bet · GS01UU10 · 2005-04-26 00:00:00 — At themoment he is Desk Officer for , and and a memberof the Force.Karsten Mecklenburg: I will try to keep to the time limits to shortlypresent Neighbourhood Policy, but also say a few words onthe question of the state of democracy and human rights in the threecountries - as this is the title of the seminar. I will also take theopportunity to react to some of the remarks made in interventions byprevious speakers.Let me start by recalling what Neighbourhood Policy is. Iam sure most of you as you have arrived to this seminar, certainly wellprepared, will have a knowledge about the developments. Let me recallthe discussion about how to develop, to address, the EU's relationswith neighbours after enlargement. It started more intensively duringthe course of the summer of 2002. The issue was raised inside the EUwith the approaching conclusion of accession negotiations with thecurrent new member states and with the target date fixed for the EUenlargement. put it correctly, at the starting point thefocus was clearly on the new neighbours, on the countries in the east.There we have the majority of new member states and there we have thenew borders with , and in a couple of years also likelywith Moldova.The question was what the EU approach should be. How should we addressthe opportunities but also the challenges posed by EU enlargement byexpanding the EU's external borders towards the east? During the courseof the year of 2002 the discussion went on. There was a joint letter ofCommissioner Patton and the High Representative Mr. to EU memberstates. And the discussion in the and among the member stateswent into the direction saying that we shouldn't forget about the similarchallenges but also opportunities existing around the EU also in oursoutheastern and southern neighbourhood. The countries in the Balkansdo already have a kind of accession prospective in their respectiveagreements. A distinct procedure was made clear, because it is a distinctprocess. We have the stability and association process, while alsokeeping in mind, obviously, they are also neighbours of the enlarged EU.The result of this discussion and process inside the EU towards theend of 2002 and in the beginning of 2003 was that the Commission wasinvited to present ideas for a new policy approach with the neighboursof the enlarged European Union in the east and in the south. Thatresulted in a Commission paper, a so-called communication, published inMarch 2003, that developed these requested ideas.The Commission precisely took up the point of opportunities and challenges.That is also something which was mentioned by some of the previousspeakers, including e.g. Mr. Romanchuk from Belarus.What is our interest? Our interest is, of course, to strengthen anddevelop wealth, stability and security inside Union. Butthat cannot be done without a similar development in neighbouring regions,whether it is in the east or in the south. Obviously there is a certaininterest in countries like , a new member state, but also Germanyand the Scandinavian countries to have a closer look at our easternneighbours. and also is a distinct issue. Countries likeSpain, and also insist on close relationships and thechallenges and opportunities we as the EU and they as member stateshave with countries like in the south, with intensive economicand interpersonal relationship. Therefore we should try to find aflexible concept of principals that can apply as a basis for relationswith all these countries, while clearly highlighting and insisting onthe need to differentiate based on the state of development of thecountries' relations with Union and its member states, basedon the state of economic, political and democratic developments, butalso, important for and , based on the countries'furthergoing objectives and aims, the to become a member of theEuropean Union at a later stage.The Commission outlines these ideas. If you wish to summarize this, oneof the major offers, ways to intensify our relationship and to addressthe question of development of stability, wealth and security in theneighbourhood countries, was to increase co-operation, but to turn awayfrom co-operation to a level of integration, to a level of integrationin terms of economic integration, cultural integration etc., to developa long-term perspective of giving these countries a stake in the EU'sinternal market. It is quite a lot, and it poses a lot of challenges.TheCommission had also put on the table the question linked to joining theinternal market benefiting gradually from the freedoms that are a partof the internal market. It is obviously a very delicate question. Whatdoes it mean, medium term, long-term, to benefit and participate in thefour freedoms?To prevent any kind of new dividing lines, to offer intensifiedparticipation, under the existing co-operation, we do already have a highlevel of co-operation. is a good example, i.e. to intensify theco-operation and to open further participation in EU programmes, EUactions, to develop exchange, twinning and increased assistance, targetedat these overall objectives.What I want to make clear, and that is by way of reacting to all of theprevious speakers, is to say that this European Neighbourhood Policy ismaybe a reaction and a response to the EU enlargement that took placethree weeks ago, but it is not meant to give an answer to the questionof EU membership of the countries included in this policy approach. Mr.Ahlin said he was disappointed about putting eastern neighbours togetherwith southern neighbours. Our position is known, in particular to Mr.Romanchuk and to Mr. If that impression does come out anywhere,is reflected like that in the press, it is wrong. has insistedon that. Commissioner Patton and Commissioner Verheugen have insistedthat by no means the elements put on the table for the EuropeanNeighbourhood Policy are meant to answer the question whether orMoldova could become members of the Europan Union one day. We say thatthat is not the issue for Neighbourhood Policy. In brackets,Mr. Verheugen has said that obviously, in substance, implementing aEuropean Neighbourhood Policy will mean a great deal of preparation forsomething that might come up on the table some day. If you wish, it isthe substance. President has called it an early stage; to sharewith the countries everything but institutions. This means offering thecountries regular participation in the EU's internal markets, possiblybenefiting from the four freedoms, whithout necessarily joining theCouncil of member states or Parliament. You might call ita mere formality, but it is obviously a lot.I believe it was Mr. Tarasyuk, and Mr. Romanchuk referred to it, whomentioned an article in the that created some waves inthe Ukrainian press about President saying that never ever woulda successor state of the former Soviet Union join Union.As far as I know Mr. has never said that. I would be surprised ifhe had said it. There was an interview recently in a Ukranian newspaperwhere this was rectified. President made it clear that this isnot the position of the Commission and Union. It should beclear enough that Article 49 of the current Treaty of Unionremains valid, including the potential prospective for any Europeancountry that fulfills the necessary criteria to join the EU. We wouldinsist that this is from our perspective not on the table, and this isnot a question to be addressed by Neighbourhood Policy.Mr. Romanchuk said that , the Belarusian society, would need amessage that belongs to Europe. Tarasyuk has not said that,but I am sure he would agree that needs a message that thecountry belongs to Europe.Boris Tarasyuk: We are sure!Karsten Mecklenburg: Exactly! You are convinced that belongs toEurope, in the heart of Europe.One should be ready to make a distinction between Europe and the EuropeanUnion. A membership in Union is a very diverse challenge.It is not only about the state of democracy and human rights, which isthe title of the seminar. I recall slightly what Ms. Zimmer said.EU-Ukraine relations will depend on political reform, political development,democratization and the conduct of the October 2004 elections. I wouldsay there are a number of points missing in that list. It's not onlyabout the state of democracy, political development and human rights.Membership in Union is much more complex. That's why I amsaying one should be ready. I understand how difficult it is sometimesto defend it in the domestic political debate, to make a clear distinctionbetween Europe, Union and . It is difficult enoughsometimes even for the political élite in these countries. Those whoare not involved directly with the context have problems to make thesedistinctions. That is why I am insisting that obviously is aEuropean country. Romanchuk says that some EU member states say:"Leave as it is as it does not have the intention to join theEuropean Union." Then I would go as far as to say that I don't believethat. I have never noticed that in any discussion in Council meetingsor Council bodies.There might be different ideas about how to develop European strategy,EU strategy and policy approach towards . It isdifficult enough to find the right approach and strategy with Mr.Lukashenko. In any case, I think we all agree that is a Europeancountry.Moving on to the topic of the seminar, the state of democracy and humanrights. I made a reference to Ms. Zimmer's presentation, the questionof political reform, democratic reform, as a basis for EU-Ukrainerelations that applies to all the countries that are the target for theEuropean Neighbourhood Policy. We call it shared values, common values.It is a basis for going forward in this European Neighbourhood Policyapproach. For it would be a starting point. There we are, sadlyenough, not much further than zero on our level of current relationship.The presentations of the previous speakers were elaborate enough topresent their views and assessments. I shouldn't say much more.For I would definitely agree on the points made by Mr. Zimmer as to the low level of distinction between political andeconomic leads. I would even go further to say that there is a generalproblem of lack of transparency between links, between political andeconomic élites, but also between political groups and administrationand economic groups, i.e. the power of decision-making of administrativeauthorities and economic entities. The issue has also been raised aboutthe transparency between administrative authorities, political clans,economic clans and media. It is a crucial issue in also in therun-up to the presidential elections.Mr. Romanchuk called for the EU being much more in interms of civil society development. Obviously our hands are to a certainextent tied. You know very well how difficult it has been made by theBelarusian authorities - knows it also - to be in assistingcivil society. We try to do our utmost. The EU has a limited frameworkof assistance with . There is a clear focus on civil society,education and alleviation of Chernobyl consequences. These are threemain blocks of our assistance with . If you read the EuropeanNeighbourhood Strategy Paper, which the Commission adopted on the 12thMay - you will find it on the website of Commission - thereis a chapter on . You will precisely in this area find theproposal to increase our activity and assistance.On , just to recall because you did not mention it and Ms.Wigström did not mention it: There was a group of Belarusian oppositionpoliticians invited to visit yesterday. They had meetings withhigh-level representatives of European institutions, including Mr. ,I understand. Lebedko was there also, as was mentioned by Mr.Romanchuk. I understand that supported that visit financially, ifI am not mistaken. It was organized by the EU Presidency and the Commission.I definitely agree with what Mr. Uritu said on and the importanceof the Transnistrian conflict. Everything in is linked to asolution of the Transnistrian conflict. It is very complex. Yes - Russiahas an important role, but neighbouring countries and Uniontogether with the obviously also have an important role to play.The EU has expressed its clear commitment to be more in closeco-operation with the and supporting the mediators and the processto find a solution. The US is for instance assisting the joint constitutionalcommission that was set up last year on the initiative of the mediators.The commission is definitely ready to release and to mobilize allresources or any kind of post-conflict settlements. That is also part ofthe European Neighbourhood Policy in all terms and in terms of supportingdemocracy and rule of law but also economic development.I guess there will be a number of questions where I might be requiredto response, so I conclude here.Cecilia Wigström (fp): Thank you, Mr. Mecklenburg, for your informativeintervention. Yes, I am sure we have a lot of questions. I also knowthat our panel will probably like to respond a bit. We have nowfinished the first part of our seminar where the speakers have madeinterventions. Now we will continue with a panel discussion and adiscussion which will involve also you and the audience.I would like to start with the panel. I know that many of you alreadyhave expressed some critical views on policy. But if anyof you would like to come in at this point and make some short othercomments on Mr. Mecklenburg s intervention it will be welcomed beforewe open the floor to other questions.Jaroslav Romanchuk: This is about the comment on the difficult job comingout with a strategy for . The speaker said that we mentionedstrategy with Mr. Who cares about Mr. The thingis that we have to deal with the civil society, with people who areactive and who are democratically oriented. If you want to deal withBelarus only through the authorities you end up nowhere. This is a fact.In central eastern Europe we have very good experience. If ,and dealt with or at that timeonly through Communist governments I believe we would have had a SovietUnion social system by now. That is why when we talk about a distinctivelydifferent strategy for we mean democratization as the ultimategoal of both Union and civil society in our country beforewe start any kind of formal integration process.About Mr. and high commissioners from Union: Themessage that we need is, and it would be most welcome if any high commissioner from Union stated that openly toBelarusian independent media, that is welcome in the EuropeanUnion provided it means criteria. Probably this sounds obvious forEuropean commissioners and for European parliamentarians, but believeme: This is the message Belarusian people need!Then we have the comment about different approaches to the three countriesthat are represented here: , and . I talk todiplomats and meet politicians, and obviously there are two distinctivelydifferent approaches. The first one is: "Let decide what shouldbe done with the three countries under question. Let's keep some remnantsof cold war division lines and we will probably deal with them. We don'twant to alienate Mr. - he's a great guy. We get a lot of gas andstuff from , so why should we care as this country is not readyfor any accession?" That is one approach. The other approach is: "Let'sforget about cold war times altogether. These countries belong to Europe- that's obvious." I agree with Mr. Tarasyuk and I agree with all thepeople who think that geographically we are there. But we are not talkingabout institutions at the moment. We are talking about programmes andopenness of Union and other European institutions to dealwith the existing problems on the ground. The reality is that Belarusis having problems dealing both with its authorities and with internationalcontacts.As I mentioned there are a lot of formal statements and resolutionsfrom Union, but we need further measures. I believe thatthere are too few measures in new neighbour and concepts.Urban (): As having the privilege of being the Chairman of theForeign I specially asked to have the firstquestion. I really want to question a lot about what Mr. KarstenMecklenburg said from Union side.Let's start with the new neighbourhood initiative and neighbourhoodpolicy. You say that this is not intended to answer the question aboutif they can be members or not. No, of course not! The NeighbourhoodPolicy is made to prevent them from being members of Union.The idea from the beginning was a initiative and a newneighbour initiative to bring them closer, to integrate them and in theend have them as members of Union. I don't know how to saythis in English, but it was in a way cheated inside Unionto be a neighbourhood policy where we deal with all the neighbouringcountries around. That way one could move away from the issue of tellingthose countries that they are ready to be or able to be members in thefuture.I can give you lots of examples of this. Tarasyuk said aboutRomano is correct. He has many times stated that there is no chancefor those countries to be members of Union. When he wasasked after the enlargement, at the day of the enlargement "What aboutUkraine?" he answered: "What about ?" What kind of messageis that? is not a European country, but is in thecentre of Union.I can tell you that we had a meeting here in a few days ago.I really shouldn't tell you who it was, but it was Verheugen. We hada coffee break in the seminar, and we spoke to Russian representativesthere. He said: "actually has no right to exist. It is anartificial state, and integration with has gone so far that it hasno meaningful existense in the future." I was so upset, to be honest!In my view Union has an historical opportunity at thistime to close a dividing line that has been there for many decades andhas been a torture to all European citizens.I would like you, , to answer my question. In the Swedish Parliamentwe have been very much engaged in bringing and the Baltic countriesinto Union. How was it possible for them to make all thereforms and the transformation of their societies and all the tough jobthe political élite has done in these countries to tell the people: Weneed to do this privatization, we need to do these cuttings in the socialwelfare - we need to do these changes? Because they could tell thepeople that this is needed for us to be members of NATO and members ofthe European Union. That is the way it has been sold to the population.I can tell you that we will see an EU-fatigue, and we are actually seeingit already, in those countries when they are members of the EuropeanUnion. The negative opinion on Union is on the rise inPoland, in , in Estonia, and in because they are membersnow and they feel safe. The driving force, the "carrot", is no longerthere.My point is that there is no chance whatsoever that , Ukraineand will have a chance to join Union if we don'tgive them the carrot and the driving force. Then they can tell thepopulation of their countries that if we build this and if we do thesereforms, if we democratize, if we have these human rights things, andif we have a free market economy we will in the end be members of theEuropean Union. As long as the leaders of Union don't saythat, the population doesn't believe in it and the leadership cannotsell the necessary reforms in those countries.For me, we are in Catch-22. If Union is not willing totell the population that they can be members of Union wewill never have the reforms in those countries so that they in the endcan be members of Union. We are at the starting point ofan historical disaster. In 20 years time this will end up with a newdividing line in Europe. I am frustrated. I am a young politician, andI don't want to talk to my kids in 20 years time and say: "We lost thehistorical opportunity. That's the reason, my daughter , that weneed to spend more money on defence. We haven't got rid of this dividingline in the middle of Europe." It is really time for the EU Commissionand its civil officers to think this through. Which are the mainperspectives for the future?I would like to say one thing about , as Mr. Afew months ago Union opened up an office of representationin . We have one already in , but we don t have any inMinsk - in a neighbouring country of Union. There is norepresentation office. What is the reason for that? Is it lack of money?Obviously not, because we had money for and . That cannotbe the reason. Is it because of Lukashenka? I don t think so, becauseit would be one of the most serious threats against Lukashenka if theEU could be more visible and show what it is about. So why is it? Myquestion is to you, ! Why don t we have a representation officein ?Cecilia Wigström (fp): Mr. Mecklenburg - I will give you the chance torespond to these two questions.Karsten Mecklenburg: On the first question, or series of questions,about future membership perspective, I would say that you obviouslyknow that I am not the right person to address this question to. I ama civil servant - a bureaucrat, if you want to put it like that.But even if I say that I represent Commission I may notbe the right person to address this question to. I don t know enoughabout the political debate in and the run-up to the Europeanelections, but you follow the debate in all member states.You follow the debate about further EU-enlargements in the light ofeconomic and social developments in EU-member states themselves. Youfollow the debate about accession of , in for instanceand in other European member states. You follow the debate about theEuropean Constitution and about the state of integration inside theEuropean Union after the current enlargement. You mention yourself thedifficulties that already exist in some of the new member states interms of satisfaction with what new membership has brought them andwhat people perceive as consequences of accession to Union.The European Commission can obviously only take up and react to themandate it has and then develop the suggestions.Still I would dare to make a comment - a kind of personal remark. Yousay you are sceptical about and horrified by the future and you saythat the people in these countries are looking for the carrot, for theperspective of EU-membership - let's say the Ukrainian, Belarusian orMoldovan citizen. I would dare to disagree, again making the point ofwhat the ordinary Ukrainian and Belarusian citizen really knows aboutthe European Union. Can they tell the difference between the EuropeanUnion and for instance? What they want is a betterlife. They want to be part of Europe in terms of an economic and politicalspace without divisions and dividing lines. They want close economicco-operation that brings boost to their economy and social situation,improved infrastructure, better chances in education, exchange programmes,to be able to meet people in and , to be able to travelwithout obstacles, without visa, without border controls - yes, I admitthat. But does that necessarily require membership in Union?That's the question I ask. I would say no. Because if we are able tooffer all this to the citizen, to the people, in a medium long-termperspective it will meet a lot of the challenges and fears you mentionand - and again in brackets - it will obviously prepare the ground fora possible future membership in Union if that question ison the table.On the other question of offices - fortunately you asked me the questionabout an EU-delegation in and not in , because in Moldovawe don't have a delegation of Commission either. I wouldpersonally feel it would be a much more difficult situation to defendthat. is also covered from . That is clear. We have adelegation of Commission in . It also figures underthe title of the EU delegation, but in the current state of CFSP youwill know that the competences of the Commission obviously are limited.We do have a number of bilateral embassies in , also in anda very limited number, three or four, diplomatic representations, inMoldova.