Discouraged no, disappointed yes. Giorgio Napolitano has announced that he will not stand at the forthcoming European elections, and at the same time took position on several issues related to Community current affairs (see our bulletin of 8 January, p.6). The date of birth is not the only reason behind his decision. He was also somewhat disappointed at the lack of attention and understanding he saw for European construction in general (if the world of politics is only concerned by national internal squabbles, "sight becomes shorter and the necessary cultural depth is lacking"), and the activity of the European Parliament in particular, which "unfolds within the silence of the media and the indifference of political forces". Many things astonish and disappoint him. Criticisms of the "old Europe", which, according to much of the media, has failed, are "stupefying and mystifying"; the alarm expressed at the theoretical two-speed Europe is "confused and artificial", because it is true that the Constitution should guarantee a framework of common principles, objectives and rules for Europe of 25, but within this framework, "differentiated forms of integration must be seen as physiological".
Happily, Mr Napolitano is disappointed but not discouraged. In the coming months, he will continue fully to play his part as president of the EP's "Constitutional Affairs" committee, and his commitment to Europe will not wane thereafter. All those who are aware of the prestige which surrounded him, even outside his political family, understand what a loss his departure is for Europe, and what hope the durability of his commitment brings.
Without foundation. The recent misunderstandings between the President of the European Commission and international Jewish organisations should never have arisen, for two fundamental reasons: a) the British newspaper which published the letter by Mr Edgar Bronfman and Cobi Benatoff, the presidents of the international and European Jewish Congresses, with its harsh criticism of the European Commission, should have included the date on which it was written, which was prior to a meeting between Mr Prodi and representatives of these organisations. This meeting had cleared up all misunderstandings, and it is journalistically incorrect to put an old text on the front page as if it were news, with no mention of its date. The way it was published gave rise to a strong impression that this was the latest in a long line of attempts to present the Commission in a bad light; b) the two grievances laid at the Commission's door in this letter were based on incorrect reasoning.
First grievance: the opinion poll. Most media and commentators claim that European public opinion considers Israel to be the greatest threat to peace in the world. This is not so. The question as it was phrased in the survey was "for each of the following countries, say whether or not, in your opinion, it represents a threat to world peace". It was not asking people which was the biggest threat. Moreover, neither terrorism in general nor the Palestinian Authority were mentioned. Therefore, for most of the people taking part, the question came down to whether the Israeli/Palestinian situation contained threats to peace; clearly, the answer couldn't be anything other than positive. It may well be that a proportion of the respondents intended specifically to underline Israel's responsibility, but it cannot be reasonably claimed that this was the intention of all of them, and in any case, nobody was invited to specify whether they considered Israel to be "the greatest threat".
Second grievance: the non-publication of a report on the re-emergence of anti-Semitism in Europe. It was not in the European Commission's power to decide whether to publish the report or ban it, because the EUMC (European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia) is an independent body; and so it should be, because it must not be subject to political influence. The muddled explanations of the EUMC say that the problem was one of the conclusions in the document, stating the culpability of "young Muslims" in physical attacks against Jews, and in vandalising or destroying synagogues. The EUMC's main job is to make sure that immigrants from outside the Community are not the victims of violence or discrimination within it; the idea that in a small number of cases, they themselves can be guilty of racist behaviour, was perhaps not thought "politically correct", and the report was pulled (see this column of 6 December). But the Commission had nothing to do with this, and Romano Prodi reacted by deciding to arrange a seminar on anti-Semitism. This initiative has now been confirmed, as has the fervent European will to fight all instances of anti-Semitism within the EU. The Jewish organisations have expressed their confidence in and friendship for Romano Prodi. The misunderstandings have been cleared up. And thus unpleasant events can have positive effects.
(F.R.)