15 The Western Balkans and the EU
| (27246)
5773/06
COM(06) 27
| Commission Communication: The Western Balkans on the road to the EU: Consolidating stability and raising prosperity
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 27 January 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 1 February 2006
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 18 May 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xix (2005-06), para 11 (15 February 2006)
|
| Discussed in Council | 27 February 2006
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared (decision reported 15 February 2006)
|
Background
15.1 In its "2005 Enlargement Strategy", which we considered
on 30 November 2005,[52]
the Commission outlines the rationale for enlargement thus:
"Enlargement is one of the EU's most powerful policy tools.
The pull of the EU has helped transform Central and Eastern Europe
to modern, well-functioning democracies. More recently, it has
inspired tremendous reforms in Turkey, Croatia and the Western
Balkans. All European citizens benefit from having neighbours
that are stable democracies and prosperous market economies. It
is vitally important for the EU to ensure a carefully managed
enlargement process that extends peace, stability, prosperity,
democracy, human rights and the rule of law across Europe."
[53]
15.2 The strategy paper said that the EU should remain rigorous
in demanding fulfilment of the various criteria for enlargement,
but fair in rewarding progress and in meeting commitments. Each
country should be judged on its own merits. It ruled out future
"big bang" enlargements. The integration of the countries
of the Western Balkans was seen as a particular challenge —
weak states and divided societies, but needing a genuine perspective
of eventual integration to keep reform on track. Implementation
of Stability and Association Agreement obligations would be central
in considering membership applications. The Commission remained
prepared to recommend suspension in cases of serious and persistent
breaches of the EU's fundamental principles or failure to meet
essential requirements. Better communication by both the Commission
and EU Member States about previous enlargements would be vital
to ensure support for future accessions. The Council concluded
in December that it was a good basis for the discussion of enlargement
issues in 2006.
15.3 The Thessaloniki European Council of 19-20 June
2003 reiterated its determination to fully and effectively support
the "European perspective" of the Western Balkan countries
and endorsed the "The Thessaloniki Agenda for the Western
Balkans: moving towards European integration", which introduced
European Partnerships "as a means to materialise the European
perspective of the Western Balkan countries".[54]
At the November 2000 Zagreb Summit of leaders from the EU and
the countries of the Western Balkans, the region confirmed its
full commitment to the Stabilisation and Association process (SAp)[55]
— a strategy explicitly linking the prospect of EU accession,
adjusted to the level of development of each of the countries
concerned, allowing them to move at their own pace, and predicated
on their each meeting the political and economic requirements
set for all aspirants. The EU offers a mixture of trade, economic
and financial assistance (the CARDS programme) and contractual
relationships (Stabilisation and Association Agreements).[56]
Regional co-operation constitutes an essential element and is
recognised as a qualifying indicator of the Western Balkan countries'
readiness to integrate.
The Commission Communication
15.4 The Communication assesses that the joint Thessaloniki
agenda has largely been implemented but that further progress
is required, and sets out concrete measures to reinforce its policy
and instruments in line with the Commission's Strategy Paper.
At the 30 January GAERC, Foreign Ministers welcomed the Communication
as a good basis for a substantive discussion on further work at
the subsequent EU-Western Balkans Ministerial "Gymnich"
(i.e., informal) meeting, which would aim to reaffirm the EU's
goals and to agree ways and means to reinforce the EU's efforts
in the region, in Salzburg on 10-11 March.
15.5 In our Conclusions, we noted that the UK has
championed enlargement, and continues to do so, as does the current
Presidency in this context, with support among other Member States
being more varied, with some being distinctly sceptical. We noted
that sustained progress was required in by now familiar areas
if the law-based democratic systems that embody European values
are to be realised; that a great deal remained to be done; and
that, though the EU can and should help, responsibility is primarily
in the hands of the Partner countries themselves. We also noted
that the Commission said that "full co-operation with the
International Criminal Court, to which all Western Balkan countries
are parties, has not been in line with the relevant EU decisions
in some cases" and that "in particular, greater efforts
is [sic] needed in the areas of refugee return, reconciliation
through education, social development and culture". We said
that, in a nutshell, the EU can only help those who also help
themselves, particularly by pressing ahead with sustained determination
and commitment to regional integration; to improve judicial administration;
and to tackle criminality, which are the areas that cause most
concern to both enthusiast and sceptic alike.
15.6 In clearing the document, which we drew to the
attention of the House because of the widespread interest in enlargement
and the Western Balkans, we asked the Minister to write to us
after the "Gymnich" meeting with a summary of the discussions
and conclusions and an outline of the views the UK put forward.
The previous Minister's earlier letter
15.7 The previous Minister of Europe (Mr Douglas
Alexander) responded on 24 April 2006. This letter covered the
first two requests, but only in a very general way, and the views
the UK put forward could only be deduced; and it added nothing
to what was contained in the enclosed post-meeting press statement.
In responding thus to him, the Chairman noted that, more importantly,
he made no mention of the sentence in the press statement where
"The EU also notes that its absorption capacity has to be
taken into account". He pointed out that, though this is
not a new term (sometimes being described as the lesser-known
"fourth" Copenhagen criterion) it is generally seen
in this context as indicating doubts among Member States about
the enlargement agenda. He recalled that, for the Austrian Presidency,
the Balkans is the foreign policy priority; and that the UK continues
to promote enlargement, but that the recent public intervention
by the US Under-Secretary for Political Affairs was seen by many
as responding to the fact that some other Member States were less
keen, with press reports suggesting that the "fourth criterion"
was inserted to placate France. He referred to other press reports
of increasingly evident Dutch scepticism, including a parliamentary
debate; to some German politicians being reported as favouring
a "privileged partnership"; and to the European Parliament's
pressure for a clearer definition of the EU's "absorption
capacity", with some MEPs favouring the inclusion in the
EU enlargement strategy of a "multi-lateral framework"
— for some, a step towards accession, for others an alternative.
He also noted that articles such as those in the 26 April Financial
Times on organised crime in Bulgaria were unlikely to calm anxieties
about Balkan membership. He concluded by asking that, given these
cross-currents of opinion, the Minister amplify his letter by
responding to the Committee's original request, and provide a
somewhat fuller summary of the discussion than the one short paragraph
in his letter and the press statement, and an outline of the views
the UK put forward at the meeting.
The Minister's letter
15.8 In a further letter 18 May 2006, the Minister
for Europe (Mr Geoffrey Hoon) responds as follows:
"Given the large number of participants and
the short time available, the UK did not actually speak at the
Informal Ministerial. However, it is well known that we continue
to support the Western Balkans' aspirations to become full EU
members proving [sic] they meet the necessary conditions.
We were therefore pleased that the Informal Ministerial reaffirmed
the EU's full support for the agenda set out at the Thessaloniki
Summit in 2003.
"Ursula Plassnik, on behalf of the Presidency,
opened the meeting by saying that this was a chance for the EU
to re-affirm its commitment to the European perspective of the
Western Balkans. At the same time the EU needed to give a signal
to its own people that it would not rush the process. The Presidency
then invited Western Balkans Foreign Ministers to update Member
States on the progress their countries had made since Thessaloniki
in 2003. Ministers from all of the countries spoke and each highlighted
how the European perspective had acted as a great lever for reform
and change in their countries. They were positive about what had
been achieved but also realistic about what still needed to be
done. The Albanian Foreign Minister for example focused heavily
on organised crime. Many of the Balkans Ministers also mentioned
visa facilitation as a further incentive the EU could offer the
region. There was widespread support amongst the Western Balkans
and EU Member States for a regional free trade area.
"In light of the nervousness of enlargement
that you refer to in your letter, we felt this meeting sent a
particularly timely positive message to the Western Balkans that
the EU will stand by its commitments to the region.
"The reference in the joint press statement
to absorption capacity reflects the December European Council
Conclusions which call for a debate on the future of enlargement.
The conclusions set out that the Commission's November strategy
paper should form the basis of a discussion and identify three
key areas: communication policy, effective conditionality and
reconfirming the European perspective of candidates and the Western
Balkans. The conclusions also refer to the need to pay attention
to absorption capacity. We expect this discussion to take place
at the June European Council and to cover the Union's capacity
to absorb new members. As you point out in your letter, this concept
is not new. It was first mentioned in the conclusions of the Copenhagen
Council in 1993 and has not impeded past enlargements. Ahead of
the accession of the A10, the EU agreed, in Agenda 2000, on policy,
institutional and budgetary reforms in order to absorb these new
countries into the EU. Nor should it impede future enlargements.
All candidates must change fundamentally before accession, and
the EU itself will change before they are ready to join. But the
closer a candidate comes to meeting EU standards, the easier it
will be for the EU to accept them."
Conclusion
15.9 We are grateful to the Minister for providing
the sort of reply that we were expecting in the first instance.
It contains no surprises — except, perhaps, that one of
the major champions of enlargement did not speak at such an important
meeting.
15.10 The Minister refers to the upcoming European
Council meeting. We are looking forward to taking evidence from
him after that meeting, which will provide a more appropriate
forum for continuing this discussion than would further correspondence.
52 HC 34-xii (2005-06), para 19 (30 November 2005). Back
53
COM(05) 561, page 2. Back
54
See HC 34-xii (2005-06), paras 20 and 21 (30 November 2005) for
the most recent updating of the European Partnerships for Albania,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia, and Serbia and Montenegro, including Kosovo as defined
in UN Security Council Resolution 1244/99. Back
55
The countries covered by the Stabilisation and Association process
are those mentioned in footnote 54. Back
56
For further details, see http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/intro/sap.htm. Back
|
