E.U.'s slow, painful reforms

AT THEIR LONGEST ever summit in over four decades, leaders of the European Union (E.U.) have managed to clinch a new treaty that lays down the ground rules for future decision-making and clears the decks for the eastward expansion. Hosts France strained their last nerve to get this agreement, knowing full well that if this summit at the Mediterranean resort of Nice failed it would spell gloom for Europe. The French President, Mr. Jacques Chirac, spent sleepless nights as the summit wore on for the fifth day, before he could hammer out a consensus. Obviously, not everyone in the 15-member E.U. is happy over the Nice agreement, but they also realised that without some such agreement they would have been worse off. At stake were the future pattern of decision-making in the E.U. and the reform of the European Commission. And the problem was the `Big Four' in the Union were not willing to give up their dominance, while the smaller States could not afford to give up their political clout through the voting pattern. Mr. Chirac and his advisers had to rework their formula thrice over, with the bigger powers making some concessions but retaining their parity; the medium-sized states making some gains and the smaller nations losing some weight in their voting rights.

The Nice summit has been full of compromises. Even before the leaders could grapple with the voting pattern, they had other major issues to sort out - reforming the European Commission, axing some of the veto powers, reorganising seats in the European Parliament, prescribing criteria for prospective members and even setting up a European Rapid Action Force to enhance defence cooperation and preparedness. From the present strength of 15, the E.U. is set to go beyond 25, when some of the East European countries which were part of the Communist bloc start joining the Union from 2004. It was imperative for the E.U. to launch the far-reaching reforms right away so that the next dose of reorganisation could begin in 2004-05. The main obstacle was the geographical-historical rivalries among neighbours. If Germany wanted to enshrine its predominance as the most populated country, France was keen on maintaining its parity with Germany and had to take Italy and Britain along to make the top league of four. Since population was the yardstick, the Netherlands demanded its pound of flesh and Belgium did not want to be seen to be less powerful than the Dutch. Above all, the smaller States such as Finland, Ireland and Luxembourg did not want to be marginalised, especially in the expanded E.U. That was what the wrangling was all about.

Similarly, every member-state wanted to protect its quota of seats in the European Parliament, but sacrifices were inevitable. When it came to appointing Commissioners, the bigger states had to give up their second slot in the present strength of 20 and then agree to the principle of rotation in the expanded E.U., even while increasing the number to around 27. None of them wanted to lose out on their veto powers to protect sensitive areas such as taxation for instance. Here too, a deal was struck to reduce the issues on which the veto could be used. But the most crucial issue on hand was security and defence cooperation. The idea was to set up a European army that could not only take up fire-fighting, but emerge as the peacekeeping force for the continent and its environs. In the end, Britain and a few others made sure that the 60,000-strong European Rapid Action Force will only supplement the efforts of the NATO, not be an autonomous force. As Mr. Chirac rightly noted, ``not everything has been done, but we did make substantial progress''. And a parallel summit of some potential members, held in the Slovak capital, promptly welcomed the Nice agreement, which opened the doors for them.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Flare-up in Gujarat again
Next     : Negotiating Kashmir peace at home