-------------------------------------------------------- http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/060905I.shtml Washington Worries about the European Crisis By Véronique Soulé Libération Thursday 09 June 2005 On a trip through the EU, Bush's emissary makes himself the champion of a Europe "able to work with the United States." "There is no pleasure, secret or otherwise," on the American side, over Jacques Chirac's punishing defeat in the May 29th referendum. Rather than stir up old rancors, Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, came to Paris Tuesday to talk about Washington's worry over the crisis precipitated by the two "no's" to the Constitution. "The United States wants a strong Europe as partner," he repeated. Challenges Washington, which has remained quiet up to now, finally dispatched an emissary to Europe who bears a single message: the United States has no interest in seeing Europe weakened and divided. On the contrary. "To face the challenges of the Twenty-first Century," Washington needs a "politically strong Europe," "capable of working with us on a common agenda." The Assistant Secretary of State trotted out all the cases on which the two parties already cooperate: stabilization in Afghanistan and in Iraq, a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, promotion of democracy in Lebanon, in the greater Middle East, in the Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldavia, not to mention the Balkans. The American emissary, who began his trip Monday in Italy and finishes today in Germany, even struck enthusiastic chords to celebrate Europe. "Europe is a marvelous idea, based on freedom, solidarity, and an end to wars," he proclaimed, defending himself from any charge of wanting to interfere in the debates on the Constitution or the European model.... "We don't want to become a player in European politics," he asserted. Washington seems to fear that Europe will turn inward - that, bogged down in its own crisis, it will forget the world's problems. "A long introspection would not be good for us." The other great fear is an abrupt halt to enlargement. Washington is a fervent partisan for the integration of Turkey and, in the longer term, Ukraine. "It's a European decision; undoubtedly, a large debate is necessary," he commented, prudently far from Bush's injunctions of two years ago to integrate Turkey. "I tell my Turkish friends that as they reform, the question will become easier." ---<snip>--- ---------------------- rkm> Let's decode some of Fried's comments... "To face the challenges of the Twenty-first Century," Washington needs a "politically strong Europe," "capable of working with us on a common agenda." The Assistant Secretary of State trotted out all the cases on which the two parties already cooperate: stabilization in Afghanistan and in Iraq, a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, promotion of democracy in Lebanon, in the greater Middle East, in the Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldavia, not to mention the Balkans. That is to say, in order for Europe to join America in unpopular imperialist adventures, it must be "politically strong", which means the EU government must be under centralized elite control. He says, "We don't want to become a player in European politics...". What he means is that he doesn't want to be _seen as interfering; he doesn't want the general unpopularity of the U.S. in Europe to scare people away from the unstated goal of the EU: a United States of Europe, based on the American model. In fact, the U.S. wants very much to interfere, as evidenced by the examples of "cooperation" he cited above. -------------------------------------------------------- http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=8149 Council on Foreign Relations Interview Drozdiak: EU Constitution Now 'A Dead Letter' William Drozdiak, president of the American Council on Germany and former foreign editor and chief European correspondent for the Washington Post , says the rejection of the European constitution by French and Dutch voters probably means the document has become "a dead letter." <snip> Drozdiak was interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman, consulting editor for cfr.org, on June 1, 2005. There is a lot of news in Europe these days. On May 29, the French rejected the proposed European constitution in a referendum. On June 1, the Dutch people followed suit. What do you think this means for European unification? Drozdiak: I think, first of all, it is an enormous defeat for the ruling political elites in France and in the Netherlands. It wasn't just President Jacques Chirac, but all the others who have been advocating a "yes" to the constitution, who were stunned by the overwhelming rejection by the public. In some sense, it was irrational. You have the example of the French farmers who receive more subsidies than anybody else from the European Union [EU] Common Agricultural Policy voting 70 percent against the constitution. The problem was not that they were so antagonistic to the EU. It is just that they are fed up with their ruling political class, and in the way this referendum was cast, it became a vote against Chirac and other politicians who were prodding them to vote yes. It was a vote against further enlargement of the EU as well, because I think the French population feels that the expansion of the EU last year, with ten new countries joining, was something that has pushed France to the periphery of Europe with the center of gravity moving toward central Europe. And finally, the anticipation of further enlargement, with Romania and Bulgaria joining in 2007, and then Turkey, perhaps in 2015, the feeling was that this is just too much to digest all at once. Why didn't Chirac ask the French parliament to vote on the constitution, instead of submitting it to a national referendum? Germany went the parliamentary route and had no problem passing it. I think it was a huge political miscalculation on his part. He took this decision about a year ago, in July 2004, when he saw that his popularity was beginning to wane. At that particular time, the idea of an EU constitution was rather popular. There was then a strong majority in favor. The prospect of holding a referendum and getting a "yes" would be a way, he thought, to boost his political fortunes heading into the presidential elections of 2007. He had been, until recently, expected to run for a third term. But I think, given the severity of this defeat, his chances look very dim for that, and some people are even predicting he will resign before 2007. But that gets into other problems because he has been clinging to office, many people think, because he's afraid of being indicted for corruption charges from the time he was mayor of Paris. As long as he is president he is immune from prosecution. It's interesting that in the Netherlands as well, both the government and the leading opposition party supported ratification, but the public was overwhelmingly opposed to the constitution. Why is that? In some ways, the situation in the Netherlands is even more strange because, over the last 50 years, the Dutch have been among the most ardent advocates of European unity. Yet now you see them turning against further moves to bring Europe closer together. I think this is a reaction to the rapid pace of enlargement of the EU and also the perception in the popular mind that this has triggered uncontrolled immigration and a rise in criminality from gangs coming from the Balkans, Eastern Europe, and North Africa. In the Dutch mind, this has started to erode, and even to destroy, the Dutch way of life. There is a third factor, and that is the Dutch joined the euro, the common currency of many European countries, at a rate that was badly calculated, and therefore they have suffered a huge burst of inflation. Many people have vented their wrath against the constitution because of this. But even with defeats, the immigration laws are not going to be changed. The EU stays as it is, right, with open borders? Yes. This is one of the misunderstandings. In fact, the constitution calls for greater cooperation on immigration laws. Even today, for example, someone who can gain entry into Spain can work his way to the Netherlands without any border checks. The new constitution would pave the way to a common visa and asylum policy that would be much more effective in managing immigration, but this idea was never really effectively planted in the popular mind. What will happen now? Will there be another vote in France, do you think? Or is the constitution effectively dead? I think that with the Dutch voting "no," it will almost certainly be a dead letter. I think the EU leaders will have a summit on June 16-17 in Brussels to try to assess the damage and pick up the pieces. One of the things they can do is try to incorporate several elements of the changes that would have been made by the constitution and just simply push them through by fiat--by decision of the leaders themselves--or by votes in parliament. The key changes that the constitution would have brought would be: First, to abolish the rotating presidency in which member states take control of the EU presidency for a period of six months--something which led to a lot of difficulties in the managing of decision-making. Second, it would create a president of the European Council who would help streamline the bureaucracy and manage the way in which decisions are taken. Third, it would set up a EU foreign minister who has already been acting in that capacity, and that is Javier Solana , who is described now as the EU's High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. He would be formally anointed as foreign minister. These are steps they can take even in the absence of formal ratification by all the parliaments, or referendums. <snip> Germany right now has an unemployment rate of some 11.8 percent. What's causing this problem? A lot of the problem has resulted from the growth and free-market policies pursued by the neighboring states in the East, which have attracted a lot of investment, not just from people beyond Germany, but from German companies themselves. For example, much of the automobile industry, for which Germany is justly famous, has moved its manufacturing plants across the border to Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia. Bratislava is now described as "the Detroit of Europe," because you have cars being built there by Volkswagen and other German companies for the German--and not just for the eastern--market. This has been replicated in several different sectors; so much so that it has triggered a debate about capitalism within Germany in which the leader of the Social Democrats, Franz Muntefering, has described some of these investors, who come in and strip down German companies and then flee, as locusts. Germany has long been one of the world's great exporting countries. Has this been affected? There are some companies like BMW, Bosch, and Miele that are considered to make the best products in the world. They continue to export at a record pace. But it is not enough to sustain the entire economy, nor is it enough to reassure the public so they will go out and spend more money. What has happened is that demand in the German economy has been shrinking greatly as people fear for their own livelihoods and jobs. What about the social welfare arguments in France and Germany? The impression here is that France, Germany, and other European states have had such liberal benefits, long vacations, short hours, that they have been living beyond their means. Is this still the case? In an era when the boundaries to capital and trade have been breaking down at a record pace, with the rise of China and India you see the forces of globalization really threatening these social welfare states. In addition, particularly in the case of Germany, this is combined with some of the lowest birth rates in the world, so you have a demographic situation where, in a fairly short period of time, nearly half the population will be of retirement age, and their pensions will have to be supported by a dwindling labor force. This is why the Germans are confronted by a very painful dilemma. Either they have to absorb many more immigrants in order to sustain their current living standards, and pay for their pensions and welfare entitlements, or they have to reduce their standards of living and keep the immigrants out. The German government recently did a study that said the country would require, given current birth rates, at least 400,000 immigrants a year for the next 25 years. But as we've seen in recent elections, this is something that is unsustainable for political reasons, given the antipathy toward high immigration rates. Are the new immigrants coming mostly from Turkey or Eastern Europe? They come from Turkey, North Africa, and also from Eastern Europe. A lot of people working in the hotel trade, for instance, have come from Ukraine, a country beyond the EU. But with the incorporation of Poland and other eastern states into the EU, their populations are free to move about within the EU. This has led to one of the scaremongering images in the French referendum: the so-called "Polish plumber" who comes across the border and works for one-fifth of what a French plumber would work for, and thus steals his job. ----------------- rkm> In this interview, we are basically seeing an internal elite dialog...those in the know sharing with those who believe in the system. Drozdiak is probably giving us his candid views on the feelings in the various constituencies. He probably really believes that French farmers are being "irrational" in voting against the constitution, given all their subsidies. He thinks in terms of the market - economic incentives - and assumes everyone else must think in the same limited way. What I find most revealing in this interview is the utter disregard for democracy - for the people - and the implicit assumption that any sensible reader would have that same disregard. No matter that most people don't want the constitution - who cares? - what we care about is that Chirac made a "huge political miscalculation" by not giving the constitution to parliament instead of submitting it to a national referendum. And Drozdiak's remedy?... "One of the things they can do is try to incorporate several elements of the changes that would have been made by the constitution and just simply push them through by fiat..." What Drozdiak does not mention, and what he may not be aware of, is that the political climate in Europe has fundamentally shifted. The No votes not only reflected popular sentiment, they galvanized public sentiment. As much as the No was a message to leaders, it was also a message from the people of Europe to themselves: "We are not alone in our private doubts." It was a mass radicalizing event - shifting attention from scattered domestic complaints, and focusing it on the core issue: an elite European leadership out of control, trampling on European democracy and the European economy. The battle lines have been drawn. The sheep have turned to face the herders. The next elite assault, as Drozdiak suggests, is likely to be an attempt to force further EU centralization through despite the No votes. I do not see how such a program could fail to further antagonize and mobilize popular sentiment. How will this be expressed? Will we see a coherent European-wide movement for a new direction for Europe? This will be the interesting story to watch. -- ============================================================ If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website (http://cyberjournal.org) or try out our low-traffic, moderated email list by sending a message to: •••@••.••• You are encouraged to forward any material from the lists or the website, provided it is for non-commercial use and you include the source and this disclaimer. Richard Moore (rkm) Wexford, Ireland "Escaping The Matrix - Global Transformation: WHY WE NEED IT, AND HOW WE CAN ACHIEVE IT ", old draft: http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/rkmGlblTrans.html _____________________________ "...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the Reichstag fire." - Srdja Trifkovic There is not a problem with the system. The system is the problem. Faith in ourselves - not gods, ideologies, leaders, or programs. _____________________________ cj list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj newslog list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog _____________________________ Informative links: http://www.indymedia.org/ http://www.globalresearch.ca/ http://www.greenleft.org.au/index.htm http://www.MiddleEast.org http://www.rachel.org http://www.truthout.org http://www.williambowles.info/monthly_index/ http://www.zmag.org http://www.co-intelligence.org ============================================================
