Brussels, 21/08/2001 (Agence Europe) - In a comment on "The Swedish Presidency and the European Council at Gothenburg", published in the "A View From Brussels" series, Peter Ludlow, founding Director of CEPS (Centre for European Policy Studies) observes that one of the major subjects of the Summit that closed the Swedish Presidency - sustainable development - was "so unfamiliar that it was difficult to arrive at a clear, let alone operational definition of what it entailed". It was, however, an "original" subject, "high on morality, and brimming over with constructive internationalism", Peter Ludlow remarks, noting that "there is no Commissioner for sustainable development. There are no ministers at national level either. And there is no committee in the European Parliament. It is, it might be said, a concept in search of definition and institutionalisation".
As for the other major subject, enlargement, Ludlow considered that progress made in this field was the Swedes' "true monument". But that, although "it may seem ungenerous to say so, the Swedish Presidency's success at Gothenburg looks in retrospect more like a Pyrrhic victory, which the Union will come to regret". He is here alluding to the objective included in the Summit's conclusions that the most advanced applicant countries should be able to take part in the European elections of 2004, and thus considers that the EU is giving these countries "the impression that promises have been made which, with the best will in the world, it will be difficult to honour". According to him, the Union even risks "losing face as a result of the language used in Gothenburg" in the conclusions on EU enlargement.
More generally, while stating that the Swedish Presidency was "in general well above average", Mr. Ludlow criticises it noting that "virtually everything in what the Presidency, and this case quite specifically the prime minister, did before, during and after the meeting was geared towards making a favourable impression at home and, more particularly, towards ensuring that the government's image as the champion and pioneer of new methods of consultation with citizens and the advocate of the best causes would be spectacularly enhanced". In addition, he notes that, forced to renounce their separate dinners by the violent demonstrations of the first day of the Summit, the heads of government had to eat with their foreign ministers who had finally "dominated" the debates "to the evident surprise and irritation of some of the heads of state and government". (Mr. Ludlow takes up the remark by Mr. Aznar who said that it had been "highly instructive for the heads of state to listen to their brilliant foreign ministers, but it would be better next time if they could be left to get on with discussions on their own").
Mr. Ludlow also makes an assessment of the semester of the Swedish Presidency noting that the most remarkable success of the Permanent Representative Gunnar Lund had certainly been the adoption of new rules on public access to documents. The Swedish Ambassador, Ludlow writes, broached this topic with "a determination and a readiness to take risks that surprised even those of his colleagues who had become accustomed to his style" and had conducted negotiations "without the support of either Coreper, the Council Secretariat or the Commission" - and had succeeded.
(CEPS, 1 place du Congres, Brussels. Tel.: 229 3911. Fax 219 4151. E-mail: info@ceps.be. Internet: http: //http://www.ceps.be ).