& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Is the future of the Eu in peril?

Muhammad Zamir
THERE'S no denying that the European Union is currently in a political crisis. The UK, which has just taken up the helm of the EU's six-month rotating presidency on 1 July, faces an "uphill struggle" to pick up the pieces.
There have been big casualties of the recent referenda and the deadlocked budget. The most important appears to be 'the European idea and the European instinct of its citizens'. It is now clear that it is no longer politically incorrect to be anti-European, especially among young people. The referenda also provided an opportunity for voters to pass judgement on deeply unpopular governments in many cases over issues quite unrelated to the treaty or even the European Union in general. In a sense, the Union was taken hostage by the side effect of essentially national political dramas. This rejection was also an example of citizens rebelling against a decision-making system perceived to be too technocratic and too elitist. Many of them saw "Brussels" as a euphemism for some phantasmagorical "other" which has to be confronted, countered, bypassed or undermined as a threat to national interests.
Nevertheless, the last few weeks have seen many responsible politicians in Europe trying to clam troubled waters. A serious introspection is underway under the new British Presidency of the EU. It is trying to underline that it would be wrong to make enlargement the scapegoat for the no votes in France and the Netherlands. It is also attempting to point out that the sense of insecurity and social discontent stemming from high unemployment played a much bigger role in this regard.
Big guns are out again in
Brussels pointing out that EU enlargement has been a great success story. Numerous workshops in the last two weeks have sought to prove that enlargement has not only been one of the most important instruments of European security, but has also reflected the essence of the EU as a civilian policy. Different EU senior officials have also stated that through this process, the EU has managed to extend the area of peace, stability, democracy and the rule of the law.
I agree with them. I believe that
EU has used its soft power as an incentive for reform. One needs only to look at Spain and Portugal in the last 20 years, Poland and Estonia in the past ten years, or Croatia and Turkey in the last few years.
I will now try to touch on some of the significant issues that have emerged within the EU equation and will have to be tackled by the EU in general and the UK in particular.
The foremost among these factors is the question of enlargement of the EU, an agenda which is already stretched to its limits. Despite this however, the EU, as an important global entity, will be expected to stick to its word. This means that Bulgaria and Romania will join the EU in 2007, if they fulfil the conditions. It also implies that accession negotiations will begin with Croatia and Turkey once they meet the strict criteria. Similarly, for the western Balkans, the EU will also abide by the principles laid out through the meeting of the European Council at Thessaloniki in 2004.
The EU, through its Commission, will need to help them achieve this. The Commission, as in the past, will need to give every aspirant country a detailed list of tasks in its accession partnership or country partnership and identify key tasks that the
country must achieve in order to become closer to the EU. This would eventually help them achieve better living standards and job prospects, better opportunities to work, better security and the rule of law. The western Balkan countries could then especially use EU-funded projects to pursue reforms and achieve priorities.
Another related area is Cyprus. The Commission is due to issue its next progress report on Cyprus in November 2005. In this context, Britain as the President of the rotat-
ing EU Council needs to review the problems of Turks living in Cyprus (which joined the EU in May 2004). Two proposed regulations on trade and financial assistance remains blocked in the Council. Over the past few weeks Commission officials have had "rather intensive discussions" with Turkey over the matter of how to unblock these regulations and create a "win-win" situation for everybody.
The EU from now on will need to approach enlargement less from a technical point of view and more from a communication point of view, and engage citizens in proper and open debate. This is required. The EU political leadership needs to understand that while enlargement has been a huge success in ensuring stability and growing prosperity in central and eastern Europe, unfortunately, somewhere along the way, the narrative has disappeared into a maze. This approach of engaging in a genuine dialogue with citizens could start in the form of civil society dialogue in Croatia and Turkey, aimed at giving a greater voice to students, journalists, trade unions and others in the European debate.
The second aspect will relate to the negative effects of budget talks in June this year. It will increase
pressure to shift EU spending away from external to internal matters, especially where expenditure has not already been committed. This is expected to directly affect spending in the Balkans.
The third aspect will be the continued process of ratification of the EU Constitutional Treaty. The European Council will probably debate whether or not to take the Treaty "off the table" -- given developments in France and the Netherlands, but it is unlikely that it will totally halt the ratification process.
Such a decision would be unjustified. So far nine countries have voted -- whether by referendum or parliamentary process -- to ratify the Constitutional Treaty. After France and the Netherlands, another 14 countries will still have the opportunity to pass judgement. Unless this is done, the EU will be fatally wounded. Only when the process of ratification has been completed in all 25 Member States can a final judgement be made about what should be done about the Treaty. It is true that implementation would require ratification by all Member States without exception. However, provision can be considered by the European Council to evaluate the best course of action in circumstances where only four fifths of Member States have ratified. This "moment of truth" may only arrive after the United Kingdom holds its referendum in the second half of next year.
The French and Dutch rejection of the Treaty came just fifty years after the Messina conference, which opened the way to the Treaty of Rome and the launch of the European Community. We should not forget that although Messina is rightly seen as a dramatic breakthrough for the cause of European integration, it was itself the product
of an equally grave crisis for the European project just a year earlier when France rejected the planned European Defence Community. Sometimes crises sow the seeds of unexpected progress.
The next factor that is drawing everybody's attention, particularly of those belonging to the ranks of the populist, nationalist, antiEuropean right, is whether the referendum results are a precursor of the demise of the Euro as Member States turn inwards toward a protectionist direction in an attempt
to respond to public unrest over unemployment and economic stagnation. It is entirely possible that in weeks ahead, there may be negative repercussions on world currency markets for the single currency. The euro's recent rise in value against the United States dollar may be halted or partly reversed. However, given the scale and growth of the US fiscal and external deficits, even this might not take place.
Having spent many years working in the EU, I believe that an implosion of the Union will not happen. The process of European integration touches today many areas of collective public and private lives. It is true that there are some European politicians who would love to turn the clock back. However, short of an apocalyptic slide into economic and political chaos, this does not appear as probable. Nor is a negotiated process of disintegration a serious possibility. It must be understood that in all likelihood, it would be even more difficult to negotiate any kind of disintegration of the Union today rather than agree on further integration.
I consider such a view to be more practical given the fact that some of the challenges being faced today are too great for individual govern-
ments to respond effectively by acting alone. Globalisation, the emergence of the United States as the world's only hyper-power, and systemic threats such as global warming and international terrorism are just some of the challenges that have propelled governments (and increasingly organisations of civil society) to come together, to decide together and to act together. The European Union has been an advanced example of this kind of global response. It is a community based on sovereignty sharing, democracy and the rule of law. It is the kind of body which is being attempted in South-East, East and South Asia, in Latin America and in Africa. Given this dynamic, it is that much more unlikely that the EU will unravel.
One thing is, however, clear. The EU might not be mortally wounded but definitely there will be serious consequences both for day-do-day functioning of the Union as well as for its contract with the peoples of the Union. The EU may now be forced to try to function in the 21st century with a system of governance and a democratic polity that was already grossly inadequate for the world of the late 20th century. Indeed, it may also require the election of new national political leadership in some of the key Member States, over the next two or three years, before a conjuncture emerges in which a new constitutional process can begin. Elections are due in Germany this year, in Italy next year and in France in 2007 with all the current incumbents in some difficulty. This element might eventually induce some within the EU to request that serious new Treaty negotiations be postponed to 2007 or later.
In any case, in the meantime, there will probably be a period of drift and indecision -- a new phase of "Euro-sclerosis." The longer it lasts, the more unpredictable the negative effects will be -- for Europe and for the world.
Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary, PR to EU and Ambassador -- any response to mzamir@dhaka.net