(Fwd) Zagreb and Brussels

Thu Apr 22 16:17:00 CEST 2004

------- Forwarded message follows -------

April 22, 2004 

STATE OF THE UNION COLUMN

A Useful Balkan Flip-Flop
By VITOMIR MILES RAGUZ

The best thing about policy is that it changes. Sometimes overnight.
This is probably what the Croats are thinking these days, as they are
about to receive EU candidate status at the European Council in June,
following the adoption of a positive avis -- or readiness opinion --
by the European Commission on Tuesday. Only 15 months ago, they were
told loudly and clearly that candidate status would be premature. The
EU and German ambassadors in Zagreb said that Croatia shouldn't 
submit
a membership application at all. What has changed so quickly that
Brussels is now about to open the door to its future 28th member?
Everyone's favorite democrats in the Balkans, Ivica Racan's
Socialists, late last year lost power to Ivo Sanader's remnants of 
the
much maligned HDZ party of former President Franjo Tudjman. So this
can't be the reason. Perhaps it is the fact that eight Croats have
meanwhile turned themselves in voluntarily to the Yugoslav war-crimes
tribunal at The Hague. But the EU wouldn't make this important
decision on one "soft" issue. Moreover, Zagreb hasn't convinced them
that it has done everything to locate the fugitive general Ante
Gotovina. It's also impossible to tell a real difference between the
previous and present governments. On key questions of judicial reform
and bloated government, both the Racan and Sanader governments are
wanting. No, the real change occurred in Brussels. And however fickle
the EU might look, the new approach on Croatia benefits both Europe
and the Balkans. The EU realized that its options in the Balkans
weren't good. Croatia's neighbors to the south have made precious
little progress since the 1995 Dayton peace accord ended the Bosnian
war. In fact, Serbia is again the biggest question mark in the region
given the resurgence of its nationalist parties. Bosnia is in the
hands of a large neo-colonial administration. Macedonia continues in
limbo, following an air crash that took the life of its pro-Western
president, Boris Trajkovski. Albania remains Europe's poorest 
country.
With so much uncertainty in the region, Croatia can be used as an
example for its neighbors. By recognizing its political and economic
stability, coupled with a willingness to meet international
obligations, Brussels sends a message to the lagging bunch that
progress and cooperation with the West pays off. Hence this week's
decision effectively to carve Croatia away from the Balkans, as the 
EU
did with Slovenia in the early 1990s. But there is probably more
design in the EU's move than meets the eye. Zagreb early last year
took a calculated gamble by filing a membership application despite
vocal opposition. Its foresight then became strengthened by the new
thinking about the region, coming mostly from Berlin, and eagerly
picked up by the conservative governments in Austria and Ireland, the
Christian Democrats in the European Parliament, and the Holy See. The
then-Racan government played this EU card to reverse its slide in
popularity, unsuccessfully in the end. But Zagreb also rightly
concluded that its application could never be rejected, given the
commitment in Brussels to a Europe that is "whole and free." Indeed,
imagine the message Brussels would send to the Balkans if it were to
say no to a state that has a stronger economy than some of the newest
10 members. In the worst case scenario, Zagreb thought, Brussels 
would
accept the application, and grant candidate status with conditions.
But the Sanader government would like to avoid conditions, and wants 
a
firm start date for accession negotiations, with a view to join the
Union alongside Romania and Bulgaria in 2007. However, conditional
status is still most likely. Probably not in general terms like
Turkey's, but more specific, possibly making the surrender of Gen.
Gotovina an issue. The precise conditions will depend on whether the
EU's policy logic has truly shifted beyond the outdated regional
approach once championed by Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime
minister and the first international viceroy in Bosnia. This approach
held Croatia and Serbia back from the EU and NATO until Bosnia,
theoretically entirely dependent on the good will of its bigger
neighbors, recovers fully. It still has some supporters in Britain 
and
Scandinavia. But Berlin, aware of the meager results on the ground,
has promoted a fresher approach, arguing that the future of Bosnia,
and other fragile states in the Balkans, depends primarily on
inter-ethnic relations in the countries themselves. Three years ago,
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer called for a Helsinki-like
dialogue among the groups in those countries to standardize their
rights and obligations. Whether the German model trumps the
U.K.-Scandinavian approach in June isn't clear. The desire to send a
strong message favors the Fischer model. But London still may hold
out, not least since the EU takes over Bosnia peacekeeping from the
U.S. and NATO in full at the end of the year, with U.K. leadership.
London might view a strong Croatia as an obstacle, following the 
logic
of Mr. Bildt that it might give Bosnian Croats an added reason to
prefer the dominion of Zagreb over Sarajevo. Few people in the 
Balkans
think like the Foreign Office anymore, and would prefer to have the 
EU
closer to its borders than anything else. They see Croatia as a
deserving candidate, one that would cost Brussels little, and yet,
give a powerful boost to the progressive forces in their own
countries. Incidentally, if it were to join in 2007, Croatia would
contribute net €330 million to the EC budget, according to 
estimates
made this year. This transfer would, of course, be offset by EU
structural funds, but probably not by much. If one were to use
Slovakia's first year financial net benefit as a proxy, Croatia would
receive an overall net of €80 million. Peanuts, even for Zagreb. As
it turns out, the only beneficiary of keeping Croatia on the EU's
sidelines may actually be Croatia. As candidate, it would enjoy the
benefit of structural funds without obligations to pay into the EU
budget, which it must as a member. The losers would be the EU and the
Balkans. Mr. Raguz, the ambassador of Bosnia-Herzegovina to the EU 
and
NATO in 1998-2000, is now a banker in Vienna. URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108258641764889839,00.html

Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108197169437682732,00.html (2)
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108137348933477120,00.html 

------- End of forwarded message -------------------------------------
---------------------------
Ivo Skoric
19 Baxter Street
Rutland VT 05701
802.775.7257
ivo at balkansnet.org
balkansnet.org