Differing opinions. The European Council's approval with the conclusion of Croatia's accession negotiations has not only opened the door to the EU for Western Balkan countries (even if the heads of state and governments called for some precautionary measures regarding final phase monitoring), it has also relaunched the debate on further accession of other countries in the same region. There is no unanimous opinion regarding this debate. The EU is obviously in principle open to all European countries but with regard to further enlargement conditions, opinions differ. The Presidency of the Council, which is coming to a close on Thursday, in principle supports all the different candidacies. When it expresses itself on behalf of the EU it insists on respect for all the conditions. The personal positions of the Hungarian prime minister, however, are explicitly in favour of as broad an opening as possible for further accession. He even goes as far as defending a conception of Europe's borders, which could perhaps be described as, let's say, rather generous. The accession of Moldova has been referred to in no uncertain terms! On the other hand, other institutions and political forces insist on greater respect for the conditions, and some of them even consider that the accession of Bulgaria and Romania were premature. Several countries in the queue do not appear anywhere near meeting the necessary conditions for becoming member states, as the conditions stem from the texts and are devised by the European Commission and the majority of the European Parliament. Let's not forget that, when the time comes, each accession will have to be ratified by all the different national parliaments of the member states.
Dangers of oversimplification. In addition to the trend for strictness, there is another much more lax tendency, for which the question of European unity is, above all, a question of principle: the priority objective is one of bringing all European countries together (with a certain flexibility with regard to the geographical interpretation of the word Europe) with the goal of making future conflict impossible, whilst advocating the fundamental concepts of democracy and freedom.
In my opinion, these arguments are valid but they are also oversimplistic and rather disingenuous. I will briefly explain: (a) the organisation that brings all European countries together (with a certain flexibility that extends the concept of Europe as far as Siberia, Anatolia and part of the Caucasus) already exists - it is the Council of Europe, which is very strict in its monitoring of respect for human rights; (b) any accession of a country unable to respect Community rules weakens the EU because it prevents it from functioning institutionally and stymies its common policies;( c) the number of EU regions benefiting from cohesion policy funding would be radically reduced because new member states (those in the Balkans or Turkey) would lead to a significant reduction in the criteria and calculation modalities. Is the Committee of the Regions aware of this?
Success and failures. Slovenia is often quoted as an example of the successful accession of a country that was part of the former Yugoslavia. Slovenia, however, was not really a Balkan country. Its history and geography locate it more within Mitteleurope. Croatia has been able to free itself from the conflicts it was involved in with its neighbours and its situation is quite similar to that of Slovenia. The different conflicts that followed the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia led to the creation of different states based on ethnic criteria and with inexistent or miniscule minorities (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). The only multi-ethnic state was practically imposed by the West, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and we are well aware of how it works or rather, how it doesn't work. It is a situation of non-co-operation, which would be ridiculous if it were not so tragic. Kosovo declared unilateral independence on the basis of ethnic criteria (it is, nevertheless, refusing to hand back to Serbia the small part of Kosovan territory inhabited by a majority of Serbians!). It is, however, only recognised by ten or so EU member states. The situation is patently absurd with regard to the European goal of developing a common foreign policy.
The economic viability of certain states (Montenegro and Kosovo itself) is problematic but perhaps not totally out of the question. Certain domestic situations (in Albania, for example) have nothing to do with the hypothesis of joining the EU. As a first step, the wish of these countries' inhabitants is sometimes modest - for example, the desire to have access to the “Schengen area” without needing a visa. Afterwards, however, it transpires that some “Balkan” citizens benefiting from this situation subsequently go on to demand the right of asylum! Something which is unacceptable.
Ideas and formulas. Faced with a confusing situation, constantly in flux, I do not pretend to have any magic potion but, rather, the conviction that the principles of European construction have to be safeguarded. Different ideas and formulas are doing the rounds and this column will examine them tomorrow. (F.R./transl.fl)