Points have been won according to Mr Landaburu. A look at the lie of the land with Eniko Landaburu in the context of the EU's external relations is always a useful exercise, for at least two reasons: he says what he thinks, and what he thinks always contains some interesting and sometimes audacious comments. The meeting where he was speaking was open to the public and there was therefore no “obligation of secrecy” (which Landaburu had not asked for either). This is not the first time that I have embarked upon this exercise involving Mr Landaburu. I did so last October when his subject was Europe's place in the world, together with its shortcomings and the efforts it was making in this respect. It was the same kind of event: a talk by the director general of External Relations at the European Commission to the “Réalités européennes du Présent” Association chaired by Harmut Harold.
On this occasion, Landaburu focused on some specific aspects of the Union's external policy and underlined that Europe's presence is both strong and recognisable in the world. He explained, however, that the EU is still not a “global actor” because the situation is not ripe enough to be talking about a common foreign policy that would involve decisions being taken at majority voting - something member states are not ready for. An “explosion in nationalism” has been observed everywhere and countries in the Union have not been completely immune to this phenomenon. External policy, however, has to respect a certain number of points, which Mr Landaburu summed up in the following way:
a) keeping promises regarding future accessions as soon as the countries concerned meet the conditions. This involves, first of all, Croatia and the Western Balkans as a whole. Turkey and Ukraine represent two specific cases (see below). From a general point of view, the EU should define its borders as clarity is indispensable;
b) beyond the EU's borders, the “neighbourhood policy” is becoming an essential instrument that aims to set up an area of stability, security and democracy around the Union. Economic rapprochement and consolidation of democracy should be pursued everywhere. The Southern rim of the Mediterranean, the Middle East and some countries of the former USSR ought to be part of this area;
c) Ukraine now represents a success in the neighbourhood policy. Developments will, however, go in the direction of EU accession, where it has its place (even if this is not yet the right time to be talking about this too much);
d) Russia has not agreed to take part in the neighbourhood policy (Landaburu regrets this) because it intends to pursue its own world strategy. The EU should therefore be talking to Russia with a single voice but it is a long way off from this. Relations with Russia represent a significant danger to the EU because they are an “element of division” between member states;
e) with regard to Turkey, the EU should stick to its commitment on negotiations because the status of candidate country has formally been granted to the country. Nevertheless, it is obvious that negotiating for 15 years and demanding that this great country apply the Community acquis, only to have the door closed on it, would be inadmissible. Mr Sarkozy's position calls for exploring, together with Turkey itself, alternative formulas to accession but it does not ignore the fact that the decision to negotiate Turkish accession was taken at unanimity. I would like to add that according to certain observers, the status of candidate country was granted to Turkey without any real reflection.
Nuanced discourse of an MEP. Speaking at the same event, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroek MEP and president of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party underlined the difficulty in defining Europe's geographical borders; there is no agreement on this subject because they are unclear. Therefore, political criteria have to be applied. In her opinion, neighbourhood policies are not satisfactory because the EU tends to ask for more than it offers and they are insufficiently differentiated according to partner countries. She recognises, however, the need for “creating new relationships” with countries with which we want to establish close ties but not accession. She believes that the Union could have 40 member states in around 20 years, including countries from the former Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldavia, Norway, Switzerland and even Iceland, three countries that could at any time present their candidacies. Ms Neyts-Uyttebroek is taking into consideration the possibility that not all member states take part in all European policies, but instead poses the question of what kind of policies are “constitutive” to the Union and which ones would therefore be mandatory to all.
(F.R.)