Brussels, 22/07/2008 (Agence Europe) - At the External Relations Council on Tuesday 22 July, the French Presidency proposed that the forthcoming framework agreement between the EU and Ukraine, which has been under negotiation since 2007, be called an “association agreement”. The Presidency proposed, too, that the preamble of the agreement should state clearly that this ambitious term should not prejudge the future of EU-Ukraine relations nor constitute, in itself, any prospect of EU accession for the country. A large majority of member states is ready to agree to the name “association agreement”, but there are still differences over the exact wording to be used in the preamble to the agreement to describe Ukraine's prospects of European integration. The French Presidency remains, nonetheless, optimistic that a political agreement on the principles and objectives of the future agreement can be reached at the EU-Ukraine Summit in Evian on 9 September.
Bernard Kouchner, who chaired Tuesday's Council meeting, said that the French Presidency would prepare a “balanced package” which would go a long way to meeting Ukraine's aspirations (Kiev wants the association agreement to acknowledge in its preamble the right of Ukraine “a European country”, one day to present its application to join the European Union, see EUROPE 9705), while taking account of the reservations of a number of member states (see below).
According to diplomats, this comprehensive package could contain: - the name “association agreement”; - a preamble which states the desire of both sides to continue Ukraine's rapprochement in all areas, but without speaking about its possible accession; - the opening of a dialogue on the eventual removal of the need for Ukrainian citizens to have a visa to travel to the EU (Kiev has already removed the visa requirement for EU citizens wishing to travel to Ukraine). The COREPER has been charged with continuing discussions on an agreement on these points before the summit.
Of the 18 delegations which spoke in Council on Tuesday, only Belgium and the Netherlands expressed clear reservations over the name “association agreement”. Belgian Secretary of State for European Affairs Olivier Chastel said that an association agreement could be seen as a precursor to Ukraine's accession, raising overly high expectations in the country. For that reason, Belgium was calling for the content of the new agreement to be defined and negotiated, before speaking about the name it was to be given. Chastel also said that it would be going “too far” to state in the preamble that Ukraine was a “European country”, which, under the terms of Article 49 of the EU Treaty, would have the right to apply to join the EU. Belgium did not believe that current circumstances (uncertainty surrounding the Lisbon Treaty, lack of public enthusiasm for further enlargements, etc.) allowed the EU to make any new commitments on accession, Chastel said. Dutch minister Frans Timmermans fully supported Belgium on all these points. Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik also spoke against any promise of accession to Ukraine. Luxembourg, too, was reticent about the inclusion of any prospect of European integration in the preamble to the agreement, but could live with the title “association agreement”, said Luxembourg minister Jean Asselborn. Germany, too, could accept the term “association”, but Frank-Walter Steinmeier pointed out on Tuesday that the future accession of Ukraine was “not on the agenda” and that the preamble of the future agreement should take account of that fact. Italy could accept the name proposed by the French Presidency, but felt that “speaking about Ukraine's accession would be going too far”.
All the other delegations which spoke at the Council not only backed calling the agreement an “association agreement”, they also argued that it should be clearly stated in the preamble that Ukraine had the genuine prospect of, one day, joining the EU, provided that it could meet the accession criteria. Central and Eastern European member states were strongest in their support for the Ukrainian cause. For the three Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), the new agreement should send a “clear signal” that Ukraine is a European country which has a prospect of joining the EU, in line with Article 49 of the Treaty. It was obvious that Ukraine was a European country and was, consequently, “eligible” to apply to join the Union at some point in the future, said Czech Deputy Prime Minister Alexandr Vondra. Poland, Hungary, Malta, Romania and Slovakia made similar points. Ukraine's European aspirations had to be looked on favourably, also said Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, who stated that Ukraine was clearly a “European country” under the terms of Article 49 of the Treaty. Even Spain could accept that the new agreement would be called an “association agreement”, though Spanish minister Miguel Angel Moratinos was less keen on European perspective and opening dialogue on visas. Madrid wants to see the terms of reference for the visa dialogue to be much clearer. External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner argued that the preamble of the future agreement should leave the way open for Ukraine to, one day, apply for European membership. (H.B./transl.rt)