Last
December in Helsinki the European Union agreed to create
force of 60,000-strong strike force by 2003. Meanwhile,
the Europeans are busily promoting the consolidation of
their armaments industry. The proposed United European Air-Space
Association (EADC) comprising France’s Aerospatiale, British
Aerospace, Germany’s DaimlerChrysler Aerospace, Spain’s
CASA, Sweden’s Saab and Italy’s Finmeccanica-Aleni would
produce military aircraft, helicopters, systems for space
missions, and long-range guided missiles. The Europeans
also intend to develop their own satellite system in space.
The goal is total military independence from the United
States by ceasing to rely on US equipment and components.
Then
in May at the Humboldt University in Berlin, German Foreign
Minister Joschka Fischer outlined his vision of Europe.
He spoke of a European federation, a European Constitution,
an elected European Presidency and a European parliament
with real powers. The European Union was about to admit
new members. Therefore, he suggested, European institutions
must become less unwieldy. Majority voting had to replace
the current system based on unanimity. The votes allocated
to member countries would be directly proportional to the
size of their populations.
In
other words, before the European Union admits any new members
its institutions needed to be consolidated. This is how
Fischer put it: "So if the alternative for the EU in
the face of the irrefutable challenge posed by eastern enlargement
is indeed either erosion or integration, and if clinging
to a federation of states would mean standstill with all
its negative repercussions, then, under pressure from the
conditions and the crises provoked by them, the EU will
at some time within the next ten years be confronted with
this alternative: will a majority of member states take
the leap into full integration and agree on a European constitution?
Or, if that doesn’t happen, will a smaller group of member
states take this route as an avant-garde, i.e. will a center
of gravity emerge comprising a few member states which are
staunchly committed to the European ideal and are in a position
to push ahead with political integration?" In other
words, a European avant-garde of states will set policy
for the rest of the Continent. While some countries will
be dawdling, others will be busily establishing the future
shape of institutions that everyone will have to accept
at some point anyway.
The
"avant-garde," Fischer explained, would "conclude
a new European framework treaty, the nucleus of a constitution
of the federation. On the basis of this treaty, the federation
would develop its own institutions, establish a government
which within the EU should speak with one voice on behalf
of the members of the group on as many issues as possible,
a strong parliament and a directly elected president."
What this means is that the enlargement of the European
Union will not happen any time soon. To get in, a new member
would have to follow the rigid convergence criteria to qualify
for the euro. Most of the successful, prosperous economies
had found those conditions extraordinarily onerous. How
much more burdensome would they be for the former communist
economies of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic! And
new members would not have the power to veto EU policies
they did not like.
Last
month it was the turn of France’s President Chirac to take
up the theme of giving the most powerful EU members greater
powers the better to dictate policy to everyone else. In
a major speech to the Bundestag in Berlin, Chirac spoke
of a "two-speed Europe." The fast lane will be
made up of France and Germany and anyone else who cares
to follow them. The rest can trot along at whatever pace
they like. It will not make any difference anyway. They
will not be able to thwart the consolidation of Europe.
Sooner or later they will have to adopt the European institutions
forged by France and Germany. "The powerhouse Europe,
which we sincerely call for, this Europe, strong on the
international scene," Chirac explained, "must
have strong institutions and an efficient and legitimate
decision-making process, that is giving all its significance
to the majority vote and reflecting the relative weight
of member states. In order for European integration to move
forwards, we must constantly strengthen the Franco-German
friendship. I believe our priority must be to encourage
still further this strong momentum towards integration between
our economic capabilities and to make the Franco-German
duo the driving force of a powerful European industrial
center."
Confronted
by this threat from Europe, the Americans have toyed with
various ideas none too successfully. First there
was smug dismissal. For years the United States did not
take Europe seriously. The Americans had supported the creation
of the European Union on the assumption that it would help
make the Continent a more reliable subordinate to the United
States. The EU would be an adjunct to NATO. The creation
of a European superstate, on the other hand, struck Americans
as self-evidently preposterous. The idea of Europe as a
global power was laughable. How could so many different
countries speak with one voice? How could the French and
the Germans agree on anything? When the Europeans proposed
the introduction of a single currency by 1999, the US response
was again dismissive. Even today, as Europeans speak openly
of becoming militarily independent of the United States
much of the foreign policy elite continues to trot out tired
clichés. How could the Europeans, addicted as they
allegedly are to welfare, cosseted workers, rigid labor
markets, and uncompetitive industries, how could they hope
to spend the kind of money they need to build up a serious
military? The notion is too silly even to discuss. This
is the line taken by our old friend Zbigniew Brzezinski
among others.
Thus
the complacent members of our elite. There is also the panicky
faction, embodied by the two-ton hideous harridan of Foggy
Bottom. She continues to issue dark warnings about the dire
consequences that would surely follow any weakening of NATO.
NATO must remain the centerpiece of Western security for
all time. Why? Because it is run by the United States. Her
hysterical yelping has however fallen on deaf ears. Clearly,
a more subtle approach was needed. Bill Clinton offered
it in Aachen last month in his speech accepting the Charlemagne
Prize. Europeans should forget about consolidation and concentrate
instead on enlargement. Otherwise, all those terrible things
like racism, exclusivism, xenophobia, ethnic cleansing will
make a comeback. The European Union, in other words, had
to become like multicultural America. The club had to be
opened up to excluded minorities. Of course, the bigger
Europe became, the more unwieldy it would be. The more different
the people that it incorporates the less will it be able
to act as a coherent entity. The speech, incidentally, was
a priceless example of Clintonism. He explicitly disavowed
on principle the very policies he has pursued relentlessly.
He objected to the idea of "forcing people to live
together; there is no bringing back the old Yugoslavia."
Maybe not. But evidently people can be forced to live together
in Bosnia or Kosovo. Clinton also denounced the idea of
"giving every community its own country, army, and
flag; shifting so many borders in the Balkans will only
shake the peace further." Even as he was saying this,
his minions were in Montenegro pushing the tiny statelet
with a population of 600,000 to separate itself from Yugoslavia.