An everyday story of European discord

Date: 30/10/1997

Faced with an opportunity to reshape the EU, foreign ministers meeting at Mondorf-les-Bains let themselves get bogged down in a war of words over proposals for a European Conference. Mark Turner reports

EUROPEAN politics are rather like a well-crafted TV soap opera - you can miss almost any number of programmes and still recognise the story-line and the faces when you return.

This weekend's informal meeting of EU foreign ministers in Mondorf-les-Bains was, by these standards, a classic episode. A fan who last watched the Europe Show in the Middle Ages would have felt a reassuring glow of recognition as ministers bickered over the marriage of east and western Europe, ties with Turkey and Mediterranean turbulence.

Switching the set off at the end, the viewer would be happy in the knowledge that another half-millennium would probably pass without the plot making much progress.

The sad irony is that EU ministers had before them a real opportunity to break the mould, but missed it because of an irrelevant distraction: the European Conference.

Mondorf's participants were faced with what, to an outsider's eyes, appeared to be three refreshingly straightforward questions.

First, should all the EU's applicant countries begin membership negotiations at the same time, or should their different levels of political and economic readiness be recognised at the outset?

Secondly, in the latter (and more likely) scenario, should the Union set up a European Conference, as proposed by the French, which would allow all the candidate countries to feel part of the 'European family' despite being excluded from talks?

Finally, if a conference were set up, should it focus on accession issues and only include eastern Europe and Cyprus, or should it stick to justice, the environment and foreign policy and include Turkey?

The resulting discussions not only failed to give any firm answers, but also served to deepen even further the Union's philosophical divisions and highlight conflicting national interests. A dramatic future for the Europe Show is assured.

Sweden's Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen clearly underlined the fundamental problem at Mondorf. When asked whether she felt Turkey should be included in the European standing conference, she replied that since Sweden wanted negotiations with all the applicants to start at the same time, and was not convinced to the contrary, to talk of a conference was premature. To move on to questions two and three before number one had been answered, she insisted, would be illogical.

Greece, by contrast, started on the question of Turkey's relationship to Europe (question three), indicating it would only move on to questions two and one once that had been resolved.

With 15 ministers, all with different interests, approaching the three questions in different orders of priority, it is hardly surprising that progress was thin on the ground.

In his closing remarks, Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jacques Poos said that “the air at Mondorf seems to have done us good” and proclaimed a substantial convergence of views. But individual briefings by his EU counterparts painted an entirely different picture, leaving the media with the impression that the splits were deeper than ever.

The resultant confusion has left many applicant countries profoundly unsettled and threatens to make life even more tense at Europe's fringes.

Diplomats in Brussels are increasingly concerned that if the EU does not find some mechanism to keep Ankara content, while at the same time making it clear that Turkey's membership bid is a very long-term project, next year's launch of enlargement negotiations could lead to disaster.

“If we do not find a viable compromise for Turkey, we could face a catastrophe next year,” said a senior Luxembourg presidency source just before the Mondorf meeting.

The nightmare scenario would be full-blown Turkish annexation of Cyprus. Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash, at present on a tour of the United States, is certainly not helping to allay such fears.

“The EU does not have legal grounds to bind the whole of Cyprus. The island cannot join the Union unless Greece and Turkey are both members,” repeated a spokesman for Denktash this week, adding: “If there is no solution, we may turn closer to Turkey.”

On the other side of the coin, developments in Ankara and beyond are, if anything, rendering its Union application an even more distant dream.

Foreign Affairs Commissioner Hans van den Broek thundered from Mondorf's pulpit, in surprising contrast to Commission President Jacques Santer's anodyne statements, sharply criticising Turkey's human rights violations and police oppression. “These developments do not indicate a shared philosophy,” he said.

Given that this was a prime opportunity to sit down and really talk these developments through, eastern European diplomats say it was all the more disappointing that the focus of the discussions - the Europe Conference - was so misguided.

France's determination to push the issue was, however, understandable. On the face of it, the conference seems to promise a perfect halfway-house, giving applicant governments a positive message to sell at home, but not jumping the integration gun.

Unfortunately, no one but those who proposed it seems to think the idea is worthwhile.

Greece, the country with most to fear from Ankara, remains adamant that it should not appear in any enlargement forum. German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel, representing the EU country with the strongest political influence in Turkey, believes that the country should follow a parallel track more suited to its geographically strategic situation.

Otherwise, he suggests, the conference should be widened to include non-EU applicants like Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Malta - diluting it to a meaningless degree.

On the other side, the Turks do not accept that the conference is the answer to their grievances. “If this conference is to help integration, it must have some meat on it,” said a Turkish diplomat. “Everything we hear says it will be very watered down. This is not enough.”

The less advanced eastern applicant countries - Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria and Romania - are also profoundly suspicious of the idea. “I do not understand what this conference is trying to achieve,” said a Lithuanian diplomat. “How will it add to the structured dialogue or the accession partnerships? I see no advantage in it.”

Given such concerns, do France and other supporters of the idea really believe it will ease the bitter pill for those countries left behind?

The European Commission's attempts to justify its proposals for EU financing from 2000 to 2006 are seen as a similar example of misplaced efforts to ease the pain of rejection.

According to Van Den Broek, although the first new members will, on the face of it, receive much greater support than those left behind, each new accession will give the remaining applicants a bigger contribution because the funds in the 'pre-in' pot will remain the same. Furthermore, he adds, new members will have to make their own contributions, meaning their receipts will not be as large as they appear.

“I do not know why he bothered to say this,” said an eastern European diplomat. “Are we meant to believe that Bulgaria will do best because it enters the EU last?”

Of course not. Such statements do little but appease the consciences of those who make them and convince the newspaper-reading public at home that something is being done.

Until the Union lays its position down in clear and understandable terms, warn the applicants, it will continue to foster instability on its peripheries.

They insist that the time for half-truths is over. If Europe really wants Turkey in the EU, why does it not open negotiations? Otherwise, it should say 'no, thank you' politely but firmly. Similarly, if the Union intends to keep an eastern European country's application on ice, it should come out and admit it.

“But,” cry EU politicians, “we cannot afford to let Turkey annex Cyprus. Ankara must be kept happy. We must avoid creating new divisions in Europe.”

Perhaps they would benefit from watching a few back-episodes of the Europe Show to see what happened in the past when Europe relied on appeasement and false promises. Still, all the best soaps depend on the main characters repeating the same predictable mistakes. Europe's ratings over the next decade appear assured.