Apart from for Croatia and Iceland, who still actually believes in further EU accessions in the foreseeable future? Let's be quite clear, European Commission reports on the situation and the prospects of each country do not close any doors behind them. Ongoing negotiations will continue and others are likely to be opened - encouragement and praise is not in short supply in the Commission's assessment and further progress will still be observed next year. The process, however, does, fundamentally, appear blocked. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty will get rid of the political blockage exerted by France and a number of other countries but this won't change the situation on the ground.
A lot of things have to change. The meaning and importance for the countries concerned in becoming accession candidates and negotiating accession is considerable. The situation includes political and material advantages (financial support, relaxed trade regimes, different kinds of cooperation) and above all, it represents a powerful spur in favour of domestic reforms. The annual Commission reports (summarised in EUROPE 9998 and in our 10,000th edition, for Kosovo) are often encouraging and the countries involved in the process are right to prioritise it, but these reports also underline that things have to change in order for the goals and different hopes to materialise.
There is still the question of delays and shortcomings in one or other domain when it comes to explaining why things are blocked or why progress is slow but, in my opinion, the lack of understanding is sometimes astounding. Some candidate countries give the impression that they have not understood the fundamental reasons for European construction or its real significance, or at least fail to take these reasons into account or reject them.
Reconciliation, the priority objective. The priority objective of European construction and why it came into being was reconciliation between countries that for centuries and centuries had not ceased to make war on each other. Too many candidate countries, as well as those that aspire to become candidates, appear to be pursuing diametrically opposed objectives. Becoming part of the EU too often represents one-up-man-ship over a neighbouring country and strengthens national positions in endless quarrels. Progress in accession negotiations is sometimes used as a weapon. Attempts to create multi-ethnic and multicultural states have largely failed in sometimes shattering examples, such as in the case of Kosovo or even more dramatically as in Bosnia. Should we bite the bullet and admit that the EU has perhaps made a mistake in calling for union between different peoples that, on the contrary, are coming together according to ethnic and sometimes religious criteria? They were, perhaps, at a given moment doing this but resorted to unacceptable methods and levels of excess. Whatever the truth may be, what are we actually witnessing? Kosovo has obtained independence but Serbia contests it and five EU member states have not recognised it either; Bosnia is moving further away instead of getting closer to accession (see EUROPE yesterday) and other situations are difficult or in danger of becoming so.
Non-viable states? The economic situation is not, in some cases, the most brilliant either, not because of the existence of budgetary deficits or other shortcomings (which member state in the eurozone doesn't have a problem of this kind?) but in the sense that a few countries have demanded independence but do not appear viable. They are unable to pay their civil servants or make the state machinery work and their economies are largely based on contraband or indeed organised crime. Obviously, we shouldn't generalise - several Balkan states have healthy economies and continue to make encouraging progress. Perhaps, it would be best to make a distinction and not be in too much of a hurry in this connection. Some influential MEPs consider (and don't hide the fact) that the two most recent accessions have been a little hasty.
Internal repercussions. The EU should not pretend to ignore the institutional repercussions of fragmentation in certain candidate countries. Serbia was a single state and has split into three, with each state having the right to accession and its own commissioner, a set number of MEPs and a voice on the Council. The Commission would gradually become an Assembly instead of an executive power.
These considerations do not constitute an invitation to refuse future enlargement. The EU must remain open, the Balkan countries' vocation of accession must be confirmed because they belong in Europe and gradually, at a different pace, they will move closer towards it. The problems highlighted, however, should not be ignored - it is only by admitting they exist that it will be possible to resolve them.
I did not mention the case of Turkey, which is completely different. That will be for tomorrow.
(F.R./transl.rh)