Strasbourg, 16/03/2006 (Agence Europe) - On 16 March, the European Parliament broadly followed its rapporteur on EU enlargement strategy, Elmar Brok (EPP-ED), calling on the Commission and Council to “submit, for all European countries currently without a membership perspective, proposals for a close multilateral relationship with the EU”, and stressing that “it is up to all countries with recognised membership perspective to join this multilateral framework as an intermediate step towards full membership”. The plenary, which approved Brok's resolution by 397 votes to 95 and 37 abstentions, rejected an amendment aimed at replacing this formula with an invitation to pursue EU Neighbourhood Policy. Explaining its yes-vote to the report, CSU elected member Bernd Posselt specified that, contrary to the impression given in the press, this suggestion is not addressed to Croatia which should in fact have joined the EU in 2004 (hence its call for uncoupling talks with Zagreb from those with Ankara). All further enlargements should take account of the EU's absorption capacity as stipulated at the European Council in Copenhagen in 1993, the Parliament states, believing “defining the nature of the European Union, including its geographical borders, is fundamental to understanding the concept of absorption capacity”. The European Commission is therefore invited to present a “report by 31st December 2006 setting out the principles which underpin this concept”. Parliament also considers that “stalemate in the ratification of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe is preventing the Union from enhancing its absorption capacity”. British Conservatives, Charles Tannock explained, are opposed to the Constitution and prefer a looser Union of States, which is why they approved the Brok Resolution without the point referring to the constitutional treaty. EUROPE will be publishing this 61-point resolution in full.
Is it appropriate to fix the final frontiers of the Union at this stage? Is it necessary, as Rapporteur Elmar Brok recommends, to imagine a status between member and neighbour, to take into account not only the weariness of European citizens regarding successive enlargements but also the legitimate hopes of the candidate countries or potential candidates? Opinions at the European Parliament are divided on such matters. During a debate, German Liberal Alexander Lambsdorff was heard to support the arguments set out in the “remarkable” SPD document “one hundred per cent”, and the authors of the papers, MEPs Klaus Hänsch and Bernhard Rapkay, above all said that one could not bring the Balkan countries into the EU while European soldiers are stationed there. German Democrat Helmut Kuhne gave his support, while stances differed within groups or national delegations. Some mainly saw the debate as an opportunity to restate their hostility towards membership by Turkey while others (mainly Greeks) stressed that the former Republic of Macedonia should agree to be called FYROM and give up the name “Macedonia”. Almost all, whatever the decisions on future enlargements, pressed for Croatia as well as the Western Balkans in general not to be excluded from Europe as they are part of its history.
Speaking for the European Commission as he closed the debate, Olli Rehn sought to shed light on the semantic, historical and political aspects. He thus recalled that the notion of “absorption capacity”, which is not new (Mr Brok noted that it had been discussed at the Copenhagen Summit but hoped that it would be defined by the end of the year by the Commission to become “an instrument”), has often been used by the Commission. Personally, Mr Rehn prefers it to the notion of “operational capacity”. He went on to add that the debate on this theme goes hand in hand with the debate on the link between consolidation and enlargement (a debate that Camiel Eurling, EPP-ED of the Netherlands, among others, would like to see happen). Mr Rehn considers consolidation is essential. “We need a constitutional debate”, the Commissioner asserts, saying they must decide how to reform the EU's structures and “this must be done in the near future, not in the distant future, when Turkey might join the Union”. Mr Rehn also spoke of Article 49 of the EU Treaty which stipulates on what base countries can request EU membership, saying that one cannot define the final Union frontiers. A “theological” debate on the final frontiers of Europe is not in anyone's interest, Mr Rehn had said in his first address, adding that, although it is necessary to be “cautious” before taking on any further commitments, the Union must respect its existing commitments as it would be “completely irresponsible” to “disrupt” a process that promotes stability in Europe. A European perspective is vital for the future of Kosovo. The fragile edifice that is now being built could “collapse on our front steps” if this perspective were lacking, he warned. Speaking for the Council, Ursula Plassnik, although she did not clearly adhere to the rapporteur's proposals, said that any lack of clarity on the prospects of membership could put a brake on progress being made in candidate countries.
She insisted on the fact that there had to be an improvement in communication on the enlargement to reassure European citizens: in any case, the next accessions would be prepared in the best way possible, with maximum transparency, treating each country on its merits. Speaking in a more personal capacity, the Austrian Foreign Minister said she came from a country which gained a great deal from the last wave of accessions, but where the population remained critical over enlargement; and she gave assurances that “a Europe without borders will never happen, Europe will always be a political project”.
Following the interruption of the ratification process of the European Constitution, “we are in a difficult situation”, said Elmar Brok immediately (see also EUROPE 9152). He believed that, up until now, enlargement had been the greatest success of the EU's foreign policy, through the stability it brought, but to continue to be a success, the EU would have to have the strength to continue to ensure this stability. Absorption capacity had to be a determining issue in deciding for or against an accession, he said, adding that all these countries had to have the prospect of joining, but the EU had not to suffer “pressure for accession”. There had to be, he said, a little more flexibility and it was preferable to provide for “intermediate steps” rather than become involved in accession negotiations which risked refusal after fifteen years because of a referendum in a Member State. Giorgios Dimitrakopoulos thought that Mr Brok's proposals could offer some prospect to the Balkan countries. Mr Dimitrakopoulos gave his view on the specific cases of Turkey (insistence on the application of the Ankara Protocol), Kosovo, FYR Macedonia and Serbia. Mr Brok's intermediate solution could be a lasting alternative for some, thought Jan Wiersma (Socialist, Netherlands), but it had to remain an option and not an obligation. Cecilia Malström (ALDE, Sweden), however, was not in favour of introducing new concepts; she felt that concrete and individualised expression had to be given to neighbourhood policies. Joost Lagendijk (Green, Netherlands) considered that there was a difference between what the rapporteur said and what was written in the report. In his opinion, it was important not to give wrong signals to the Balkans, by creating the impression that the prospect of accession was being put in question. Public opinion in the region would be disappointed by the EU, said Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL, Netherlands), and Konrad Szymanski (UEN, Poland) called for the doors not to be shut, wondering “Why has this Parliament become so conservative, when it did not use to be?” Two German MEPs of differing persuasions, Christian Democrat Doris Pack, president of the EP delegation for relations with South-East Europe, and Social Democrat Helmut Kuhne agreed with Mr Brok on the need to consider EU absorption capacity. Mr Kuhne said that the criterion must never be simply which country would like to join the EU, but rather whether the EU can allow it politically and financially. British Conservatives, said Labour MEP Richard Howitt believed a choice had to be made between deepening and enlarging: he said there was no reason to stop enlargements.