The issue: Is Bulgaria ready to accede to the European Union on January 1 next year?
The scale of emotions and expectations being stirred up about the European Commission report due for release on May 16 is such that uninformed observers might think that the question at issue is not about when, but whether, Bulgaria will join the European Union.

When the report is released, we shall know whether the EC recommends that Bulgaria’s accession should go ahead on January 1 2007, or should go ahead but subject to the invocation of “pause clauses” with regard to areas such as justice and home affairs, or should be delayed until January 2008. There have been a series of media reports suggesting that the EC may decide not to decide, and delay the announcement of its recommendation on a date until later this year. Amid a vast field of competing media reports variously affirming support for one, or occasionally more than one of these scenarios, we shall also know how well-placed or well-informed the sources are who have been cited, anonymously naturally, in these reports.

At this writing, it appears that we shall hear a date. As the crescendo grew of reports saying that no date would be given, EU Commission president Jose Barroso said that the journalists responsible had got it wrong. “The EC will definitely take a decision on Bulgaria and Romania on May 16,” Barroso told a conference at the European Parliament on May 9. However, Barroso indicated that another option could be for Bulgaria to join the EU in 2007 - but not on January 1. In this scenario, the country would be admitted to the EU sometime later in 2007, subject to having completed a number of tasks set for it by the EC.

He told the conference that the EC had the options of saying, “ ‘yes to 2007, come in without any other condition,’ or ‘no, you are not ready,’ or ‘yes to 2007 provided you do this, this and this.’”

If the EC recommends on May 16 that Bulgaria achieves its goal of admission to the European Union on January 1 2007, but with its justice and home affairs system temporarily excluded from full EU status, few Bulgarians would be surprised, and probably few foreign residents in the country, and nor several diplomats and NGOs who would question whether criticism should limited only to the country’s shortcomings in reforming its judicial and law enforcement systems.

Against a background of serious organised crime and corruption problems hampering the country, along with inadequacies in constitutional reform, recent months have seen senior EU officials being equivocal about the country’s readiness to join the EU.

This led some to hint that the May 16 report might not even name a date. If it does not, there would be a new question mark in the timetable of Bulgaria’s EU accession. The process is meant to be that the EC monitoring report will be followed by a decision on the accession dates of Bulgaria and its northern neighbour Romania by the EU Council in June.

Even then, for accession to go ahead on January 1 2007, the countries’ accession treaty, signed in Luxembourg in April 2005, must by December 31 this year be ratified by all 25 member states. This process, while progressing steadily, is not yet complete, and Bulgaria’s Government has been watching with concern the attitudes taken by leaders in countries such as Germany and France where Euro-skepticism is a key theme.

While organised crime, corruption, and inadequacies in the judicial system have long been profound matters of concern, for a time Bulgaria made good progress. In its October 2002 monitoring report, the EC voiced the opinion that Bulgaria had a functioning market economy. Bulgaria concluded its membership negotiations in 2004, eight months ahead of Romania, but in recent months Bucharest’s government has led its country ahead of Bulgaria.

In Bulgaria, the past few years have been more than 140 high-profile murders widely seen as linked to organised crime, including in the past two years of some of the country’s wealthiest business people. Among the more recent assassinations was that of Ivan “The Doctor” Todorov, linked in media reports published after his death to allegations of having been involved in a lucrative cigarette smuggling ring with Slobodan Milosevic’s son, Marko.

Domestically, there has been concern in Bulgaria that the activities of ultra-nationalist political coalition Ataka, that has been preaching messages of xenophobia and racism that won it nine per cent of the seats in Parliament in summer 2005, could have a negative effect on Bulgaria’s EU prospects.

In some cases, Bulgaria has tripped itself up, changing its constitution in March 2006 to address EC concerns about lack of accountability of the judiciary, but coming up with a solution criticized from European quarters as instead impinging on the independence of the judiciary.

However, postponement of accession by a year would require the unanimous approval of all 25 member states. For Romania, invocation of such a clause would be easier, requiring a qualified majority of two-thirds of member states.

The safeguard clause cannot be invoked on a whim. The decision must be based on clear evidence in EC monitoring reports of Bulgaria or Romania being manifestly unprepared to meet the requirements for membership.

Analysis of the consequences of various scenarios involving either a full year’s delay in the membership of Bulgaria, or the invocation of one or more safeguard clauses, was done by a group of experts from various NGOs operating as the “Group for European Analysis and Prognosis”.

According to the group’s report, released in mid-April, accession on January 1 2007 would have economic and political benefits both for the EU and Bulgaria, and enhance Bulgaria’s stature as a pro-EU player in South Eastern Europe.

A delay would have several negative impacts, for example by giving more breathing space to organised criminals, and by hampering a huge amount of funds to significant areas, including Bulgaria’s farmers. A delay would likely cause a wave of Euroskepticism in the South Eastern Europe region, losing ground to, among other dynamics, ultra-nationalism. Domestically, the safeguard clause would probably have a negative impact on Bulgaria’s tripartite coalition Cabinet, and be a disincentive to further foreign investment.

The group said that if the clause was invoked in regard to justice and home affairs, while it would cause lesser public discontent and affect fewer institutions and businesses than a full-blown postponement, would create “asymmetry” in the European justice system, for example because Bulgarian court decisions would not be applicable elsewhere in the EU.

There have been ample signals causing concern among Bulgaria’s Government and citizens about what the EC might recommend.

On April 26, the European Parliament rapporteur for Bulgaria, Geoffrey van Orden, said that the country had achieved some progress in judicial reform and fighting organised crime, but the option of imposing a safeguard clause on the justice and home affairs chapter should be considered if it would encourage more effective reforms.

Such a safeguard clause can be imposed with immediate effect on the date of accession, or anytime up during a three-year period after accession.

Also on April 26, EU enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn said that Bulgaria and Romania had shown definite will to reform but called into question whether progress had been sufficient.

Earlier, speaking to the European Parliament foreign affairs committee on April 4, Rehn said that progress in judicial reform had been limited, that the fight against corruption needed to be addressed much more vigorously, that reforms of crime-fighting structures had failed to result in a sufficient number of investigations and prosecutions, that trafficking in people remained a problem for Bulgaria, and that Bulgaria needed to speed up efforts to integrate its Roma minority. He also criticized shortcomings in protection of intellectual property rights, and in veterinary services.

Rehn said that the commission “would not hesitate” to invoke safeguard clauses if this was necessary, “to remedy possible deficiencies that may persist after accession”.

Rehn’s forthright criticism caused alarm and mutual reproach among Bulgaria’s politicians. Soon afterwards, Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev said that postponing Bulgaria’s entry would be a “grave political mistake” because it would embolden those who opposed democracy, and send the wrong signal to the countries of the Western Balkans, a troubled region that nonetheless encompasses countries that aspire to EU membership.

Later in April, EU justice commissioner Franco Frattini hinted that membership could go ahead in 2007, but subject to conditions.
“Both Bulgaria and Romania are working very well in the right direction, that’s my opinion in my portfolio area,” Frattini said, but said that further Brussels monitoring after accession was possible.

More recently, it has become clear that whatever decision the EC recommends with regard to an accession date, Bulgaria should expect a withering blast from Brussels.

On May 8, European commissioner for information, society and media said that the country should expect a critical EC report. Rehn, she said, was not satisfied with the progress made in reforms by Bulgaria and Romania.

The country’s leaders have also continued the theme of warning of the adverse consequences of delayed accession. On May 9, Foreign Minister Ivailo Kalfin said that a delay could cause problems in the treaty ratification process in several countries. He said that if the report acknowledged the achievements of Bulgaria in the past six months, and named a date of entry, it would assist Bulgaria in fulfilling the outstanding requirements for accession. While this statement by Kalfin appeared to have been a not particularly opaquely coded message to the EC, Kalfin appeared also to have been preparing the ground on the domestic front. On May 8, he said that the EC’s May 16 report would not be pleasant.