Lift-off. The debate over the Constitution needs a push to lift it above the sometimes mischievous barricades behind which certain actors presently stand. The fine speeches were not lacking during the roman opening of the IGC. However, transition from the principals, noble by definition, to the detailing of each country's intentions, too often underlined a failure in ambitions and a slide towards the defence of evidently national interests. According to Guy Verhostadt, at times we see a discussion between 'carpet merchants.' On their side, Ministers for Foreign Affairs began the point by point analysis of the future specialised Council Presidencies (number, duration and balance) that had already been undertaken within the Convention. Exactly what should have been avoided to provide the IGC with a role that is its own. All the more so that (why not say it?) certain ministers have an understanding of Europe, its history and functioning, that is clearly inferior to that of many Convention members. In a recent interview, the Convention Vice-President Giuluano Amato held the following exchange with his interviewer: - What concerns me, is that from 4 October to 12 December, six meetings are planned between Ministers for Foreign Affairs - Are they insufficient? - On the contrary. Such a significant number of meetings equate to a text to be rewritten, not a text to be approved with a few adjustments.
Thus, let us try to raise the tone of this debate, by providing an account of a conference, preceded by a seminar, organised at the end of last week by 'Notre Europe' (the association chaired by Jacques Delors) and by the European Policy Centre. When a conference on the Constitution is opened by 'introductory remarks' from Jacques Delors, ends with 'concluding remarks' from Etienne Davignon, and the participants include Giorgio Napolitano, Maria Joao Rodriguez, Philippe de Schoutheete, Jacek Saryus-Wolski, George Vassiliou and other persons of similar standing, there is a certain amount of importance in becoming familiar with the results. It was not foreseen to approve texts. For failure to reach formal conclusions, I extracted a few teachings.
Retrospect success. The first lesson concerns the retrospect success of several fundamental concepts outlined by Jacques Delors in the past, but which have been neglected or even rejected from the outset. The first insight represents a regret, particularly today, as years have past and history unfolded differently. Immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Commission President informally suggested immediately offering Central and Eastern European countries participation in a major European conference, before undertaking the slow and complicated process of accession to the EU, in order to immediately mark and in a spectacular manner the unification of Europe. Only one Head of State or Government (Francois Mitterrand) supported this move. We know what happened next, with promises broken concerning accession from 2000, and the absence of corresponding progress over deepening. On the other hand, three other Delorian insights remain topical.
A. Three ambitious and at the same time reasonable objectives for a Europe that will soon have 25 member states, then 27 and even more later. It is necessary to drop the idea that everything can be done together. The three shared objectives are: a) an area of peace, stability and mutual understanding encompassing, as soon as possible, the Balkans. 'The alchemy of reconciliation' that initially worked between the Six (and whose human greatness and audacity have been immeasurable) must extend to the whole continent; b) a framework for sustainable and balanced development, which notably implies the notion of solidarity and that of cooperation; c) a foundation of shared values, while encouraging respect for national (and regional) identities and cultural diversity.
If within the next fifteen years these objectives are met, Europe will appear to future historians as a model and example of 'mastered globalisation.' This vision seduced the seminar that discussed it, and Jean Nestor was able to present the final conference as the result of a very wide-ranging consensus.
B. 'Differentiation' between member states. In fact, it has always existed in the EEC and it continues to exist in the EU in key areas such as currency (EMU is, according to Jacque Delors' definition, 'enhanced cooperation that does not dare say its name') and the Schengen area. Differentiation represents a vital corollary to the 'three aims' theory, especially for the new fields such as foreign policy and defence policy, where unanimity does not exist between Member States, but it is crucial that those that want to move forward may do so. The term 'differentiation' (instead of the notion of vanguard or pilot groups that raise concern and distrust), has been supported by the conference. Questions of terminology sometimes have great importance.
C. Revision of UN organisation and of its sector-based organisations, as well as of international monetary organisations (IMF, World Bank). In particular, the conference supported the creation of a United Nations 'Economic and Social Council', as Jacques Delors proposed in 1993, with political responsibility over sector-based agencies and organisations (WTO, FAO, ILO etc) and capable of fulfilling the role of an international environment agency.
The division between member states and accession countries is now artificial. The second lesson that I draw from this conference is that, with near unanimous support, it is necessary to abandon the concept of an EU separated into two groups: the Member States and the accession countries. This division has become artificial. The accession countries have all approved their entry into the EU, in a very clear and sometimes massive way. They increasingly participate in Community activities and within a few months they will be fully fledged members. It is necessary to begin by reasoning in terms of a Union of 25, which is all the more logical as nothing separates the two groups. Of course there exist differences of opinion, tradition and sensitivities between the 25 member states (if this was not the case 'differentiation' argued at the highest levels would have no meaning), but the boundary is not between the established and new member states, nor over economics (certain accession countries are now close to some member states from a point of view of economic development and per capita income, and are ahead with regards to education, or research, or other assessment criteria), and, in particular, nor on the political level. If the plan concerning 'structured cooperation' in terms off defence occurs, the time will come when we will see that a few of the older states do not want to take part, while a few of the 'new' do. The same applies for the single currency: possible delays will not be due to a lack of political will, but due to time required to fulfil the financial and economic conditions. Moreover, it is of their own free will that three established countries are not participating in the single currency.
The conference participants generally share these considerations. Europe must reject the artificial distinction between established and new Europe, invented in Washington by a genius of diplomatic tact and politics.
Jacques Delors' introductory remarks. In his introductory remarks for the conference (taking into account the seminar's results, which took place the day before), Jacques Delors underlined that: 1) enlargement is a blessing for Europe, transforming it into an anxiety signifies badly assessing the positive elements; 2) the Convention proved that the method works. Though, if each member state wants to modify 5% of the Convention's result, it would be a disaster, as the 5% for one are not another's 5%. What needs to be established is the chapter on common policies, as the Convention was unable to work on it. It is crucial that this chapter be then modified by super-majority, as common policies cannot be set in stone; 3) the crucial element for the institutional functioning of the EU resides in the Commission/General Affairs Council tandem, which must not be replaced with presidential teams that would attribute themselves a role of initiative, to the Commission's detriment. However, the latter cannot have a right to initiative over foreign policy, as it does not have the competence, nor the ability, nor the legal or political justification to do so; 4) from the outset, each member state must be represented within the Commission, as the accession countries must all be present for political and 'educational' reasons. Though, after lengthy consideration, Mr Delors is convinced that the future number of Commissioners must be less than the number of member states; 5) economic governance of the Euro Area must be enhanced, as the economy is not solely based on monetary policy and the control of budgetary deficits.
Polish criticism of 'defence' project. During the talks over enhanced cooperation, Jacek Saryus-Wolski (Poland) underlined clear reservations over the draft Constitution's chapter concerning military cooperation. Poland is favourable towards enhanced cooperation on condition that it is transparent, and in particular open to all member states. However, in his opinion, the provisions on 'structured cooperation' in this matter do not respect these principals. The political and military conditions for participation are ambiguous, and it is the states that already participate, who decide over the accession of new countries. Giorgio Napolitano and Philippe de Schoutheete challenged this interpretation: participation is open to those that accept the 'most binding undertakings' and which are able to respect them. However, it is true that, this being an intergovernmental matter, the Commission does not take part in the procedure for the admission of new members and that only the member states within the structured cooperation take part in the corresponding vote. It was definitively noted that the protocol detailing how member states fulfil the criteria for the highest military capabilities do not exist as yet, and that these criteria are thus as yet undefined. This is a delicate dossier, which requires clarification. The criticisms cited above indicate that Poland is interested in taking part in 'structured cooperation', which is a positive thing.
(F.R.)