Helsinki has been billed quite accurately as the European Union's enlargement summit. There is no denying the description, given the scale and scope of the decisions being taken here. Membership will probably double over the next generation. Patterns of representation and decision-making are to be changed, and the definition of the EU as a security community and civilian power takes on new meaning as it gives itself the military capacity to police disputes on its periphery. As a result of these changes, Ireland's position and interests will alter significantly, requiring real political leadership to carry public feeling along.
This is the meat of the summit, much of it pre-cooked, but subject to a final seasoning or flambe. The several contentious issues requiring decision here, including Turkey's role, relations with Russia, and Chechnya, are in fact closely related to the main agenda items. Such a community must distinguish between family members and neighbours.
If it is serious about stabilising the Balkans by extending security through a perspective of eventual - or virtual - membership, it makes much sense to include Turkey in the family.
But if Turkey, why not Ukraine? According to the Commission, it is better not to pose questions for which there are as yet no answers.
The Finnish EU presidency is particularly well placed to chair such a summit discussion. By common consent its organisational planning has been superb; its capacity for spontaneous management will determine the resolution of contentious issues.
Finland joined the EU precisely to ensure its security and political identity after the long engagement with Russia and the Soviet Union through the Cold War.
In that respect it shares several interests with Ireland - both have affirmed political independence and gained international influence by pooling sovereignty.
In Helsinki one also gets a real sense of a dynamic Baltic region. The wealth of Scandinavian and Nordic states and northern Germany has been joined across the sea by emerging democracies and market societies in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the rapid development of Poland and the relative wealth of the St Petersburg region.
There is talk of a new Hanseatic network. Percy Barnevik, chairman of the Swedish-Swiss engineering company, ABB, says that "from the Mediterranean to the Arctic Sea, no region stands to gain more from the dramatic changes that have taken place in Europe".
In Lithuania, for example, the prospect of EU membership has become an essential ingredient in the transformation of its political, economic and security structures. Domestic reforms and EU accession go hand in hand; negotiators say 90 per cent of their agreements have to be reached in Vilnius rather than Brussels - with government departments and interest groups. It is not surprising that opposition parties sometimes talk of annexation rather than accession. Nevertheless the association of reform with integration changes behaviour; on the eve of this summit the Latvian government substantially amended language legislation that has offended the large Russian minority there.
IT is all a brave new world so far as Ireland is concerned. The emerging Europe puts much greater emphasis on political, normative and security concerns than on the clientelist access to Brussels, transfers and higher agricultural prices that have formed the bedrock of more cynical appraisals of Ireland's successful performance in the EC/EU since we joined in 1973 in the first enlargement.
This, the fifth one, is, as Anna Murphy points out, "quite different from previous rounds in terms of its implications for European security, its potential reach, the development gap between applicant and existing members, the diversity of applicant countries and the broad strategy developed by the EU to manage enlargement". But alongside the clientelist account of the first generation of Irish membership there must be put what might be called the liberation account.
It enabled this State to escape over-dependence on the UK by diversifying its political, diplomatic and economic relations while developing its confidence and identity. These values will be much more relevant in the generation to come.
The existing Irish style has been well defined as informal efficiency. It has been based on an enviable capacity to survive by the seat of the pants, skilled generalist diplomacy and limited bureaucratic resources.
In a larger and more diverse EU there will be a need for a more strategic and analytical approach, based on more formal inter-departmental co-ordination within government and a more careful ranking of priorities across issue-areas.
That would bring Ireland into line with other smaller EU member-states. At present we are much the most underrepresented one diplomatically.
The most recent Euro-barometer poll also put support for enlargement among the lowest in the EU, with 34 per cent don't knows. Trade with the accession states is small, but growing fast. Ireland has a huge interest in a stable and prosperous continent and much to gain from full participation in it.
"Turn and Face the Change: Ireland and Enlargement of the European Union", Irish Studies in International Affairs, vol 10, 1999.
