Brussels, 09/04/2008 (Agence Europe) - Elmar Brok's (CDU) draft report on the EU's enlargement strategy, which will be voted on during the foreign affairs committee at the end of May (EUROPE 9636) has been quite well received by the main political groups. The fact that the rapporteur (who belongs to the EPP-ED) does not question the Balkans' accession prospects or accession negotiations with Turkey is important. There is now only a divergence of views on, for example, the basis for an exact definition of the 4th Copenhagen criterion, the “EU's integration capacity”.
Jan Marinus Wiersma from the Netherlands, PES shadow rapporteur on enlargement, explained that the Socialist Group “agrees” with the draft report's main guidelines, particularly the fact that after the 2004 and 2007 accessions, we now need to “consolidate” the Union, its institutions and policies before allowing in new members. The Socialists will, however make sure that the report does not become an “anti-enlargement report” or question the commitments made on accession perspectives that the EU has already given to western Balkan countries or even Turkey. In connection with the latter, the PES hopes to see the country join the EU one day and is distrustful of the “concentric circles” proposed by rapporteur Brok. Mr Wiersma insists that such cooperation bodies can provide interesting and useful intermediate stages for deepening cooperation and European integration but “can in no case constitute an alternative to the accession of” Turkey or the Balkan countries. The same caution was expressed by the Socialists with regard to the EU's “integration capacity”. Wiersma affirmed that in the future they needed to afford this notion greater importance but not, however, without creating new technical accession criteria in the same way as the three others. Mr Wiersma said that although respect for the three main Copenhagen criteria (democracy and the rule of law, market economy, implementation of the Community acquis) can be measured and controlled technically, this is not exactly the case with the EU's integration capacity, which is, “more than a political criteria”. Wiersma asserted that they had to maintain a certain margin of manoeuvre in the examination of the EU's integration capacity and not be either “too tough or too precise” in the definition, so as to avoid making it into an anti-enlargement criteria.
The Greens/EFA Group was also pleased with the general orientation of the Brok report. The Greens' shadow rapporteur, Joost Lagendijk (Netherlands) affirmed “it is much more balanced than Mr Brok's last report on enlargement” in 2006. Lagendijk said that the 2006 report was “not clear about what Mr Brok (Ed: who is personally against Turkey joining) would do with Turkey. This time it is clear: the report does not intend to undermine ongoing accession negotiations or those with Croatia. On the contrary, it reaffirms the EU's commitment to admit these countries if they respect the criteria”. The Greens also support Mr Brok's proposals to implement a specific framework for relations with counties like Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, which currently do not have any European prospects (as opposed to countries from the Balkans). Mr Lagendijk stated that they needed to create something for these countries that was, “between accession and European neighbourhood policy”. He also said that this “intermediate stage” should be open to Balkan countries that have prospects for accession but which are still too behind in reforms to think about it in the short or medium term. Lagendijk explained that European neighbourhood policy (ENP) should be divided into two, so that Eastern European and Mediterranean countries could be treated differently. The Greens welcome efforts to define the EU's integration capacity criterion. Lagendijk considers that “this criterion is often used by those against enlargement, and the vague notion of “integration capacity” helps them.” He said they needed a more precise definition to prevent the Copenhagen criterion being used for anti-enlargement aims.
The shadow rapporteur for the Liberal group (ADLE), Bronislaw Geremek (Poland) shared Mr Brok's opinion that consolidation of the EU is necessary before planning further enlargement but he refuses to keep the doors closed for ever. Geremek declared that they get the feeling that “the Brok report, without explicitly saying it, would like to set final and definitive limits on the Union” and therefore prevent the future accession of countries like Ukraine and Moldova. Mr Geremek explained that “setting the EU's borders now, would be arbitrary”. He described the EU's integration capacity as a “political criterion”, which cannot be defined “in an arbitrary way” but which should look at a given situation on a case by case basis. He does not therefore support the idea of defining this concept any further and also rejects another central aspect of the Brok report - “concentric circles”. He explained that “this is not a notion I support, and I would not like to see it in the report because it would lead to the institutionalisation of a Europe at several speeds and should be avoided”. (H.B.)