Tension rises as ‘avis’ day draws nearer

Date: 22/05/1997

By Mark Turner

IT IS hardly surprising that some of the ten applicants from central and eastern Europe are growing increasingly nervous at the prospect of being left out of EU membership negotiations in 1998.

To those who fear that national governments will throw objective criteria out the window when deciding whom to invite to the negotiating table, Foreign Affairs Commissioner Hans van den Broek has a simple message: “We will not let them.”

Beyond that, however, the man responsible for the European Commission's eagerly awaited opinions (avis) on each applicant's suitability for membership is giving little away.

“I have not arrived at the stage of the beauty contest yet. The jury still has to do its work,” he told European Voice this week.

“I realise that from the moment - and earlier - that the avis are on the table, we will receive comments that this country is much more advanced here and that one there, but I ignore these comments for the time being. Our firm intention is to give an absolutely impartial, objective assessment of the state of readiness of each and every candidate country,” he stresses.

Van Den Broek probably has this phrase indelibly etched on his mind, given the number of times he has repeated it. But it will take more than Commission sound bites to convince his audience that big politics will not, in the final analysis, win the day.

When the avis are released on 16 July, each candidate will go through its report card with a fine-tooth comb, looking for any signs of unfair play - and Van Den Broek is acutely aware of this.

The implications of the avis' conclusions “already make me a little nervous, as I know how important it is for those countries to receive fair treatment on their own merits”, he admits.

“We feel it is a heavy responsibility to make the criteria that we apply understood in the avis and that we do not compare apples with pears.”

In many ways, the question of how to assuage those countries at the bottom of the list is more difficult to answer than the simpler task of negotiations with the front runners. Politicians from the applicant countries are already warning of popular backlashes if their citizens feel abandoned.

In response to these concerns, Van Den Broek stresses that applicants will remain applicants however slowly they move towards EU standards, adding: “Whatever the negotiation scenario is, we will plan for a reinforcement of the pre-accession strategy. It will include focusing more on those issues directly relevant to accession, such as institution-building and investments in modern industry needed to bring it up to environmental standards.”

That is not to say that relations with the more advanced applicants will be trouble free. Poland's constitutional vote, Slovenia's delayed ratification of its Europe Agreement and growing scepticism in the Baltics all demonstrate an increasing concern at what EU membership might mean. It is not inconceivable that in a referendum their citizens might even reject membership.

Nevertheless, Van Den Broek is not keen to get involved in domestic disputes.

“I do not think it is our task to convince them. It is our task to give an impartial and transparent insight into what the Union represents,” he stresses.

“Even in our own member states, one can be taken by surprise over the way in which the Union is being presented as a kind of authoritarian institution which decides, without any control, about the daily lives of our citizens. All the candidate countries have applied for membership - it is their wish being expressed to be integrated into the EU. While we are obviously pleased with that request, we are not the demandeurs.”

The Commissioner cannot, however, resist putting the record straight on fears that the new democracies will lose their hard-won sovereignty to an insensitive Union.

“We tend to speak less about the transfer of sovereignty - the expression used by more Eurosceptic people - than the sharing of sovereignty. If you want to have more influence, it is logical that common decisions carry more weight than decisions from one state alone. Crisis management on a national scale is not that easy to handle and the same goes for combating international organised crime,” he says.

Van Den Broek is, in fact, convinced that greater EU co-operation in justice and home affairs is essential for the Union's enlargement preparations.

“It is very important that progress is made towards the recognition that one needs more harmonisation of asylum, immigration and visa policies,” he argues.

“A majority of member states agrees that bringing them to the first pillar is imperative - notably in view of enlargement - if one really wants to maintain the ambitious objective of free circulation for our citizens, but with less international organised crime.”

He also highlights the need for better functioning institutions and more cooperative decision-making procedures if an enlarged EU is to work.

Nevertheless, he insists that “none of these changes, however important, can replace the political will that is necessary to really enhance the Union's role on the international scene.

“I only need to refer to a number of mishaps in the recent past that clearly show the notion of solidarity is not sufficiently developed.”

If the politicians do not find the correct formula for eastern expansion, that may be the greatest mishap of all.