The EU’s 50th Anniversary

The EU’s 50th Anniversary The original six members have now become 27. Fifteen of the current members were under dictatorships or Communist domination when the Treaty was signed. The European Union has been an inspiration to its newest members and also the primary tool to encourage these countries to adopt democratic and market-oriented regulations and practices. The list of positive accomplishments of the EU is extensive. Perhaps most importantly (particularly among the longer-term members including France and Germany), its citizens have totally embraced the imperative to renounce war and violence among them. This basic concept has been internalized among Europeans to an extraordinary degree. Given their history of warfare, this is a remarkable achievement and one which should have great resonance for this region in particular. While by no means replacing national identities, it has also served to help create an overall European identity as well. The European Union has also been the driving force for economic growth in its area, based on establishing a unified, standardized market and freedom of movement. It has made itself, at least in economic terms, stronger as a whole than the sum of its individual parts. By transferring significant sums of financial assistance to its less-well-off members, it has helped to significantly bolster those economies. Poland, for example, will receive over $100 billion in the next six years to upgrade its infrastructure and agriculture. Spain has received $150 billion for the same purposes since joining in 1986. At that time its per capita income was only 71 % of the EU norm, now it is at 100 %. One would think, therefore, that the Anniversary would be both a celebration and a time to give a clear vision of the EU’s future. In fact the German Presidency did try to put the best face on it and there were fireworks, music and the like. But it did not wash. The “Berlin Declaration” issued on Sunday was remarkable for its lack of substance and avoidance of the key issues confronting the EU today. Due to profound differences over the future of the EU Constitution, for example, the word “Constitution” was not even in the document. There was no specific language on enlargement, again because of internal disagreements. There was no definitive “way forward.” Those differences also led to a decision to have the declaration signed only by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, as the rotational President of the EU, the Speaker of the European Union Parliament, and the European Commission President. The original idea to have the leaders of all 27 member-countries sign was scrapped when it became clear that there was no chance of a text upon which all agreed. The short, forgettable “Berlin Declaration” symbolizes the limbo in which the EU finds itself today. One European observer described the EU as being on “automatic pilot.” This is the most accurate description for the EU today and I am reminded of this analogy every time I hear another EU delegate to the Region who continues to act as if it is “business as usual” on enlargement when in truth, it is anything but that. Other articles are even more critical. Headlines describing the Anniversary include “EU faces an identify crisis,” “Looking Her Age” (‘overweight and badly dressed’), “EU has a 50th Birthday to Forget,” and “For Europe, a Moment to Ponder.” An EU-wide poll in December showed that only 53% of the people believed that membership was a “good thing,” down from 71% in 1991. Just a third believed the EU was going in the right direction and less than half had a positive image of the EU. Critics are quick to cite its 90,000 pages of rules and regulations, 23 official languages, 785 Parliamentary members, and mandatory four-day Parliamentary migrations to Strasbourg each month as proof that it has become a bureaucratic dinosaur. The history of the EU has been one of controversy, disagreement, and finally, over time, positive steps forward. It has never been the EU practice to confront its crises head-on, but to solve them slowly, letting time diffuse emotions and lead to solutions. It would be a mistake, therefore, to assume that the current crisis will necessarily end up any differently. But fundamental questions cry out to be answered: exactly what do its members want the EU to be: A United States of Europe, a Free Trade Area, a vehicle to promote Europe-wide democracy and union, or something in between? How much sovereignty are the individual states ---and more importantly---individual citizens and voters willing to give up? How to deal with the increasing multi-ethnicity of the EU? Will the EU member-countries really be willing to spend the money on defense needed to give it a major out-of-area military capability and thus, more respect when it speaks and acts? For almost two decades now, the European Union has struggled to achieve in the foreign policy area the same degree of “weight” and importance as it has in economics. On the one hand, European leaders know full well that the European Union has never been able to have the degree of impact on world affairs as it’s economic and military strength indicate it should have. On the other, however, many of those same leaders have been reluctant to cede their own national sovereignty on foreign affairs to the EU. This conflict has had some adverse repercussions, particularly in this region. In the beginning of the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, the leadership of the EU deliberately took on responsibility for “handling it” for the international community. They saw it as an opportunity to showcase the EU’s growing unity and strength. Instead, they demonstrated its ineffectiveness. One of the results of that exercise is that to this very day, few in the region trust the EU when it comes to taking action or bringing recalcitrant parties into line when force is needed. The EU Constitution, which is now in limbo due to its rejection by France and the Netherlands, was designed in part to strengthen its central institutions by creating the official post of Foreign Minister and also by installing a system of decision-making which would get away from the sort of consensus which is now in place and has become unworkable as the membership has increased so dramatically. Despite the current ambiguity, key European leaders remain eager to “prove” that the EU can exercise authority and manage crises in its region. It has, in fact, successfully managed the peaceful breakup of Serbia and Montenegro and also played the lead role (with key U.S. help) in bringing the violence threatening to engulf Macedonia to an end. Those situations, however, were comparatively easy. It now is faced with two far more complex regional challenges. The first is Bosnia, where the Dayton Peace Agreement has locked the country into a system of government which is unworkable and where the three key ethnic groups have to this day maintained their pre-war goals and objectives. Can the EU exercise the force, authority, and presence to move this situation into a viable basis or will it simply allow Bosnia to drift along in the status of a second-class country where its citizens will never realize their full potential? The second is Kosovo. And it is here where the basic weakness of the EU is showing. On the one hand, the EU is poised to provide the “International Civilian Representative” to oversee Kosovo and also to provide the mission which succeeds UNMIK there. For all intents and purposes under this arrangement, Kosovo would become kind of an EU Protectorate. But on the other, the future of Kosovo is now being decided by the United States and Russia with the EU sort of in the middle as a spectator doing very little to assert its own will and policies into the process. I am convinced that EU membership in the near, foreseeable, and concrete future remains an essential ingredient for stability in the region and resolving the crisis over Kosovo. I am also convinced that an area of instability in the Balkans, outside of the EU, but touching its borders on all sides is not in the EU’s interest. But as in every other case until now, the EU, when the going gets tough and rapid, decisive action is needed, is on the sidelines, unable to agree and therefore, unable to act. It is too bad, because in the increasingly complex and dangerous world in which we live, the United States needs a strong partner sharing its intrinsic values. The EU – in terms of foreign affairs and international relations – remains far less than the sum of its parts. (Photo: FoNet) This past Sunday marked the 50th Anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, which established what has become the European Union. It is the most important achievement in post-World War II Europe. The short, forgettable “Berlin Declaration” symbolizes the limbo in which the EU finds itself today. One European observer described the EU as being on “automatic pilot.”

The EU’s 50th Anniversary

The original six members have now become 27. Fifteen of the current members were under dictatorships or Communist domination when the Treaty was signed. The European Union has been an inspiration to its newest members and also the primary tool to encourage these countries to adopt democratic and market-oriented regulations and practices.

The list of positive accomplishments of the EU is extensive. Perhaps most importantly (particularly among the longer-term members including France and Germany), its citizens have totally embraced the imperative to renounce war and violence among them. This basic concept has been internalized among Europeans to an extraordinary degree.

Given their history of warfare, this is a remarkable achievement and one which should have great resonance for this region in particular. While by no means replacing national identities, it has also served to help create an overall European identity as well.

The European Union has also been the driving force for economic growth in its area, based on establishing a unified, standardized market and freedom of movement. It has made itself, at least in economic terms, stronger as a whole than the sum of its individual parts.

By transferring significant sums of financial assistance to its less-well-off members, it has helped to significantly bolster those economies. Poland, for example, will receive over $100 billion in the next six years to upgrade its infrastructure and agriculture. Spain has received $150 billion for the same purposes since joining in 1986. At that time its per capita income was only 71 % of the EU norm, now it is at 100 %.

One would think, therefore, that the Anniversary would be both a celebration and a time to give a clear vision of the EU’s future. In fact the German Presidency did try to put the best face on it and there were fireworks, music and the like. But it did not wash. The “Berlin Declaration” issued on Sunday was remarkable for its lack of substance and avoidance of the key issues confronting the EU today.

Due to profound differences over the future of the EU Constitution, for example, the word “Constitution” was not even in the document. There was no specific language on enlargement, again because of internal disagreements. There was no definitive “way forward.”

Those differences also led to a decision to have the declaration signed only by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, as the rotational President of the EU, the Speaker of the European Union Parliament, and the European Commission President. The original idea to have the leaders of all 27 member-countries sign was scrapped when it became clear that there was no chance of a text upon which all agreed.

The short, forgettable “Berlin Declaration” symbolizes the limbo in which the EU finds itself today. One European observer described the EU as being on “automatic pilot.” This is the most accurate description for the EU today and I am reminded of this analogy every time I hear another EU delegate to the Region who continues to act as if it is “business as usual” on enlargement when in truth, it is anything but that. Other articles are even more critical.

Headlines describing the Anniversary include “EU faces an identify crisis,” “Looking Her Age” (‘overweight and badly dressed’), “EU has a 50th Birthday to Forget,” and “For Europe, a Moment to Ponder.” An EU-wide poll in December showed that only 53% of the people believed that membership was a “good thing,” down from 71% in 1991.

Just a third believed the EU was going in the right direction and less than half had a positive image of the EU. Critics are quick to cite its 90,000 pages of rules and regulations, 23 official languages, 785 Parliamentary members, and mandatory four-day Parliamentary migrations to Strasbourg each month as proof that it has become a bureaucratic dinosaur.

The history of the EU has been one of controversy, disagreement, and finally, over time, positive steps forward. It has never been the EU practice to confront its crises head-on, but to solve them slowly, letting time diffuse emotions and lead to solutions. It would be a mistake, therefore, to assume that the current crisis will necessarily end up any differently.

But fundamental questions cry out to be answered: exactly what do its members want the EU to be: A United States of Europe, a Free Trade Area, a vehicle to promote Europe-wide democracy and union, or something in between?

How much sovereignty are the individual states ---and more importantly---individual citizens and voters willing to give up? How to deal with the increasing multi-ethnicity of the EU? Will the EU member-countries really be willing to spend the money on defense needed to give it a major out-of-area military capability and thus, more respect when it speaks and acts?

For almost two decades now, the European Union has struggled to achieve in the foreign policy area the same degree of “weight” and importance as it has in economics. On the one hand, European leaders know full well that the European Union has never been able to have the degree of impact on world affairs as it’s economic and military strength indicate it should have. On the other, however, many of those same leaders have been reluctant to cede their own national sovereignty on foreign affairs to the EU.

This conflict has had some adverse repercussions, particularly in this region. In the beginning of the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, the leadership of the EU deliberately took on responsibility for “handling it” for the international community. They saw it as an opportunity to showcase the EU’s growing unity and strength. Instead, they demonstrated its ineffectiveness. One of the results of that exercise is that to this very day, few in the region trust the EU when it comes to taking action or bringing recalcitrant parties into line when force is needed.

The EU Constitution, which is now in limbo due to its rejection by France and the Netherlands, was designed in part to strengthen its central institutions by creating the official post of Foreign Minister and also by installing a system of decision-making which would get away from the sort of consensus which is now in place and has become unworkable as the membership has increased so dramatically.

Despite the current ambiguity, key European leaders remain eager to “prove” that the EU can exercise authority and manage crises in its region. It has, in fact, successfully managed the peaceful breakup of Serbia and Montenegro and also played the lead role (with key U.S. help) in bringing the violence threatening to engulf Macedonia to an end.

Those situations, however, were comparatively easy. It now is faced with two far more complex regional challenges. The first is Bosnia, where the Dayton Peace Agreement has locked the country into a system of government which is unworkable and where the three key ethnic groups have to this day maintained their pre-war goals and objectives.

Can the EU exercise the force, authority, and presence to move this situation into a viable basis or will it simply allow Bosnia to drift along in the status of a second-class country where its citizens will never realize their full potential?

The second is Kosovo. And it is here where the basic weakness of the EU is showing. On the one hand, the EU is poised to provide the “International Civilian Representative” to oversee Kosovo and also to provide the mission which succeeds UNMIK there. For all intents and purposes under this arrangement, Kosovo would become kind of an EU Protectorate. But on the other, the future of Kosovo is now being decided by the United States and Russia with the EU sort of in the middle as a spectator doing very little to assert its own will and policies into the process.

I am convinced that EU membership in the near, foreseeable, and concrete future remains an essential ingredient for stability in the region and resolving the crisis over Kosovo. I am also convinced that an area of instability in the Balkans, outside of the EU, but touching its borders on all sides is not in the EU’s interest.

But as in every other case until now, the EU, when the going gets tough and rapid, decisive action is needed, is on the sidelines, unable to agree and therefore, unable to act. It is too bad, because in the increasingly complex and dangerous world in which we live, the United States needs a strong partner sharing its intrinsic values. The EU – in terms of foreign affairs and international relations – remains far less than the sum of its parts.