Some words are as accurate as they are disturbing. Only a few days ago, on 29 March, Stéphane Foucart opened his "Planète" column in Le Monde with the following sentence: "Not a month goes past without fearing the worst for the European project". He goes on to list, one after the other, the sovereign debt crisis, the rise of populism, the "threat" of a possible "Brexit", the restoration of borders and erection of barbed wire fences in the Schengen area. The remainder of his piece is then devoted to the stance, which at best must be called bizarre, taken by a no less bizarre body, the Parma-based European Food Safety Authority, on glyphosate. He could since add to his list the perplexing outcome of the referendum in the Netherlands, a European Community founding country which appears increasingly likely to allow itself to be tempted by extremists and other populists who dream of being the EU's gravediggers.
These are all serious, important issues that imperil the credibility of the European Union and its institutions in the eyes of an already doubtful public. Undeniably, European decision makers are tempted not to pay too great attention to what the public might think, believing, as they do, that the nation state will long remain the framework that provides solace and protection to citizens, and the only one to represent them and defend them. It is precisely that sentiment - which probably dominates within the Europe Council - that is the cause of the current impenetrability of the European project and, consequently, the mistrust that more and more of the public are feeling towards it. In his day, Jacques Delors appositely said that no one can fall in love with a market, even if it is a single market. The inclination today would be to add, as the old French saying goes, you can't catch flies with vinegar. The issues mentioned above all contain a dose of vinegar sufficient to make wincing the default position.
Making Europe put a smile back on people's faces is one of the objectives that will be pursued single-mindedly in "Beacons". To that end, a number of truths will have to be written and read which disturb and may even upset. Truths which must not, of course, be taken as "the" one and only truth but rather as starting points, reference points that make it possible to step back from the breaking news and to get the sense - or sometimes the non-sense - in decisions taken hastily by the collective monarchy that the European Council has become;
Take the issue, from the human point of view the terrible issue, of the refugees who have continued over the last few months to risk their lives trying to reach the southern shores of the EU. Much can be said, and at least as much regretted, about how the member states have so far managed this humanitarian crisis. Let us say only, at this point, that the conduct of the European Commission was responsible and honourable when it proposed that the member states should accept quotas of refugees. The member states which rejected this idea or which merely paid lip service to the quotas proposal have made not only a wrong choice but a moral error which for a long time to come will prevent the EU from claiming the moral high ground. This moral wrong goes much deeper and goes back a long way. Who today would dare claim, in all sincerity, that, at the turn of this century, the member states of the EU had not, to their shame, asked Qaddafi and his minions to play the role of additional soldiers in their anti-immigration policy/policies? Who would dare argue, hand on heart and with a clear conscience, that the Libyan dictator had not, disgracefully, been "repaid" by European leaders for this base task by having his regime regain the misplaced appearance of international respectability?
Politics, it's true, is not about morals, only effectiveness in terms of the goals one sets. The European Union has the right not to want to take in "all the misery of the world", to use the expression of former French prime minister Michel Rocard. But can the cynicism of realpolitik be pushed so far as to make no distinction between migrants and refugees? Is the temptation to hand over responsibility here to Turkey not a case of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire? Erdogan is not Qaddafi, of course. One was a dictator of the worst kind; the other is a democratically elected president. Erdogan, however, is playing his own game, raising increasing doubts, and that includes in his own country. The journalist Can Dundar, who is currently facing charges, told Marie Jigo of Le Monde that Europe was making a mistake in working with him: "In trying to resolve the refugee crisis, they are in danger of causing a new influx of political refuges. One of these days, Turks and Kurds could come knocking on the EU's door asking for asylum". Have the members of the European Council taking this possibility into account? Alas, it is by no means certain.
Michel Theys