Last week's European Union summit in Brussels gave a cautious backing to further EU expansion with EU leaders saying that applicants had to adhere to strict conditions and the that process of enlargement depended on the reform of European institutions.

"Past enlargements have been successful. Today we mapped out the best ways to ensure that future enlargements will also be successful," Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen remarked. "It is important that the candidate countries meet the requirements and that the Union is able to function effectively and to develop," he said.

European Commission President José Manuel Barroso emphasised that institutional reform formed part of the EU's consensus on expansion, making it clear that the two must go together. Mr Barroso also said that an effort would be made at better communication with EU citizens on the benefits of enlargement. The summit also confirmed a slowdown in talks on Turkey's membership of the EU, which I consider to a very unfortunate state of affairs.

There is no doubt that Europe is suffering somewhat from 'enlargement fatigue' - the French and Dutch 'No' vote in the referenda on the European Constitutional Treaty was proof of this - and Mr Barroso's commitment to communicate better on the advantages of enlargement is certainly welcome.

However, more is needed than just a better communication strategy by the European Commission. Many EU leaders seem to be getting cold feet about the admission of new member states and a number of comments by certain leaders have sent mixed signals about the bloc's commitment to further expansion.

The question of Turkey is a case in point. The summit's decision to endorse a slowdown in Turkey's membership talks is indeed regrettable and suggests that both sides have almost reached a point of no return. The freeze came as a result of Ankara's refusal to open its ports to Greek Cypriot vessels, which it promised to do when it signed the so-called Ankara Protocol. Turkey says this is due to the EU's refusal to open up direct air and sea links with the Turkish Northern Cyprus, which it says would result in a huge injection of money into the territory, as a result of massive tourism from Europe.

In reality, both sides need to do more and need to be able to compromise. Turkey should soften its stand on Greek Cypriot vessels entering its ports. After all, Cyprus, a member of the EU which Turkey wants to join, is represented by the Greek Cypriot government. The EU, on the other hand, should make a real effort to resolve the division of Cyprus and to exert pressure on the Greek Cypriot government to be more flexible.

It is simply unacceptable that the Cypriot question - which has dragged on for over 30 years mainly because of the stubbornness of both sides - should be allowed to derail Turkey's EU membership bid, which in my opinion will bring huge strategic advantages to both the EU and Turkey.

Somehow one cannot be blamed for suspecting that certain EU member states, such as Germany, Austria, France and the Netherlands, are using Cyprus as a smokescreen to hide their own uneasiness about Turkey joining the EU. This will no doubt lead to Cyprus continuing to be inflexible because it knows that it has the support of the EU, including the backing of the powerful and influential German-Franco axis.

Nobody is saying that Turkey's EU bid is not a huge challenge for the EU - in fact it is the greatest challenge the bloc has ever had to face - but I am sure it will rise to the occasion as it has done in the past. The successful integration of Turkey into the EU - even if membership negotiations will take many years, as I am sure they will - is a prize hardly worth risking. A modern Muslim democracy will bring huge benefits not only for Turkey, but also for Europe and the entire Muslim world.

I have so far only dealt with Turkey - perhaps because it is the most important potential EU member - but the enlargement process must continue for all the candidate countries and prospective candidate countries. While the EU summit welcomed next month's admission of Romania and Bulgaria, it was made clear that the entry criteria will be strictly applied on all new applicants. This is perhaps to counter public opinion, which believed that not enough reforms had been carried out by Romania and Bulgaria and that these two countries were allowed into the EU far too early.

Although these two states both need to do more to adhere to EU criteria, especially with regard to judicial reform, I still think it was correct to admit them. Naturally the EU will continue to monitor these countries' progress from within the bloc.

While the EU summit's emphasis on linking further expansion with an agreement on a constitutional treaty is understandable - the idea is to make the Union more manageable as it expands - this should not be used as an excuse to postpone enlargement indefinitely. After next year's French presidential election the EU must be ready to come to an agreement on this treaty and hopefully there will be one by 2008.

In the meantime EU leaders must speak out in favour of enlargement and give hope to countries such as Croatia (already a candidate country), Macedonia, Serbia, Albania, Bosnia, Montenegro, Georgia and yes, Turkey. Each of these countries have their own particular set of circumstances and difficulties but it is important for them to know that in principle, Europe's door has not been shut for them. This sense of hope is enough to act as a catalyst for political and economic change.

It is important that the EU does not lose sight of the fact that enlargement has been a complete success story which has brought economic prosperity, peace, stability and a consolidation of democracy to new entrants as well as tremendous benefits to the EU as a whole. It is with this vision that the bloc should look at the next enlargement waves.