SCHENGEN: FRANCE SAYS NO TO OPEN BORDERS
The time-table for a frontier-free Europe has derailed by France's sudden refusal to lift border checks on EC nationals despite its committment under the Schengen Treaty. The French refusal leaves the nine Schengen states, originally in the vanguard of uprooting Customs posts, in disarray. The nine were due to sweep away passport controls at land frontiers on 1 July and at airports on 1 dDecember this year. Both deadlines will now be missed, as was the previous symbolic date of 1 January 1993 when Europe was meant to become a single market. The French government has justified its spectacular turn-about with the "inadequacy" of policies against drug trafficking in the Netherlands and the "incapacity" of Italy and Greece to control their borders.
The French Minister responsible of European affairs, Alain Lamassoure said that France will maintain its police controls at frontiers as long as the "preconditions for the entry into force of the Schengen Agreement are not fulfilled".
According to Mr. Lamassoure the conditions permitting the free movement of persons "will not be assembled until the end of 1993 and quite probably not even before quite a long time".
Mr. Lamassoure blamed Schengen-partner states for his governments decision. Germany, he said, was unable to ratify the agreement before July, pending the change of its constitutional legislation on asylum, and "the Greek and Italian administrations are not always in a position to enforce the planned strengthening of controls at the external borders". The minister further pointed at "technical problems" in setting up the "Schengen Information System" (SIS) which is to serve as a common data bank of polices within the Schengen territory.
Finally, Mr. Lamassoure cited drug trafficking as the main reason for wishing to keep controls. Authorities in northern France are particularly worried that liberal drug laws in the Netherlands will affect their region. France has repeatedly dismissed any notion of decriminalising the possession of any drugs (see FECL No. 15, p.3), while the Netherlands, Spain, and, most recently, Italy have done so.
The Dutch response was angry and immediate. Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers cast aside diplomatic niceties to declare thathe was "seriously astounded" by the French descision. He added that France would be bound to honour the Schengen Agreement's provisions.
No end of the row with the Netherlands was in sight after thel meeting of EC interior and justice ministers at Kolding (Denmark) on 6/7 May.
The E17 motorway into Paris from Amsterdam is dubbed the "drug highway" by french officials. Despite the scaled down Customs presence since 1 January, drug seizures continue to rise sharply, up to 15 percent in just three months. But Dutch officials strenuously defend their tolerant strategy on drugs and say it is properly policed.
Another factor may have been the government's desire to clamp down on illegal immigration. The lifting of passport controls at frontiers would have complicated this task further in a nation that has borders with six countries.
In private, Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, a Gaullist hardliner, has for years expressed concern that france would be at the mercy of the inefficiency of other countries if proper policing were not maintained at the Community's external frontiers. He has said it could ease the movement of both illegal immigrants and terrorists.
The first Schengen Agreement (Schengen I) was negociated outside Community law and signed by Germany, France and the Benelux countries in the village of Schengen (Luxemburg) in 1985. The treaty provided for the creation of a model area of free movement. The second Schengen agreement (Schengen II: on the enforcement of Schengen I) was signed by the same countries in 1990 and now comprises all EC-member states except Great Britain, Ireland and Denmark
The agreement is based on the principle that frontiers between the signatary states be suppressed while police control and co-operation inside the common Schengen-area and, in particular at the external borders be reinforced in order to "compensate" an alleged "security deficit". Among other things, the agreement provides for the harmonisation of visa policies and asylum procedures and the setting up of a powerful common police data base, the SIS.
For the time being, six countries (France, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Belgium, Spain and Portugal) have ratified the agreement.
At the debate preceding the ratification of the agreement by the French parliament in June 1991, representatives of the then opposition Gaullist RPR together with Alain Lamassoure, who was an MP of former president Giscard's UDF were the only ones to criticise the treaty they saw as a threat to French sovereignity and an efficient combat against drug related crime. But the treaty was finally ratified with impressive 495 against 61 votes including Mr Charles Pasqua's.
Yet, in December 1992, a report of a committee of inquiry of the french Senat expressed harsh criticism against the netehrlands and luxemburg, accused of laxness in dealing with drug trafficking and drug related crime and called for a "redefinition" of the strategy for open internal borders in Europe (see CL No.11 p.4).
The French turn-about while creating consternation among most EC-member state governments is likely to be welcomed in Britain, where government and police have always been opposed to the abolition of border controls. In a memorandum addressed to the House of Commons in February 1992, the British Police Service solemnly stressed that "ports are our first and last lines of defense" (see FECL No.7, p.7).
Sources: Le Monde, 3.5.93; The Independent, 1.5.93; The European, 6-9.5.93; Der Standard, 5.5.93