EU: The Langdon report (feature)
01 March 1996
At the Essen Summit in December 1994, marking the end of the German Presidency of the European Council, is was agreed there should be cooperation with the countries of central and eastern Europe (CEEC) to "fight all forms of organised crime" covering drugs, nuclear trafficking, illegal immigration networks and stolen motor vehicles. The Conclusions of the Council meeting also referred to: 1) bringing justice and home affairs into the "structured dialogue" (coded language for: discussions between the respective Justice and Home Affairs Ministers on measures to be adhered to by countries applying to join the EU), and 2) making available the PHARE programme to fund activities under the "third pillar".
This decision caused some concern as the PHARE programme's purpose is primarily to help these countries develop democratic institutions and practices, not to further the political priorities of the EU. This concern was confirmed when a consultant's report appeared in October 1995 entitled: "Justice and Home Affairs Cooperation with Associated Countries" by Mr A J Langdon who was asked to:
"identify appropriate measures to promote integration through cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs, especially those necessary to prepare the countries concerned for accession to the EU.."
Mr A J Langdon, who "became available for outside work on retiring from UK government service in June" 1995, had been one of the top UK Home Office officials directly involved in running the "third pillar" under the Council and Justice and Home Affairs Ministers. The European Commission took on the project proposed by the Essen Summit, but it appears that the Langdon project was taken over from the PHARE programme, by whom he was employed and which paid for travel, by Directorate F (Cooperation in the fields of Justice and Internal Affairs).
The report
Mr Langdon visited the 9 applicant countries with whom there are Association Agreements - Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia - and Slovenia where an Agreement was imminent. Meetings were held with interior ministry officials and ministers. His overall conclusion was that there was extensive bilateral (eg: between Germany and Poland) work going on but in an uncoordinated way and very little under the PHARE programme.
The ideology of the Langdon report is firmly within the perspective of restricting with a view to eliminating the "threats" posed by the central and eastern European countries to the EU. The Members States and the Associated countries, he writes, have an:
"immediate and shared concern to deal with the pressures of unauthorised migration and serious crime that have arisen as an unwelcome concomitant of the freedoms of the democratic transition process."
He goes on to set out the "priority issues" as: "combatting unauthorised immigration, including border control regimes in particular; asylum procedures; combatting drug-related and other serious crime, and police training and equipment." Thus:
"action against illegal immigration networks could be seen as combatting either serious crime or illegal immigration."
These countries, the report says, "wish to become an integral part of the EU's defences against illegal immigration and organised crime rather than being seen as transit countries." However, this is followed by a comment from a diplomatic representative of an EU member state in "one of the more developed Associated countries" who told him that he: "saw no risk of over-training here" to which Mr Langdon adds "and that was a shrewd comment."
The logic of "structured dialogue" is that there is a definable acquis (list of measures) which applicant states are expected to meet. At present there is no such formal acquis being "pursued by the central and eastern European countries" because it does not exist. Langdon recommends that "at some stage along the pre-accession route there could be