Last week's European Council did not produce any great surprises. There were positive results on the euro and European economic governance but divergences on intervention in Libya were borne out and a position on nuclear energy is still pending. The essential part of the work on the euro had been prepared in advance and any unexpected incidents were very few and far between, with developments in Portugal being at the forefront of the evolving situation. Nonetheless, it would be absurd to reduce the historic import of what happened for the simple reason that everything or almost everything had been planned in advance, while forgetting that the economic and monetary results represent a crucial turning point in the history of European unity.
Euro and economic governance. The meeting's Conclusions should be read or re-read (our previous publication provided a comprehensive report back on them) to refresh the memory. The “Euro Plus Pact” (the French version has finally got rid of the + sign, a source of confusion, and has replaced it with the term “Plus”, which has been used more frequently and which has always been used in the English version) has become official and is now open to all member states, including those that although not part of the eurozone, intend to promote greater convergence of their national economic policies, particularly in the field of jobs, pensions and managing public finances. Six “euro extra” countries have already done this and the others have explained why they do not intend to do so. This column will be returning to this issue. Above all, the Conclusions do not exclusively focus on the Pact; they also have texts on setting up the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), on how this mechanism should be funded and how it will operate. It will replace the current eurozone intervention system. Everything is explained in detail, together with the latest updates, including the modalities for possible debt restructuring (and the participation of private lenders, despite opposition from the European Central Bank). The ESM will be an inter-governmental organisation as it could not be anything other than this because funding is provided at a national level and possible intervention requires member state commitments. The European institutions, however, will have their role to play.
The first European semester (during which national budget drafts will be examined in common) can therefore begin. Mr Van Rompuy has vigorously denied that the new rules remove social guarantees. This aspect, however, requires clarification and this column will return to the issue tomorrow.
Libya and elsewhere. In his final declaration, Mr Van Rompuy described military action in Libya as a, “coalition of European, Arab and American countries”, which, because it is based on a UN resolution, provides a joint contribution for protecting the civilian population. By mentioning the Arab countries (without taking into account the backtracking of the Arab League) he is attempting to prevent the armed Euro-American intervention as being presented as a conflict between Americans and Europeans on one side, and Arabs and black Africans on the other. Such a definition would provoke a number of possible controversies and could be accused of being a neo-colonialist operation, a Christian crusade against the Muslims, and so on and so forth (see this column in EUROPE° 10343). Mr Van Rompuy emphasised that the operation was exclusively aimed at protecting the civilian population and would end as soon as the civilian population was safe. He said that it was up to the Libyan people to express their aspirations in a political dialogue but that it would be necessary for Mr Gaddafi to leave power. Obviously, the situation is more complex and there are a number of divergences between the countries participating in the operation, with some of the protagonists being accused of concealing the underlying economic (oil) considerations. This affair is complicated and unpleasant, and will unfortunately have an impact on other countries in the vicinity.
Nuclear question still pending. Debates on this subject did not produce anything other than a number of procedural decisions because overall, whether countries are for or against nuclear energy, the positions of the member states do not correspond. The summit was only able to indicate that a number of precautions and examinations had been agreed to by all. The choices made by the member states over a long period of time continue to affect current positions. Countries that have developed nuclear energy continue (with an impetus that is more or less the same) to defend it, whilst those that have rejected this energy, oppose it. European Commissioner Oettinger has from the outset striven to respect a certain balance and he has come in for a lot of flak from both sides. Obviously, the summit was unable to give its support to one or other of the different positions. It was only able to launch a number of studies and procedures. The arguments in favour or against appear to be solid, and top-flight and credible figures argue their respective corners. The interests at play are colossal and this is about all an observer can say at this stage.
(F.R./transl.fl)