Analysis: EU, U.S. at odds over Croatia
By Gareth Harding
Oct 10, 2005, 19:00 GMT
BRUSSELS, Belgium (UPI) -- When it comes to the enlargement of their respective blocs, the European Union and NATO largely work in tandem, which is hardly surprising given that 19 of the military alliance`s members are EU states. But the two Brussels-based clubs are increasingly at odds over Croatia`s and Serbia`s and Montenegro`s prospects of joining the Euro-Atlantic family of nations.
At a meeting in Luxembourg last week, EU foreign ministers agreed to open membership talks with Croatia after Carla de Ponte, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, said Zagreb was 'cooperating fully' with the United Nations` court and 'doing everything it can to locate and arrest Ante Gotovina.'
The decision raised eyebrows in both NATO headquarters and Washington, because only three days before she gave Croatia the green light, Del Ponte expressed her disappointment with Zagreb`s attempts to bring the suspected war criminal to justice.
There was also dismay in some quarters that Del Ponte may have succumbed to political pressure from EU leaders to deliver a glowing report on Croatia`s cooperation with the ICTY.
As talks on Turkey`s membership in the Union entered a second day on Sept. 30, Austria -- an implacable opponent of Ankara`s bid -- accused the EU of double standards in admitting a large Muslim state with a poor human rights record yet putting Croatia`s application on ice until the arrest of Gotovina.
After Del Ponte delivered her favorable opinion of Zagreb, the way was open for a deal with Austria which would offer membership prospects to the two countries if the EU`s strict conditions are met.
Nicholas Whyte, director of Europe Program of the International Crisis Group in Brussels, said: 'If Del Ponte bowed to political pressure over Croatia, it would be the first time in her life she did that,' adding that the U.N. prosecutor had a record of 'infuriating friends, colleagues and allies.'
But across town, NATO officials expressed their astonishment at the agreement. 'The only reason the EU changed its tune was because Austria traded Croatia for Turkey,' said one diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'That`s not the way we do things at NATO.'
The alliance, and in particular the United States, has indeed maintained a tougher line regarding Croatia`s bid to join the world`s most powerful military club. Speaking to reporters before a trip to Brussels and the Balkans this week, Under-secretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns openly acknowledged the differences between the EU and U.S. stance on Croatia and delivered a blunt message to Zagreb`s political leaders.
'Now, the European Union has decided that it`s going to go forward with Croatia for accession negotiations,' said the former U.S. ambassador to NATO. 'The United States has a view that the Croatian government has not made adequate progress in finding and arresting Gen. Gotovina also indicted for war crimes. And until they do that, and until Gen. Gotovina is in The Hague at the war crimes tribunal, the United States will not agree with any suggestion that NATO should normalize its relation with Croatia or seek to bring Croatia into membership with NATO.'
The United States is also taking a tougher line than the EU concerning Serbia and Montenegro. The 25-member bloc Monday officially opened talks with Belgrade aimed at agreeing to a stabilization and association agreement, seen as the first step towards EU membership. But Washington believes the former Yugoslav republic does not deserve the closer contacts it is seeking with NATO.
Burns Friday described Serbia as a 'country that has been held back in its own progress because it has not dealt with the more shameful aspects of its past.'
In particular, the State Department`s number three rapped Belgrade over the knuckles for failing to arrest Bosnian Serb leaders Gen. Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, who have both been indicted for war crimes by the Hague court. 'We want in the future to welcome them (Serbia and Montenegro) into a partnership relationship with NATO but we will not support that, and in fact we will block that relationship at NATO, as long as Karadzic and Mladic are at large.'
As Whyte points out, membership of the EU and NATO are not the same things -- joining the alliance is largely a political act, whereas joining the Union is more onerous, takes longer and changes countries fundamentally. But the differences between the EU and the United States over Croatia and Serbia underline Washington`s frustration at the slow pace of change in the Balkans since the end of the Bosnian war a decade ago and Europe`s inability to sort out problems in its own backyard, let alone express moral outrage that indicted war criminals are wandering around at large in neighboring countries.
'We have taken a different path than the European Union on this issue,' admitted Burns. 'And our view is that these crimes were so horrific in the Balkan wars of the early to mid-1990s that these senior figures, who led the effort to massacre people, must be brought to a trial and must be tried for those war crimes. And we`re not in a position to normalize our relations by bringing them into our most important alliance until that step has been taken.'
Copyright 2005 by United Press International