Interview with European Commissioner Chris Patten, 2004, www.seetv-exchanges.com

ITEM 1: Interview by Dusan Gajic for South East Europe TV, Strasbourg, 30 March 2004

The new element in this year’s report, is the “European Partnership”. Could you explain this new notion?

What we are very keen to do is to provide more practical, down-to- earth assistance with our friends in South East Europe as they make their way towards successful completion of the Stabilisation and Association process, and as they prepare for, what we hope, is the eventual objective: negotiating membership of the European Union. And we’ve taken this idea of Partnerships from the arrangements we’ve made with countries which are about to become members of the EU. We had with them what we called Accession Partnerships and what it did is to detail the sort of things which countries needed to do in order to complete their reforms, and ways in which we could help them. So, we’ve done that with our friends in the Stabilisation and Association Process, we’ve identified the things that they’ve got to correct or the things which they want to change and suggested ways in which we can help them do that.

So, practically, it will mean a sort of Agenda of reforms?

The Partnerships provide a plan, to use a cliché, which is often used these days, a roadmap which enables them to progress in the direction which they want and we want. Some of them have gone faster than others but we’d like all of them to do as well as possible because we know what their ambitions are.

Speaking about Albania, my Albanian colleagues say that the report doesn’t look much different than the Annual report from last year and the same problems are still there: corruption, lack of rule of law. What does it mean for you-that the politicians there are passive?

We recognize that there has been some progress in Albania over the last year, f.e., the privatization of a major bank, Albania has played a very constructive role in dealing with regional problems, and the macroeconomic position is pretty stable. But, I am afraid that some of the problems we’ve had in the past are still very much present. No doubt that legislation is passed but we have concerns about implementing capacity and, above all, we’ve got real worries about crime, about organized crime, about corruption. Now, those were all problems that were identified some time ago. The Conference that was held in London a couple of years ago spent a lot of time discussing them. We discussed those issues in Thessaloniki at the meeting last year and I hope that our friends in Albania will recognize that we have legitimate concerns about these issues and I hope that they will deal with them more effectively.

A lot of money is still being spent in Albania despite those problems and the apparent status quo. Is this effective?

Well, we’ve spent since I‘ve been a Commissioner in Albania well over 200 million euros and I hope that it’s increasingly effective. We are helping Albania develop its institutional capacity, we are helping, I hope, insure that Albania has the customs service and the police which it needs in order to deal with criminality and corruption and smuggling and those sort of problems. So, I hope that Albania will make the best use of the investment that we make in its reform process.

In case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a recent opinion poll, published by the EC Delegation there, shows that a large majority of people would like to join the EU as soon as possible, but at the same time, the same large majority does not believe that their leadership can bring them there. It shows that they don’t trust their leadership. Do you?

I think that there is a strong message there for political leaders in Bosnia and Herzegovina. People do want --and want in overwhelming numbers-- to make the journey to the heart of the European family, but too many of their political leaders are still looking to the past, are still looking to old arguments and are still wrapped up in sectarian interests and concerns. I think the message for them is very clearly that they have to look to the future, they have to look to the national interests of Bosnia and Herzegovina and stop engaging in old feuds and old arguments, and put the future at the top of the agenda, not the past.

What do you detect now as the main problems in terms of the functioning of the BiH State?

There are 16 issues that we identified in the Feasability Study, which needed to be tackled, and tackled rapidly and energetically, by the State institutions and by the Entities. I don’t think, when you look at the work rate in Parliament, you would necessarily think that the problems were being dealt with all that energetically. Obviously, there are still problems in the areas of human rights and the judiciary which need to be tackled, we also want to see functioning State institutions, effective State institutions, and we want to see more done to ensure that the economy develops because that’s still lagging and not producing the sort of jobs and prosperity which people deserve and which their abilities justify.

There is a new government in Serbia. How do you assess the first steps taken by the new government, and what is your impression about the communication between you and the new government, is it better than with the previous government or is it too early to say?

The new government has declared its determination to continue on the road to Europe but we would like to see what steps it takes. First of all, it’s very important to ensure that the constitutional charter, that the agreement between Serbia and Montenegro works, that the institutions of the state are effective. It’s important, also, to ensure that the Action Plan to create a real single market, a real single trading entity-it’s important to see that that is implemented, otherwise it’s very difficult for us to negotiate some of the things we want to do with Serbia and Montenegro. It’s also imperative that the new government demonstrates that it accepts the overwhelming case for working with the International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague. This isn’t some excentricity on the part of the European Union that we demand this, there is a Security Council resolution, that’s an international obligation, and we would like to see the new government recognizing that.

Some analysts say that the Serbian government is making a sort of U-turn in that regard. Do you share that opinion?

Well, if it was making a U-turn, if it was turning it’s back on Europe, that would be very sad, it would be very sad for the region, but it would, above all, be sad for Europe and sad for Serbia and Montenegro. I can’t really believe that Serbia and Montenegro wants to become a sort of Belarus of Europe, that can’t possibly be an outcome which anybody there wants.

The Vice-president Mr.Labus mentioned 2010 as a possible date of EU accession for Serbia and Montenegro. I know that you don’t like to speak about dates, but I have to ask you for your comments?

Mr. Labus is someone whom I greatly respect, he’s been a good partner for the EU in the past, but when he’s talking about dates, what he is doing is to challenge his political colleagues and the people of Serbia and Montenegro because the progress Serbia makes towards Brussels, towards the EU is entirely in Serbia’s hands. If Serbia wants to set itself ambitious dates, then it’s going to have to make a lot of changes pretty quickly.

You visited Kosovo recently. Will the renewed violence speed up or slow down the expected talks about the final status?

Nobody should think that violence is a shortcut to anywhere. Violence just produces more poverty and more criminality and more corruption and more misery, so anybody who has any other ideas is seriously deluding themselves. The issue in Kosovo is still one of standards before status. The issue is still one demonstrating that Kosovo shares the values of the rest of Europe and I am afraid that what happened in March was pretty depressing in that respect but I hope that the provisional institutions will be able to show, through the establishment of a reconstruction fund and through an energetic commitment to try and to build a prosperous, democratic, multi-ethnic and harmonious community. I hope that they will be able to show through that commitment that they understand what we mean about standards.

We can hear these days views on “ cantonisation”, “decentralization”, even “partition” of Kosovo. What do you think of these terms?

I think that there is a difference between talking about decentralization and cantonisation, and there are some very sensible and detailed proposals from the Council of Europe on that. Cantonisation is not acceptable. A serious discussion of decentralization is not only welcome, but, I think, will lead to beneficial consequences.

Right now, the Commission is examining the Croatian application for membership. For what concerns the cooperation with the Hague Tribunal, you said you will rely on what you hear from Ms. Carla del Ponte. Is there anything new in your latest contacts with the Hague?

We can’t second-guess the UN and we can’t second-guess the International Tribunal. The UN is perfectly clear about the importance of improving cooperation with the Hague and we will, obviously, be in close touch with the Hague as we have been recently, to get their judgment, on how that cooperation is working out. I think Croatia has made some very significant progress, and I hope that it will be able to demonstrate now as well that it’s got now a good relationship with the Tribunal.

Macedonia is the other applicant from the Western Balkans. Does your annual report support their recent application for EU membership?

The report doesn’t explicitly support their decision to apply for membership but it records the progress that they have made not least in implementing the Ohrid Agreement. They’ve got a bit more to do there but they have made a good and honest attempt to implement the Agreement. The report underlines the importance, as well, of them working closely to ensure that Macedonia has the sort of policing that it needs and requires, so we are keen on police reform and implementing that reform. Macedonia has made some reasonable progress on the economic side, it still needs to do rather more but I think we’ve been positive on the developments there since the Ohrid Agreement and, obviously, in the wake of the tragic death of President Trajkovski, we were not surprised that there was a slight delay in handing over their letter to apply for membership. But now, we have received it and we’ll consider it in exactly the same way as we would consider anybody else’s application.

How do you assess the situation there now? Is it stable enough?

Well, I’ve seen Macedonia on the brink, on the brink of serious violence and instability and I think since then, its’ political leaders have worked their way back on higher and safer ground and I hope we can help them build on that.

END