In the course of this month, the 27 heads of state or government have met twice. They have adopted positions on four countries that are currently in the news: Belarus, the United Kingdom, Turkey and China.
In its Conclusions of 2 October, the European Council condemned the “unacceptable violence” of repressions in Belarus and pledged its full support for the “democratic right of the Belarusian people to elect their President through new free and fair elections, without external interference”. It announced sanctions, agreeing that “restrictive measures should be imposed and [calling] on the Council to adopt a decision without delay”. These measures were soon in the public domain, with the Council of the EU applying the decision of the leaders the same day by written procedure: some 40 people, including the minister of the interior, identified as responsible for the repression and intimidation of democratic protesters, saw their assets frozen and a travel ban handed down until 28 February 2021 (see EUROPE B 12573A11). To much general disbelief, their boss, the sponsor of these horrors, was not one of the 40.
Ten days later, the foreign affairs ministers put things right by adding President Lukashenko to the list, on the grounds that he refused to enter into any negotiations with the democratic opposition (see EUROPE 12579/1). Bilateral cooperation with the authorities would be reduced whilst support to civil society would be increased. In the meantime, the autocrat had ordered Poland and Lithuania to recall their Minsk ambassadors and considerably to reduce their diplomatic representations (see EUROPE 12574/23).
At the second meeting (15-16 October), the European Council conclusions on Belarus were much shorter (three lines) and approved the Conclusions of the Council of the EU 12 October, expressing solidarity with Lithuania and Poland and condemning the “continuing violence against peaceful protesters” (see 12583/3). Two days later (last Sunday), despite police threats to use real bullets, tens of thousands of demonstrators were still in the streets and more than 200 were arrested. The head of the opposition, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, who was defeated in the presidential elections, issued an ultimatum to the despot: stand down before 25 October or there will be a general strike throughout the country. Moscow has already made it known that any interference from the EU would be unacceptable.
Another neighbouring country, the United Kingdom, was supposed to be the subject of a decision of the European Council last week. The facts are all on the table. Last spring, negotiators and decision-makers proclaimed that if no agreement on fishing could be reached in early July, negotiations on the future relationship would break down. Then, the European establishment unanimously decided to set the cut-off date for the conclusion of a global agreement to 15 October, taking account of the time needed for ratifications and preparations for its implementation on 1 January of next year.
Not only were talks stumbling, Prime Minister Johnson put a law bill violating the current withdrawal agreement (particularly concerning Northern Ireland) to the vote of the House of Commons on 14 September, despite warnings from the EU. The Commission sent an ultimatum to the British government to withdraw the contentious provisions from the text: this was ignored. On 1 October, the Commission launched infringement proceedings with a letter of formal notice (see EUROPE 12572/21). It was clear at that point that the trust was gone, for what is the point of entering into an agreement for the future if the signatory of the current agreement flouts his commitments? Where would be the security of a new agreement with a partner of that ilk? And yet the EU chose to continue to negotiate, in an atmosphere of damaged morale.
The European Council supposed to include this point on its agenda, with a space in the draft Conclusions. The leaders discussed the matter for two hours on Thursday, behind closed doors in a secure environment (see EUROPE 12582/1). The official conclusions expressed their conclusions expressed their “concern” at the lack of progress on key matters. “Against this background, the European Council invites the Union’s chief negotiator to continue negotiations in the coming weeks, and calls on the UK to make the necessary moves to make an agreement possible. As regards the Internal Market Bill tabled by the UK government, the European Council recalls that the Withdrawal Agreement and its Protocols must be fully and timely implemented. The European Council calls upon Member States, Union institutions and all stakeholders to step up their work on preparedness and readiness at all levels and for all outcomes, including that of no agreement, and invites the Commission, in particular, to give timely consideration to unilateral and time-limited contingency measures that are in the EU’s interest”.
The tendency to handle London with kid gloves is a constant along European leaders: readers will recall the unbelievable concessions granted before the referendum of 2016, in the crazy hope of victory. Despite its diplomatic language, the European Council was soon humiliated by Boris Johnson, who blamed it for the failure. On Friday evening, the British negotiator, David Frost, told Michel Barnier that there was no basis for new negotiations. This made the latter’s trip to London earlier this week seem pointless (see EUROPE 12583/2). Speaking on behalf of his government on Sunday, Michael Gove called upon Europeans to “fundamentally change their approach”. A discussion on the “format of the negotiations” was due to begin this Monday (see other article). The confusion is considerable.
After their meeting, the leaders repeated like a mantra that they wanted an agreement, but not at any price. Time will tell whether the European Council would not have done better – and won more respect – if it had simply responded to this deadlock situation by stating: “game over!”. (To be continued)
Renaud Denuit