Who decided to postpone the accession negotiations? I do not believe the way the Council of the EU dealt with the Croatia issue was satisfactory. I have already had the opportunity of pointing this out, but I believe it is appropriate to provide a few additional explanations. I am clearly not criticising the need to judge those in the former Yugoslavia, and elsewhere, who are guilty of war crimes, but I believe it is unfortunate that this desire for justice and punishment should become not only the priority criterion but decisive for the opening of negotiations. In practice, the Council of the EU left the decision to the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in They Hague (ICT). Please note that I am in no way criticising the attitude of Carla del Ponte: if she believes the Croatian authorities have not made all possible effort to hand over General Ante Gotovina to her Court, it is her duty to express this. But the Council should not have relinquished its political assessment faculty. In fact, the ministers disagreed amongst themselves. Several favoured opening negotiations, and the President of the Council Jean Asselborn, said that in the absence of common agreement, the opening of the negotiations has been postponed (inevitably because unanimous decision-making was required). But the interpretation by the media, and hence perception in public opinion, was different; it can be resumed in the heading of a major newspaper: “Europe rejects Croatia”,
Looking ahead. The wars of the 1980s and 1990s in the former Yugoslavia were the scene of atrocities on all sides. There had been atrocities in the past between the peoples who went on to create the first European Community, who without forgetting the past, decided to look ahead, believing that reconciliation, freedom and democracy were just as important as punishing crimes. Likewise today, the overall vision should prevail. Certainly, the elected authorities of the new Republics of the former Yugoslavia should collaborate in seeking and tracking down war criminals. It is certain that Ante Golovina enjoys some protection in his country, since some layers of the population see him as a hero (in 1995 he freed part of the nation occupied by Serbs). Could the authorities to more to arrest him? Possibly. But the overall assessment should also take other factors into consideration. Is it true that Croatia recently passed a law protecting minorities? That it has consolidated press freedom? Even in terms of transferring those accused of war crimes and information provided about them, the authorities say they have responded positively to 625 of the 626 requests received from the ICT. The only one lacking is the arrest of the general. The head of the European delegation in Zagreb said there was not any real democratic deficit in Croatia. These things count, especially when one considers the repercussions that persistent refusal by the EU to open negotiations, or extended delays, might have in Croatia itself.
Repercussions to be feared. What repercussions? Growing scepticism about the European project. The impression among the people that their country has been rejected, although it has turned its back on the war and has started to find its place again in the fold of peaceful, democratic nations. The danger of a rebirth of nationalism, at a time when Croatia is moving in the direction of reconciliation with neighbouring countries and encouraging the return of Serb refugees. This new situation is linked with prospects of joining the EU and could be compromised if the objective backs off. Added to this is the danger of an economic crisis, which some sources challenge but others confirm. The country has huge foreign debts and tourisms (which would be greatly facilitated by the country joining the EU and would already have been encouraged by just opening negotiations) is a vital source of income. The Council of the EU must take account of all these factors. Moreover, the heads of government have in practice recuperated the political assessment faculty by deciding on 16 March to establish a high-level Task Force to report on 'progress accomplished by Croatia in meeting the conditions for opening accession negotiations'. It will consult both the ICT and the Croatian authorities.
The above considerations also apply to Serbia, towards which country, in my opinion, Europe has a debt. I continue to believe the way NATO forces bombed Serbia and destroyed bridges over the Danube, sowing the seeds of desolation in neighbouring countries as well, went beyond what was required to stop Belgrade's aggression. I have the impression that neither Serbia nor Croatia can now be considered 'weak links' in the process of normalising the region, neither in terms of reconciliation, nor democratisation, nor re-building the economy. (F.R.)