Europe of Defence: helping or hindering? This column is not going to take a position on France's decision to rejoin NATO's military structures. European treaties confer absolutely no remit at all to Community institutions in this domain and each member state makes its own decisions. The question it would be interesting to answer is whether the French decision will facilitate or, on the contrary, hinder the gradual implementation of European foreign and defence policies. Everyone will answer as they so wish, in accordance with their political leanings. Some people will consider that the trajectory towards the CFSP and the ESDP will be slowed down and even blocked but others will see it as having been facilitated and accelerated. We may well ask whether these are sincere or preconceived responses. They at least indicate that all the different parties consider the main concern is that CFSP and ESDP make progress; if they really are sincere about things…
Personally, I cannot understand why the prospects for developing the Europe of Defence were encouraging until yesterday, when almost all member states were already a part of NATO structures, but are discouraging now that the only member state on the margins of NATO is joining all the others.
Mutual respect. Last week's column about the Union for the Mediterranean's (UfM) situation and prospects insisted that one of the indispensable conditions for any union is reciprocity of commitment (with possible transition measures). This does not at all mean, for example, that when a non-EU Mediterranean country does not respect European criteria on religious freedom, freedom of expression or human rights in general, the EU would be duty-bound to apply these criteria to the nationals of the country in question. The EU is duty-bound by its own rules but in the absence of reciprocity, there is no contractual arrangement whereby is should take third countries into account. Hence, if third countries demand their autonomy and right to apply their religious and other standards in their own countries and ensure that their way of life and traditions are respected, Europe has the same right.
Some pundits consider that Europe has demonstrated a certain arrogance in believing that its principles and rules should be asserted in the whole world and by its dishing out lessons left, right and centre. Sometimes, certain convictions which we Europeans consider as sacrosanct, provoke reservations and concerns elsewhere. The ultimate example is that of child labour, where it would be allowed, indeed considered positive by the children themselves, in some civilisations, if certain strict conditions are respected.
Europe has been criticised for not having sufficiently taken into account the values of other civilisations (sometimes ancient ones) and other mentalities. Should Europe therefore sometimes moderate its zeal and right to speak out? (See below the case of the claimed “universal competence” of its courts). This is all very well and good but it should therefore at the same time more clearly and forcefully demand the right to its own way of life, as it has evolved over the centuries. A few random examples: in our countries, primary school girls and boys go to the swimming pool together; the freedom of expression allows religion to be criticised and cartoons to be freely drawn. There is a whole host of other examples. Customs and traditions can also evolve, that's obvious, but it is up to European citizens (including legal immigrants) to decide when and how. Europe has to demand respect for its culture, its civilisation and its way of life. Inevitable and even healthy developments in any dynamic civilisation must not be imposed from outside.
After Belgium, Spain too gives up. The principle of “universal competence” for national courts in Spain will disappear. The Spanish parliament expressed this wish by an overwhelming majority. The other member state that assumed the right to this law had already radically restricted it. The current Spanish law allows national judges to investigate large-scale crime committed abroad, irrespective of the torturer or victim's nationality. This does not involve positions being taken by human rights organisations (which obviously have the right, indeed the duty to speak out) or the many “resolutions” as produced by the European Parliament but rather, genuine decisions made by the national courts. One ambitious judge, perhaps seeking to raise his profile, decided to rule against all those he wanted to. The way ahead was therefore open to an avalanche of sentences and appeals. If all the other countries of the world assumed the right to competencies of this sort…
One aspect of European claims to legally represent the world's conscience will therefore disappear. International competencies recognised within the UN remain valid but not everything is going so well here either. This column will return to this issue tomorrow.
(F.R./transl.rh)