The European Summit on 16/17 December kept its promises and among the results achieved, two could not have been taken for granted beforehand: the decision on the opening of negotiations with Turkey and the commitment to arrive at a “political agreement” on the financial perspectives for 2007-2013 by the end of June 2005.
Ambiguity on the opening. On the subject of Turkey, I will limit myself for the moment to observing that the Dutch Presidency has achieved its goal, which was to lead the heads of state and government to a compromise which would respect as reasonable a balance as possible between saying “yes” to negotiations and explicitly stating the conditions necessary for the negotiations to succeed. It must be recognised that any insufficiency on either of these two aspects would have led to the failure of the Summit. The result is at least partly ambiguous and is entirely satisfactory to no-one (several of the conditions wanted by the Parliament were not retained, Turkey did not sign the text implicitly recognising the Republic of Cyprus), but this was not the fault of the Presidency, whose goal was to arrive at a compromise which could find unanimity in spite of fundamental differences. I will come back to this in detail, with the intention of adding some observations with regard to what has been said and written on the subject.
A test for the Europe of tomorrow. Regarding the financial perspectives, the deadline of June 2005 for a political agreement was probably inspired by the next President of the European Council Jean-Claude Juncker, whose Presidency will expire on 30 June. Nothing would have prevented a statement to the effect that the agreement would appear "before the summer break", which would have left an extra month for negotiations. But it is not without good reason that Mr Juncker thinks that his six months of Presidency will be the period during which the chances of reaching a compromise will be at their best (see this column of 15 December). The Dutch Presidency has managed to ensure that this ambition is enshrined in the conclusions of the European Council and it has drawn up an exhaustive and even reasonably clear (within the confines of the subject, which is complex and controversial) report on the respective positions. Several observers think that the deadline will not be met. Mr Juncker thinks it possible. Failure would be a worrying symptom of the lack of a uniform vision for the future of Europe and of the lack of a unanimous political will to safeguard and develop an ambitious framework for the aims of Europe. This will be a crucial test for the future.
Results to ponder. Other results of the Summit merit some consideration. I would suggest careful reading in the unabridged version of the Presidency “conclusions” - annexed to this bulletin - of the passages on: 1) terrorism and the area of freedom, security and justice, with strong emphasis finally put on the mechanisms financing terrorism, which some banks are facilitating in an unacceptable way; 2) the confirmation that the future of the Balkans is in the EU, on the condition that they accustom themselves to respecting minorities and develop cooperation between themselves (the main objective of European construction being reconciliation); 3) the unifying nature of the four "common areas" planned with Russia (although the "common areas" leave me somewhat confused, as they presuppose a degree of integration which I consider unthinkable); 4) support for development of the European security and defence policy (ESDP), which continues to progress without politicians or the public being fully aware of it; 5) the report requested of the Commission and Javier Solana by the end of June on the preparation of the "European service for external action ", a sensitive dossier if ever there was one; 6) the reference to Dutch initiatives regarding the European identity and common values, which are supposed to be continued and increased (which is certainly not the wish or all the member states).
Loyalty of a Presidency. I truly believe that the Dutch Prime Minister and his government can be satisfied with their six month Presidency. Mr Balkenende and his ministers have taken account of the different views expressed in the Council without trying to impose their views, whether on the Stability and Growth Pact (although in favour of strictness, the Dutch Presidency took due consideration of desires to revise the Pact), or the “Bolkestein directive” (although in favour of speedy approval of the directive, the Dutch government took into consideration the numerous reservations and postponed the dossier to the next Presidency accompanied by an objective factual report: see this column of 14 December) or the future financial perspectives (although the Netherlands features among the signatories of the letter demanding that Union spending should not exceed 1% of the GDP of the Union), or numerous other dossiers. No song and dance, just proper and impartial management of the Community's affairs, with a few significant advances.
(F.R.)