What he said and did not say. The stance taken by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs on enlargement made waves; but I believe that it has not always been properly interpreted. Hubert Védrine was speaking at the beginning of the week, within the General Affairs Council, in the debate over the European Commission documents relating to the enlargement negotiations and the political and economic situation in various accession candidate countries. He did not say that in France's opinion, it is necessary to introduce geopolitical criteria in the assessment of candidacies, but that if we introduce such criteria, it is necessary to apply them to all the candidates, including Romania and Bulgaria. In my opinion we must understand that in principal France feels that the assessment should stick to well-known criteria, based on a case by case analysis of the various individual situations (democracy, respect for minorities, human rights, adoption of the Community acquis, true capability to apply these acquis) and that Mr Védrine reacted to a two-fold impression he had felt:
Mr Védrine feels that, if this is the direction, it must also apply to Romania and Bulgaria. If the aim is to bring ten countries in, why not have twelve: it does not change a great deal (see bulletin of 21 November p.10).
The European Commission's reaction, notably expressed by Jean-Christophe Filori, spokesperson for Commissioner Verheugen, can be summarised in a few points:
The Commission sticks rigorously to the target criteria and the country based assessment. It has never used and will never use the "big bang" concept;
When asserting that ten countries could, at the end of next year, complete the negotiations, it bases itself on the cited criteria and on individual assessment. Moreover, Mr Filori added: objective analysis proves that ten countries are close together. We have the impression that it is sometimes difficult to free oneself of certain tenacious prejudices (concerning a presumed delay of such or such country).
The situation may change during next year; a candidate country could progress, another possible step back;
Either way, it is not the Commission who negotiates and decides, but the Member States.
We can also refer to the statement by Director General Eneko Landaburu during the colloquium in Lausanne (see this section on 13 November). The opposition against the implementation of the geopolitical criteria whatever the pressures from "powerful Member States", was reaffirmed with clarity and vigour.
The Cyprus trap. The statements by Mr Landaburu, and in general the stances taken by the Commission over the possibility that ten candidate countries are capable of completing the negotiations by the end of next year, are a distraction from the fact that the Cyprus problem, if not resolved before then, could change the situation. In fact, there exists a "disaster scenario" that no political authority wants to consider as inevitable, but which totally escapes the logic of the accession negotiations and the "criteria" that determine their ending. If the negotiations with the authorities from Nicosia are finalised at the of 2002 (and there exists no objective reason to doubt it), and if in the meantime the problem of the islands division is not resolved, the EU will find itself confronted to two choices:
First alternative, it approved the Cyprus accession treaty. Turkey announced that, in this case, it would annex that part of the island that it considers to be an autonomous Republic;
second alternative, the EU leaves pending the accession of Cyprus. Greece announced that, in this case, it would block all the accessions as long as that of Cyprus has not been accepted.
Is it necessary to underline the political ravages that would be created by both the first and second alternatives? It is true, we are not yet there and it is too early to dramatise. Though, for the time being, no solution presents itself, and in several Community circles the concerns are great. A compromise between the two halves of the island is required. (F.R.)