Mutually damaging. There are certain people who believe or pretend to believe that a firm approach adopted by the Europeans with regard to further accession or access to the Schengen area, is symptomatic of selfishness and a lack of generosity and openness towards the EU's neighbours. The opposite is, in fact, the case. The very existence of the EU is at stake. A European Community (an old name missed by many) that is open but almost without any conditions would be watered down and would contain member states that are unable to respect the rules and principles or do not share the same objectives. Such an entity would have to abandon its goals. Common policies would no longer be able to function appropriately, cohesion policy would become unmanageable and institutional rotation would lead the presidency of the Council to be led by countries that were ill prepared.
This would be the end of European construction, to the disadvantage of all. Those who advocate rapid succession often see themselves as being open and generous, when in fact, the opposite is true. The body, which brings all European countries together and even pushes them further ahead, is the Council of Europe. It is doing its work well and is not in need of a duplicate body. EU enlargement will be done gradually, with countries that meet the conditions and share the same goals joining and only on this basis will the dream of European unity persevere.
Attractive-sounding but essentially empty declarations by ostensibly generous figures who are mapping out a united Europe that would one day include North African and Asian countries alike, do not understand that they are partly responsible themselves for the excessive positions that go in the opposite direction, namely the progress made by political currents guilty of concocting a theoretical and indeed racist European identity. A modicum of balance is necessary: candidate countries will join the EU when they have met the necessary conditions. Non-European countries cannot be part of a Community that is European that links with some of them can be consolidated and strengthened. The waiting period for Balkan countries is only provisional. Different situations exist in these countries and these will require a case-by-case analysis. What happens is essentially up to them. This column will soon attempt to provide a number of criteria in this connection.
A weakened Europe would not be able to be generous. It should also be added that if the EU is to expand willy-nilly and throw caution to the wind, it will be unable to fund its immense support projects to third countries. This support has not only been confirmed, it is currently being expanded and strengthened. The final example is the launch of the new “Neighbourhood Policy”, whose funding will be increased despite budgetary difficulties in almost all Community countries. These now find themselves subject to austerity programmes and the similar regime demanded by net contributor member states to the Community budget. This concept of net contributors is being opposed and is expected to disappear but for the time being it cannot be avoided. It is quite normal that each country protests against the cuts they are having to make and defends their right to funding. At a level of principles, we subsequently observe broad consensus on the need for austerity but this austerity is accompanied by a gnashing of teeth by those who are directly affected by the cuts. This observation does not exclusively concern member states and the Community budget but also and above all private interests: interest groups fiercely defend their corner and sometimes provide valid reasons but in a sometimes despicable way (such as certain clearly excessive subsidies to the wind energy sector).
Financial control. Hence, we now get to the most sensitive issue of all: justification for spending. In addition to the sometimes appropriate discussions and analyses by the different players regarding the pertinence and necessity of a specific project receiving funding, the most sensitive aspect of all involves the risk of unjustified subsidies or indeed waste and fraud. Scrupulous monitoring of the EU's internal spending has always existed and, despite the obvious shortcomings and abuses committed (which are difficult to control), the EU has in fact obtained some considerable results. The EU's external funding, however, largely escapes the different control mechanisms. Recent analyses provided in our publication have underlined a number of frankly embarrassing situations. The Commission's new document on “European Neighbourhood Policy” has already been mentioned above (it focuses on support to neighbouring countries that are not part of the EU) and illustrates a crucial development: the introduction of a link between funding and the progress made by beneficiary countries towards democracy and freedom. Greater monitoring of where European funding goes is being pursued and this column will look at this issue tomorrow. (F.R.trans/fl)