Appropriate terminology, duality to be overcome. The new definitions that will govern the future of the single currency are both opportune and bode well: the “Pact for the euro” is clear and simple and so are the other definitions. At first glance it just appears as a simple detail but in fact it is important.
I would say much the same thing about the position taken by the European Parliament authorising the small amendment to the Treaty, which will allow for the permanent European monetary stability mechanism to be authorised and which will replace from 2013 the temporary instruments that currently exist. The remaining obstacle can be located in the duality between Community and intergovernmental spheres. This column has already discussed the controversies and efforts made by several different figures to smooth out this dossier, by pointing out that what counts is the efficiency of managing the euro, beyond the more subtle legal details. The Parliament recognised that the urgency of the situation made the intergovernmental feature of the instrument inevitable but it painstakingly defined the mechanisms with which it would itself be directly involved in the application procedures, effectively exercising controls on the way in which the future system operates. The wisdom demonstrated in this position is significant. (EUROPE 10332 for the details).
How to project the end of European ambitions. Neither the conscious nor unwitting adversaries of any deepening in the European project are laying down their arms. This explains why the idea of Tunisia and possibly other southern Mediterranean countries joining the EU is resurfacing. This stroke of inspiration has been hatched amongst different academics (Professor Kahn at “Sciences Po” in France and other learned lecturers) who, in my opinion, do not have the slightest idea about what European construction means and what its goals should be. These university lecturers are obviously unaware that the EU means “European Union”. Nonetheless, one of these wise men is not happy to accept these details and argues that, “Europe is not just a continent. It is, above all, a political project. Why would it refrain from using what it has invented?”
These eminent thinkers fail to realise that any extension to non-European countries would undermine any deepening of the EU project and would destroy its ultimate vocation of consistently seeking greater integration. This is even more apparent, given that Professor Kahn would at the same time resolve the problem of Turkey by allowing it to join the EU in the same accession wave. The EU would therefore, in one single manoeuvre, be rid of European governance, common policies and even the euro, in order to render its subsequently constructed empty shell to other continents that have been transformed into European entities.
Colonel Gaddafi, not driven by material interest. It is quite incisive to compare Colonel Gaddafi's official position, outlining his disinterest and purely political nature of his role, with the reality of the wealth that he has accumulated and owns, together with his family and a few acolytes. Once again, it is the US diplomatic cables that have been published that provide us with information on this point. A report, eloquently entitled Qaddafi Corporation, indicates that Gaddafi's children and court favourites received floods of cash from the national oil company and its subsidiaries, which were worth millions of dollars a year. Club members had their fingers in every pie imaginable and benefited from the positions they held. The scandals and rows between the Guide's children were legion and their wealth in Libya and abroad even more so.
Ms Ashton is not a minister. How complicated it is proving for Catherine Ashton to get people to understand that she is not the European minister for foreign affairs! This is how she is usually described by a significant part of the media and how, by ricochet, a (modest) section of the public who are interested in these details, considers her. It is not as if the thus-described Ms Ashton does not have enough to be getting on with. Actually, the triple role bestowed upon her means that she has too many tasks to be dealing with and, for example, in her role as vice president of the European Commission, she is not in a material position to be able to carry it out. The fact that she is at the head of the common diplomatic service and that she is responsible for publishing a number of press releases does not transform her into a European minister! Invited by the Parliament to discuss a politically sensitive aspect of relations with Libya (a no-fly zone), she explained that this was up to member states to decide. Her mandate is one of examining the different dossiers, with the support of the staff at her disposal. It is not up to her to take any official position.
This is an embarrassing anomaly, particularly for the Parliament, which would like an interlocutor on its behalf. It is an anomaly, which, in my opinion, results from the mistaken creation of the role of the high representative. This column will return to discuss this matter in greater detail. (F.R./transl.fl)