Item No. 1 is a discussion on Croatia's negotiations on accession to the European Union. His Excellency Ambassador Vladimir Drobnjak is the chief negotiator. He and his team are very welcome. This is a particularly interesting and momentous occasion on which to have them with us and we thank them for coming here. The normal procedure is that the visiting guest makes an opening statement of approximately ten minutes followed by an opportunity for a response from members of the committee and outstanding questions are clarified.
EU Accession Negotiations: Discussion with Croatian Ambassador.
H.E. Mr. Vladimir Drobnjak
I thank the Chairman for having me and my colleagues here. I feel privileged by the opportunity to address the committee. I am sincerely grateful to Ireland for its support for Croatia throughout the negotiating process. This morning I had meetings with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and confirmed what we already knew, that Ireland is strongly behind us.
Croatia's accession negotiations are progressing well but there are difficulties in our process, which I do not want to hide. Some of them stem from the complexity of this new round of enlargement, others from some open issues we have, particularly bilateral problems we have with one member state, Slovenia in particular, due to which decisions on some of the opening and negotiating chapters were blocked. Were it not for December's blockade by Slovenia of a number of chapters, I would have been able to present to the committee a better scoreboard. We have 22 chapters open and seven provisionally closed, however these numbers do not properly reflect all the work accomplished so far and but for Slovenia's blockade the number of open and closed chapters would be much higher.
Croatia is determined to do everything required to close all the negotiating chapters by the end of this calendar year. We are grateful to the European Commission for providing us with the indicative road map in our negotiating efforts. We are trying to follow this road map closely and in accordance with it we could finish negotiations in terms of closing the chapters this year and then bring this into the final stage of signing the accession treaty. Croatia is optimistic that we could become a member state in 2011. Our success will be of tremendous importance, not just for Croatia or the member states alone, although we can be a small but important added value for the Union. It will also carry a far-reaching importance for south-east Europe and the western Balkans in particular because our success will radiate an important message that good reforms and hard work pays off, that the Thessalonika agenda is capable of being implemented. Croatia's wish is to see all our eastern neighbours in the European Union as soon as they reach the necessary conditions and requirements.
Although a number of chapters have been blocked, Croatia's goal is to compensate for the lost time through intensifying our reforms. Nobody can block Croatia's wish and will to reform and Croatia's efforts to align with the acquis communautaire. We hope that with continuing work on all chapters, regardless of whether they are blocked, we should be able to shorten significantly the time between opening and closing the remaining chapters. The process has been difficult and very demanding but we have learned much through the process and the quality and success of our reforms speaks for itself. Thus, Croatia shall be able to enter the European Union fairly soon as the 28th member state.
I will conclude my opening remarks to the committee by thanking Ireland once again for its valuable support. I stand ready to take any questions members may wish to ask.
I thank the ambassador. The question of the enlargement of the European Union with countries from the western Balkans area has been the subject matter of previous discussion in this committee and is part of the committee's work programme for the current year. I compliment Croatia's ambassador to Ireland on the work he and his staff have done in bringing the issues of the western Balkans to our attention. It is recognised now that this area is of pivotal importance to the future of the European Union, the region itself and in terms of a conclusion to the ongoing debate to which the ambassador referred. We will hear first from Senator Quinn, followed by Deputy Costello and the other members who have offered.
I welcome the delegation. We are pleased to have its members in attendance. In general terms we look forward to increasing Croatia's involvement in the European Union in whatever way possible.
I have a query about the problem with Slovenia. Will the ambassador briefly explain the problem and how he sees Croatia getting around it? I am aware a proposal was made to have a referendum in Slovenia. I would like to hear the ambassador's views on that also because if Croatia is to enter the European Union and receive the reception we hope it will get, we must ensure it has put aside the problems about which we hear.
We will take a number of questions together. I call Deputy Costello.
The ambassador and his staff are welcome. Ireland has always supported Croatia's accession to the European Union and I have no doubt that will continue until it gains accession, which does not appear to be too far in the future.
Senator Quinn referred to the main problem with Slovenia, which is already a member state, in terms of its accession to international waters and Croatia's apparent denial of that. As requested by Senator Quinn, will the ambassador tease out the details of the problem, its history, if it is now being dealt with on a bilateral basis or as a condition to Croatia joining the European Union, and whether Commissioner Wren has insisted that it be resolved prior to Croatia's accession? What is the status in that respect?
I note the ambassador has some difficulties regarding the privatisation of shipyards. Why is that an issue? What are the circumstances in which the shipyards have to be privatised? I would have thought that was a matter for the government.
Regarding justice matters, have the reforms of the judicial and criminal justice systems been completed? Has the matter of the ethnic group such as the Roma people been resolved to the satisfaction of the Commission in terms of their minority rights?
I welcome the delegation. From an Irish perspective we look forward to working with Croatia as it attempts to close the final chapters. I ask the ambassador to update the committee on the number of chapters yet to be closed and identify any specific items he regards as being of concern. I note the ambassador's hope that they will be completed by year's end. It is always welcome that people have set themselves a goal and are confident of achieving that.
I will not repeat the point raised by Senator Quinn but it is a concern from my perspective also and I look forward to the ambassador's response.
I welcome the ambassador and the Croatian delegation. I send my kindest regards to its Prime Minister, Mr. Sanadar, its Minister for Foreign Affairs and all its colleagues. I had the pleasure in the past of addressing the Government and the entire public service on the importance of the European Union to Ireland and on what I hope will be its importance to Croatia in the future.
Ireland has consistently supported Croatia's membership of the Union. In 2004 in particular, when we were at a key moment in the Union's history pertaining to expansion, we were one of eight countries that stood shoulder to shoulder with Croatia in supporting its application and we were very disappointed that it did not get over the line, so to speak, at that time.
I am somewhat concerned that there appears to be a number of difficulties with the acquis and the position pertaining to Croatia’s judicial reform does not appear to have made the progress one would have expected by now. The ambassador might give the committee some information on the progress Croatia is making in that respect and how it can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Union the necessary openness in ensuring that the judicial system is solid, fair and transparent.
The position pertaining to organised crime remains a problem. The ambassador might refer to that issue also.
I do not understand the reason a difficulty remains with the International Criminal Tribunal. Ireland stood with Croatia in the past in that regard. I thought Croatia had resolved that issue to the satisfaction of the Union. The ambassador might explain the current difficulties. I would be interested to hear also the ambassador's response to the other questions raised by my colleagues.
H.E. Mr. Vladimir Drobnjak
I thank the gentlemen for their questions. I will start by tackling the first one. Croatia and Slovenia are two friendly countries living side by side for centuries. Part of our history is common history and for many decades we lived together in one state. It should be emphasised that during the many centuries of our common history we never fought a war against each other. We fought together more than once against other states, but never one against the other.
That is more than we can say for our neighbour.
It is more than we can say for ourselves.
H.E. Mr. Vladimir Drobnjak
We shall never fight each other and it shall remain that way.
The problems we have are part of the unfortunate legacy of the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. The open border issue is a direct result of the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. When our respective countries proclaimed independence about the same time and we became independent, some border issues remained unresolved. That problem did not occur a year or two years ago; it existed from day one of our independence.
When Slovenia entered the European Union in 2004, which we welcomed, the problem existed in the same form it is in today. Nothing has changed but one small detail. When Slovenia entered the Union in 2004, the external border of the Union was not properly defined. We are now talking about the internal border of the European Union, which from my point of view makes the problem even less relevant from the EU's point of view. We believe the European Union was created, among many other reasons, to provide a comfortable framework in which these type of problems will become less relevant and much easier to solve. If we were an EU member state today, the problem would have been much easier to address.
In terms of the problem, it is that we have two different views on how the maritime border should be drawn. There are some slight differences between us when it comes to points on the land border but the main problem is the maritime border. Slovenia is not denied access to the international waters. The port of Koper, which is very prosperous, excellently managed and one of the most important, strategic deep sea ports in that part of the Adriatic, is blossoming. Never, since day one of our statehood, has a single Slovenian ship been intercepted, impeded or refused the right to enter or leave the port. What is at stake is how the line is drawn. Slovenia highlights that its key national interest is that Slovenian territorial waters touch international waters. According to our understanding of the maps, they do not. It is not a question of free passage of ships, it is a question of how the border is drawn. Slovenia would like to physically touch international waters with its territorial waters. Due to the international law of the sea and the specific geography of the area, that is not the case for the moment. We have differing views regarding how the border should be drawn and after many years we are still unable to find common ground.
We have suggested to our Slovenian friends for quite some time to do the most elegant, civilised and simple thing, that is, to go to court. We are ready to go before the International Court of Justice immediately, this afternoon if necessary. We are ready to oblige our country, through a parliamentary resolution, in advance to implement its decision, regardless of what it decides. Our Slovenian friends are of the opinion that it is still not necessary to go to court and that this matter should be settled differently, either through arbitration or political bargaining. I do not wish to go into detail in this regard. I fully respect the right of Slovenia to protect and exercise its national interest. I would expect nothing less from any other EU member state. However, we also have our legitimate right to portray our interest. I know of no better framework for solving this than the court.
We have reached an agreement with our eastern neighbour, Montenegro, on a similar matter in which the maritime line was not clearly defined for the same reason. However, in this case the line is a good deal longer because of the open waters of the Adriatic Sea. That case involved a small bay, but in this case the area is much bigger. Unfortunately, I cannot say that we have never been at war with Montenegro, because history would prove me wrong. Nevertheless we reached an agreement to go to the International Court of Justice. Rather than quarrel about the matter, we agreed to go to court and to accept whatever the court decided. This is the most elegant way to solve the problem.
We do not accept the notion that a country cannot enter the European Union because of open border issues, especially if this involves internal border issues. I can instance numerous cases involving member states without clearly defined borders. There are open border issues regarding maritime issues in the Baltic Sea. There are numerous examples all the way from France to Latvia of where some fine tuning of borders is required. To my knowledge even the old border between France and Spain in the Pyrenees is still not properly defined.
We wanted Slovenia to join the European Union in the same way as we wish to see Serbia in the European Union one day. We never raised the border issue when Slovenia sought membership of the European Union. On the contrary, we agreed to keep a low profile on the issue and not to make matters more difficult in any way for Slovenia to join either NATO or the European Union.
Slovenia and Croatia have much in common. We are important trade partners. Our important strategic routes to the European Union pass through Slovenian territory. Slovenian strategic trade routes towards the markets of eastern Europe pass through the territory of Croatia. We are interlinked in numerous ways, including family. I have close family connections with people in Slovenia. We would hate for this positioning relationship between two friendly nations to continue. It is most important to maintain good neighbourly relations and we see a very elegant way to deal with the issue.
We thank the Commission and member states for their services. We regret that the perception has been created in Slovenia that Croatia's accession documents are prejudging the outcome of the border dispute. Unfortunately, some in Slovenia are of the opinion that we tried to misuse negotiations to prejudge the border dispute. To say the least, it would be reckless for us to do so. We are not so reckless. We wish to separate accession negotiations from bilateral issues and we believe one should not proceed at the expense of the other. We wish to proceed as normal with negotiations, while at the same time try to find an appropriate solution.
We double-checked every document submitted in the negotiating process with the European Commission to establish whether it could in any way impede this process. Our first rule in producing our negotiating position was not to include a single map in any negotiating position and this has proved to be the case. Nevertheless the perception remains among part of the Slovenian public that there are maps forming part of our negotiating position which prejudge the border. That is not the case. The process is legally very precise. One must make a clear distinction between various types and categories of documents. However, I do not wish to bother the committee with that.
We proposed to our Slovenian friends that we issue an official legal statement either at prime ministerial or parliamentary level, stating that not a single word or paper in the Croatian accession negotiations would prejudge the border outcome. Last year, the French EU Presidency supported us in this regard. However, this was not sufficient because Slovenia was of the opinion not only that we should oblige ourselves in that way, but also that we must guarantee that we would not use any accession documents in any future settlement of the process. We could not agree to this because it is impossible to do so. It is a matter of legal sovereignty. To cut a long story short, we are very open to friendly dialogue with Slovenia. We cherish what we have in common and would like to further strengthen our bilateral relationship. We believe the most elegant solution for everyone is to use an international judiciary and let the best legal argument win.
In the meantime, some people question whether we might behave in the same way to our friends from Serbia or Montenegro once we enter the European Union. The loud and clear answer is "no". We believe the best investment in Croatia's well-being, security and development is to invest in our neighbours' future. The better matters are for our neighbours, the better for us and for everyone. We regret that something that could have been settled in a very elegant legal way is, unfortunately, slowing down negotiations at this stage. However, we hope it will be settled soon and that no scars will remain on our relationship. That is very important. We must consider the generations to come and cherish what we have in common, rather than use something that is not so important to poison the relationship. Let us be optimists in that regard. I believe several meetings, exchanges of views and talks will take place in the coming period and that a good spirit will continue. There is much more good than bad among us and I am certain the good shall prevail.
Shipyards are mentioned in chapter 8. As a result of competition and opening benchmarks, all our shipyards are in difficulty free of state aid; therefore, the only way to do it is to privatise them. We have to conduct a rather cumbersome and complex privatisation process. The global economic crisis is not helping us, but there is not much we can do. We hope to have our privatisation tenders ready by the end of February, which will fulfil the benchmark. Croatia has a long tradition of shipbuilding which is not easy to do. I do not want to say how many jobs are in jeopardy but they will be touched by the privatisation process. We have to follow the rules. Without the global economic crisis, it would have been hard but this way it is especially complicated.
On the judiciary, there is a new chapter in the negotiating process, chapter 23, on the judiciary and fundamental rights. We received three opening benchmarks, one of them on the judiciary. In the Commission's opinion, Croatia has met the opening benchmark on the judiciary. Are we there yet in terms of overall reform of the judiciary? No, we are not. However, this is a field in which one can never be 100% perfect, as there is always room for improvement. We are investing in the process. We have a new Minister for Justice, a proven professional, the good impact of his work is being felt. Unfortunately, at this stage he is spending more of his time dealing with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia than on reform of the judiciary because of the current investigation. It is the opinion of the chief prosecutor that we are still not co-operating satisfactorily on one very specific file, the artillery logs for one military operation from 1995. It should be noted that is the chief prosecutor's opinion, not that of the court, but he is a party to the process. Let us leave that issue aside. We are doing the best we can. Some of the files are more than 15 years old; therefore, it is not easy to recover them, but I take the opportunity to state clearly that there is no political intention to hide anything or not to fulfil entirely all our obligations at the ICTY. At the end of the day, Croatia has co-operated successfully. A number of Croatian citizens went to The Hague. We did our best to extradite them. Why would Croatia jeopardise everything at the crucial end game stage for a box of documents? There is a strong political commitment at the very top, starting with the Prime Minister, to do whatever is necessary to meet the demands made. Without looking for excuses, please bear in mind that we are talking about old documents and that there are a number of complicated technical and logistical issues connected with the issue.
I will conclude by referring to the difficult chapters. Some of them would be notoriously difficult in any round of negotiations — competition, agriculture and the environment. Therefore, we are not an exception to the rule. As I mentioned, there is a specific chapter, chapter 23, in respect of which the acquis is soft but the political criteria are very hard. If anyone questions whether Croatia is still ready when ratification of our accession treaty starts, the best evidence is provided by the number of opening and closing benchmarks. So far we have met 22 opening benchmarks and at least 25 closing benchmarks — I do not have the exact number. At the end of the game there will be approximately 120 opening and closing benchmarks that Croatia will meet. I will say, half jokingly, that we will probably be the best prepared candidate ever to enter the European Union because the rules of the game are such that one is perfect or one cannot enter the Union. That is the way it is; therefore, we have to be perfect, although one can never be, as we know from our daily lives.
I thank the delegation for its submission to the committee and wish it well in the further negotiations still to take place. We can see it can be a useful party to future negotiations after Croatia's accession involving other member states from the immediate region. We look forward to it using its influence in a positive way. Most members of the committee, in one fashion or another, have visited the area in recent years and we look forward to making further contacts there. I again thank the delegation and wish it well. I do not think members have anything further to raise.
H.E. Mr. Vladimir Drobnjak
I thank the committee for having us.
The joint committee went into private session at 3.05 p.m. and adjourned at 3.15 p.m. until 9.45 a.m. on Thursday, 12 February 2009.