EU hesitates over strategy for Balkans

Date: 25/04/1996

By Elizabeth Wise

NOW that it has restored diplomatic ties with Serbia and Montenegro, the coast is clear for the Union to begin mapping out strategies for the Balkan region as a whole.

But five years after Yugoslavia disintegrated, it is not easy to decide how to put the jigsaw puzzle back together. The EU is now applying itself to the task, but its first steps are hesitant.

It is considering three approaches, which will probably be applied simultaneously. In one - the so-called 'regional' approach - the Union would weave links between a series of its bilateral treaties and accords with each of the new Balkan states. Encompassing all the former Yugoslav republics except Slovenia, and including Albania, it would seek to create an economic region and aspire to an eventual free trade zone or customs union.

A second tack would address the pressing need for security in the region by establishing a 'stability pact' aimed at easing ethnic tension and antagonism by creating a dialogue between former warring parties.

Conceived last December and based on a similar pact devised several years ago for Central and Eastern Europe by former French Premier Edouard Balladur, the pact would not be solely an EU initiative, but could be joined by the United States and other members of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

EU officials also speak of a third initiative, designed to foster cooperation between the ex-combatants through cultural links, but they are vague as to how that could be accomplished and have not yet drafted plans for its implementation.

Nor have Union officials agreed yet on the order in which they want to carry out the three campaigns, saying instead that all may be pursued in tandem.

At the European Commission, the idea of a stability pact is an attractive option, as the Balladur pact was regarded as a success in defusing ethnic tension between Romania and Hungary and useful in preparing the ground for EU enlargement.

But bitter rivals will need more encouragement to come to the table and talk about national minorities and property rights. That is where offers of financial help to individual nations could play a crucial role.

So while the OSCE may be called in to help with the stability pact, the Union will retain full control over its trade and financial initiatives.

“They (the OSCE states) can't deliver as we can in economic reintegration,” said a Commission official. “The prospect of (EU) membership is the most powerful motive or encouragement you can give them.”

According to a member of the Balkan Commission - a seven-member task force which has been travelling extensively in the region since last September - the newly independent republics oppose efforts to force them together.

“The Balkans themselves don't like the regional approach,” he said. “They are looking inward now, and the idea of border crossing (in an anticipated customs union) is very unpopular.”

So far, the EU and the US have not even been able to encourage Belgrade and Zagreb to recognise each other's sovereign status.

The Commission wants to conclude a trade and cooperation agreement with Croatia similar to the one it previously negotiated with Albania, but still declines to offer one to Serbia and Montenegro.

Far from making an offer of Union membership, most EU officials are reluctant to commit themselves to anything for Belgrade.

And EU member states, while agreeing that cooperation and economic dependency between the Balkans would help establish peace in the region, admit practical ideas are still in short supply.

If EU officials appear to be wandering without a compass, it is perhaps due to large reserves of mistrust in European circles towards Serbia's leadership.

Officials hope to get some guidance from a planned fact-finding mission to the region next month by the Italian presidency and Foreign Affairs Commissioner Hans van den Broek.

Suddenly becoming more acceptable as a partner after agreeing to accept the existence of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Belgrade also seemed to be sending a signal of cooperation with the West when it made a contribution to the international fund-raising conference for Bosnia earlier this month.

But the Serbian government has not given up several positions that western powers find dangerous, particularly its claim to be the sole successor to the former Communist federation.

Serbia and Montenegro have succeeded in winning recognition as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), but EU member states still reject Belgrade's argument that when Bosnia, Croatia, FYROM and Slovenia broke away from Yugoslavia in 1991, they forfeited their right to inherit federation assets worth billions of ecu.

Aides to Van Den Broek say giving FRY the sobriquet “rump Yugoslavia” appears to give in to that claim. Instead, the Commission's policy is to call it Serbia and Montenegro.

International High Representative Carl Bildt has appointed lawyer Sir Alec Watts to lead a working group studying the inheritance question and has also set up a group to study problems surrounding national minorities in the Balkans.

The EU statement recognising Serbia and Montenegro lists a number of conditions which must be fulfilled before Belgrade can expect more than just a nod.

These include “mutual recognition among all the states of

the former Yugoslavia” and agreement on succession. Further ties with Europe also depend on the repatriation of Serbs and Croats who traded places during the war and autonomy from the FRY government for Albanians in Kosovo.

Fearful of giving Belgrade too much free rein, Commission officials downplay the step the EU presidency took on 8 April to open the way for Union members to recognise FRY.

“It's a formal recognition which allows a relationship, but the quality of the relationship still has to be determined,” said one.