Timely initiative, bad slogan. The initiative is timely but the slogan is no good. President Romano Prodi and Commissioner Chris Patten were right to get the approval by the Commission of a communication to the Council and European Parliament on "neighbourhood policy" with, in the South, Mediterranean countries (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco Palestinian Authority, Syria and Tunisia) and Russia, Ukraine, Moldavia and Byelorussia in the East. But Mr Prodi's slogan, "Everything but participation in the institutions" is both unrealistic and dangerous.
The positive aspect is predominant. Everything around the enlarged Europe, in its future shape next year and its extension to Romania, Bulgaria and, at some stage the Balkan countries and perhaps Turkey, with the countries mentioned constituting a "circle of friends", the pleasant term coined by the President of the Commission. Two of them (Ukraine and Moldavia) are seeking accession; the others, having no accession chances, are seeking to develop as close bonds as possible with the Union. It is in the interest of the Union to have good neighbourly relations and close cooperation with the countries around it, from several points of view: illegal immigration controls, the war on terrorism, border security, economic and political stability, environmental protection (taking into account the cross-border character of ecological and nuclear risks). At the same time, by offering promising perspectives to its immediate neighbours, the EU would be able to calm impatience and reassure those that fear a new fracture in Europe, according to a line of demarcation that has nothing to do with the former "iron curtain" but which will be situated further East on the borders of future Member States.
Reason for perplexities. The Commission does not intend to define the final frontiers of the EU (a political reflection will have to take place on his subject at the Council and the European Parliament) but rather preparation of the half-way solutions between accession (hypothetical for two countries, excluded for the others) and the current agreements. The content in the proposed solutions creates certain perplexities.
The Commission is suggesting that fourteen of the countries are offered "a possibility of participating in the internal market" and twice mentions the "four freedoms", namely, free movement of people, goods, services and capital. It also describes the "free trade agreements", the agreements that already exist with Russia and nine Mediterannean countries. The experience of certain negotiations in the past have proved that free circulation of goods cannot exist without detailed institutional agreements. Norway has agreed to apply identical competition rules to those of the EU, notably regarding State Aid, in order to prevent discrimination and distortion in trade that is now free; it has therefore been necessary to institute a kind of Court of Justice similar to that in Luxembourg, in order for the analogous rules to be respected in absence of common institutions. It is a mechanism that works with a country like Norway, which has similar legal traditions to those of Member States, first rate administration and companies that know (and generally respect) the rules; but its adaptability to countries involved in the new initiative is less apparent. How can the Russian authorities be expected to agree to decisions from Brussels on aid that provokes distortion or other similar cases?
Negotiations ongoing with Switzerland confirm that agreements based on the "four freedoms" without participation in the institutions are clashing with an almost insurmountable difficulty. The Union cannot demand that the third countries involved make commitments to accept a priori Community legislation without participating in its elaboration, but from its side, it is unable to allow its autonomy to legislate to be subordinated to consensus from third countries. Yet, the "four freedoms" imply that third countries that are beneficiaries align themselves on current and future EU legislation. Complicated solutions are possible with Switzerland but are not with the Ukraine, Algeria and company, not to mention Russia. It is not possible to create a unified economic area with uniform legislation. The unfortunate formula "everything except participation in the institutions" does not figure in the text of the official communication from the Commission but Romano Prod continues to use it in his speeches and the press.
Conclusion: the idea of creating a "circle of friends" and that planned for cooperation and partnership are positive. In particular, the Commission appears to have gone beyond the unrealistic principle of a global and uniform solution for all the Mediterranean countries, which have different aspirations and situations. The "four freedoms for everyone" and the "perspective of participation in the internal market" for everyone will have to be abandoned. (F.R.)