The uncertainty that preceded the agreement on the Constitution and the poor voter response to the European Parliament elections give room for scepticism about Europe's future as a political entity.
EUROPE had its tryst with destiny on the night of June 18. At 10-20 p.m., after two days of suspense, European leaders at a summit in Brussels finally agreed on the Constitution for Europe. "We have an agreement on the Constitution for Europe," announced Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, who currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Union (E.U.). He described the historic agreement as a "win-win solution", bringing advantage for everyone.
An earlier summit in Brussels in December 2003, during Italy's presidency, had failed to agree on a draft Constitution designed to chart out the E.U.'s future course as a political entity. In the union of big and small countries, and competing national interests, the December meeting collapsed over the question of voting rights of individual countries within the E.U. Spain and Poland refused to surrender their disproportionate voting rights, held under a treaty signed in 2000. Other smaller nations, too, resisted changes in the voting rules. A compromise has now been reached through the "double majority" voting system, whereby measures in order to pass should have the support of a minimum of 55 per cent of E.U. states representing at least 65 per cent of the E.U.'s population. The accord on the Constitution follows two years of work by a constitutional convention headed by former French President Giscard D'Estaing.
Among other sticking points was the issue of veto rights on legislation. For instance, Britain, which is keenly sensitive about ceding its national powers to the E.U., favoured the veto in many areas. At the end, the Constitution extends majority voting to greater areas of legislation, but has retained the national veto on issues such as economic policy, defence and foreign affairs. The Constitution provides for a Foreign Minister in line with the E.U.'s aim to have a common foreign policy. In effect, however, such a Minister would only represent those policies where all member-states are in agreement.
The Constitution also provides for an elected President of the European Council with a two-and-a-half-year term, to replace the current system of member-states occupying the position for six months each by turn. However, intense efforts failed to produce an agreement on a successor to the President of the European Commission, the E.U.'s executive arm, whose five-year term expires in October. Former Prime Minister of Italy Romano Prodi is the current head of the European Commission. France and Germany backed Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt to succeed Prodi, but Britain opposed him for his pro-European and federalist credentials. Moreover, much to the dislike of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Verhofstadt had opposed strongly the war in Iraq. The Belgian Prime Minister has since said that he was no longer available for the post. Ahern, buoyed by the success on the Constitution, was optimistic about an agreement on a new President of the European Commission before the end of Ireland's presidency of the E.U., on June 30.
Tony Blair described the Constitution as historic and as "a success for Great Britain and Europe". German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said: "The Constitution equips Europe not just to assume its proper economic role in the world, but also to discharge its growing political role, notwithstanding the fact that the steps towards integration have not been as impressive as we would have liked." French President Jacques Chirac felt that the Constitution "would allow Europe to function better through a stable President of the Council and a Foreign Minister, as they will impart greater coherence to the E.U.'s actions in the world".
For Romano Prodi, the accord is "a dream that has become reality". Before it can come into effect, however, the Constitution will have to be ratified by every member-state. At least seven countries, including Britain, will hold referendums, while in others the decision rests with the national parliaments. The record of referendums from some countries shows that all the painstaking work of years on the Constitution could be undone by the growing sentiment of "Euro-scepticism", as is evident from the elections to the European Parliament. Denmark and Sweden have voted earlier against joining the euro - the common currency system - through national referendums. Ireland had voted against the Nice Treaty of 2000, which was designed mainly to prepare the E.U. for its expansion to 25 members from 15 (the expansion was completed in May).
THE accord on the Constitution seemed to hang by a thread. Even as the summit got under way, the leaders traded charges over the various issues in dispute, including the one over the candidate for the presidency of the European Commission. In a reference to Britain's threat to use the veto, Chirac said the "E.U. had to avoid being blocked by a single country". Blair's official spokesman responded "it was unfortunate that President Chirac chose to attack our position before the negotiations had begun" and added that "we are operating in a Europe of 25, not a Europe of six or two or one".
The summit could well have ended in failure like the last one in December. The leaders could have backed away from an agreement, given the dismal portents emerging out of the European elections held just a few days earlier. It was the first summit including the 10 new member-states, which are mostly from Eastern Europe. They were also voting for the first time in the elections to the European Parliament. The voter turnout of 45 per cent was a record low for the E.U., as compared to the 49.2 per cent recorded in 1999. The turnout figures were even lower for the 10 new members - just 26.4 per cent - reflecting a widespread apathy in the East for the European project. In Poland only around 20 per cent of the electorate voted and the League of Polish Families, the anti-E.U. party, came second with 16 per cent of the votes. Slovakia had the lowest turnout at less than 17 per cent. In the Czech Republic the anti-European Civic Democratic Party (ODS) won 30 per cent of the votes as against 8.8 per cent polled by the ruling Social Democrats.
In Western Europe, too, the "protest vote" against many ruling parties appeared to bode ill for the politics of reinforcing integration in the E.U. In Britain both the Conservative and Labour parties saw a reduction in their votes. Labour won just 22 per cent and the Euro-sceptic Independence Party came third with almost 17 per cent. In Austria and Sweden anti-European parties made significant gains. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's party Forza Italia dropped to 21 per cent compared with the 30 per cent of votes it won in Italy's general elections of 2001. In Germany, the Social Democrats suffered their worst results of the post-War period.
Spain was a major exception to the trend, with the Socialist Party led by Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero winning around 44 per cent of the votes. The change of government there in March, with the Socialists being closer to the Franco-German position on European integration, was a key factor in the accord on the Constitution. The Zapatero government abandoned the threat of veto, which had earlier been held out by the Conservative government of Jose Maria Aznar during the failed summit in Brussels in December 2003.
Overall, the disappointing message from the voters was summed up by Pat Cox, President of the outgoing European Parliament. "Regrettably, Europe is too absent from European elections in East and West," Cox said. The low turnout showed that Europe was still unprepared to define itself as a political entity. Irish Foreign Minister Brian Cowen warned that the "political credibility" of the E.U. was at stake.
Perhaps the shock of the results, coming on the eve of the summit, made it imperative for the leaders to come to an agreement on the Constitution. A failure at this stage would have been a major setback for the integration process, and for the E.U.'s progress beyond being a mere economic union and towards establishing a real political and institutional identity.
Another fact emerging out of the European elections has significant implications for the political aspect of Europe's integration. Across Europe, it was a vote against the politics of allying with the United States in the war against Iraq. In Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Poland and Portugal voters punished the parties that supported the U.S. and for going against public opinion opposed to the invasion of Iraq. The trend extends to Eastern Europe, with voters rejecting decisively politicians perceived to be subservient to U.S. interests as was evident through the Iraq episode. Heads of government in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, along with those of Spain, Britain, Portugal, Italy and Denmark, had issued a letter of support for the U.S. policy in Iraq in January last year. This was followed by the Vilnius Declaration of 10 East European countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Estonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia) in February 2003.
American influence among the ex-communist states in Eastern Europe has major implications for the E.U. at this juncture of its enlargement towards the East. As analysts note, the entry of pro-U.S. countries from the East is a handicap for the E.U. in its moves to define a political identity through coherent foreign and defence policies that are independent of the U.S. American neoconservative thinking, which has considerable influence on the current administration, has pointed to the dangers for the country of a strong and independent Europe. Richard Perle, until recently an adviser to U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is among those who advocate that the U.S. defend its model aggressively against "old Europe". According to him, the E.U.'s latest enlargement should help the U.S. bring together a sufficiently large group of countries so as to prevent the E.U. from becoming a threat to the U.S.
The history of the U.S.' search for influence among the communist states in the East goes back to the time immediately after the Second World War. Thereafter through the vicissitudes of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and the U.S. involvement in the Yugoslav conflicts, a decisive moment for the alliance with the East came with the admission of the ex-communist states into NATO - Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic in 1999, followed by seven new members in 2002. When the E.U. decided in 2002 to admit 10 new members from Eastern Europe, the daily International Herald Tribune described Washington to be the big winner of this E.U. enlargement.
The Iraq war, however, has helped highlight the gap between the elites and the people on this count. In an opinion poll held in early 2003 in the 10 new member-countries from the East, over 75 per cent of the people were against intervention in Iraq without the mandate of the United Nations. Nearly 50 per cent were against the war even with such a mandate. Iraq thus helped highlight the commonality of interests between the peoples of East and West Europe.
COMMents
SHARE