These days there is much talk of human rights of the poor Gypsies, first expelled from Italy and then from France. In a previous post I alluded to the headlong enlargement of EU towards the East, and how a lot of States, that did not meet the economic criteria for accession, -in particular those of existence of a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union-, were admitted despite these deficiencies, longing these “little problems” were remedied by the mere fact of being invited to eat at the rich coutries’ table.

Suddenly economic crisis arises and all come down. Poor members of 2004 and 2007- date of the recent enlargements- are poorer now, comparatively, but unlike years before such enlargements, the poor wander around Schengen Area like sleepwalkers, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which the Union did not offer in their own countries.

It is too late. France must support the Romanian Gypsies in its territory and focus on investing in Romania, if not it should not have accepted so rash enlargements!!

El 1 de septiembre de 1939 la Wehrmacht alemana entra en Polonia y mediante una Blitzkrieg (‘guerra relámpago’) se adueña del país en poco tiempo. No nos vayamos a rasgar las vestiduras ahora. Esto no ocurrió sólo porque Hitler era malísimo y porque a Stalin le venía bien esta confusión para hacerse con la otra parte de Polonia y con los Países Bálticos. También porque desde que el hombre es hombre siempre ha aparecido una guerra, justa o injusta, en el horizonte, y siempre ha habido, justo o injusto, algún pretexto “razonable” para emprenderla.

La Historia de las Naciones esta repleta de conflictos armados. En el desarrollo de una Nación, casi siempre llega un momento de expansión. Cuando la economía, la organización política, la tecnología, el poder militar, son manifiestamente superiores a los de los países vecinos, es el momento de desempolvar viejos oprobios, que siempre hay, y ampliar las fronteras, o lo que es lo mismo, hacer reformas en casa en solar ajeno.

En 1939 Alemania quiso ampliar su espacio habitable (o vital, lebensraum, como decían) a costa de los vecinos, como estos lo hicieron años antes con ella y como lo hicieron sus ascendientes desde tiempos inmemoriales, pasando por tribus celtas y germánicas, romanos, reinos cristianos, repúblicas revolucionarias o imperios decadentes. Poco solar -Europa- para tanta gente inquieta.

En la Historia Europea los periodos de paz completa han sido escasos y cortos. Si las cuentas no me fallan han pasado más de cincuenta años desde que Alemania perdió la última Guerra Mundial y todavían no ha invadido Polonia. ¿A que está esperando? Su economía, su potencial demográfico, su tecnología son muy superiores a la de Polonia. Comparativamente la diferencia es mucho mayor a la que existía en 1939. Argumentos y pretextos no le faltan. Polonia está construida sobre los retazos de la antigua Prusia, corazón del Imperio Alemán, muchos alemanes étnicos, más de tres millones y medio -aun viven algunos- recuerdan como fueron expulsados de sus territorios por los polacos y cómo padecieron y cómo murieron, miles de ellos, de inanición y de frío.

No creo que los periodos de paz se deban exclusivamente a “gente buena” ni las guerras a los malvados. El móvil de los conflictos es la “necesidad” percibida en la mente colectiva, y capciosamente transmitida por los que mandan. Ni los revolucionarios franceses, ni los colonizadores ingleses ni los fogosos alemanes sienten hoy necesidad alguna de invadir nuevos territorios.

Un nuevo escenario, la Unión Europea, se ha hecho hueco en esa mente colectiva que hace algunos años hubiera alzado el puño exigiendo venganza y reparación de las ignominias. Esa necesidad de reparación-ocupación se ha diluido en una Europa que concede unos derechos exorbitados a sus ciudadanos y que pueden ejercer en cualquier país de la Unión en régimen de práctica igualdad con los ciudadanos locales. Alemania no tiene por qué extender sus fronteras más allá del Oder-Niesse y arrancarle a Polonia un buen pedazo porque ya tiene toda Polonia bajo su dominio, y toda Rumanía, y toda Francia y toda España. Además, ¿para qué empeñarse en desarrollar zonas deprimidas y frías de Polonia o Rusia, que antes fueron de Alemania, como Wrocław (Breslau) o Kaliningrado (Könisberg) si pueden adueñarse de territorios cálidos y modernos de las Islas Baleares?

Para los euroescépticos entre los cuales me incluyo: la Unión Europea, y antes la Comunidad Económica, dejando a un lado su finalidad eminentemente económica, han cumplido un incalculable papel disuasorio. A mis 41 años nunca me han movilizado, ni me han acuertalado en previsión de un conflicto armado. Las escalofriantes imágenes de la película “Salvar al soldado Ryan” nunca las he vivido y probablemente nunca las vivirá mi hijo. Me tranquiliza y me alegra que alguien vislumbrara esa idea, la de la Unión, hace 50 años, en vez de hacer los preparativos para la próxima invasión de Polonia.

We read in Euractiv some days ago that EU called on Serbia to abandon its last battle. After the setback that meant the opinion of International Court of Justice on the Declaration of Independence of Kosovo, saying that such unilateral acts did not violate international law, Serbia has launched an offensive to win in diplomatic tables what it did not win on site. A UN resolution draft that could be approved in mid-September, calls for dialogue on outstanding issues and condemned Kosovo’s declaration of independence.

Brussels has informed Belgrade that its insistence on that resolution, -and the claim of Kosovo, of course-, could undermine its aspirations to join EU. In my post “Serbia submits the application for accession to European Union: another lamb to the slaughter” I warned that this conditioning -waiver of sovereignty in exchange for membership- would occur.

It is really outrageous that EU takes sides in these issues when on the occasion of previous enlargements turned a deaf ear to such disputes. Some of the recent EU members such as Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and older ones, like Greece, had on their territories well-found aspirations from national minorities, not of independence, as is the case of Serbia, but of simple autonomy, without EU did anything to help them, or made the membership conditional on the solution of the existing conflicts.

Now EU gets into a mess and involved itself in matters to which earlier had resigned for considering them out of its competence. Will it be so in the future or is it Serbia an exception?

On 22 December, Serbia officially submitted its candidacy for membership of European Union. A long and arduous process of indefinite duration and whose conclusion will be settled on later, although prospects for this country are not very good, not being foreseen an early resolution. Some analysts believe that membership will not take place before 2018.

To reach the status of candidate country, Serbia has had to overcome a great deal of obstacles that have been solved under the premise of EU or the Nothingness. In this sense, the Balkan country has followed the lead of many other republics that emerged after that platform, more or less metallic, called Iron Curtain, and that is to please hungry populations, not only of food but of freedom and self-esteem, showing a horizon of glory and wealth, not only economic but of those intangible things known as “European standards” under a single blue flag with twelve stars.

On the way, European Commission, through periodic reports, tames wild beasts, reasonably giving out carrots and sticks, because that domestication is painful. Basically it is the biological process of turning worms into cocoons. In this metamorphosis candidates must do their homework and pass exams offered. It is a deceptive strategy. Candidate countries in order to meet those standards, modified regulations and internal structures and forgive and forgot old offences from eternal enemies (usually neighbours and candidates too or at the doors to be it) signing agreements of friendship and good neighbourhood.

Since the day after accession, it starts another process, more subtle but equally interesting: it is developed a sense of frustration, and the inhabitants of the new members wake up suddenly from a pleasant sleep and feel cheated, because basically to be European or not is only a stomach issue. Nobody is interested in achieving those kind of standards (human rights, rule of law, etc) but in Western living standards.

As for politicians, once achieved the goal of membership, they focus their attention to the usual problems. They revive the eternal reproaches against neighbouring countries, forgetting the commitments made during the path to EU.

Recall the case of Poland, that deserved the condemnation of European Parliament in 2007 of homophobic practices, although related human rights standards were in force in EU long before this country signed Act of Accession; or the recent one in Czech Republic, insofar as this country hindered the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty because of its old national minorities issues (German and Hungarian) battered by Benes decrees promulgated after the Second World War; or the escalation of tension between Hungary and Slovakia, typical of the 90s, through the adoption by the Slovak Parliament in 2009 of a new law on the protection of the national language, which requires using the Slovak language in public institutions, in spite of the large Hungarian minority of about 10% of the population and despite Slovakia signed, to join the EU, all necessary treaties,  among them, Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

Turning to Serbia, not before long, we will see as the Balkan country backed out of its intransigent positions. In fact we have already seen it in recent years. To unlock the milestones leading to the candidacy, Serbia has made significant concessions which were nonnegotiable a few years ago as far as those represented an affront to the national dignity. Thus, the extradition of Milosevic to International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, without being carried out in Yugoslavia the appropriate extradition proceeding, as was stated in the country’s criminal law, or the delivery in 2008 to the same court of Radovan Karadzic, former national hero.

Regarding the Kosovo issue, which is now considered intractable from the Serbia’s perspective, in the coming months we will see a relaxation of positions. The passage of time and the slow fading of the historical memory, will consolidate the current situation, with the prospect of a Europe without borders and of these desirable “European standards” which will make Serbia, like the other half of Europe that the Cold War showed us in the novels of Le Carré, is phagocytized irreparably.

Yesterday (5 december 2009), about five hundred persons met near Hungarian Parliament to remember failed referendum held on 5 december 2004 on dual citizenship. This meeting counted on the participation of MVSZ (Magyarok Világszövetség – World Federation of Hungarians) and Jobbik (Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom – Movement for a Better Hungary), politician party which has obtained 14,77 % of votes and 3 seats in the last European Parliament election held this year.

Csanád Szegedi, European Parliament Member of Jobbik, stated that if his party ruled the country would grant dual citizenship to all Hungarians living in neighbouring countries, even though this proposal was rejected in referendum of 2004, and would start a diplomatic offensive to set up autonomic bodies in areas inhabited by ethnic Hungarians.

Regardless of the effect of these statements, the right to grant dual citizenship based upon ethnic links without effective residence in the grantor State must be studied carefully by European Commission. Although this right is under the sovereignty of each State, the indiscriminate granting of this one could affect all European System because a lot of non EU citizens could gain access to EU via dual citizenship. In 2004, this matter could happen with about 2.5 million ethnic Hungarians living in Romania. This risk of EU distortion disappeared once Romania accessed EU in 2007, but this possibility still persists in other areas of Europe, like Romania in relation to Moldavians of Romanian ethnicity, or Hungary in connection with ethnic Hungarians living in Serb or Ukraine. This circumstance could mean the existence of a back door of entrance into EU for several million Europeans whose countries do not accomplish the accession requeriments yet, and therefore a fraud of Law, insofar as these countries would be accessing EU “de facto” even though their natural accession might take place in many years’ time.

The hard path to the approval of Lisbon Treaty highlights the unresolved problems of minorities in Eastern and Central Europe. The hasty accession to EU of new countries since 2004, has left minorities issues far behind. Problems turn up every time European Union intends to take a step forward.

The new wording of the Treaty on European Union according the Lisbon Treaty mentions  protection of minorities rights in article 2:

“The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.”

This mention would not have been possible in a European stage where countries of Central and Eastern Europe had not been present. New Lisbon Treaty adds the sentence “including the rights of persons belonging to minorities” to the previous wording of the ancient articule 6.1, made by Amsterdam Treaty (1997) which entered into force on 1 May 1999.

Since the enlargement of 2004, European Union faces unresolved problems of minorities that had passed unnoticed in negotiations of accession. In those days, negotiators were concentrated in the acquis implementation, leaving the thorny minorities matter aside. It goes without saying that European Commission monitored this question superficially, following the provisions given by The Copenhagen criteria of 1993 in a very soft way. Perhaps Commission thought that minorities issues would be better resolved in the framework of European Union, once the big enlargement took place. But the sleeping problem woke up earlier than expected.

On the occasion of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, a minorities subject has been posed by Czech Republic and one of its regulations, popularly known as Beneš decrees. This regulation, made up of several decrees, laid down, among others provisions, the expropriation of the property of wartime “traitors” and collaborators accused of treason, but, in fact, was applied to all Germans and Hungarians collectively. Apart from this, about 90 % of the ethnic German population was expelled from Czechoslovakia, after revoking Czechoslovakian citizenship.

The Beneš decrees’ matter arouse on the occasion of the accession of Czech Republic, at the end of 90s, remaining in the round table long time. Really, the problem of Beneš decrees referred to German minorities, is far more than a minorities issue, because most of German minority, by virtue of these decrees, was expelled and, therefore, does not live in Czech territory. It can be said, that Benes decrees refers to an ancient minority or to the phantom or soul of this minority that appears, from time to time, to remember us old offenses that have not been repaired yet. The fact is that Benes decrees’ problem was not considered  then as a insurmountable obstacle even though the question was discussed for a long time. Needless to say that the most interested countries in Czechoslovakia accession were, undoubtedly, Germany and Austria, because this new member would be the natural area of business expansion due to both historical and geographical proximity. An hypothetical compensation to victims granted by Czech Republic for the ethnic cleansing fostered by Benes decrees would be infinitely lower than expected profits of German and Austrian companies in an enlarged EU. Freedom of capitals deserved to turn a blind eye.

Normally problems not well solved in the past use to appear, suddenly, in the present, and the phantom of German minorities of Sudeten  is not an exemption. Lisbon Treaty was seen by Czech Government as a new threat of waking up that phantom through the application of the article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, (TEU) according to the new wording lain dawn by the Lisbon Treaty. This article confers to the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights the same legal value as the Treaties and states that fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law. Based upon this article Czech Government feared futures claims made by expelled, expropriated Germans or their successors.

New institutional crisis has been resolved several days ago as Czech President Vaclav Klaus ratified the Treaty in 13 November 2009, after Czech Constitutional Court had ruled that the Lisbon Treaty was in line with the constitution. Klaus signed the Act of ratification having obtained of UE the engagement of excluding Czech Republic from the application of article 6 of TEU. Czech Republic would ratify the Treaty in exchange for enriching the latter by a new Protocol, coming in addition to Protocol 30, that provides guarantee clauses on the application of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, affecting only United Kingdom and Poland. By virtue of this Protocol the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, does not extend to find that the regulations, practices or actions of such countries are inconsistent with the Charter’s fundamental rights, freedoms and principles. The expected modification would not be immediate for Czech Republic but these changes would be introduced in the text of Croatia’s EU accession treaty that would take place in 2012 according to realistic forecast.

The crisis arouse by Czech Republic’s stance highlights that the pavement of enlargements of 2004 and 2007 was built in a hasty way, with poor materials and without any guarantee for the rest of Europe. Current minorities of Central and Eastern Europe or their phantoms of the past have not achieved theirs claims and hope to achieved them in the New European System. As far as a lot of countries have recently joined EU without resolving this matter, waiting for a solution since the Austrian-Hungarian Empire’s collapse, minorities issues will threaten any attempt to take steps forward in the European Construction.

In particular, the opt-out granted to Czech Republic could be demanded by Slovakia. Although this country has already ratified the treaty without any additional requirements, due to the demands of the Czech president “we have become, against our will, part of the process”, said Slovakia’s foreign ministry. Needless to say that this same argument can be used by other countries in Est and Central Europe to ask for a privilegied status in UE, simply reminding other Members about unfortunate facts of their History in which minorities are involved in.

EU Institutions must not commit this basic mistake with foreseen enlargement towards Southeastern Europe. Ethnic cleansing in Balkans has been a recent problem, for which a new hasty accession could fracture the European Construction because of minorities issues still present in collective memory.