Encouraging EU summit

Encouraging EU summit

So it is easy to lose sight of the major global challenges looming over all of us. These include nuclear proliferation, global warming, diminishing supplies of oil and gas, international terrorism, a potential "clash of civilizations" with the Islamic World, and rising powers who do not share Euro/American values or practices.

The only chance we have to successfully confront these issues is by having a strong Euro/Atlantic relationship between equal partners sharing the same vision and working together to achieve it. The past several years have seen both sides of this partnership shaken and put off course. The United States has had the Bush Administration's unilateralism, the catastrophic Iraqi adventure, and a fixation on terrorist-related issues to the exclusion of almost anything else. 

The European Union has been equally paralyzed, although for different reasons. The failed Constitutional referendums in France and the Netherlands exposed problems which the European Union had long swept under the rug: no consensus on where the EU should be headed; radically different views over the powers it should have and the degree of sovereignty individual members need to give up; and the benefits or pitfalls of expansion.

These all came along exactly when the major players in the European Union (France, Germany, and the UK), had leadership issues which prevented them from focusing on EU matters. The EU, therefore, became like a giant ocean liner drifting aimlessly along without a captain or a course setting.

I now see new hope on both sides of the Atlantic. While the next U.S. President will still be confronted with the Iraqi debacle, the overwhelming sentiment in the United States now is a desire to end its unilateralist approach; to work more closely with the EU and other partners; and to deal with the issues of common concern constructively.

So I believe that regardless of who wins the next U.S. Presidential election, there will be positive change. Even President Bush is not totally oblivious to the domestic trends, as his more enlightened positions recently on global warming, discussions with Iran, and negotiations with North Korea indicate.

The recently concluded EU Summit got mixed reviews. I came away, however, optimistic. The major reason for my optimism was that the "changing of the guard" in France and Germany has brought forth two strong leaders in their own ways deeply committed to the EU project and willing to personally arm twist, cajole, negotiate, and pressure others to prevail.

The Summit showcased the talents and personal force of French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel. With their leadership, hopefully joined by the new British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, the EU has a chance to break out of its inertia and move forward. Without them (and without outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair), the EU Summit would have failed completely, because the opposing viewpoints were so deep and so ingrained, the outlook was bleak that a compromise on key issues could ever be reached.

The "low point" in this regard was the Polish delegation's remarks that the reason why its population was comparatively small was because of the losses inflicted on it by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. Failure to reach agreement would have been a catastrophe.

The key points of the EU Summit were:

-An implicit acknowledgement that differences over the aims of the European Union (a United States of Europe, a glorified free trade zone, or something in-between) were so strong that compromises had to be reached to on the one hand, keep all the competing visions alive and on the other, enable the EU to operate more effectively. Walking this fine line led to a lot of acrimony and a web of compromises difficult for the most experienced experts to follow.

-An agreement to work towards completion of the wording of a Treaty by year end to reduce the number of Ministers from 27 to 15 (by 2014); to change (over time) voting procedures to make them more in line with population size and to enable qualified majorities to decide many issues, rather than requiring total consensus; to create an office of President of the EU Council with a 2 and ½ year term; and to establish an office of High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The resulting Treaty should enter into effect in 2009.

-A specific agreement to NOT use the word "Constitution" in the process; to avoid the designation of any anthem or symbols of the EU, and to NOT use the term "Foreign Minister." This was done to address the fears of those who do not want a EU "super state."

---Efforts to address the criticism that the EU is perceived as acting without any input from its citizens by giving both the EU Parliament and Parliaments in individual countries more input into the regulatory and decision-making process.

-Expansion was not directly addressed in a significant manner, reflecting different views on it. However, on the margins, French President Sarkozy dealt a major blow to Turkish aspirations by blocking the opening of another "chapter" in the accession negotiations with Turkey, signaling that his often-stated opposition to Turkish membership would continue. At the same time, permission was given to Croatia to open six new chapters in its accession process, raising hopes that it would be permitted to enter relatively soon. 

Continued unhappiness with the lack of progress by Bulgaria and Romania in dealing with corruption and organized crime, however, highlighted the feeling that both countries had been admitted too early. This in turn probably will "raise the bar" for every new potential member. Promises of future performance will probably no longer be sufficient.

-The French President's insistence on deleting from the list of EU core objectives "free and undistorted competition" signaled that he will be looking hard at protecting the "social model" in his and other countries and that includes more protectionism, not less.

-British insistence on "opt outs" for member states in key areas such as police and judicial matters, as well as the common policy in social affairs. This opens the door to a sort of "EU ala Carte," where member countries pick and choose which aspects of the EU they accept.

The reason why the Summit was not trumpeted as a great success was that the number of compromises and ambiguous language reflected the major differences existing in the EU today. It was sobering to see the extent of the passion on all sides and the intractability of many of the newer members. This has given rise to concern that the Treaty-drafting process, which will soon begin to implement the agreements reached, will not be an easy one and countries will walk away from Summit promises.

Moreover, it will be not an easy process to select the first EU "President" and establish the powers of that office and also that of the official responsible for foreign affairs. Finally, the use of "Treaty" rather than "Constitution" was done to enable member-countries to avoid referendums and permit individual Parliaments to approve it. Whether this stratagem will be successful and accepted by Euro-skeptics in countries like the UK is questionable.

All this means that the EU is still filled with problems and that the road ahead is neither clear nor easy. Lacking the vision of what the members want the EU to be two decades from now makes it hard to agree on almost any of the details, which would build the foundation for the future.

Nevertheless, there is new life in Europe today and new leadership. That is cause enough for optimism.