Whither European unity?
SHELLEY WALIA
|
The recent referendum in France and the Netherlands is the biggest crisis to engulf the E.U. Final breaks have been put on the process of integration which now stands hindered.
|
PHOTO: AP
STUNNING BLOW: French leftists celebrate the result in paries, after voters rejected the proposed European Union constitution.
I MIGHT sound xenophobic, but I am glad at the recent signs of disintegration of the European Union. I have never been in favour of a strong Europe because that symbolises a new round of neo-colonialism and Eurocentricism; something the colonised world would not like to contend with again, though the imperial agenda of the Empire is implicit in the very processes of globalisation. European well-being does not imply the well-being of minorities and other nations outside it.
The recent referendum in France and Netherlands is the biggest crisis to engulf the European Union. With the French "non" and the Dutch "nee", the general disenchantment with the European constitution is writ large on the future of an integrated Europe and the consequent negative effects on the power of the Euro. Final breaks have been put on the process of European integration which now stands hindered. The governing political leaders face an uprising not only in France and the Netherlands but also in Germany and Italy, leading to a deepening crisis for the 25-member European Union. The debacle has occurred not only because of the mistrust of the bureaucratic elites who live under the illusion that they know what is best for their countrymen, but also because of economic stagnation; Europe has lagged economically for the last 15 years since Maastricht.
Sixty-three per cent of Dutch votes has rejected the European charter whereas 55 per cent in France has said "no" to the treaty. Even though the Dutch are the founding members of the Union, it is surprising that they have shown increased loathing for the constitution which needs to be ratified by all 25 member states if it has to take effect. Nine countries have already ratified the treaty whereas Britain, Denmark, Luxemburg, Ireland and the Czech Republic are still to hold the referendum.
As I see it, there are largely two consequences of this disenchantment with the European charter. The old Europe led by France and Germany, according to the freelance journalist, Mortimer Sellers, "can turn inwards in opposition to America and the less-wealthy Eastern European states. Or all of Europe can join the United States in a broader, looser coalition built on the values of democracy, human rights and economic development". A trans-Atlantic dialogue could be an antidote to the European disenchantment with excessive integration.
About identity
The idea has always remained one of defining Europe in opposition to the United States. But there is one danger: if a larger Europe is not possible, a narrower one led by France or Germany will xenophobically go all out to counter any subjugation to the U.S. Currently, the European identity is poised dangerously against the Atlantic identity. Trade conflicts between the two are visible in the recent subsidy scandal over the Airbus dispute. As things stand, America needs to be in a dire need of a healthy trans-Atlantic relationship, especially in the face of a rising nationalism in Europe. It is also clear that citizens all over Europe do not want a homogenised Europe. Neither is it in the interest of America that a solid united Europe is born.
Britain, a lackey of the U.S., has already flustered the European Union by deciding to indefinitely postpone its decision to hold a referendum on the constitution. The disarray over the future of Europe has finally strengthened the Eurosceptic parties by the "no" votes since the expansion of the European Union and the move towards globalisation has not been favoured by the citizens. It seems to me that the ambiguity of the various reactions towards the assembly has to do with the mushrooming economic strength of both India and China. A larger united Europe would tend to counter the intense challenges coming from these two economic "superpowers". As Robert A. Levine, an economist writes: "Continental Europe's economies are indeed overregulated and overtaxed, and do need reform. But the rigid monetary and fiscal constraints imposed by Maastricht are at least responsible for economic malaise as structural sclerosis is. That is shown by the fact that the two big Western economies not subject to Maastricht constraints, those of the United States and Britain, have generally prospered".
The public in Europe seems least prepared to accept the policies of their political leaders who now seem to be endeavouring to shore up confidence in European integration especially the French President, Jacques Chirac, who tried to save the situation by choosing interior minister Dominic de Villepin to be the prime minister. Chirac feels that a cabinet reshuffle might help in restoring confidence in his government. Apparently, the "no" vote is a rebuff to Chirac's 10-year presidency. France and the rest of Europe face unemployment and depletion in the spending power; the workers, the farmers and the low-level civil servants are all against the constitution. It is yet to be seen if Villepin's appointment will improve relations with the U.S. He is the one leader in France who volubly criticised the U.S. for its invasion of Iraq. On the other hand, he is a nationalist to the core with a romantic vision of France occupying a vital position in the world in the near future.
The referendum in France is a victory not of the xenophobic right but for the left and the Socialists, a type of return to the 1917 or 1968 times when capitalism was virtually run down. "The victory of the no was a victory of the fonctionnaire-rioter," said Alain Finfielksaut, writer and philosopher. Apparently this was a reference "to the cohorts of state employees ready to take to the streets to defend the 35-hour work week and cradle-to-grave welfare that they saw threatened by a supposedly `neo-liberal' European Constitution". It is only in France that the debate still rages and intellectuals argue that it must go, whereas other nations have vehemently decided to go along with the open, technology driven world.
Thus the French right and the left are at the cross-roads ready to debate and forge new alliances and unafraid of any change. But the dangers of xenophobic and petty corporatism do seem to sap the vigour of a revolutionary future that is possible if intellectual vitality is tapped and not allowed to be wasted on pseudo left-wing visions.
The Dutch reaction
On their part, the Dutch are against the rapid and far-reaching changes brought about by the European Union as well as the incorporation of 10 new members from the East. Being a small nation, the Netherlands does not want to be pushed around by the more powerful nations. Nor do they accept the non-transparent working of the European Union machinery. Being the largest net per capita in the union, they do not want to be a part of a conglomeration in which they will never have any tangible weight, surrounded as they are by big nations. More than anything, the Dutch are anxious about losing their national identity and about declining living standards.
In the current political scenario, France will tend to harden its protectionist stance and lead Europe towards the left. Or else it will stand marginalised with liberalisation in Europe moving on regardless. Perhaps, with Tony Blair taking over as president of the European Union for six months, Brussels might succeed in its move towards greater economic reform which seems to be on top of Blair's agenda as he does not favour social and political integration in the least. Eastern European countries such as Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Latvia blame France and the Eurosceptics for standing up against the union because of the entry of the Eastern bloc that endangers France's supremacy in Europe. It is the old Europe against the new, where France has lost its hegemony. New member states are, therefore, being used as scapegoats for unemployment in both France and Germany though they get cheap labour in Slovakia where they have invested heavily in the car industry.
Suspicion and failure prevail all over Europe owing to a sense of fear at the prospect of a shared future at the enormous cost of sacrificing national sovereignty which will be fully subsumed in a larger vision of a united Europe. National and European bureaucracies continue to behave undemocratically and the citizens are well aware of the important issues of unemployment, outsourcing, pollution, tradition and values. This is not to say that the elite leadership of Europe is not aware of these important problems confronting Europe. Public opinion is demanding and knows what it wants. And when no efforts are made by the leadership to convince the voters, any amount of structural changes will not help.
A road map for European survival is difficult, though the Brussels summit in a couple of weeks will try to grapple with the issue. The union is made up of too varied a character to build consensus on strategies, policies and institutions. It is hard to find a medium between common interest and national sovereignty. Europe has to finally go into a protracted spell of introspection. The French and the Dutch voting has indeed altered the European landscape. The treaty has been put to rest and no amount of convincing will ever revive it. The people of Europe have no faith in it. Nor do the farmers outside Europe; the idea of protectionism for the farmers in Europe has led to the poor farmers in the Third World unable to make economic gain because of a ban on the entry of food into Europe. This has led to prices of food stuff rising daily.
And I remain satisfied with Blair's predicament especially after he takes over the presidency of the Union on July 1, 2005. Remote controlled by George Bush, the "poodle" will be somewhat happy that the dream of a United Europe is finally nearing its end. He will go on making empty speeches lacking in substance as he did in 1998 when he first took over the revolving presidency. His domestic survival would have depended on his victory at the referendum which he has complacently postponed and is secretly in a thankful mood towards the French and the Dutch voters for helping him with their rejection of the charter. A defeat at the referendum in Britain would have been the clarion call for his political demise.
Shelley Walia writes from Oxford where he is a Senior Fellow at the Rothermere American Institute.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
