Mr Vanhanen's oversight. I expected interpretations of the European Council conclusions to be different regarding parallelism between enlargement and consolidation (see this column in yesterday's bulletin), but not to be made so fast! Speaking before the European Parliament, the Finnish EU Council Presidency commented on the new strategy for future accessions placing emphasis on just one of the two chapters, that of opening up to candidate countries while neglecting the fact that there must be consolidation. Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen reaffirmed that the candidate countries must respect the Copenhagen criteria but said nothing about the conditions that must be met within the EU itself. He did not speak of the concept of “integration capacity”, which appears in the Presidency Conclusions, or the explicit affirmations for giving this concept concrete substance: that of the general nature of paragraph 6 (“…the Union must be able to function effectively and to develop”), and the more detailed affirmations of paragraph 9: “The European Union stresses the importance of ensuring that the EU can maintain and deepen its own development. The pace of enlargement must take into account the capacity of the Union to absorb new members (…). As the Union enlarges, successful European integration requires that EU institutions function effectively and that EU policies are further developed and financed in a sustainable manner”. The strengthening of negotiation procedures, that I mentioned yesterday (and to which paragraph 7 of the conclusions is devoted) is also passed over in silence in the president's speech to parliamentarians.
Courageous and effective presidency. This in no way means that the Finnish Presidency has not worked with political courage and effectiveness in favour of improving the institutional functioning of the Union and in favour of common policies. Quite the contrary - as the results of “its” term of presidency go to show, whether on the environment or research or energy or the strengthening of the greater market. Since when has the EU been so successful? Nonetheless …
An opening message. Nonetheless, when it comes to enlargement, the message that Mr Vanhanen put across was clear enough: it was a message of opening to candidate countries. I quote what he says in his speech:
a) Turkey. “I want to stress that Turkey's future is in the European Union. (…) The process may have slowed down for a while but the final destination is unchanged”.
b) For new accessions. “This prospect of membership - the knowledge that the Union is open to new members - is essential to stability in Europe; it encourages reform in neighbouring countries (…) An open Union growing in strength: that is our future”.
c) Rejection of predefined limits. “There was no discussion of the limits to enlargement [at the European Council]. There is simply no place for them. No artificial limits should be set. The proper limits are not based on geography but on values”.
The neglected chapter. In my opinion, this interpretation neglects an important chapter: that of European Commission initiatives concerning Neighbourhood Policy, the parliamentary debates that ensued and the positions taken by the authorities of a number of Member States, proving that this policy gives rise to increasing interest. It is very likely that Mr Vanhanen's comments receive unanimous backing, but on condition that they aim at the quality and intensity of links between the EU and the countries that surround it, covering not only accessions but also other possible forms of partnership and association that could sometimes be appropriate, in the interest of the third countries concerned.
A serious strategy. It is therefore confirmed that the Council conclusions have not eliminated all ambiguity. Current problems will certainly not be worsened by any future accessions by Balkan States, which are still on the waiting list. Institutional reactivation and safeguard (with reform) of common policies are at any rate already necessary. There will be questions raised and a choice to be made between accession or association (or other formulas) for countries such as Turkey, Ukraine and others still more distant. Formulas such as “proper limits are not based on geography but on values” do not, in my view, have great significance as they may also cover Israel, Palestine and Lebanon (as some MEPs request); so why not Quebec or New Zealand? The parallelism between enlargement and consolidation, including integration capacity, represents a serious strategy and must be considered as such.
(F.R.)