Restart the European construction from the foundations

Since I observe you from Slovakia, dear fellow-countrymen, allow me to tell you that our negative gesticulation with respect to Europe takes the people I meet here strongly aback. They really wonder whether our “no” was directed to them; a quick clarification will be needed here.

We are told that the voice of the people has spoken. But it is necessary to draw the attention of the people to the bad image of the French in Europe, an image resulting from our deplorable diplomacy and to our mediocre meritocracy. Over the recent years, we have abundantly trampled on the pride of the Turks, directly insulted the Polish, humiliated the smaller European countries several times and manhandled the British with our favourite weapon: the Paris-Berlin axis. The Dutch “no” is for a part due to our erratic behaviour: on the question of the hunting regulations as on the limitation of the budget deficit, France is the first one to infringe the rules that she promoted and made others adopt.

And now we seem to be turning our backs on the ten new countries. Mr Jean-Claude Juncker was even « ashamed » by it. Let us come back to our senses! Who will want to work with such an unpredictable partner, insensitive to the general interest and to the requests of its partners, closed to the ideas that do not come from his own culture, incapable to speak foreign languages, specialist of the “power drive” and of the fait accompli? Can France claim European leadership in these conditions? The recent European summit shows the opposite. The genius of France - to borrow the expression just used by Dominique de Villepin - at this very moment, it is the art to get into rows with the other European nations and generally speaking with our allies. The “no” to the referendum reminds us appropriately that the European Union is not the United States of Europe. Not so long ago, the countries of Europe were at war against one another. Our cultures, our interests are not naturally convergent. That fact was recently heavily underlined about Turkey, but the same is true of most of our partners: what have we culturally in common with Poland? The French society is marked by the religion wars and the ensuing secularism, and unanimously rejects the flamboyant brand of Catholicism that is so essential to the Polish national identity. Currently studying Slovak, a West Slavic language close to Polish, I can testify that language won’t bring us any closer. In terms of economic interests, like all formerly communist states of central Europe, Poland is in a state of mind where growth is paramount and must be obtained by maximum liberalisation. And if I may ask, what do we have culturally in common with the Brits, this other deeply religious and viscerally liberal country, where the Left seems closer to the United States than our Right? Neither language, nor economic policy, nor other political ideas. I don’t need to carry on with this list. There is no « natural » European convergence the French could rely on, except maybe between French-speaking regions and possibly between some Latin countries like Italy, the « Latin sister ».

But building Europe means precisely making the effort to overcome cultural barriers, not trying to ignore them. The first condition of an understanding between independent nations, as of an understanding between free adult individuals, is dialogue and trust. Dialogue is based on mutual respect and listening, a basic know-how we obviously still need to master. In order to do that, we have to count on initiatives like the one in Caux (conference “a heart and soul for Europe”, see www.caux.ch). But it will be necessary to be imaginative and daring in order to bring a new spirit into Europolitics.

P.S.: how odd that you don’t seem to hear much about the alternative ideas of the former leaders of the “no” campaign. I hope they are taking the full measure of their irresponsible behaviour.

European referendum (followed): reappear footprints left by Mssrs Bush and Rumsfeld

Now that Holland and France voted non, American journalists and editorialists suddenly realise how worrisome the return to a divided Europe could be. Hence Mortimer Sellers, professor of Law at the University of Maryland, in the Herald Tribune: « The rejection of the European constitution threatens seriously the American interests. » (6/2/2005).

But when the division between Eastern and Western Europe was about to disappear, was it not deliberately revived by the Bush administration? Let’s remember the elaborately differentiated treatment of the European capitals according to their degree of alignment on the American demands at the time of the debate on the Iraq war. Let’s remember Donald Rumsfeld’s scornful words opposing “old Europe” and “new Europe”. The American diplomacy succeeded in deriding Europe, while European powerlessness to make themselves heard had all to do with a pigheaded American administration turning a deaf ear on them. Good work by the American spin doctors!

But now the French voted against this Europe which they felt was out of control. Why equip ourselves with a common European diplomacy only to lose our right to differ with Washington? The supporters of the “yes” were clearly on the defensive there, and had to argue that since the constitution project requested an unanimous decision for any action of the European diplomacy, it would have changed nothing, obviously a self-defeating argument!

One comes to regret the time when the United States had a real foreign policy, like under the Clinton administration. It was of course perfectible –everything always is -, but it was coherent, responsible and anchored in a solid moral foundation. The former secretary of state Madeleine Albright wrote it in his autobiography: "Although the United States has much in common with other nations, it is also unique in power and global reach. This uniqueness creates enormous opportunities but also dangerous temptations. For better or for worse, American actions and policies serve as an example. This means, in the absence of a balancing power, that the United States must have the discipline to limit its own actions in accordance with the standards it applies to others. If we attempt to put ourselves above or outside the international system, we invite everyone else to do so as well. Then moral clarity is lost, the foundation of our leadership becomes suspect, the cohesive pull of law is weakened, and those who do not share our values find openings to exploit. I have always believed America to be an exceptional country, but that is because we have led in creating standards that work for everyone, not because we are an exception to the rules."

We were not in the same league then! Europe will need to be accompanied by that type of America if the allies are to stop drifting away from each other, as we discover that the values that used to unite us are less and less clear. The Europeans are disgusted by this America that lives in a fortified camp, routinely infringes on human rights and international conventions, condemns to death and executes so many of her own citizens, including some under 18 and some mentally handicapped. The United States is today further removed from European Union adhesion criteria than Turkey. In its item II-62 "Right to life", the European Constitution states: 1. Everyone has the right to life. 2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.

America must learn that not everything can be settled by force. She must see that in many of her last experiences, collateral damage largely exceeded positive results, when there were any. Military intervention did not bring much progress in Haiti, did make democracy loose ground in Somalia, made some gain in former Yugoslavia but left the region in a deep state of shock with recovery still a distant prospect.

As for Iraq, future will tell, but it is already clear that the cost of the intervention is out of proportion with even the most pessimistic projections. The economic consequences are pushed back for the moment, as America gets deeper and deeper into debt, but they will eventually be extremely heavy. America must also see that her present policies are not sustainable in the long run, for they sow the seeds of many future conflicts, to the emergence of resistance movements confronting foreign occupation and to the ensuing worsening of the terrorist threat. And as Madeleine Albright pointed out, they send a terribly wrong message to all those who feel wronged and seek reparation.

The anti-terrorist stance of the American administration itself would be so much more credible if the United States started to cooperate with international institutions such as the International Penal Court, recognised past responsibilities in the destruction of numerous democracies, notably in Iran and in Latin America, AND direct responsibility in the financing of terrorist movements such as the IRA. This is of course private financing, but al-Qaeda was also privately funded by affluent Saudis, and that left no one indifferent.

While waiting for America to elect worthy successors of Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright, Europe must, for her part, assert quietly but firmly her humanist values. It is not absolutely necessary for that to have a constitution; a charter would be enough. It would be necessary to have it adopted quickly by the European population for the World needs it urgently.

Where one – just briefly - doubts democracy

Democracy has its dark side. And not just in films by George Lucas. (This is the title of a must read book by Pr Michael Mann (Cambridge University Press, 2005) which shows how genocide is the natural child of democracy and war.) In the aftermath of these nightmare French and Dutch referenda, you’re tempted to think that if Robert Schuman had subjected his declaration of May 9^th, 1950 to a referendum, we wouldn’t have gotten any Europe at all. But on the day after the day after, when the passion of the debate and the bitterness of the defeat recede, you also come to wonder: what if the majority of our compatriots were right in spite of all? What if they had somehow felt, through the blur of arguments and counterarguments, that European construction had become a poorly managed ever accelerating spiral, with means poorly proportioned to its ambitions, maybe even ambiguous in its aims?

In any case, this grandiose constitutional treaty was a clear break with the cautious small steps policy, which was so dear to Robert Schumann and so often proved effective.

This could be the opportunity to rework the Constitution, with the perseverance Boileau recommended to would-be writers, in order to get a simpler text, with more European subsidiarity. It could also be the opportunity to give a true mission of economic development to the European Central Bank (much like its American counterpart), instead of its present assignment of mere anti-inflation policeman.

If we can do this in a cross-border yet constructive political debate, the "no" will eventually mean a great step forward for Europe. If everyone remains in the current state of protracted defence of the national and category-specific interests, the "no" will have been a major setback for Europe.

There is of course a lot of work to do. If we just look at the amazing consequences of the referendum in France (the replacement of a prime minister who had survived a rout in the regional elections, reshuffling of the cards between the winners and losers in all political parties) and remember that it was described as wholly unrelated to national political issues, we can only worry at the size of the challenge. But there is no choice (and it won’t be the first time that Europe would drive France to break with bad habits).

Besides, the question is put as much to France as to its European partners: European politics must now be dealt with like national politics. There is no reason why it should remain slow and quiet. The media must give full exposure to Europolitics, public debate must be encouraged, major politicians must get involved. If there was a positive point in the French referendum campaign, it was a renewed interest for politics in the population. It is necessary to develop interest in European issues. Transnational networks and forums are needed.

I hope that we will live a key moment in that respect at the conference “a heart and a soul for Europe”. (It takes place in Caux, the Swiss conference centre of Initiatives of Change, between July 16^th and July 24^th, 2005; see www.caux.ch). Extracts from the program: « Must differences always divide? How do we build community with all our differences on the European continent? What are the common values that can bring us together? Beyond political structures, geography and history force us to learn to live together, to discover the other as a partner, to forge an active tolerance that builds community in diversity. Black and white, immigrant and native, Jew, Christian and Muslim, secularist and believer – all have a part in creating a heart and a soul for Europe. »