The European Parliament's stance on the accession prospects for the Western Balkan countries and Turkey (see this column in yesterday's edition) must not been seen in too negative a light. Parliament has upset the too common soft consensus by raising the real problems and the real difficulties, but three things must not be forgotten. Firstly, the EP resolution has no legislative value, it is a stance taken on a European Commission document. It is important because the EP will, when the time comes, reach to a decision on each accession treaty and it will not be able to radically alter its position, although this position is not cast in tablets of stone. Parliament will have further opportunities to express itself in relation to future developments. Secondly, some MEPs, such as Joost Lagendijk, have highlighted the difference between what Elmar Brok said in the debate and what he wrote in the resolution. In particular, the “third way” between accession and the neighbourhood policy does not feature in the text that was voted on, but is the rapporteur's opinion. And thirdly, while Parliament put the emphasis on “absorption capacity” maybe the Council and the European Commission insisted on the need to respect commitments with regard to the Balkan countries. Commissioner Olli Rehn said it would be “wholly irresponsible” to interrupt a process that was essential to the stability of Europe. And for Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel, President of the European Council, the Balkans are part of Europe “from the point of view of geography, politics and mentalities”.
Three issues should, in my opinion, be examined more closely.
1. The borders of the EU. The EP resolution calls for EU borders, but some MEPs do not agree with the majority, the Commission is doubtful and Member States have differing opinions. According to the Enlargement Commissioner, a “theological debate” on this issue would be in no one's interests because borders cannot be fixed for all time. Bronislaw Geremek, the voice of pro-European Poland, also rejects the notion of a pre-determined grid which puts one country definitively in, another definitively out: we have to “go along with the events of history”. No doubt he is thinking principally of Ukraine; but why could Belarus, unthinkable today, not one day become a potential member?
Several governments share this attitude, considering it inopportune to either open the door or close it to someone. But it is not an opinion shared by French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, who, at Berlin's Humboldt University on 19 January, said that defining EU borders had been “too long put off” and that there was “no natural or historic right to join the EU”. Accession “cannot be the sole instrument for stabilising Europe's neighbouring regions”, and the EU should offer “generous and ambitious partnerships, which are not just free trade agreements”. That said, Mr de Villepin did state that for the Balkan countries the promise of accession was still there: “It is a choice we have made and which we must maintain”.
2. Cooperation with the ICC (International Criminal Court). The European Parliament, Commission and Council consider it a priority that the leaders accused of war crimes in the recent Balkan wars are given up to the ICC. Without discussing the principle of trials with regard to these people, I sometimes wonder about how appropriate it is to make it a pre-condition for the pursuit or opening of negotiations with the EU. The main thing, the historical fact, is that these countries have moved on, that their new regimes are free and democratic and their governments accept and apply the “Copenhagen criteria”. If a former field marshall or general is still missing, then too bad. Robert Schuman did not wait for all Nazi criminals to be arrested to give Germany, newly returned to democracy and freedom, the chance to be part of the new Europe. We have to set ourselves the objective of bringing criminals to justice, but we could perhaps think about injunctions and timescales.
3. Institutional repercussions. The number of countries wishing to join will grow. I am not referring this time to the limits to geographic expansion, but to the birth of new states, through the break up of existing ones: soon Montenegro, Kosovo on the horizon, and maybe still more. Are they to be automatically considered as candidates for individual accession to the EU? If this is the case, the EU can not afford not to analyse the repercussions on the future make-up of the European Commission, Parliament and also council, as well as the delicate problems of European institutional balance which could spring from it. (F.R.)