#5
Moscow News
No. 10
2002
A United States of Europe?
Comment by Alexander Yanov
While Russia and the United States of America have been squabbling with each other, Europe has been poised to take the next major step toward reshaping its future. The European Union's Constitutional Convention under way in Brussels intends to turn the EU, a mere economic community, into a political union or federation, and eventually, into a United States of Europe
Those are of course the intentions of just the federalist majority at the Convention, attended by 105 delegates from European governments, parliaments, and scholarly institutions. However, the majority is an overwhelming one. The Convention's chairman, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, ex-president of France, is a staunch federalist. And so are his deputies, former Prime Ministers Jean-Luc Dehaene of Belgium and Giuliano Amato of Italy. All the 12 members of the Convention's presidium are equally federalist, two of them of the more radical variety. They are the same 12 men who signed the Socialist Manifesto, which requires Europe to have a "European government capable of adopting a European social model," and of counterbalancing America, "intoxicated by its military might." To be sure, the liberal majority of the federalists wouldn't go quite so far. Or so it appears. Besides, the Constitution they have drafted will not really come into effect. In 2003 (the Convention will sit for a whole year!), the draft will come before national governments, where the anti-federalists, who advocate firm nation-state authority, hope to come into their own.
At any rate, Britain, Denmark and Sweden are expected to fight tooth and nail against what they call "further infringement on their national interests." Their efforts may be backed by Italy and the Republic of Ireland. Such is the alignment of forces at the Convention at the moment.
What are the federalists after? Instituting the post of President of Europe; common tax and legislation systems; a European defense identity independent of NATO; and limiting the rights of national governments to veto the European Parliament's decisions. In short, the federalists want to see an unprecedented degree of European integration.
What do the adherents of firm nation-state authority want? Just the opposite. Ideally, the political status quo.
The trouble is that the European nations, much as they would like to, will not succeed in preserving the present political state of affairs. In the opinion of Mr. Dehaene, the dilemma is pretty acute: The EU must undergo drastic changes, or face extinction. "When the number of EU countries rose from 12 to 15, it became very difficult for the Union to pass coordinated decisions," Dehaene explains. "The scandal- and suspicion-torn EU conference held in Nice in 2000 showed that if it had 25 or 30 member states, the system would simply grind to a halt."
Meanwhile, there are already 13 nations queuing for EU membership, and they are represented at the Convention.
The old system of taking care of contradictions through backstage deals between individual governments has reached a blind alley. That's why the federalists, who want change, form a majority at the Convention. All the speeches made there will be televised; all constitutional proposals will be debated in the media, while some countries will also hold referendums on them. In other words, the debates on Europe's future will get maximum publicity.
Giscard d'Estaing took the floor to stress the importance of a politically united Europe. He warned the delegates that in the event of a setback, no European country, however strong, would carry sufficient weight to speak as an equal with the world's mightiest powers. The reference seems to have been to America, from which it can be inferred that the Convention's liberal majority do not differ all that much from its radicals. As for me, my sympathies lie with the federalists. Why?
Europe has gone a long way toward pulling itself out of the old world of geopolitics, where military power has reigned supreme since times out of mind. (That state of affairs was described as "national egoism" by Russian 19th-century religious philosopher Vladimir Solovyov). The Europe of today is following liberal rules; granted, on its small territory with a population of just 380 million. The point is that it is mutual trust rather than military strength that determines interstate relations in today's Europe. And the interests of the European Union as a whole take precedence over the national interests of each individual EU member state. Moreover, frontiers between the member states are transparent. Thus, the Constitution of Europe poses, as it were, an open challenge to the old world.
What's in it for Russia? In the long term, there will be a safe haven free from imperial ambitions and superpower temptations. In effect, the same thing that Germany has at long last acquired after ages of self-destructive wanderings in the imperial wilderness.
That is another reason why I am eager to follow developments in the drama of establishing a federal Europe, the outcome of which will be crucial to world politics. In these developments, my sympathies will be with the federalists, who are embarking on an untrodden path of the 21st century.
Back to the Top
Next Article
March 18, 2002:
#6141
- Back to the Top -