Tampere: A victory for "spin" over content?
01 September 1999
EU "spin" hides the "security" implications of the Summit while the promise of some legal rights for EU citizens seeks to buy off objections to the new global role of "Fortress Europe"
If civil society groups and citizens were confused by the Tampere decision-making process the Tampere Summit Conclusions (so-called "Tampere milestones") only added to this confusion. The reasons for this were two-fold. First, the language (discourse) used by the Finnish Presidency is in sharp contrast to the blunt, upfront, style normally characterising EU Council reports (for example under the Austrian and German Presidencies). The Finnish Presidency style is at the same time apparently more "liberal" but also more obscure. Second, the presentational theme at the Summit ("spin") was to emphasise the positive "benefits" to EU citizens by trying to lay more emphasis on "freedom" and "justice" than on "security".
So did Tampere mark a new beginning for a more "liberal" justice and home affairs approach? The answer is yes and no, but a small yes and a big no.
Positive moves?
On the possibly positive side there is, formally on the table for the first time, the status of third country nationals resident in the EU. There is too the promise of "user guides" to laws in different countries (para 29), "minimum standards ensuring an adequate level of legal aid" (para 30), streamlined procedures on cross-border "small consumer and commercial claims, as well as maintenance claims" (para 30), minimum standards for the protection of victims of crime plus compensation (para 32) and a new initiative on crime prevention (paras 41-42). However, there is no mention of "Eurobail", a key demand of Fair Trials Abroad, but there is of a "European Enforcement Order" (para 37; Eurowarrants).
But what is to be made of this statement in para 4:
"The aim is an open and secure European Union, fully committed to the obligations of the Geneva Convention and other relevant human rights instruments.."
Was this a change of heart given the swathe of policies adopted since 1992 to undermine the rights of refugees? Of course not, it simply "spin" without meaning.
It might to possible to see objectives in the "Follow up" report on asylum as positive: "common standards for a fair and efficient asylum procedure", "uniform status for those who are granted asylum" and "temporary protection for displaced persons" if it were not for longstanding EU policies and practices and the well-established tendency to harmonise asylum-seekers' rights down to the lowest common denominator.
This having been said it is important to place the Tampere Conclusions in context. They are meant to add to the provisions in the Amsterdam Treaty (Title VI, TEU and Title IV, TEC) and the detailed plans set out in the Action Plan establishing an area of freedom, security and justice - provisions which are overwhelmingly about "security". The Conclusions also assumed that the revised and updated Action Plan on organised crime (soon to be agreed) and the report of the High Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration were in place.
Extending "Fortress Europe"
The Conclusions extend the mandate of the High Level Group and ask it to draw up "further Action Plans" like the six already agreed which target six countries (see feature in this issue) for economic and political pressure to enforce the implementation of readmission agreements. This again is presented in highly-acceptable terms, the High Level report is "welcome[d]" in the following "context":
"The European Union needs a comprehensive approach to migration addressing political, human rights and development issues in countries and regions of origin and transit. This requires combating poverty, improving living conditions and job opportunities, preventing conflicts and consolidating democratic states ensuring respect for human rights, in particular of minorities, women and children... Partnership wi