The EU: a new vision, a new geography
By Max Gevers
Cyprus Mail, Cyprus
23 Nov 08
THE IRISH decision to reject the Lisbon Treaty, coming after the
previous French and Dutch decision to oppose the EU Constitutional
Treaty, has added to the sense of institutional malaise within the
European Union. But while efforts continue to try to find a way to
reverse the Irish decision, European leaders also need to recognise the
much wider problem facing the Union: its lack of a clear mission
statement and the deeply felt sense of uncertainty about its
geographical boundaries.
As others have noted, European citizens fail to identify with the EU.
Despite unprecedented economic wealth that Europe has generated over
the past fifty years, and the beneficial co-operation that has emerged
between governments, popular attitudes towards the EU remain
ambivalent.
In part, this is because the original purpose of the European Community
has ceased to have much resonance. Its value as a prophylactic against
conflict, especially between France and Germany, and fostering
friendship and co-operation in Europe has little meaning to
contemporary Europeans who have grown up with the peace the Union has
created.
And yet, European political leaders appear hesitant about taking the
bold steps needed to articulate a new, more contemporary, vision for
the Union. Obsessed with short term issues and focused on the here and
now,
they neglect to recognise the importance of developing a strategic
vision for Europe. Remedying this situation will require several steps.
In particular, the Union needs a `mission statement’. This short
charter for the `United States of Europe’, no more than a couple of
pages long, should clearly and unambiguously explain what the EU stands
for and what it means for citizens.
First of all, it would tackle the question of national identity ` a
source of angst for many Europeans ` head on. It would stress the
importance of keeping Europe’s cultural diversities and identities
intact. As galling as it might be for many European leaders, this
document must enshrine the notion of popular democracy, running
alongside national representational democracy. It needs to be
recognised that it is only by insisting that the consent of the peoples
of Europe lie at the heart of the European Union that one can hope to
build pan-national support for the European project.
The fear for referenda, so evident now after the three no’s, must be
overcome. (The UK, where the EU is a continuous issue in party
politics, should clearly question voters in a referendum if they want
to belong in the EU, including the Euro. If not, separation should
follow, with a new application years away.)
Secondly, it must seek to address the widespread perception that the EU
is too bureaucratic. The EU Counc
il, as the body enshrining the member
states, must explain in unflinching political terms why they need the
bureaucracy in the light of their political `mission statement’, and
that this executive is there to serve the interests of the member
states. In pressing this message home, the members should agree to
undertake a root and branch reform of the Commission and the
secretariat, cutting its size and costs as much as possible. Also, if
the negative impression of the EU is to change, EU leaders must try to
avoid that Brussels bureaucrats get blamed for unpopular domestic
decisions ` a common tactic at present.
Thirdly, Europe needs to clarify its boundaries. As the French and
Dutch votes highlighted, European citizens have deep concerns about the
prospect of an ever increasing Union that gradually dilutes their
national identity. While many within the European elite object to an
attempt to create a `Fortress Europe’, we must recognise that for all
Europe’s achievements and wealth, and the global vision of its
citizens, many EU-inhabitants are still parochial. In return for
pursuing a larger `United States of Europe’, European citizens have a
right to know what this means in real terms.
Most of Europe should, in due time, be allowed to join the EU. This
would not only include current hold outs, Norway, Switzerland and
Iceland, but also states that are currently in the q
ueue, such as
Turkey and the Balkan countries. Likewise, we must recognise that,
eventually, a number of Eastern European countries have a place in the
European family: Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine. Armenia and Georgia may
be more problematic now, but should also, eventually, be included.
The EU should develop a clear `Black Sea Strategy’ to that extent.
Russia, a much larger entity that would overwhelm the Union, must
nevertheless be treated as a partner, outside the EU.
Despite the current pressures facing European leaders ` including
Lisbon, the global economic crisis, relations with Russia and the new
US administration ` they really need to be concentrating more attention
on the Union itself. They must clearly elaborate its merits
politically, economically and socially: emphasising the benefits of
political stability to a whole region, extolling the virtues of a vast
area for free movement of people and goods that is not burdened down
with cumbersome administration, and stressing the goal of maintaining
national cultural diversities intact within clearly defined borders.
Fifty years on, the same vision and courage of the founding fathers of
the EC is again needed.
n Max Gevers is a Netherlands diplomat and former ambassador at the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in the
Hague, and from 2002 to 2006 in Cyprus
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2008