Jacques Delors and schizophrenia. In the affair of the Union's enlargement, I recognize myself in the qualification of "schizophrenia" of which Jacques Delors has spoken. I plead guilty, as I put two political demands on the same level, both fundamental but partially contradictory. The first is rapidly to take in the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe, to open up our arms to them with enthusiasm and recognition even, as well belonging to the same civilisation, we share the same history; the idea that there is a difference in nature between Vienna and Prague, or between Paris and Warsaw, or even between Rome and Budapest, is an aberration. The second demand is to safeguard European construction as it was devised and (imperfectly) achieved, which not only means acceptance but also the rigorous respect of all the acquis communautaire.
Between these two demands, it's impossible to choose: both are imperatives, but pull in opposite directions. The first incites to speed-up accession as fast as possible so as not to delay the reunification of Europe. Some technical prescriptions and some delays on one point or another are negligible given the significance of the result sought. But the second demand precisely requires rigour in economic, technical and political conditions, as some aspects of European construction are more fragile than we think, and a threat of a slide to the "intergovernmental method" always looms. Here therefore is the danger of schizophrenia, defined by Delors as follows: "the contrast between political urgency regularly affirmed and a purely technical negotiating brief, which risks leading to a discouraging inventory of the difficulties to face" (1).
The bicephalous clarity of Commissioner Verheugen. Nor can the Commissioner responsible for negotiations Gunter Verheugen avoid the contrast between the two demands. His latest speech before the press (2) comprises two parts: the first is a plea for an acceleration in accession negotiations, whereas the second reaffirms the need for rigour regarding the acquis communautaire. Obviously, Mr. Verheugen does not speak of contradiction between the two, but reaffirms that, in fact, the agenda for accession does not depend on the EU but on the applicant countries: they may join as soon as they are ready. Here is his phrase: "the ability to join will only be recognised when the criteria have been undisputedly met and there is certainty that Community law transposed will also be respected and taken very seriously". For his part, Commissioner Mario Monti has described as follows the scale of these problems in the competition sector, with, at first sight, an almost brutal frankness but based on the intellectual rigour that is his. He spoke of "flagrant breaches of their undertakings" by applicant countries and the need for them to apply Community rules "well before their accession" (see our bulletin dated 20 January, p.11).
To ignore the problem is clearly the simplest attitude, but it has one fault: that the problem remains. Objective observers know that the conditions firmly reaffirmed by Mr. Verheugen are not easy to meet: they are difficult for all applicant countries, and for some of them mean that no deadline, even approximate, can be set for accession. Are we really aware of what we are asking of these countries? Have we forgotten the number of years to took Member States themselves to reach there where they are now, and the shortcomings that, despite everything, remain?
Applicant countries reject any alternative formula. In the beginning, to overcomes the difficulty, Francois Mitterrand and Jacques Delors suggested a strong and immediate political gesture: the rapid creation of a Federation of States covering the current Union and Central and Eastern Europe. This path was not chosen. Some attempts were then made to rekindle the "European Conference" as alternative formula, if only provisional, providing it with more content and substance, but the trial balloons in that direction (including in this section) failed, and we had to face facts: applicant countries only accept as goal total membership, without intermediate stages. They are even mistrustful of "enhanced cooperation", in which they see "the risk (if not the desire) of dividing the enlarged Europe into classes of States" (3).
Hubert Vedrine's "little phrase". When chairing the EU Council, French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine had tried not to fall into the schizophrenic attitude by making a distinction between "belonging to Europe" and "membership of the EU". Let's read: "what is at stake is not to have these countries join Europe, as they are part of it, but to have them join an extraordinarily complex and increasingly demanding system, for which they must be well prepared" (4). Meanwhile, most applicant countries identify belonging to Europe with EU accession, and feel the obstacles to their accession as a rejection. And so, what to do? Continue down the road, that's obvious; but this does not solve everything, as difficulties will emerge, and delays accumulate. There is no magical formula. We must reflect, explain, discuss. This is the conclusion Jacques Delors himself reached. In presenting the aforementioned study by "Notre Europe", he wrote in the foreword: "Operationally, how can we reconcile the political urgency of enlargement with the indispensable time required to resolve the considerable problems facing us? We must make the effort of political imagination this dilemma demands."
Pretending nothing is amiss, concealing the problems, that's the worst attitude: an attitude of cowardice, of lack of political courage. The European Commission itself cannot confine itself to the consecrated formula by which the EU will be ready from 1 January 2003, and that deadlines will then depend on the applicants themselves. Something more will have to be said, reassure those countries most advanced in preparing for accession and at the same time propose something to those who must wait.
(F.R.)
- - - - - - - - - - -
(1) Foreword by Jacques Delors to the study "an enlargement unlike the others…." By Franciszek Draus, published by 'Notre Europe".
(2) Declaration reproduced in No.2226 of our "EUROPE/Documents" series.
(3) Franciszek Draus, in the aforementioned study.
(4) Interview with Hubert Vedrine in "Liberation" of 20 November, 2000.