A Proliferation that does not exist. Dear heads of government, a little reserve please in the announcements of bilateral or trilateral alliances! And please refrain from basing your European evaluations and one-off agreements on the political affiliation of the governments concerned!
I don't believe that there is a dangerous proliferation of bilateral or trilateral alliances in the EU, but rather an excessive tendency (by politicians and the media) to overstate common positions on one specific issue or another. Such convergence has always been part of the European norm. From the dawn of the Community, the Benelux memoranda and consultations between other Member States have been part of the normal preparation of European decisions, and bilateral summits are a well anchored tradition in the mores of the EEC first, then the EU. These forms of co-operation do not have the character of an Alliance and certainly nothing exclusive; the head of government who one day meets his or her colleague from a Southern country will do the same the following week with a colleague from the North. Preparations for the Barcelona Summit, which are now leading to an avalanche of converging stances, is positive as it will facilitate talks at the Summit itself (the issues on the agenda under the Lisbon Strategy are so numerous that in-depth debates on all of them would not be possible during the meeting) and enable heads of government to familiarise themselves with at times controversial concepts and texts. The mistake is to present shared views at a bilateral meeting as alliances or "axes" (word to most avoid) between two capitals.
It will be a great day for Europe… these superficial announcements correspond to no lasting reality, even if blown up by prestigious bodies of the press. Often, the heads of governments concerned themselves try to stress that their concordance of views on a given issue in no way means an exclusive alliance. On the eve of the Blair-Berlusconi meting in Rome, while welcoming convergence with Italy on "economic modernisation", the British Minister for European Affairs, Peter Hain, stressed his country's increasingly closer ties with France and Germany, placing emphasis on the search for "transversal convergence". It is obvious that Tony Blair is pushing ahead with his policy aimed at providing his country with a central role in European activities, to plunge it into all Community deliberations, and that he has no intention of being locked in this or that bilateral alliance. Last year, he subscribed to a joint document with several of his colleagues from "small countries": the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Ireland. It would be good if all heads of government had a similar attitude of openness, avoiding the impression of two-way or three-way alliances and "boards". Sure, bi-or trilateral alliances at times have a defining influence on a specific topic: suffice it to cite the Franco-German refusal, last year, to accept a binding timetable for the opening up of the electricity market. But in a Union of Fifteen, and with the United Kingdom increasingly involved in seeking convergence, there can no longer be "boards" of two countries, on condition, of course, that the "Community method" works correctly. It will be a great day for Europe when all Member States, especially "the small ones", understand to what extent this method and role of the European Commission protect them against any "board", present and future.
Surprising words by Mr. Aznar. And what to say of the temptation to base so-called alliances on the political affiliations of governments? I was surprised by Mr. Aznar's recent remarks, President-in-Office of the European Council, accusing "Socialist majorities" in power in certain Member States of slowing down economic reforms in Europe. It's normal that a government should express its political sensitivities, even at European level, but fundamental European policies are not determined by the vagaries of elections, they have never been in the history of European construction. Is there any need to recall the unity of intentions between Helmut Schmidt and Giscard d' Estaing, between Francois Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl, despite their different political affiliations? And that the aforementioned Franco-German common position was defined by President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder. Furthermore, if correctly reported by the press, Mr. Aznar's claim is not even exact, as Tony Blair, backed in his country by a "Socialist majority", is, at European level, in the vanguard in the fight for structural reforms and liberalisation (all while having re-established social guarantees and protection at national level), and France's attitude towards public utility services remains constant, whatever the majority of the day. Majorities change, Europe remains. (F.R.)