The “reflection period” in which Europe is engaged is not limited to the constitutional relaunch. Last week I tried to take stock of this issue, because it is this that determines the ambitions, the objectives and the constitutional working of a united Europe, it is this that, therefore, determines its very nature. But other issues are as fundamental: first in line, the question of “Europe's borders”, which was discussed by Foreign Ministers last week in Salzburg and the European Parliament in Strasbourg, particularly with regard to the Balkans, but with Turkey lurking in the background, both discussions with the active participation of the European Commission. It is good that the EU discusses this topic and the President of the EU Foreign Affairs Council Ursula Plassnik was right to say that “silence is worst of all things, because it feeds suspicion”. And it was a positive thing that the final Ministerial statement reaffirmed that the pure and simple accession of the Balkan countries was the aim of the current process. But let us not be duped: this statement of principle does not mean that everything is clear and we are moving along a clearly marked road towards the desired accessions. In fact, the conditions set, the reticences and the reservations remain great (see EUROPE 9150 for the Salzburg Ministerial meeting and 9153 for the Parliamentary debate.
Here are a few remarks on how the debates unfolded and their conclusions.
Need for a regional agreement. By following the Commission, the “Salzburg declaration” finally put the emphasis on the need for the countries of the region to first of all conclude a free trade agreement among themselves, bringing an end to their conflicts and creating close links. The lack of clear commitments on this issue and the European Parliament's lack of rigour constitute a diversion of the very meaning of building Europe, the aim of which at the start was not economic power nor well-being, but first and foremost reconciliation. Countries looking for economic and financial gain or, even worse, EU support in their differences with neighbouring countries are mistaken; reconciliation and going beyond differences are the priorities, and there must be no progress towards accession without them. The “Salzburg declaration” was subscribed to not only by the 25 EU countries, but also by Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Serbia Montenegro, Bosnia Herzegovina, Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Let us wait and see what happens.
Automatic process or a “possibility”? Following the meeting, some EU Ministers stressed the aim of the accessions (defined explicitly for the first time), others on the possibility of alternative solutions. Mr Douste-Blazy (France) felt that nothing had been decided: “How far will the European perspective go? We'll see. Anything is possible “. Other Ministers insisted on the conditions to be met before accession, stressing that the process was not automatic. Council President presented the Salzburg declaration as a “message of encouragement” stressing that, without the Western Balkans “European unification will not be complete”. Some Ministers were more cautious. In Parliament, the shades of opinion were even more marked.
The EU's “absorption capacity”. This criterion exists. It was included from the outset among the conditions for new accessions, but it has sometimes been overlooked and, in his time, Jacques Delors called in vain for enlargement and deepening of the EU to move in parallel. Today, some Member States are paying great attention to it and call for it to be taken into account effectively. It can be seen then that there is no single interpretation of this criterion. European Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn preferred to replace the idea of “absorption capacity” with that of “ability to function”. This would perhaps be clearer, but in my opinion it would be reductive. In the Ministerial debate, the differences were more muted, more hinted at than stated, but in the Parliamentary debate they were more marked.
I am going to return to this issue as well as others, more general in nature which go beyond the recent Salzburg and Strasbourg debates but which form the backdrop to it. Should Europe's borders be set now? Is there a link between the constitutional treaty and the coming EU enlargements? Should the link between accession negotiations and the arrest of Balkan war criminals be as close as official texts claim it to be? This is for tomorrow.
(F.R.)