During my visit to the USA, I had a short discussion
with a Senator, who felt strongly that Europe could not be a "State"
and rejection of the so-called constitution by French and Dutch
people should not have come as a surprise. Leaving aside the thought
that an American politician may easily feel this way, I could appreciate
two points that arose during the conversation. First, the coming
together of the USA was not so difficult because most of the states
had not strongly developed their identities during the process of
formation of the Nation. On the other hand, European countries have
a long history and separate identities. While the leaders and politicians
may think differently, people of some countries may look upon the
constitution as something that would deprive them of their past
and individualism. Second, there is a tendency to decentralise among
constituents of various conglomerates at present rather than any
real will to joining together among different countries, following
virtual disappearance of the military danger from the Russian Empire.
Even the concept of the USA as a "melting pot" is giving
way to the realisation that the different people in the USA have
retained their identities over the years and that the USA should
be better described as a "salad bowl".
I understand that the European Union is intended
to create a body that will result in division of powers between
the body and individual states, whereby it will achieve various
objectives far better than the individual states could do on their
own. However, the present position shows that the individual states
may have common objectives in principle but they have evolved their
own systems for achieving them with large variations in emphasis
and methods to suit their own traditions and local practices. Furthermore,
some issues have to involve not only the governments but also many
powerful and international non-governmental bodies, e.g. issues
such as environment, carbon emission, global warming, etc. Any drive
towards a rigid constitution for the European Union may not, therefore,
bring about the desired effect.
After all, the federal idea had influenced the
creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, with an objective
to make recurrence of wars virtually impossible. Following clearing
away of the clouds of any military conflicts, further advances towards
uniting of Europe have succeeded in some fields, e.g. common court
of justice, free trade, etc. Other advances, in the fields of currency,
foreign policy, European army, etc, have met with significant obstacles
at every step, which have been at best patched up superficially
by well meaning political leaders. Their efforts may have appeared
to work in the short term, but an attempt to take larger steps,
such as having a rigid constitution and fast-track enlargement of
the Union, have not met the approval of people of countries like
France that have belonged to the heart of the project from its early
days.
It is most desirable to have harmony and unity
among European countries, beyond any doubt. All the same, question
of the extent and rigidity of such Union must now be examined with
a fresh approach and with removal of any layers of past experience
that might mask basic issues. Any attempt to ignore the current
setback, howsoever inconvenient it may be to the people in power,
could only benefit those who oppose the concept of European Union
of any sort. Europe cannot really afford any further distancing
of the people from the leaders, apparently governing Europe through
non-elected bodies.
At present, there are many treaties (Rome, Nice,
Amsterdam, etc.), which appear to combine fundamental provisions
with technical or procedural provisions. However, essential provisions
appear to be scattered through different treaties. It is essential
to have a documented treaty, therefore, which will eliminate redundant
clauses and rearrange provisions in a logical manner, with due regard
to the importance of fundamental objectives of the Union.
Various alternatives should be considered in preparing
the treaty document, including a form of framework of basic principles
and recommended procedures for their application, which could effectively
and gradually bring the countries together without initially enforcing
any rigid and common legislative procedures. People may disapprove
rigid procedures, as they are quite likely to clash with traditions,
local conditions and practices that have served the local communities
well for providing their needs and would not have been harmful to
the neighbouring countries. The Union should trust member states
and develop trust among member states, so that everyone would know
what is expected of them without instructing them about how to comply
with the principles. The Union has indeed been associated in the
past with some odd directives about shapes of bananas, storage of
food and sizes of vegetables, quite unnecessary and irritating for
the common people.
The Union should also kerb enthusiasm of leaders
to expand Europe too quickly. People may react with apprehension
if many other countries were to join the Union in a short time and
if they have ideologies significantly different to those of the
existing members of the Union.
I wish to list some basic principles, perhaps
not exclusively, in their order of importance.
Justice
The Union was founded on the principles of liberty,
democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. I believe
that the European Court of Justice has been quite effective in its
contribution towards fulfilling these objectives so far. The Court
has over-ruled some decisions of courts in the United Kingdom, which
have not met with any serious dissent or opposition so far. The
judges are invariably well qualified and with their integrity beyond
any doubts. The new treaty should provide for appointment of the
judges by the elected Parliament for a sufficiently long term, maintaining
a combination of old and new, so as to benefit from experience as
well as new talent.
It is heartening to note that the Member States
are responding to the threats of insurgency and terrorism as common
issues, even if they are more hurtful to people outside their territories.
It is possible to extradite a suspect in lesser time than before,
e.g. the present case of a suspect in Italy. However, a future treaty
must make it possible to reduce the duration even more, to assist
speedier actions against the terrorist rings, trusting the human
rights procedures in the affected country to be just as effective
as their own.
Security
Security is a human value that overlaps with freedom,
order (social and political), solidarity, etc. This applies more
readily for a Nation where people have a sense of oneness that is
psychological and born out of commonness of culture, ethnicity,
race, religion, history, etc. While it is too much to expect all
these attributes in a group of countries, where the territory under
consideration is much larger than that of a single nation, some
common basis and factors must exist in the group if any common treaty
is to succeed.
Nationhood has three main characteristics - sovereignty,
territory and population. Even with the democratic governance of
all European countries, allegiance of people varies from the British
system of monarchy at one end to republicanism or "popular
sovereignty" in France at the other. There are no real geographical
boundaries between countries like France and Italy, where people
in bordering towns are bonded together with marriages, local customs
and dialects. The UK, Ireland and Scandinavian countries have been
physically separate from the mainland Europe, and they may have
closer ties with other nations like the USA than with countries
in southern Europe.
It is not impossible to have a federation of nations,
in spite of some differences as noted above. Jawaharlal Nehru often
quoted the concept of "unity in diversity" in recognition
of national identities in India. However, European oneness, or at
least oneness of the UK with Europe, appears to have some problems
of different nature compared with those in India or the USA. These
differences are derived from differences in the national interests
within the context of core values. For example, the UK has modernised
the work practices and reduced dependence of working people on the
state in many fields, e.g. subsidising of production, which has
led to debilitation of production sector including farming and mining.
The European treaty could seek to improve upon this situation in
the context of the Union as a whole. People should have the confidence
that basic utilities of reliable quality will be available to them,
without having to depend on import from elsewhere, e.g. food, clothes,
energy, etc. Common Agriculture Policy may not be very popular in
the UK but its basic objective must be understood and supported
judiciously wherever it could be really effective. Excessive dependence
on services sector and weakening of production sector would not
serve the long-term interest of societal security.
National security is often understood as the protection
of core values through use of the national power. It includes many
dimensions - military, political, economic and socio-cultural dimensions.
Perhaps the military dimension has reduced considerably, as far
as loss of life due to international armed conflicts is concerned.
Loss of life is still evident, however, attributable to terrorism
and insurgency. Urgency for measures to eliminate these problems
is different in the UK and mainland Europe, since the UK government
has participated in war against Iraq. This imbalance can only be
addressed through gradual strengthening of common global policies,
howsoever difficult they may seem at the present.
It is difficult to address economic dimension,
primarily because of the dominance of multi-national business organisations,
global interdependence of commerce and sensitivity of national economies
to policies and economy of the USA. Some basic issues like the funding
for functioning of the Union have created problems between the UK
and other countries. Any move towards "European taxation"
seems impractical at present but it appears to be the final solution
in the long-term interest of the Union.
Socio-cultural or societal security is closely
related to influence of large-scale immigration of people into a
society. If the European Union were to be enlarged suddenly, it
may present problems to societal security, as people in the UK and
France are experiencing with East European workers, e.g. construction
workers and plumbers. Furthermore, with Turkey or Bosnia admitted
in the Union, European people may have to deal with problems caused
by influx of people with ideologies drastically different to their
own. This should not be mistaken for racism, since many Bosnians
and Turks would have fair skin and they may not look different on
the streets of Europe. In this context, one could understand the
sentiments in France, which tend towards reluctance to expand the
Union too soon and beyond certain limits.
Foreign Policy
This must be the most difficult aspect of any
treaty, owing to diverse relationship of Member States with other
countries outside Europe. The UK has a long history of friendship
with Commonwealth countries, especially with India and the West
Indies. It would be a pity if a change were brought about in such
relationship through any European treaty. The European treaty should
allow such links with the world, as long as they do not seriously
harm European interests in general, which would seem most unlikely.
It is also worth noticing the progress made by India in the fields
of economy and technology and India's position and influence in
Southeast Asia. Europe should have a foreign policy that could reach
out other countries and not be limited to the short-term interests
of countries within Europe.
Conclusions
It is indeed not practicable to speculate about
the direction that may be taken for progressing with European Constitution
or a treaty. However, it must be hard to sustain any failure of
the nature similar to that of the rejection of the constitution
by people of France and the Netherlands. Such rejection may strengthen
the hands of Euro-sceptics and discourage marginal Europhobes from
appreciating the merits of the project of European Union. Furthermore,
European Union must have a treaty, which will take logical account
of the objectives and which will replace the existing treaties.
It is possible that the treaty could effectively
be a flexible one, with adequate transparency to provide clarity
of objectives and principles supplemented by recommendations for
their applications. The document must aim at making Europe democratic
and efficient, and without any unnecessary expenditure and bureaucracy.
Most important, the treaty must be supported by the Member States,
with a belief that it will add to the quality of lives of their
people and recognise the national core value systems of politics,
economy, society and culture. The treaty should not seek to interfere
with any aspects that contribute to the well being of people of
a member state unless they may cause inconvenience to any other
state, which must seem very unlikely. The treaty should also be
an out-going document, which could build on good relationship with
other countries, such as the UK, so that many of the European Union
objectives can be met in collaboration with the rest of the world.
Satish Desai is a member of the Committee of
Federal Union. The opinions expressed are those of the author and
not necessarily those of Federal Union. 2 August 2005.
