States must be viable. To become a member of the European Union, must a country prove that it is autonomous, viable and able to meet the main expenditure demands it requires in order to function? If a country has not reached this level, the EU must be able to understand its difficulties, assist it and help it function and make progress. But in the meantime, can the state in question become a full member of the EU, participate in the definition and management of common policies, have a European commissioner of its own nationality, as well as MEPs who vote in European laws? This is a pertinent question. Yesterday, this column looked at two other aspects: the opinion of certain member states and several MEPs that the Lisbon Treaty must be in force before further accession is possible, and the demand that candidate countries must first of all put an end to their internecine quarrels and cooperate with each other. These are not objectives to aim for after accession but preconditions; Olli Rehn ought to understand this.
A case in point. This also applies to the demand for a state to be viable. This is not just a reference to a certain level of budgetary autonomy. The European Parliament's foreign affairs committee has just approved by an overwhelming majority (41 votes for, 1 against, 2 abstentions) a report on the accession prospects of Bosnia-Herzegovina (see yesterday's edition of EUROPE). For the main part, it points out that this country does not exist as a real state. An opportunity of joining the EU was given to Bosnia-Herzegovina as a single state but “the threats of secession and other attempts to undermine the sovereignty of the state” are incompatible with accession. Constitutional reform is an indispensable precondition and should lead to the creation of a central state with legislative, executive budgetary and legal powers that help reduce the weight of a divided state's bureaucracy (which absorbs 70% of the state's budget, explained Doris Pack). The objective must be “the peaceful coexistence in a single state of different ethnic communities”. Accession is not possible as long as these conditions are not met.
EU lacks coherency. The EU does in fact lack coherency. In the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina, it is calling for a multi-ethnic state and its line on Macedonia is the same. But in the case of Serbia, however, it welcomed the birth of Montenegro and then that of Kosovo. What is the right formula? Separation or multi-ethnic state? It is not, a priori, easy to define and the conflicts and the massacres of the past create fear and demand caution. There are many contradictions contained in the different ethnic groups formula, and the states that are born out of fragmentation create almost insoluble institutional problems for the EU. Czechoslovakia was a single state that became two with each of them having their own European commissioner, MEPs and votes in the Council. Is this an example that should be followed? The former Serbia has become three states, with each component, in the long term, having the right to have a place in the EU institutions, which would soon become unmanageable. Kosovo is a particularly astonishing case because five member states (Spain, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Cyprus) do not recognise it. How will it be possible for the EU to devise agreements, even accession, with a country that is not even recognised by five member states?
The attitude taken towards Serbia itself raises a few concerns. It does not have official accession candidate status and the association and stabilisation agreement (ASA) is still blocked because two Serbs accused of war crimes (Ratko Mladic and Goran Hadzig) have still not been arrested. But isn't the prime objective that of overcoming previous conflicts and looking to the future? The majority of the Serbian population is not at all linked to the crimes of the past (which are also in fact, shared by the country's neighbours). To obtain Franco-German reconciliation, Europe's founding fathers did not wait until all the Nazi criminals had been sentenced. The Serbian government intends to continue the battle against Kosovan independence but by political and legal means. According to the Serbian president, Boris Tadic, “there are many Kosovos in the region”, namely, regions which are demanding independence. The EU is aware of the problem only too well: the Basque country, Catalonia, Scotland, perhaps Flanders and Wallonia in the future too. Caution is the watchword but things have to be looked at with a little more clarity.
Confusing and contradictory. The problem is one of making a distinction between regional autonomies, which are being increasingly developed, and the creation of new states. The EU must strive to develop a doctrine on this subject. For the instant, its attitude to the Western Balkans is confused and partly contradictory. A certain level of clarification and preliminary consolidation of its institutional structures is needed before further accession can be envisaged in the propitious conditions. (F.R./transl.rh)