The task of the Convention. The desire to relaunch the political dimension of European integration, once the current storm has died down (see this column on 18 March), is gaining momentum. As we await the outcome of the European Council, the President of the Convention himself has spoken most explicitly and with the most foresight about this; it is indeed the case that it is for the Convention to produce the new texts on the subject of common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and European defence policy (ESDP). The tone of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's address to the members of the Convention at the beginning of the week befitted the occasion. He drew attention to "the state of decay of the major common policies anticipated in the treaty on the Union: external policy and security policy. We should not be blind to the state of European integration today, nor should we work any less hard to change things so that the deep sense of unity between our peoples can come to the fore and become a force able to play a decisive role in a new world, a world which is fair, tolerant, law-abiding and, for as long as is possible, peaceful." He would appear to have chosen every last word with the utmost care.
The political aspects of the Constitutional Treaty will be finalised in the autumn. On a more personal level, VGE has at the same time stated that any headlong rush into the desired relaunch should be avoided. He used the images of surfers riding the ocean waves: you have to allow yourself to be swept along by the waves and not try to go against the flow; when the right current comes along, you have to go with it. The Convention will start to deal with foreign and defence policy in May, and it will take as long as it takes. First and foremost, "we have to sort things out amongst ourselves" and restore a climate of confidence, which is indispensable.
It is against this backdrop that we should read VGE's statement at a press conference on extending the work of the Convention to the end of September ("If there is a need for a few extra weeks for drafting purposes, what's wrong with that? I don't see what difference it makes whether we finish in June or September.") and on presenting the final report not at the Thessaloniki Summit at the end of June, but at a special summit to be held later ("the timetable is not the key issue; the key issue is the quality of our work). This will delay until the autumn the presentation of the Constitutional Treaty to heads of government - this will now take place under the Italian presidency and raises a timetabling problem for the Intergovernmental Conference. I shall come back to this aspect of the IGC at an appropriate time, as it has a clear impact on the participation of the candidate countries (those which have already concluded their accession negotiations) in the signing of the Constitutional Treaty on an equal footing with the existing Member States, i.e. with a right of veto (something which was not provided for by the Laeken Declaration).
Regrets of heads of government. It is indeed true that nothing would be possible without the general backing of a majority of heads of government. However, at this point in time a good many of them regret not having had from the outset a "European reflex" which would have enabled them to avoid so many trials and tribulations - being out of kilter with public opinion back home, their parliamentary majorities being cut, their authority over their own parties being weakened, needing to repair relations with their European partners - that it is more than likely that the sentiments expressed by President Chirac (see this column on 14 March, quoted earlier) would be widely shared. The conclusions of the Summit should provide us with an initial response.
Olivier Duhamel is positive. As we eagerly await what the future may bring, we have to live with what we have already, which is not a great deal. I have already had the opportunity to highlight the inconsistencies in the arguments of those who blame Europe for not acting as a political entity when they know full well that the CFSP does not exist yet, or in any case is not yet up and running; similarly, I have highlighted the double standards of those who oppose the CFSP and then criticise Europe for not playing an effective part in world affairs or for not being involved at all. Olivier Duhamel, a member of the Convention, has described these inconsistencies better than I ever could, but has followed this up with something positive. Mr Duhamel's response to those who scorn a divided Europe, a Europe "made to look ridiculous" in the unstable times that we are currently living though, and who bemoan the death of its political unity, is as follows: "How can we undo what has never been done? Why is it that so many people see a house being knocked down which has not yet been built? There can only be one explanation: they see it in their minds, they want it, they dream of it. Behind the overstated criticism lies a surprising sense of expectation." And he reminded us that the European Union, on which scorn is so often poured, has nonetheless achieved the most important political result of all, namely an end to wars between its members: "War between France and German unavoidably marked the lives of our great-grandparents, grandparents and parents. For our children it has lost all meaning." This is a solid base on which to undertake further work.
(F.R.)