It is rare for me to express total support, even enthusiastic support for a political and strategic document of the European Commission; but this time this is not the case. I am not referring to all of the “progress reports” on accession negotiations with Turkey, Croatia or prospects regarding other Balkan countries, reports which were summarised yesterday and some of which require specific commentary. I am, on the other hand, referring to a document requesting the EU to take into account its capacity to integrate countries other than those whose accession (if they fulfil the necessary conditions) is already proven. This demand for “capacity” is not a recent discovery; it has existed since 1993. But when it was re-launched it also provoked positive and negative reactions alike. The criticism directed at the Union was that it sought to introduce new criteria to the “Copenhagen criteria”. Last June's European Council clarified the situation, explaining that the “capacity of absorption” is not criteria for candidate countries to respect but rather an internal Union condition so that it is able to welcome on board new Member States (I did comment on the conclusions of the Summit on this subject in this section, see bulletin N 9217).
The Commission has been more precise and exhaustive this time. Its position was summarised in our bulletin yesterday by our Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Helmut Brüls. I can draw the following conclusions from this:
1. Terminology. The term, “capacity of absorption” has been definitively abandoned and replaced by “integration capacity”. This is not a matter of the EU absorbing countries but integrating them into the community of values, common policies and institutions, while respecting their identity. This linguistic nuance has proved opportune.
2. Safeguarding the essential. In its expansion, the Union has to conserve its capacity to act, take decisions, implement common efficient policies and respect budgetary limits. The Commission explicitly indicates that it will assess the effect of future accessions on common political principles such as agricultural and cohesion policy. The explicit mention of these two policies is in my opinion essential because it is well known that certain political forces, notably British, overtly aim to get rid of them in their current form and that further enlargement could contribute to this significantly. In my point of view, they represent, on the other hand, the pillars of an essential principle of Community construction: the principle of solidarity. In renouncing this, Europe would lose its soul (and much more besides).
3. Public opinion. It is necessary for future enlargement to be understood and supported by public opinion. This is an indispensable condition for the European project to be able to consolidate its democratic base and regain popular support. An element in this re-conquest, in my opinion, resides in the clear, convincing and efficient implementation of different forms of “neighbourhood policy” planned for third countries whose integral accession would turn out to be possible but with whom Europe does want to establish close relations.
4. No to defining ultimate borders. The Commission considers that setting out the ultimate borders of Europe is inopportune and in practice, impossible. Absolute criteria, such as who is “European” cannot be codified, as this term involves geographic, historic and cultural elements, which are all valid but partially incompatible. This is logical because if it were based on criteria of “values” we could perhaps envisage Quebec joining or Australia. The priority for criteria of direct participation in the history of Europe could lead to considering a country like Russia as a candidate, as well as almost all the countries of the Southern Mediterranean and perhaps the United States of America.
According to the Commission, the criteria “mix” defining Europe cannot remain frozen as it is “re-defined by each successive generation”. I don't know why certain governments and political forces consider, on the contrary, that it would be necessary to define, once and for all, all the borders of the EU, for reasons to do with clarity (in a personal capacity, I think that geographical criteria are too often neglected). But I believe that the Commission is right to believe that setting out the definite borders today is a seductive slogan but is politically inopportune and would risk becoming unfair or obsolete. (FR)