future for Europe in which the influence of the EU, and the number of its member states, is expanded hugely beyond current limits
It is tempting - but sometimes ill-advised - to hail the advent of a new year as being "absolutely critical" for some aspect or other of human endeavour. But 2007 could prove decisive for the future of the European Union. It may be the year when the project for an enlarged but more integrated Europe finally reveals itself as a doomed utopia. But 2007 could also see a breakthrough in negotiations for a new treaty laying the foundations for a more effective and more democratic union - capable of responding to new and urgent global challenges.
A formal agreement on a new treaty is unlikely by the end of this year. But if an outline deal on the treaty is in sight, the crisis which has gripped the union since the French and Dutch veto of the proposed constitution will start to wane. During 2007 the fragile roots of European economic recovery will be tested: continued growth and employment would work wonders for EU more widely. With the departure from office of José Maria Aznar in Spain, Silvio Berlusconi in Italy and (shortly) Tony Blair in Britain, 2007 could also be the year when governments take their commitment to a common European foreign and security policy seriously - not least to head off new disasters in the Middle East.
European Union leaders meeting in Brussels last month bought a little more time to answer one question which continues to overshadow much else: when and where should the enlargement of the EU come to a halt? The fragile negotiations with Turkey on its membership application are to continue in spite of the continuing deadlock over Cyprus, but a new crisis could easily derail Turkey's bid to join the union.
With Bulgaria and Romania members as of Monday morning, the other countries of the western Balkans have been told they will only be admitted after they have met stringent economic and political conditions.
Even then they will also have to wait until the 27-strong EU has reformed its own creaking governance system to make it fit for the purpose of managing a union of more than 30 member states. But by 2009 or 2010 there is a reasonable prospect that the new treaty to replace the stillborn "constitution" will finally be in force.
Dealing with the western Balkans is most unlikely to be the end of the enlargement saga. Ukraine and Moldova as well as Georgia, Armenia and oil-rich Azerbaijan in the southern Caucasus also want EU membership. When the autocratic regime in Belarus is eventually kicked out, its peoples will also wish to join their Polish neighbours within the union.
The current response of EU leaders is clear: "Membership? No way. But you can become favoured partners in our European Neighbourhood Policy instead."
The ENP is a device designed to resolve a terrible dilemma: how to encourage all those countries whose progress towards democracy, peace and stability is driven by the ambition to be "part of Europe", while preventing membership overload from paralysing or even undermining the European Union itself.
There is something arbitrary about saying "not beyond this line" when it comes to defining the limits of EU enlargement. Some limit must be drawn if the European Union is to retain a capacity for effective, democratic governance. But simply to tell the aspirant democracies in the wider Europe that they are not welcome as members and to end up creating a new economic/political European iron curtain could lead to disaster. Such a rebuff could reverse progress to democracy, the rule of law and a continent free from conflict and war.
The European Neighbourhood Policy promises only eventual access to Europe's markets, together with modest aid and co-operation agreements. As it excludes a share in EU decision-making this option risks being seen from Kiev to Tiblisi at best as second-class citizenship, and at worst as politico-economic subordination to western Europe.
The German government which takes over the EU presidency on Monday promises to make the ENP partnership more attractive. Two more radical alternatives have been discussed but have found little favour with EU governments. The first is to offer eventual partial EU membership, perhaps by initially inviting the ENP countries to become non-voting participants in meetings of EU foreign and security ministers. The ENP partners would be denied participation in other decision-making bodies and they would, in practice, have to accept EU decisions in other matters of mutual interest such as a shared free trade area.
Although a constructive response to the dilemma facing the EU, this approach risks adding ever greater complexities to an already overly complex system of European Union decision-making. It might well make inevitable a step-by-step erosion of the distinction between members and non-members of the union.
The alternative is to propose a new pan-European "Community" or "Commonwealth" comprising the EU (enlarged to include the Balkans and maybe Turkey but represented as a single supra-national entity) and all the other countries of the Council of Europe, including Russia. Unlike the Council of Europe it would involve specified sovereignty-sharing but over a far more limited agenda than that of the EU itself. This agenda might be based on the partnership objectives already agreed between the EU and Russia. These envisage the eventual creation of "shared spaces" including free trade, common legal principles, internal security, foreign policy and energy.
It is true that relations with Russia are getting worse, not better, as Moscow retreats from democratic reform and the rule of law. Very firm conditions would have to be set for participation in this wider pan-European community, including respect of the Copenhagen criteria which define minimum standards of democracy and human rights for countries seeking to join the EU.
But making an offer to share real power in such a big European house would greatly strengthen the influence of the democrats and reformers in all the partner countries. It could help transform the rivalries between Russia and its neighbours which are being played out so dangerously in the Caucasus and elsewhere. It could cement a relationship of equality with Russia and ensure that it behaves as a reliable partner in the provision of energy to the EU. Building such a wider European community may also help ensure that the European Union itself is not overwhelmed by the consequences of the very success which has made it such a force for peace and progress across the European continent.
• John Palmer is a member of the governing board of the European Policy Centrein Brussels. He is the author of several books on European affairs including Europe Without America - The Crisis in Atlantic Relations