Historic turning point, if…Reading the papers and scanning the headlines, the three days of Gothenburg were important not for what happened at the European Council, but rather on the fringes: the meeting with the United States and the violence of the demonstrations. It has indeed to be recognized that the Heads of State and Government said nothing new over the Irish vote or the debate on the future of Europe, and that they did not have much new to add to what Foreign Ministers could have said on the "hot subjects" of foreign policy (Middle East, Balkans, etc..). But sustainable development - the Summit's central topic, which takes up a quarter of the "Presidency Conclusions" - was unfairly eclipsed by political issues, as the principles chosen in Gothenburg may represent a turning point in EU action, a new way of tackling development and its priorities.
In this field, however, Gothenburg did not provide operational measures, but only a statement of firm political will, the goals, procedures and a partial timetable. Under these conditions, it was not easy to stir up the crowds. And moving from good intentions to actions will be no easy step, as differences between Member States emerge as soon as we look at concrete measures: tax on energy, abolition of aid to tobacco, the renunciation of aid to coal, and so forth. Yet, the subject is at least as important for the future of humanity as climate change. For patient readers, I shall soon be devoting a specific comment.
For now, let's respect the presentation made to the public.
American sabotage of the fight against tax havens? The positive element of the meeting with President Bush resides in a better understanding of the reciprocal stances between people who possibly feared even firmer stances, in view of differences on essential subjects: Kyoto, missile-shield, new round of trade talks, unilateralism, American extraterritorial legislation, as well as (something that is hardly spoken about) the American sabotage of international action against "tax havens", worked out, with its "black list" in the framework of the OECD after years of work. Whatever the appeasing statements made in Gothenburg, on all these issues, differences remain. In particular, regarding the new WTO Round, the Fifteen "urge" the United States to join the EU in hoping that it will be "inclusive", covering strategic objectives well-known to Europe, which leads one to understand that on this subject the two sides are still far apart. But, generally, President Bush's initial guidelines were no bad surprise as they were broadly known; personal contacts and the readiness to dialogue that appeared will doubtless contribute is smoothing out the difficult bits. That's all that can be said for now.
The fascist nature of the violence. The violence that erupted in Gothenburg had at least one merit: that of unmasking certain groups of pseudo-protesters. Their fascist nature was there to see, if one gives the word "fascist" its real significance: violent minorities that want to impose their views through force. The Swedish Prime Minister spoke of "criminal groups who want to destroy democracy" and President Prodi stressed that these groups "undermine the message of peaceful demonstrators". Movements that have ideas and conviction to defend are beginning to understand the trap; Greenpeace, whose pioneering role and merits are unquestionable, disassociated itself from these criminals; its director for Europe, Hans Wolters, declared that the message against wild globalisation and in favour of the Kyoto Protocol was demolished by the acts of violence and that no political message was made by the protesters. And this comes just at a time when movement towards a large number of Greenpeace ideas and those of other bodies are being affirmed by democratic means, be it progress in the idea of world governance or the action by Pascal Lamy for a WTO Round introducing rules of play in globalisation. Protesters of good faith must encourage these developments, which still need that encouragement; groups like Attac (which supports the Tobin tax) and others that want to affirm,, and not destroy, democracy must set themselves apart from street fascism.
Other aspects of the summit deserve being emphasized, like the decision in principle of admitting Ukraine (as well as Moldova) in the "European Conference". In the "enlargement" issue, the controversy over "date or no date" for concluding the first set of negotiations was the subject of a compromise that doesn't mean a great deal: the end-2002 deadline is indicated but together with a verb in the conditional, and stipulating "for candidate countries that are ready". Several Heads of State or Government explicitly stressed, after the Summit, that the indication of the date comprised no commitment, but represents "a possibility, an encouragement" (Jean-Claude Juncker). This issue is linked to the Irish "no" to the Nice Treaty. For this, see the "short account" that follows.
(F.R.)