“Eastern partnership” is positive but... Poland needs to be understood from both a political and economic point of view. Beyond the existing domestic rivalries, which are normal in all democratic countries during an election period, there is a collective subconscious marked by past historical events, and during one period, the very existence of the country appeared threatened. It is logical that Poland's relationship with the countries and regions of the East has a particular significance, to the extent that its support for these relations even involves backing these countries' accession to the EU. We can understand this on condition that the EU is in no way compromised by developments in this connection. The development of the Eastern Partnership is positive because the EU has to strengthen its ties with its eastern neighbours, in a similar way that it has to do likewise with its neighbours on the southern banks of the Mediterranean or with its non-European eastern countries, with whom ties do not imply accession (this mistake was made in connection with Turkey but is currently being corrected). The goal is one of developing closer ties and more effective cooperation with eastern countries that so wish but this does not necessarily mean their participation in Community institutions or its budget. If this were indeed the case, it would mean the end of European Union construction as planned.
A compromise and wish list. EUROPE 10464 provided a broad report on the Eastern Partnership Summit in Warsaw on 29-30 September. Poland was not isolated in its support in principle for further accession. When the country's prime minister, Donald Tusk, expressed the wish that Ukraine soon become a new member state, his Hungarian counterpart, Viktor Orban, took the same line and advocated, “EU eastward enlargement”. Other participants were more cautious and mentioned free trade or association agreements. The texts adopted recognise the European aspirations of six countries in this partnership: Ukraine, Moldavia, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus and Azerbaijan. This does in fact represent a compromise. During the summit's preparations, which were extended for two months, the use of the term European was discussed at length because the six above-mentioned countries extend into zones whose European character is controversial from an historical and geographical point of view (leaving aside the political situation, because there is room for further development in this area). The term accession, however, was not retained. It cannot be taken for granted either that all six countries are interested in joining the EU. Azerbaijan is said to be seeking to develop agreements and links in the energy arena but does not have any institutional or other goals.
The disputed word. Although the word accession does not appear in the official text, it was, nevertheless, very often mentioned during the debates and employed in the media. With regard to Belarus, whose specific situation has created a number of diplomatic and other complications, the Polish Prime Minister affirmed that, “a place within the European family is waiting” for this country. The United Kingdom was explicitly in favour of EU enlargement to the whole zone, in line with its policy that is either reticent about or opposed to anything that could enhance the Community and supranational nature of the Union and which might help to dilute developments in this direction. France, however, was quite clearly diametrically opposed to the former's position and the country's European affairs minister emphasised that, “the partnerships do not represent stages towards accession”. He also explained that it was necessary to avoid expectations that might be disappointed and that they should avoid repeating the Turkish scenario.
It should also be indicated that the text on Belarus (calling for the immediate release of political prisoners, the end to repression of civil society and the media) was supported by the EU and its member states but not by the non-EU members of the Partnership.
The EU must stick to its goals. I am convinced that several member states and different political forces are just as sceptical as I am about the real prospects of accession for countries from the Eastern Partnership. This is because these countries do not meet the necessary conditions. Nonetheless, the member states and different political forces in question consider that such a hypothesis would encourage the Eastern Partnership countries to go down the road of democracy, economic development and cooperation with the EU. These are obviously three positive objectives which should, however, in my opinion, be pursued in a different way. The strength of European construction should not lose out. It is essential that the EU avoids becoming a kind of stand-in for the Council of Europe, which has its advantages and its own role but whose ambitions are quite different. The conditions for joining the EU should not be watered down but rather reinforced so that it does not lose its effectiveness (already partly compromised) and it must stick to its goals.
This column will attempt to justify this position tomorrow. (FR/trans/fl)