Problems solved and unresolved

The entry of eight countries of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as of Cyprus and Malta, in the Eu on 1st May 2004 “was an historic event” but over this unification “a shadow has been cast: the absence of Romania and Bulgaria”, says JOHANNA TOUZEL in the July number of “Europe infos”, the monthly of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (Comece) and of the Catholic Office of Information and Initiative for Europe (Ocipe). At the centre of the reflections of the Comece press officer is a review of the progress made by the two Balkan countries in their rapprochement with Europe. Other issues discussed by the journal: the question of Montenegro and the progress of dialogue between the Churches and institutions supported by the Austrian Presidency. BULGARIA AND ROMANIA. “In December 2004 – recalls Touzel – the Eu had begun membership negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania. In April 2005 the two countries signed an accession treaty that envisaged their entry on 1 January 2007, but that, at the same time, permitted the Eu to defer it to 2008”, in the event of failure to achieve all the necessary adjustments to Community standards. Analysing the current situation of the two countries, both characterised by a serious commitment to the fight against corruption, by “a flourishing market economy” (although the deficit in Bulgaria remains “worrying”), and by a “considerable level of alignment to EU legislation and norms”, Touzel points out a number of unresolved issues that still remain critical. Bulgaria needs “decisive measures in the field of nuclear energy”; Romania, in particular, must focus its attention on the system of management and financial control of aid to agriculture, “on food safety and on tax administration”. On 16 May, Touzel continues, the Commission declared that the accession of the two countries in 2007 was possible” but deferred to October “an assessment of the progress made in reforms”. It also envisaged “the possibility of having recourse, at the moment of accession, to some corrective measures and safeguards”. Postponing entry of the two countries into the Eu, “with the risk of alienating their populations” and “disavowing their parties in government”, or “allowing them to enter, even if they are not wholly ready, with the risk of arousing the incomprehension of European citizens who are only now beginning to assimilate the first enlargement to Eastern Europe?”. That, for Touzel, is the basic dilemma that “will have to be resolved in October”. MONTENEGRO. “By voting in the referendum” of 21 May 2006 “for their own independence with over 55% of the votes – points out HENRI MADELIN -, Montenegro has loosened its last ties with Serbia” accentuating “the process of balkanisation” which “makes difficult, if not impossible, the cohabitation between different ethnic groups and religions”. One after another, “the federal republics have detached themselves from Serbia”, which “is paying dearly for the violence it perpetrated in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo”. According to Madelin, “there is only one remedy to this accelerated balkanisation: entry into Europe”. But, he asks, what will Europe do when “the poorest of the six republics formerly federated with Serbia knocks on its door?”. “Gathering the various fragments of the legacy of Tito is indispensable for peace in the region”, but, warns Madelin, “Europe must at all costs avoid a future that resembles those complicated jigsaw puzzles that are so difficult to piece together gain”. DIALOGUE BETWEEN CHURCHES AND INSTITUTIONS. “A form of cooperation between Churches and political institutions, in full respect for the principle of separation between Church and State”, which could constitute “a viable model” for genuine “ongoing dialogue”, is, in the view of MICHAEL KUHN , one of the main objectives pursued by the six months’ Austrian Presidency of the Eu, which ended on 30 June. Between January and June “meetings took place every month between a representative of the Presidency of the Council and representatives of the Churches”; these latter, furthermore, “were invited to various key events during the same period”. “The Churches and the religious communities – points out Kuhn – were really involved in the daily life of the Presidency”, especially “on issues of education, social services and bioethics”. This cooperation also took the form of the request made to the Churches to draw up some documents in preparation for important meetings, such as that on the Balkans or the summit with Latin America, and to participate together with Muslim representatives “in the debate on the caricatures of Mohamed”. Particularly significant, adds Kuhn, was the participation of Austrian Secretary of State Winkler in the Comece plenary session (23 March 2006), and the meeting in Brussels on 30 May, “promoted by the President of the Barroso Commission and by the President of the Council Schüssel, in which leading representatives of the Churches and religious communities were involved”. A similar meeting is planned for the spring of 2007, while, concludes Kuhn, the Finnish Presidency “has already announced its intention to actively pursue this initiative”.