Brussels, 16/12/2010 (Agence Europe) - Two foreign affairs issues will dominate discussions in the morning of Friday 17 December - Montenegro's request for accession and the future of relations with “strategic partners”.
Montenegro. Heads of state and government are expected to grant Montenegro the status of “applicant country”, making it, therefore, the fifth official applicant for accession, along with Croatia, Turkey, Iceland (which are all already involved in negotiations) and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (which is still awaiting a date for the opening of talks but which, for the moment, continues to be faced with a Greek veto because of the dispute over the use of the name “Macedonia”). The European Commission has already recommended that Montenegro, which submitted its application for accession on 15 December 2008, be granted applicant status. In its report of 9 November, the Commission said that Montenegro had made sufficient progress in the reform process to be declared an applicant country - but not enough to be able to begin accession negotiations. The decision to open negotiations will require a further unanimous decision by member states, once the Commission has decided that Montenegro has met all the criteria. On Tuesday, the General Affairs Council was at pains not to express a position on granting the country applicant status, simply stating in its conclusions that the European Council would consider the matter (see EUROPE 10276). In the meantime, it would seem that there is broad agreement among member states on the issue “otherwise the leaders would not have put it on the European Council agenda”, a diplomat said.
Strategic Partners. High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton will give leaders a progress report on where she sees future relations with the EU's main strategic partners going. September's European Council asked her “to evaluate the prospects of relations with all strategic partners and set out in particular our interests and possible leverage to achieve them”. Ashton was asked to present a first report on progress made at the European Council in December. In this interim report, a copy of which EUROPE has seen, Ashton considers relations with China, Russia and the United States. Her work will continue at the start of 2011 with other partners, such as India, Brazil and South Africa.
The report to be presented to leaders on Friday already flags up some “preliminary findings”, including:
1) the need for a “differentiated approach”, as “each strategic partner is different in terms of starting points and future challenges”. In order to develop individualised strategies, the Foreign Affairs Council will hold more in-depth discussions on each of the countries concerned. The first debate, on Russia, is scheduled for January 2011; this will be followed “later on” by a debate on China;
2) the importance of better linking EU foreign and security policies with Community sectoral policies, such as trade, energy, climate change and immigration;
3) the growing importance of enhancing cooperation with strategic partners in international bodies, like the United Nations, G20 or international financial institutions, and also in regional organisations to seek to increase multilateralism;
4) the need to ensure that tasks and responsibilities are shared out properly within the EU. “Better Strategic Partnerships begin at home,” it says in the document, which argues for “the right distribution of roles between the EU and national levels”. Thus, “the EU level should play to its specific strengths” and “avoid claiming they are something they are not”. Member states must provide their backing every time positions are agreed by all 27 states. The EEAS can play an important role by providing “common messages” which member states can pass on to their bilateral contacts. The aim is not to have “a single voice” but to have “one message, 27 voices” to convey it, Ashton says.
5) the need for “strategic priorities” to be set at the top political level of the EU. The EU needs to be “creative” and avoid heavy procedures and work overloads. Summits with third countries require more effective preparation and follow-up if they are to be “better targeted at reaching EU objectives”. (H.B./transl.rt)