Priority to “absorption capacity”. The press in several Member States have interpreted the European Parliament's resolution on future enlargement strategy as a brake on new accessions: it has been written that the EP “wants to stop enlargements” or at the least that it “is creating doubts”. The 62-paragraph resolution, passed by 397 votes to 95, with 37 abstentions (it will be reproduced in full in our EUROPE/Documents series), confirms that new accessions are wanted, but insists above all on the criteria to be met, both by candidate countries and the EU itself. What is asked of candidate countries is not really new, it is the criteria that have always existed. But to the general principles have been added specific, and often very pointed, country by country demands. For example, Turkey is required to guarantee the freedom of expression, the freedom of worship and the cultural rights of all minorities, in particular of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Greek minorities of Istanbul, Imbros and Tenedos, with the further precision that these requirements have to be met during the initial stages of negotiations, within “one or two years”; Croatia has to guarantee access to the local property market to all EU nationals without discrimination and resolve the border problems with Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina; Bosnia-Herzegovina must leave Dayton behind, and reduce its need for international aid; Albania must put an end to the “blood feud” which hinders children from attending school. And so on.
The conditions required by the EU are even more politically significant. The principle of “capacity for absorption”, quoted as “one of the conditions for the accession of new countries”, is made explicit in three statements: 1) “defining the nature of the European Union, including its geographical borders, is fundamental to understanding he concept of absorption capacity”; 2) “the stalemate in the ratification of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe is preventing the Union from enhancing its absorption capacity”; 3) before any further accession, it is necessary to “ensure that adequate budgetary resources are available to allow the proper financing of the European Union's policies”. All of this implies that, to open up to further accessions after those of Romania and Bulgaria (and, according to some, Croatia), the EU must: define its borders; have a constitutional treaty; have increased its budget (an allusion to its ability to finance the cohesion policy and the agricultural policy, even with Turkey). The rapporteur Elmar Brok, the resolution's real project manager, was once again explicit in his oral presentation, stating that, in the current situation, the EU was not in position to be able to accept new members without “disappearing as a political project” and that the “absorption capacity” represented for him the “main criterion” for any future accessions. At the same time, he confirmed his belief in the third way, between accession and the neighbourhood policy (he mentioned the current status of Norway): a multi-lateral European economic area, a formula which would become precious if a Member State voted against an accession in a referendum (a procedure which will become compulsory in France).
Some calls have greater flexibility. Some MEPs perhaps considered the resolution as a general tendency, with necessarily sharing all its features, and others perhaps failed to appreciate all its nuances and implications. A certain number of MEPs, well aware of what was at stake, unequivocally declared their opposition to the Brok doctrine, which, according to Daniel Cohn-Bendit would be a “political catastrophe” for the Balkan countries, excluded from political integration and only admitted to a sort of free trade area. Moreover, a certain number of MEPs considered that even the “Salzburg declaration” by Foreign Ministers was too weak, disappointing for candidate countries. The EU will not be stronger by making the prospects for accession more remote for the Balkan countries, said the Austrian Hannes Swoboda, stressing that it was the EU itself which had to consent to the necessary efforts to improve its “absorption capacity” (it is not surely Albania's or Montenegro's job!). The arguments in favour of further accessions have been quoted by MEPs, by the President of the Council and by Commissioner Olli Rehn, in particular the powerful pressure that the prospect of accession has on the development of the candidate countries in terms of freedom, democracy and peace with their neighbours. That is the EU's “gentle power”, says Cecilia Malström, and Olli Rehn stressed the extent to which “the lack of European prospects could destabilise this ultra-sensitive region”.
In spite of these warnings, the outcome of the vote was what it was. (F.R.)