EU at 50

On May 29th the French Assemblée Nationale took a vote that might have profound impact on whether Turkey joins the European Union in a few years, or not. Making good on what his predecessor Jacques Chirac had promised all along, President Sarkozy and his ruling UMP party introduced a constitutional amendment, which would put future enlargements to include more populous countries - notably, of course, the extension of the Union to Turkey - to a popular vote in France. The Turkish government has been quick to criticize the move as discriminatory, as the amendment only demands a referendum for country’s that in size would represent 5% of the EU total population. Thus, such a vote would only be needed for Turkey and Ukraine, the most contested of the current candidates. The move is surely to put a hostile spin on the membership negotiations, which will be led by France once that country takes over the rotating Presidency of the European Council on July 1. Already, tensions have been rising between the two sides, with plenty of finger-pointing as to which side is responsible for the slow pace of negotiations on the so-called chapters, which define the necessary reform steps toward accession.

A referendum in France against the accession could force the hand of the government (handing the responsibility over to the people might allow the then-government to save face toward their Head-of-State counterparts, while playing the popular democratic card) to vote ‘No’ in the Council. As the enlargement of the Union requires unanimity in the Council, and depending on the pro and con campaigns once Turkey’s membership comes up for the vote, this could mean the end of the country’s hopes toward becoming one of the largest and most populous in the Union.

It’s June 1st and that leaves only a short twelve days for pro and con EU Treaty campaigners in Ireland. They have their work cut out for them, according to recent polls. The Los Angeles Times is reporting that “NO” campaigners are gaining ground, particularly among the conservative and the country’s large farming population who see approval of the Lisbon Reform Treaty as relinquishing too much sovereignty to Brussels. According to the Times, the gap is narrowing (with Yes voters at 41 per cent and the No voters at 33 per cent), but primarily due to the fact that the Treaty as such is hardly a rallying ground on which to base an inspiring campaign. “Soporific” is apparently the adjective that comes to mind, according to the Times, when voters are asked to describe how they feel about the changes enshrined in the document. True, it is a far cry from the ‘People’s Pamphlet’ the original Constitution set out to be, but the provisions for greater democratic participation of both European and national parliaments remain in place. But the ‘Yes’ campaign certainly has its work cut out for itself, while European policy makers are offering their assistance toward turning the vote in their favor. As all 27 Member States have to approve the Treaty - though most, given the debacle in France and the Netherlands three years ago, are resorting to parliamentary majorities - Ireland’s vote has a particular significance because it could unhinge a project that was so precariously put back together after the last two referenda in 2003 sent the entire project back to the drawing board. This is the second time, after the Nice referendum that Ireland holds such sway over the fate of the Union as a whole. We will follow the last days of campaigning closely in the pages of this blog.

 The English language version of German weekly, DER SPIEGEL also rounds up the campaigners efforts in Ireland.

“Don’t let yourself be fooled,” is EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson’s message to American voters. In an interview for BBC’s Hardtalk, which was excerpted to the Financial Times, Mandelson argues that promising disengagement from certain parts of the global trading system in order to win votes is dangerous. Implicitly critiquing views expressed by Democratic Presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, he said “It is irresponsible to be pretending to people you can erect new protection, new tariff barriers around your economy in this 21st century global age and still succeed in sustaining living standards and jobs. It is a mirage and they know it.”

Mrs. Clinton made headlines earlier in the year saying that she would renegotiate the North American Free Trade agreement, once signed by her husband in an effort to protect American jobs. Both Senator Obama and Clinton have said they would “punish” China by supporting a bill that would introduce trade tarriffs on the country, to compensate for an undervalued Yuan Renmibi.

To this Mandelson says: “”It is very irresponsible in my view to pretend to people that we can disengage from international trade, we can create barriers around our economy and then be surprised when people retaliate by doing the same,” he said. “It is going to lead us into a vicious spiral of beggar-thy-neighbour policies which will take us decades back in terms of trade growth.”

The EU Trade Commissioner is undoubtedly worried about whether or not he can count on Democrate assurances that upon the election of a President from its ranks the difficult (and thus far unsuccessful) Doha Trade Round negotiations would not be threatened.

Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, received Europe’s most prestigious honor on May 1: the international Charlemagne Prize. Previous winners include US President Bill Clinton, former EU Commission President Jacques Delors, Luxembourg’s Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker and Europe’s “Mr. Foreign Policy,” Javier Solana. None other than French President Nicolas Sarkozy delivered the laudatory address - an interesting choice, given the often fraught relationship between the two that has had some commentators pointing to a notable cooling in the once so warm Franco-German relations.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Sarkozy spent a good portion of his time basking in the glory of his own rhethoric and professing his “love” for Angela Merkel (in what was almost the political equivalent of Tom Cruise’s couch jumping episode).

Ahead of the French Presidency of the European Union, which begins on July 1, President Sarkozy is trying to portray himself and his agenda in the right (spot)light. Attempting to borrow from Germany’s EU diplomatic toolkit, he has sent his immigration minister, Brice Hortefeux, on a whistle-stop tour of the European capitals in an attempt to forge a compromise on this tenuous policy area, much like the German Chancellor was able to craft an early agreement on environmental policy.

Most recently, he is working toward reminding everyone of his importance in the European construct by withdrawing his support for Tony Blair as the first long-term President of the European Union (following the changes agreed in the Lisbon Reform Treaty). The story is interesting for its potential tactical significance, as it was Sarkozy who first mentioned Blair as a contender when discussions on possible candidates arose a few months ago. Today, member states pencilled in first “substantive” talks about who might assume the bloc’s top job for a summit in Brussels on June 19-20. Sarkozy now argues, there can only be two serious contenders for the job: Luxembourg’s Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker and current EU Commission President Barroso. But analysts believe that Sarko has not completely dropped Blair from his bracket, and wants to side with whichever candidate looks the most promising as his own Presidency of the Union evolves so that he then can be seen as “king maker”. For now, Sarkozy has ruled Blair out for failing to introduce the Euro and negotiating a series of opt-outs that took Britain further away from the Union, rather than fulfilling his one-time campaign promise, to put his country back into “the heart of Europe.”

The nomination for the EU President and for all subsequent key roles created by the Lisbon Reform Treaty will surely be a new chapter in mature Union diplomacy and extremely interesting to watch. What all EU players need, however, for this process to have its democratic legitimacy (however small), is a resounding “Yes” vote in the Irish referendum on the new Treaty. EU citizens, meanwhile, still want a high-profile figure as the first official “head” of the EU-27 - someone with global clout - and here early surveys are pointing to none other than Tony Blair. For the first time in a long time it looks as if actual EU policy (as opposed to member state haggling) could get interesting - and perhaps even a little dirty.

Wolfgang Ischinger, the designated head of the Munich Security Conference, former German Ambassador to the US currently serving as his country’s top diplomat in the UK, has published an article in the Financial Times arguing that now - not after the US elections - is the time to forge stronger transatlantic ties. A rare opportunity is emerging to set the agenda on future EU-US relations due to the confluence of two key events in 2009: the inauguration of a new US President and the entry into force of the Lisbon Reform Treaty. Each of these events will give both sides new figureheads, as the new EU Treaty foresees the creation of a permanent presidency (for a two-and-a-half year term) of the 27-member bloc (see my earlier entry on this issue). The hope is, of course, that a high-profile figure will at least superficially solve the age-old question attributed to Henry Kissinger: “Who do I call when I want to talk to Europe?”

Ties between the allies have been tenuous at best throughout the two-term Bush Presidency. The Iraq war drove a stake through the heart of the Union, with Spain and the UK deploying troops and Germany and France fronting the anti-invasion coalition. During the first Bush administration the two regular semi-annual US-EU Summits were cut to one, further reducing necessary ‘face time’ between diplomats on both sides.

Thus, while the second term of the Bush administration has been about ironing out diplomatic creases between the US and European allies, the relationship could surely be more productive in light of the global challenges: instability in Iraq and Afghanistan, a volatile situation throughout the Middle East, natural catastrophes caused by global warming, instability on the world financial markets.

Aside from the future EU President who won’t take office before 2009, it will be up to Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the country most critical of US military plans for Iraq (the decision which prompted the American side to begin consuming “Freedom Fries” and dismissing the French as “Cheese-eating surrender monkeys”) to forge closer ties as the issues the EU should begin to tackle now - not later- to prove to the US that the bloc is serious about reaffirming its commitment to transatantic relations.

In the piece, Ischinger argues that Europe must enhance its military engagement around the world, by building the kind of military capacity necessary in a world of modern conflict. Implicitly, he is criticizing the work of the European Defence Agency, designed precisely for the purpose of finding more functional solutions toward crisis prevention while coordinating the actual military capabilities (i.e. the coordination of weapons development and procurement) of the EU Member States. Granted, the EDF, which has been around a mere three years has a difficult and challenging role, particularly since it is not designed to produce short-term effects, but rather create a coordination mechanism, which will facilitate and accelerate a European response to certain situations. This will take time, but it is a major improvement to the intergovernmental mess that was European Security and Defence Policy after the Amsterdam Treaty. To not mention it, is to ignore its important contribution to long-term improved relations with both the US and with NATO.

Which brings us to Ischinger’s second point: The EU and US must resolve questions on the future of NATO. Just how difficult this will be is evidenced by the NATO Summit in Bucharest earlier this month. How Europe is to offer a solution to that situation in a matter of months is still somewhat a mystery to me, given the tight-rope walk that was the last summit. Certainly, however, the US has got to stop offering membership to countries that counteract certain priorities of the European Neighbourhood Policy. Closer coordination between the EU members of NATO and the US is thus undoubtedly needed.

Ischinger also wants to see the EU pull the US over to its side with respect to robust plans toward reducing the harmful effects of global warming and reaffirming the “western” values, which dismiss torture and advocate dialogue in addressing the issue of radical Islam and terrorism. Here Ischinger is undoubtedly right - the EU is one of the leading players in the actual reduction of green-house gases and has businesses which have clearly seen the light with respect to their competitive advantage. Going green is becoming a huge future business sector for Europe, and that is an angle, which could be played in discussions in which the US has continually pointed to the negative business effects of increased environmental legislation.

Europe and the US could profit immensely from a closer exchange of experience not solely on intelligence and security information with respect to the global spread of terrorism (this is already onoing), but means of reaching out to communities most likely to become subjected to radical Islam and its negative consequences. Transatlantic dialogue on this issue must be stepped up on all levels - government and non-government.

For more on Ischinger’s views on the future of the EU-US relationship and Russia’s role in the world, you can watch an interview with the Financial Times’ foreign affairs editor Quentin Peel here.

The Foreign Policy Association and the European Courier spoke with Ambassador Christian Wenaweser, Permanent Mission of Liechtenstein to the United Nations, about the role of small countries at the UN, the International Criminal Court and reform at the United Nations. Transcript available at the European Courier.

April 11, 2008

The Foreign Policy Association and the European Courier spoke with the Head of the Delegation of the European Commission to the United Nations, Ambassador Fernando Valenzuela of Spain, about issues impacting the EU at the UN.  Watch the video below or read the transcript here.

The European Parliament rang in its 50th anniversary today, with a ’solemn ceremony’, in what FT commentator Andrew Bounds calls “an even more surreal session” in Strasbourg than usual. Since 1958 and with the growth of the Union the legitimacy (first appointed then directly elected), size (from 142 members to the current 785) and role in the legislative process (initially advisory only, now almost on par with Member States in the majority of issues) has changed to an almost incredible degree. Still, shortcomings are aplenty: A survey published last week revealed that 73% of Europeans feel ill-informed about what it is the parliament does, though generally speaking they think it wields more power than the other institutions. Two-thirds of those queried had no idea when the next elections for the EP would take place - no one dared to ask, of course, if they even cared.

And there we have it: the quintessential dilemma - most people still don’t care. The parliament’s president, Hans-Gert Poettering, had to go so far today as to issue a call to national European parties to nominate candidates who mattered to people for seats in Europe’s elected body. A German saying plays on that fact, implying that only the most passé or incomeptent get shipped off to Brussels (’Hast Du einen Opa, schick ihn nach Europa’), because wouldn’t you want to keep the best where they mattered most - at home? That thinking of course is inherently flawed, given the fact that nearly 80% of national legislation in certain countries is handed down directly from Brussels - so wouldn’t you want the brightest shaping policies there?

Naturally, the EP suffers through the same crises as national parliaments - questions over allowances, bonuses and other benefits are forever resurfacing in the press - and these are legitimate questions to ask. Then there is that whole ‘accountability’ thing: While citizens have trouble holding the Parliament accountable, largely because the voting districts and the electoral system for some countries is different from their national contexts, the EP itself has been successful in playing itself as the people’s advocate. It brought the Santer Commission down; it stopped an avowed homophobe from becoming EU Commissioner; it was instrumental in capping the cost of mobile telephone calls in the Union; it has ensured robust anti-discrimination legislation and prevented the liberalization of Europe’s harbors for fear of an unemployment wave. It sets the rules for multibillion Euro mergers and has a key role to play in the regulation of markets from telecomms to energy.

Yes, there are plenty of lame ducks in the Parliament, hiding amongst the extremely hard-working and committed men and women. For it to become a more relevant institution to the Union’s citizens, the Parliament as a whole must, however become more politicized. Parties must resemble what citizens are used to on the national level. There must be a qualitiative debate on policy issues in which transnational issues are made evident - and the issues have to mean something to the citizen.

Until that happens, the current divide will continue: important decisions for the future of each and every one of us will be made in a city far, far away, by people who (in the absolute worst of cases) were too irrelevant for the national political process to begin with. Hardly an ideal situation. Naturally, this has to come from within the parties themselves. First signs are there, as is evidenced by the European Socialist Party. But more effective strategies need to be developed for this nascent, true party formation ongoing with all big groups in the current EP to be transmitted to the voter. That must be the Parliament’s ongoing task, but for today - let its members sit back and revel in their accomplishments: Let them eat cake.

 Commentators are speculating about the end of the Barroso Commission as we know it. It seems as if he resignation of EU health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou to take up the post as Cyprus’ Foreign Minister two weeks ago was only the beginning. Effective March 14 one of the arguably most successful Commissioners, internal policy head Franco Frattini will take a leave of absence to campaign for Silvio Berlusconi, as he puts in his bid for another term as Italy’s prime minister. Frattini’s return looks as unlikely as the likely Berlusconi victory, meaning he will have a plush cabinet post waiting for him. EU transport Commissioner, Jacques Barrot, will take over for Frattini during his announced one-month absence, but should speculations prove true, a permanent solution will have to be found.

This news comes only days after the Austrian press published articles insinuating that Members of the European Parliament would be unlikely to support a second term for current Commission President José Manuel Barroso. That might be the least of Barroso’s current worries, however, as his term runs until 2009. He might be fretting more over fishery Commissioner Joe Borg’s interest in returning to his home country of Malta, following recent elections there. Or, he might be concerned about how long it might take the European Parliament to approve the candidates set to follow in these Commissioner’s footsteps, recalling the Rocco Buttiglione crisis, which necessitated a reshuffle at the last minute.

Alternatively, he could be seeing this as a warm-up for the changes to come. Once the Lisbon Reform Treaty is ratified by all Member States, the EU Foreign Minister will be introduced. Only candidate for the post: the current EU chief diplomat (official title: High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy - what a mouthful), Spaniard Javier Solana. His post will necessitate an institutional change, as Solana will move from the Council to the Commission. This in turn might cost two current Commissioners their job: fellow Spaniard and monetary affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia and Austrian external relations head, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, who has already taken a back seat to Solana in terms of driving that policy area.

Commentators are seeing the recent developments as a sign of instability, while Commission spokespeople are quick to paint the story in a different light, speaking instead of the distinctive leadership capacity these men and women have that they are called back to ‘national duty’. Naturally, these changes are cannot be compared to the Santer fiasco. Yes, these shifts don’t make the Commission seem like the most stable administration, but they are a part of the European political process. Yes, the approval hearings might be drawn out, as the European Parliament flexes its muscle as and holds new candidates to account. Is that likely? No. The Member States have a vested interest in putting forth candidates that will win the support of the parliament and the latter has no interest in stalling the legislative process. The hearings will be another opportunity for the parliament to prove its legitimate role in a ‘normal’ EU political process, however, and if it retains its critical capacity to discriminate and weed out the good from the bad, it will bolster its significance and highlight the normalcy of change in a functional supranational, democratic entity.

Europeans took to the polls over the weekend, with perhaps unsurprising results: Spain’s socialist Prime Minister Zapatero was reelected against a bland looking Mariano Rajoy, despite an economic crisis that still has to fully play out and France’s governing UMP was given a shake-up in communal elections, serving as a warning sign that the electorate is unhappy with the ‘Hyper-President’s’ globe-trotting, star-marrying, self-aggrandizing ways.

 What will this change for EU policy making? Not much. In fact: probably nothing. The Zapatero government is, as all post-Franco Spanish governments very pro-European. Difficulties arise over fisheries policies and minority issues, among other things, but that is ‘normal’ EU business. What the Economist points out, however, is that Zapatero’s reelection could mean bad news for a prime minister who is already out of office: Tony Blair.

Where’s the connection, you (rightly) ask? Well, according to the Economist’s Europe blog, officials in the Council of Ministers are ruminating whether this vote means Mr. Blair’s chances of becoming the Union’s first standing president have fallen back to, well, nil. Because of their similarity in leadership style and their same political family, both men could come up against each other, but with Blair’s anti-European (think Iraq war) stance, Zapatero could win out. The air in Brussels is rife with speculation on the entire presidency issue and of course nothing is set and done, as the Lisbon Reform Treaty is still in the ratification process, but these rumors will be interesting to watch. These two might not be so friendly with each other as the months drag on.