A RELUCTANT EUROPEAN UNION

 

40. A RELUCTANT EUROPEAN UNION

From my hotel room I could see the spire of the Eiffel Tower piercing the sky in all its majesty and beauty. Snow was falling and it was a marvellous sight to see the Tower behind a screen of gently falling flakes.

I had come to Paris to participate in the discussions on the formulation of an international treaty on nuclear energy.

There is no dearth of subjects for writing about Paris. It is a place that can write its own footnote to anything under the sun, whether it is history, art, culture, literature or fashion. Napolean, Voltaire, Victor Hugo, De Gaulle, Champaigne, Champs Elysee, Louvre. . . the list of France’s entrenched symbols rushing to my mind is endless.

The mist in Paris this time appeared to me as akin to the haziness that has enveloped the society there in regard to their political future. It was a reflection of the uncertainty that had overshadowed every European nation. Europe was now a riddle wrapped in a conundrum. A creature not understood by anyone. Is Europe a nation? No. Is it a collective of many nations? Who knows. As Mathew Arnold said it ‘torn between two worlds, one dead, the other powerless to be born’. Europe was now in a pathetic limbo.

Europe has started realizing that it is very difficult to resist the gravitational pull of nationhood. It also is aware that firm political decisions are not capable of changing the emotional compartments within. Faceless crowds on the streets proclaim that it is not possible to restrain through political decisions the emptional concepts of me, my country, my culture and my people. The voice from the streets has started influencing the policy makers in their exalted towers. French economist Elie Cohen has said that he is sorry the idea of nationhood among the countries of the region does not synthesize with the concept of integration of Europe.

That was the reality. It was evident before the rulers of Europe when France and Netherland voted against the proposed common constitution for Europe.

Also, during the policy discussions held prior to the Iraq war, the European nations displayed their Babel like disparity in outlook. They demonstrated before the world that in foreign policy they did not have a common approach. At the same time in regard to common market they did not have any difference of opinion either. Or,they made the world believe so.

But today even in the case of common market there are deep fissures.

There are many instances to be cited. French Prime Minister Dominic de Villepin drove home the point when he declared that France gave primacy to the protection of its own interests rather than those of the European Union.

It was the French government that directly mediated for the merger of two giant companies in France, Suez and Gaz de France. After merger they became the world’ largest liquified natural gas company. The motive behind the merger was to nip in the bud any move for supremacy of the Italian energy company Enel. There were protests against the merger in Italy.

Italian political parties asked if Europe was going back to competitions of the pre-Second World War period. Italian opposition leader Romano Prodi declared that if elected to power he would give a befitting reply to France.

 

The situation in Spain was also no different. The Spanish Government went ahead with moves to bring in a legislation to prevent the intended take over of the Spanish company Endesa by Germany’s E. On.

All this showed that the general feeling was that if the interests of the European Union went against national interests, the latter needed to be safeguarded.

Awareness is increasing in all sectors that emotional integration of Europe is not an instant possibility. European Commission chairman Joseph Immanuel Boroso has already accepted this. Saying that a practical approach is called for, he pointed to project based cooperation among the European nations. It meant that while safeguarding national interests the countries of the region may, with a sense of direction, strive for implementation of specific project based cooperation.

However, increasing number of people now suspect whether this approach will help meet the challenges of globalization. When countries like China and India are advancing fast on the economic front, is not Europe moving in a rather sluggish manner, they ask. As Cohen ,who is a member of the Council of Economic Analysis, points out Europe is getting weakened at a time when its strength has to be mobilised and demonstrated in every way.

Adding fuel to the fire, the expansion of the European Union has also come about. If East European countries which are financially weak become part of the European Union, wealthy nations will get new headaches. Wealthy nations also realize what will happen if manufacturing enterprises and job opportunities flow to the countries capable of providing labour at low cost.

It is amusing for the world to watch the keen competitions among the energy companies for supremacy in the context of the possibility of an emerging free market in the energy sector. Governments of the region were offering overt and covert support for the national institutions.

Politicians, especially in France and Germany, who are more interested in elections and votes, present before the people policy formulations intended to get temporary gains. All of them point their critical fingers at Brussels, the headquarters of the European Commission.

In Europe’s common market the services sector was enjoying all freedom to extend beyond borders. The smooth flow in this regard was obstructed by the European Parliament itself. Collective bargaining and pressure tactics by workers’ organizations aided this process. The European Parliament permitted national governments to put in effective controls on cross-border entrepreneurs.

But there are administrators and experts who believe that what Europe experiences now are only birth pangs. It is their voice that is heard through Daniel Gros, Director of the Centre of European Policy Studies in Brazil. According to him there is nothing strange about the raising of nationalist voice against Eurpean common market. A market that goes beyond borders is a reality in Europe now. The political pressure against this is inevitable but temporary. As examples he cites the merger of major companies in the energy sector. This was something that not be visualised a decade ago.

Europe is realizing the reality that emotional integration is not possible through political decisions. It needed only a determined mind and strong arms to demolish the Berlin Wall. However, the tool to demolish the walls erected within the compartments of the mind is yet to be found. Europe’s history teaches us that Bismarck, Mazzini and Garibaldi had understood this.

The fact is that Europe’s rulers do not have the magic wand to instantly remove the estrangement of centuries. The world is, however, waiting with bated breath to see how far the leaders of the European Commission will succeed in leading the people of the region to the dreamland of United States of Europe as Moses led the jews to the Promised Land in the Biblical past.

I had occasion to visit Brussels, the headquarters of the European Union, and Luxumburg, the seat of European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. It was then that I realized that the European Union did not have a capital. The Union’s important institutions were located at different places. The most important of them is the European Parliament having 732 members. The membership may go up to 750. There is a cabinet, known as Council of European Union, comprising 25 members, a European Commission consisting of 25 members, European Court of Justice with 25 judges and European Court of Auditors with 25 members.

Since Brussels is the venue of the European Union, Cabinet and short sessions of parliament, it may be deemed as the capital of the union. Parliament is located at Strausberg while the Court and Parliament Secretariat are in Luxemburg.

It is not yet clear if the European Union is a nation, a government or a non-governmental organization. Perhaps it is a combination of all. In certain matters the Union functions as a federation. Similar to the federal set up in India consisting of the centre and the states. This federal character can be seen in regard to policies and programmes on agriculture, commerce and environment and the issue of currency. In the matter of implementation of economic policies, handling of internal matters and measures for consumer protection it has the nature of a confederation. Its style is that of an international organization when it comes to formulation and implementation of foreign policy.

The cardinal character of a nation is its sovereignty. European Union cannot claim sovereignty. However, member nations have to a certain extent sacrificed their sovereignty for the sake of the union. There is no example of any other regional grouping of sovereign nations sacrificing this much. The relations between the member nations and the Union are controlled on the basis of the many agreements that they had given shape to at different times. But a unified constitution has not yet been evolved.

Not that an effort towards that has not been made. Heads of governments of the European countries gave shape to a historic treaty on October 29, 2004. The agreement was to implement a common constitution for the Union. However, the constitution would come into force only if the all the member nations approved it. It was when countries were giving their approval one after the other that the process got a major setback in France and Netherland. In France 54. 7 per cent of the voters voted against the constitution. Netherlands followed suit, 61. 5 per cent of the voters expressing their opposition. In an opinion survey in U K it was found that 75 per cent of the people opposed the constitution.

Europe is now in a precarious state. Will the dream of a United States of Europe materialise? May be, but the distance between dream and reality is increasing.