April 30, 2005
The Great Unravelling
You know, I think we should start a system here. When you see this map, you should probably realize that the following entry is an EU rant - for better or worse. So, if such talk gives you the willies, it's probably best to just go have an ice cream cone.
I see nothing inherently wrong with a united Europe. While I'm not out there chanting "Federalize Europe!" or "God bless the United States of Europe!", I do indeed believe that some sort of EU-evolution into a federation or confederation would ultimately, if done right, promote regional stability, ensure persistence of the democratic process, raise the standard of living, revive the European economy, etc.
Of course, such an evolution is long away. It may not even happen in my lifetime. But, I always thought that the foundations of such an enterprise had been laid out, in the European Union. You know what I mean. Remember that humble, six-member European Coal and Steel Community started by the gang of six (West Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Italy) in the early 1950s? It expanded into the European Economic Community, then the European Community, and now the European Union - an intergovernmental organization of twenty-five states:
Germany
the Netherlands
Belgium
Luxembourg
France
Italy
Denmark
Ireland
the United Kingdom
Greece
Spain
Portugal
Sweden
Finland
Austria
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
the Czech Republic
Slovakia
Hungary
Slovenia
Cyprus
Malta
The phrase "goings on in Brussels" no longer refers to Beligian royal court intrigue. Over the past fifty years, the European Union has evolved into a political and economic bloc of 455 million people. Yes, that's larger than the United States and Canada combined. Just a year ago, the EU undertook its most impressive, and challenging, enlargement, with the addition of the ten nations at the bottom of the bottom of the list, including eight former Communist nations (three were former Soviet republics). A symbolic enlargement, especially following the end of the Cold War and the swift introduction (or resurrection) of democratic processes in former regimes. The enlargement was perhaps even more relevant than the addition of Spain and Portugal (after both recovered swiftly from their own brushes with dictatorship) in the 1980s.
A large trading bloc, with the political might of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, combined into one. Smooth sailing, right?
Of course not.
We all have our problems. Even Europe.
Take another gander at that map up there. The EU's expansion last year was painful, if not shocking. The welcoming of ten new members further diluted the voices of the UK, Germany, and France. Ten fresh economies began to gobble up euros, as formal entrance demolished most other remaining trade barriers, allowing infrastructure and service projects to commence. Cyprus was rashly permitted to join without handling the break-away Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus... something which should make Turkey's EU accession negotiations (set to commence just before my birthday) very interesting indeed. The EU fifteen (that is, the fifteen EU members that were present before last year's enlargement) began to sweat as they saw ten cheap agricultural and manufacturing production centers (the former especially in Poland, the largest new member and a farming stronghouse), spring up for business, perhaps at the expense of more costly markets in the EU fifteen. The examples go on and on.
The enlargement, I believe, also put a strain on some already inefficient EU institutions. The bloated EU Parliament shuttles between Brussels and Strasbourg, refusing to pick an permanent home and trim down (or at least place a voluntary ceiling on) its own ranks. The three principle largest and wealthiest EU members, already arguing amongst themselves over Iraq and other matters, began to hear squabbles over votes, taxes, and whatnot from other large powerhouses, particularly Spain, Italy, and Poland. This slow-to-digest enlargement from fifteen to twenty-five also led to a rise in Euroscepticism, as reflected by the European Parliament elections which gave EUsceptics a much more pronounced voice. The general public remains woefully indifferent (at best), or openly hostile (at worst), to EU policy, as shown by dropping voter turnout in European elections (particularly in established EU members). The term "Eurosceptic member" is no longer reserved for countries like Sweden, Denmark, and the UK... and some EU-heavy supporters (especially France) are beginning to waver.
This recent enlargement also curbed the enthusiasm of many Europeans to see their club expand more, much to the dismay of the current candidate nations (grey in the map): Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Turkey. Bulgaria and Romania are pretty far along: they've signed the last treaty of accession (which must still be approved by the EU 25 and either the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, or the European Council), and are set to join on 1 January 2007. If either fails to implement final protocols and procedures (which is much more likely to happen for Romania than Bulgaria), joining can be postponed for up to a year. This delay will certainly damage the EU's credibility more, and harm the Romanian or Bulgarian economies, as current economic forecasts are depending on the inflow of billions of euros on 1 January 2007. Portions of Croatia's accession negotiations are on hold, since their government has taken up a nasty habit: inability to hand over key suspects to the Hague's International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. As for Turkey, it already faces an uphill (and I believe decades-long) journey to full EU membership. With opposition to Turkey high in some EU institutions (and France and the Netherlands), the sticky Cypriot question lingering, old tensions with Greece, divided public and governmental opinion at home, lingering questions over Kurdish autonomy and Christian rights, and Turkish inability to come to terms with the goverment's role in the World War I-era Armenian genocide, there are plenty of items to check off before Turkey can even BEGIN to address government and economic reforms needed for EU membership.
With all of these problems, one wonders why the EU hasn't splintered yet. Well, of course, I'm just pointing out some negatives here first off. So, don't walk away thinking the EU is all somber, Cassandra-like prophecy. Far from it. Remember, I'm still all about the EU! I just wish they'd get their act together in some of these... pressing areas.
Some say that's what the EU Constitution is supposed to take care of. At over 60,000 words (over 300 pages), it dwarfs our own wimpy 4,000-odd word U.S. Consitution. Yet, this extensive document seeks to streamline all aspects of European Union government: policies spelled out in all former treaties are represented in the European Constitution, whether preserved or modified. This will be it. The single, documented source of all government policy. If passed, European law and government students should breathe a sigh of relief: no more confusing the Maastricht Treaty with the Treaty of Rome! It's all in the Constitution!
Some policies are preserved in word-for-word from past treaties in the EU Constitution. Others are tweaked, modified, or simplified to, quite frankly, ease the EU government into a better fit with... well... Europe! The streamline motif particularly applies to justice and commerce, though it also reaches some administrative government positions, such as the precise relationship between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, and the European Commission is blessedly modified and reduced in size. Voting matters are laid out with precision detail, as well as powers reserved for national governments. Is it a perfect document? To me, far from it. Like I said earlier, I'd prefer more streamlining, particularly in the functions of the European Parliament. I'd also like institutional addresses to the huge gulf that exists between Brussels and the general public.
But, even our own precious American Constitution has its critics and detractors on both sides of the aisle. No document has yet solved all of humanity's many problems. In the EU's case, I initially thought, "Well, it's not entirely what I would want. But, it's not my EU, and it's a good, necessary starting point." So, imperfect or no, the EU Constitution was signed in October of last year, and must be ratified by all twenty-five member states before it can come into force next November.
So, now we sit in the Great Waiting Game. The process of ratification varies from country to country. Fifteen of the twenty-five are using simple legislative votes. The other ten are holding referenda, either binding or consultative. The process is a nail-biter since one "NO" vote could sink the Constitution, and plunge the EU into a spat of bickering, accusations, and back-stabbing that would make Jerry Springer's old show look like an all-hug cake-walk, petting zoo, and reconciliation ceremony along the Korean DMZ (at least that's how I'd like the Korean conflict to end, plus a few balloons). Could the EU fragment with a Constitution failure? Perhaps. At the very least, it would lose international clout, political gusto, and any remaining economic vibrancy, possibily plunging the EU and the rest of Europe into further economic stagnation, political instability, and general uncertainty. Enlargements with Romania and Bulgaria, and future additions of Croatia and possibly Turkey would become ho-hum flag-waving bores, at best. Moves to Confederation/Federation would stall, or take a few gigantic steps back. In short, EU "progess" (as I see it) would halt for a few decades while Brussels begins to shout at itself in the mirror.
So, from my perspective, passage of the EU Constitution should be paramount, right? Absolutely. Five EU national parliaments (Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, and Greece) have passed ratification legislation by huge margins. The parliamentary votes are all widely expected to pass through easily, as no single government wants to be seen as "sinking" the EU with a "NO" torpedo. The referenda are other matters. Spain held one a few months ago and, while turnout was embarrassingly low, approval of the EU Constitution was high (over 75%). Next in line is France, historically as EU-enthusiastic as I am Y Chromosome-enthusiastic. Polls at the beginning of the year foresaw another easy "yes" vote. Euro-federalists and confederalists began to look far into the future, to referenda in Denmark and the UK.
And then the world exploded.
Well, not really. But, suddenly, in France and other EU nations, the Eurosceptic movements began to find their voices... and people started listening. The Eurosceptic bloc is far from unified. Their objections vary greatly both within and without nations... their single unity is that an EU "NO" would satisfy their needs. French approval of the EU Constitution by polls fell below 50%. The Chirac government had a heart attack. France, what happened to thee? The European Project's foundations were laid by the blood, sweat, and tears of many prominent French politicians!
Well, one possibility often mentioned is that, for many decades, the EU was sold to the French people as a renewed pan-Francophone movement. "Make Europe like France," so to speak. Pretty easy to convince folks that it's working when the EU has 15 members, and the French must really only collide with the Germans and British to make themselves heard. Plus, they're the largest founding nation. Germany, at the time, was a small shadow of its former self, and the UK didn't join until the 1970s. But now, in a twenty-five member strong EU, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Cypriots, Maltese, Czechs, and so forth are welcomed into the building and, combining their cries with Portuguese, Danes, Swedes, Irish, Finns, Dutch, and other long-whispering EU members, France's dominating voice is being drowned out by dozens of other foreign tongues.
So no Francophone project. Big deal, right? A unified Europe can still work. But, with other large nations perching in the "wannabe" section, especially vast, poor Turkey, the French are really getting hot under the collar. Brussels is reeling from the French let-down, and is praying for a 50.000000001% approval on 29 May, when the referendum is at hand. When did it come to this? When did it come to "any ol' slim majority will be our mandate"?
Perhaps, instead of ramming the EU Constitution down an obviously sceptic European throat (hell, if FRANCE is having second thoughts, what about more aggressive Eurosceptic circles?), how's about we all take a nice step back, draw a few deep breaths, settle down with our favorite comfort foods (I haven't decided yet between the coffee ice cream, a Snickers Cruncher, or a root beer float), and talk about what may really be unfolding here.
Is the EU ready for a constitution? France may tell us no. And even if they don't, others may, even national parliaments (who may be bolstered to speak their minds more after the French public opinion tipped the first domino). And why say "NO"? Fears of Turkish entry? Post-addition blues? Stagnant economies? Inability to agree on a common foreign policy? The continuing failure of Iranian negotiations? UN-reform hysteria blues?
All of the above. The very fact that EU Constituion arguments (and indeed, many other EU policy arguments) still still still often boil down to nationalist pride, stereotypes, old rivalries, and blind sovereignty speaks volumes about the lack-of-progress that has been made in the public arena. Perhaps a united Europe will have to first convince the EU to let go of the older concerns, and address the vast economic worries of a diverse group. French unemployment rates top 10%. In Germany, their unemployment figures topped 5 million this year. How easy is it for an unemployed Parisian, who lost his job in an already stagnant, cash-strapped French economy (and hit even harder after EU expansion last May), to keep his eye on the EU Ball and go vote "YES" on May 29th because "It will help to further the cause for a united Europe which will hopefully act as a strong, streamlined economic bloc, bringing prosperity to all, not just France"? Not bloody likely. The EU has not addressed national concerns adequately. More shamefully, national governments have often entirely failed to address these concerns. They say that the French and Dutch fear Turkish entry (even though it is years away) will lead to a flood of economic refugees from Anatolia, putting dire strain on already dire financial infrastructures, and diluting unique cultures with a flood of immigration. Have governments sought to address these fears in any way? Sadly, no. Grievances with national governments will also fuel the Eurosceptic cause, as an anti-Chirac movement has done so far in France. Is it a referendum on Chirac or the EU? They say the former, when it's unfortunately the latter.
The persistence of national issues trumping European identity is one matter. But, there are plenty of other lose ends that should probably, at this point, trump the Constitution question. Last year's enlargement went respectably well, but there were some blunders that pointed out significant flaws in the system. The most glaring example is Cyprus, which officially joined as a unified island, but in practice has been divided for decades north vs. south between the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (which is recognized only by Turkey, an EU candidate) and a Greek-Cypriot run government in the south. The Greek Cypriots are now full European citizens, enjoying a standard of living that their northern counterparts could only dream of (and often defect for). As Greece often grumbles, Turkey doesn't even officially recognize the Greek Cypriot government, but says it will eventually. Eventually? Turkey is an EU applicant, yet they do not currently recognize an EU member. Does this even raise ONE eyebrow in Brussels?! The Cypriot question should have been resolved in its entirety prior to Cyprus' accession, and must definitely be addressed before Turkey gets to close to joining. Of course, this will require getting the EU, the UN, Cyprus, the TRNC, and Turkey to all sit down together again. Good luck.
There were other blunders. Take, for example, the continuing border disputes between Slovenia, a new member, and Croatia, a current candidate. They all point to a surprising (and nasty) habit the EU has developed: ignoring lose ends. Sure, they start out as small problems. But, they accumulate over time. The Stability and Growth Pact for the Eurozone, for example, began with a few minor violations, and now is all but ignored by Germany, France, and many other nations. I think the EU Constitution question may just be the straw that broke the camel's back. Alas, my fear is that a resounding "NO" vote from France, or any other country, won't plunge the EU into the kind of transcendental introspection it desperately needs (you know, where we all sit down with root beer floats and talk about the above problems, and more). Instead, the spattings, heated debates, and accusations may tear the EU apart, or at least render it pitiful for a few decades.
If "NO" (or "NON," if I know my French) happens, I don't think the EU can move forward without the countries that opted out of the Constitution. An EU sans France, the UK, or even Denmark is not an option. If they go for it, they all go together. United they stand, divided they fall. Last week's issue of the Economist referred to it as "the Great Unravelling." And if the "NO" does happen, it should be a time for renewed reform, treaty-by-treaty and problem-by-problem, if necessary. Europe must step back and say, "How do we want to do this?" Settle the Cyprus question, resolve Croatia-Slovenia border disputes, help Lithuania's Russian-speaking minority, help the destitute Roma diaspora, warm Greece-Turkey relations, resolve the UN Security Council issue with Germany (and establish a single European seat, in my opinion), and, let the French accept the failure of pan-Francophone, and let them slowly discover what sort of productive, nurturing role they could indeed play in the Great European Project. A Constitution can come later, much much later, after all have calmed down, and issues have settled.
For, I see the EU's potential future as something much more important than a 300-something page document. With the addition of nations from the former Soviet bloc, and the former Yugoslavia, the EU is showing the world that democracy can hold and take root, if nourished properly and thoroughly. The candidacy of Croatia (even if on hold), and the recent opening of economic talks with Serbia and Montenegro, and the EU support of peaceful revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine show that there's much work left to be done. Bosnia, Macedonia, and even Albania could join, if given help. Romania is stumbling, and needs a good example to follow. Turkey should join: Europe need not fear its vast territory, overwhelming population, past ethnic strife, or large Muslim majority; and Turkey should not fear itself. Given plenty of time (decades, I say), it will join, and Ankara will never regret it. The Caucasus republics need money, advice, and encouragement. The Ukraine is looking hopefully to Brussels, while next door Moldova suffers from near civil war that the EU would do well to take note of. Even Belarus and Russia, as anti-Europe as Europeans can get, aren't opposed to a hearty handshake and a good cigar. Perhaps even Norway, Iceland, and Swizterland, prosperous and proud though they've kept a respectful distance from the Great European Project, will someday wish to take a seat at the table.
I hear there's plenty of room.
Posted by James at April 30, 2005 05:04 PM