It is never too late to understand that Europe is political. We often heard or read last week that, after the Austrian affair, nothing will ever be the same again in the EU. The event was considered as the birth of political Europe in public opinion. Objectively, this is quite inexact. Europe was political from its birth, from the very first paragraph of its first Treaty. Its aims have always been political, and although they first went via coal and steel, it is simply because these two products were at the time the nerve centre of the war, and, with an act of unheard-of boldness, the creators of the ECSC withdrew ownership from the nation states and placed it in common, in the hands of a high independent authority of governments.
But what does it matter? The main thing is that, all of a sudden, commentators and public opinion have discovered that our united Europe is a political creation, with its fundamental principles and values written in large letters and the ability to keep any Member State that does not respect such values out of European decision-making. Today, everyone has heard of Articles 6 and 7, which come before any economic provisions, even if no-one read them or cited them. But, we repeat, what does it matter? What does matter is that, today, people have a fairer idea of the meaning and nature of European construction. One can but be pleased about this and consider that, at the end of the day, the initial consideration is exact: nothing will ever be the same again.
The brown death would be far more dangerous if there were no EU. This reasoning should be pushed even further to note that, thanks to the European Union as it has been built up over half a century of effort, the existence in Europe of an anti-democratic, racist or xenophobic regime has become both politically and even materially impossible. The Austrian government has been forced to subscribe to a declaration of loyalty and allegiance to the principles of the Treaty and to its fundamental values, which is something historic. Yes, historic, because the Austrian government not only undertakes to recognise "horrendous crimes of the National Socialist regime" but also to carry out a critical self-examination of the past. Austria's situation has always been somewhat ambiguous for one objective reason: the fact that the county was the victim of but also partly jointly responsible for the National Socialist regime. And this had practically prevented public opinion from truly being aware of the past. The taboo is now broken. The Vienna government has also said it is fully engaged in the European Union project, a guarantee against any risk of sliding towards ideologies that do not have their place in Europe, on pain of having to leave the European family.
Let us say it loud and clear, as no-one says it as clearly as they should: these positive changes would not have been possible without the EU, and Mr Haider would not have signed the radical recantation in the above mentioned declaration. Other aberrations that European countries experienced after the war would not have been possible if the countries concerned had already belonged to the Union (the Greek colonel adventure, for example). According to Max Kohnstamm, if today's united Europe had existed before, there would never even have been a Hitler or the Second World War! We do not know whether he is right or not, but we can still hear his voice broken by emotion as he expressed this conviction on the phone. Perhaps in reading the lines above, some readers will better understand the reasons for the passion we feel, with others, when we speak of European construction and of safeguarding our common civilisation.
But the reader may also object to the fact that some phrases of a declaration do not weigh very heavily compared to intolerance and are certainly not sufficient to do away with distrust and suspicion. In other words: the declaration signed by Jörg Haider is all very well but his ministers are in the government and we need more than this to feel reassured. This is true. But what makes us confident all the same is the rigorous and meticulous vigilance now in place and the certainty that Community Institutions would not hesitate to use the above-mentioned Articles 6 and 7 if necessary. Let us go further: the very existence of these articles and above all the attitude of all the European countries and the large majority of Austrians makes real infringements of the principles and values that these articles set out impossible. Certain excessive reactions, we feel, do not take into account a reality that is, however, simple: if Mr Haider's party won 27% of the votes, this means that 73% of the Austrians voted against him.
Even in the press room. … To say that there is a country with a fascist majority in Europe today is wrong and dishonest, and is an insult to a great civilisation. This is what makes us want to lay into certain exaggerations heard for example in the press room of the European Commission (where journalists last week played the role of amplifiers of public opinion rather than their normal role of asking questions and noting the answers), and to cite at least two such journalists, who were on opposite lines. Thus:
- One voice accused the European Institutions of treating Austria "worse than Iraq". The head of the press service, Jonathan Faull, reacted strongly, rightly recalling that Iraq was bombarded and subject to very severe sanctions, whereas Austria is never mentioned without it being recalled that it is democracy and very, very respectable.
- Another voice asked for the possibility of expelling a Member State from the EU to be included in the Treaty during the forthcoming institutional reform. Expelling a country like Austria (or any other), excluding a people because one party leader has set forth unacceptable ideas and because 27% of the population, under exceptional circumstances, have given that leader their vote? The result would be that of removing from the democratic forces of the countries excluded this formidable shield against slide represented by the rules and practices of the European Treaties. Fortunately, Romano Prodi had already, two days earlier, answered this fanaticism of Inquisition by declaring: "The Treaty of Rome does not provide for a clause for the voluntary or forced withdrawal of a Member State. That is why the reasoning behind and the very condition of this extraordinary construction, the European Union, is that any State, when it becomes a member of the Union, should fully and forever accept the fundamental principles. And the Treaty contains precise provisions to ensure respect of these principles". The provisions to which Mr Prodi was referring are far tougher and effective than an expulsion clause: a country that does not respect the fundamental principles would lose its right of vote while remaining subject to all the obligations set out in the Treaty. It would have duties without rights. Pending its return to the right road at the following elections.
Two essential requirements. Fortunately, we are not there yet. The commitments undertaken in Vienna will be maintained, and it will be Mr Haider who will modify his attitude, and not the EU that will change its principles. In our opinion, even the sharing of roles between the national authorities of the Fourteen and the European Commission has worked well. In the tricky situation that had been created, Europe had two requirements, both essential: being firm and speaking clearly against any risk of aberration; safeguarding the working of the Institutions at a time when the EU is absolutely in need of them, with the Intergovernmental Conference which opens next week, enlargement negotiations which extend to six new countries, and the new areas of work (security and defence, area of freedom/justice/security) which are developing. The declaration by the Fourteen and the behaviour of the European Commission complement each other in order to safeguard these requirements. They do not constitute small compromises but the two pillars of indispensable balance. Europe cannot be led in the current circumstances by getting all worked up about it. The MEPs that reproached Romano Prodi for his so-called weakness should think things over more closely instead of seeking to be quoted on the television or having a headline in the press. The heads of government may allow themselves to be tough because the Commission pledges to guarantee the working of the Union, in the interest of the European peoples and the peoples of the applicant countries.
Governments and Commission should now add another element to their reflections, namely they should seriously analyse the reasons for which in one Member State today, yesterday in another, considerable percentages of the citizens give favourable votes to xenophobic vociferation. In our opinion, one does not have to go too far to find the answer, as it is to be found in the results of opinion polls: Europeans seek more security in their daily life and call for better protection of their civilisation, their way of life and their identity. When their fears and uncertainties are added to by the outrageous studies of insouciant people within some section of the UN, who announce that Europe should in coming years take in almost 200 million nationals from other continents, how can one be surprised that the European peoples do not sometimes feel a certain disquiet? The EU should not simply judge and condemn. It must also try to understand and at the same time carry out self-examination. We shall come back to this, if you are willing.
Ferdinando Riccardi