How will Slovakia define itself in EU? by Heather Grabbe Published in the International Herald Tribune: 14 January 2004

LONDON: As Slovakia moves toward European Union membership on May 1, its leaders face a dilemma familiar to any prospective member state: what role should their country seek to play in the Union? With a population of just 5.4 million, Slovakia cannot aspire to join big countries like France and Germany in trying to shape the Union in its own image. As a relatively poor country, it hopes to gain funds from its EU partners rather than exerting influence through being a paymaster.

But size and wealth alone do not determine the role that a country plays. Take Italy. Although it is one of the biggest members and has been at the heart of the Union since the very beginning of European integration, Italy has never punched its weight in the EU.

The history of European integration shows that the most important factors determining a country's influence are the competence of its public administration, and the unity of its politicians about the goals of the EU. Italy never used its weight to the full because its public administration was chaotic and its political leadership changeable through many decades of membership.

Poland could have the same problems as a member, if things do not improve rapidly. Slovakia could, too, if nationalist politicians gain ground in the 2006 elections and if the civil service keeps losing its best people to the private sector.

Influence is not the only thing a country can gain from membership, however. Ireland has never sought to steer the whole EU; but its experience of membership has been generally happy because it used EU funds to modernize its economy. Ireland's leaders generally swam with mainstream opinion in the EU, and Ireland gained self-confidence from EU membership, enabling it to escape from the colonial shadow of Britain. Slovakia could follow this model, using membership to overcome a history of domination by its larger neighbors prior to its independence in 1993.

Member states can also choose their own destiny to some extent. Small countries like Belgium and Luxembourg have pursued intense federalism, believing that common policies are the best way to maximize influence vis-à-vis much bigger neighbors like Germany.

Denmark and Britain have chosen the opposite strategy, negotiating opt-outs from common policies that were not to the liking of their populations.

Slovakia has so far tended to follow mainstream opinion among the small countries, for example in the debate about the new constitution. But Finance Minister Ivan Miklos recently broke with the more federalist member states with his flat tax policies, seeking to maintain Slovakia's competitiveness and inward investment by setting income and corporate tax rates that are more attractive to business than those in other EU countries.

In the year ahead, Slovakia faces two important decisions that will help determine its role. The Bratislava government has to nominate its member of the European Commission by the end of February. Although commissioners are not supposed to represent their country's interests directly, an effective commissioner is undoubtedly a national asset.

If Slovakia nominates the prime minister, Mikulas Dzurinda, he is sure to get an important portfolio as a political heavy-hitter. But the job may not be attractive to a politician who has been running his own country for nearly six years. Jan Figel, Slovakia's former chief negotiator for entry, would be a very competent commissioner, but he would lack the clout of a former prime minister, so Slovakia would get a less prestigious commission job.

The other big choice for 2004 is Slovakia's stance in the talks over the next EU budget, which will run from 2007 to 2013. This will be the first big test for the 10 new members to prove themselves as canny negotiators. All want to maximize the flow of euros from Brussels.

The new members are mostly considerably poorer than the existing 15 members, with gross domestic product per capita at one-third to two-thirds of the EU average, so they would benefit from programs that direct funds toward poorer parts of the Union. But should Slovakia try to hang on to the funds it has already been awarded, or should it advocate a new set of policies for the EU that might suit its economy and farmers better?

The budget battle will be the first major indicator of Slovakia's role as a member. The country's public administration will be under pressure as it struggles to administer the funds that are already coming from Brussels through the Common Agricultural Policy. The country's political class will be tested by whether it can make its views heard and gain allies. And, most important, the Slovak people will get a chance to see the EU from the inside.

Ultimately, the role that Slovakia will play depends on the choices its people make about what they want to get out of membership.

Heather Grabbe is deputy director of the Centre for European Reform in London.