|
By Shadaba Islam SO much for European unity. Hopes that the European Union (EU) would be able to forge a joint front following the stunning defeat of the bloc’s much-touted reform treaty by Irish voters on June 12 were summarily dashed at the EU summit in Brussels last week as leaders quarrelled openly over the reasons for the latest crisis and its domestic and international implications.
The renewed outbreak of acrimonious EU in-fighting is not unexpected: Having spent the last eight years hammering out new constitutions and treaties — needed to streamline decision-making and create the new posts of EU president and foreign minister — only to see them rejected by voters, first in 2005 by France and the Netherlands and now by Ireland, European leaders are quite simply in a bind over what to do next.
Since the new treaty can only enter into force if it is ratified by all 27 member states, the hope is that Ireland will hold another referendum on the blueprint once the other 26 countries have ratified it, possibly by the end of the year. Dublin has been given until mid-October to put forward proposals to solve the impasse.
But in a sign of more trouble ahead, Irish Premier Brian Cowen has been careful not to promise a second referendum and, in another blow to proponents of the treaty, the Czech Republic is also being coy about prospects for securing its approval in parliament. Ratification in Britain — another ‘problem’ country — is being held up by a legal challenge. The treaty’s send-off to a virtual no-man’s land has major implications for the bloc’s hopes of playing a more forceful global role.
The appointment of first-ever EU president and foreign minister were designed to give Europe more visibility and a higher profile on the international stage, especially in crisis zones such as the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan. There were also hopes that this would ensure the EU spoke with one voice when dealing with difficult countries like China and Iran — and would help put relations with a new US president on a fresh footing.
With plans for the two key jobs — and the creation of a European foreign service — now on the backburner, foreign diplomats in Brussels predict continuing EU disarray on key foreign policy challenges and an increased tendency to focus on domestic affairs and the immediate neighbourhood rather than extending Europe’s global reach.
The current stalemate has important repercussions on future expansion: British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he is ‘still confident’ enlargement can proceed, despite the Irish rejection. But this has been emphatically denied by French President Nicholas Sarkozy who warned in Brussels there can be no further enlargement of the bloc, casting doubts even on Croatia’s entry in 2010. The other formal candidates for entry are Macedonia and Turkey but both countries face enormous political obstacles in joining the club.
Current rules “expressly foresee that Europe cannot go beyond 27”, Sarkozy told reporters after the summit, adding: “There will be no enlargement of Europe as long as there are no new institutions.”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker agree with Sarkozy’s sentiments but others are furious at the mercurial French leader’s stance. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has called Sarkozy’s comments ‘unacceptable’, Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik has also warned that Croatia “should not become the first victim of the Irish referendum”.
‘‘We have to keep our word, it would be a wrong signal to the Balkan states to put a question mark over enlargement,” she said.
EU policymakers fear that delays in EU membership prospects will set back foreign investment and economic growth across the Balkans, a region still recovering from the civil wars of the 1990s. Croatia is aiming to become the second ex-Yugoslav country to join, after Slovenia in 2004.
Squabbles over responsibility for the Irish fiasco are even more toxic. Most officials in Brussels recognise that Irish voters were reacting to fears of ever-increasing EU influence and fears this would force changes in Ireland’s anti-abortion laws, its much-cherished neutrality and corporate tax rates.
But French President Sarkozy has also started a poisonous internal blame game which threatens to further breach any remaining remnants of EU unity. At a press conference in Brussels, the French leader lashed out at European Commission trade policies, saying this was the reason alarmed Irish farmers had voted against the reform treaty.
”A child dies of starvation every 30 seconds and the commission wanted to reduce European agriculture production by 21 per cent during World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks. This was really counter-productive,” said Sarkozy. EU trade chief Peter Mandelson was especially responsible for the Irish treaty defeat, said Sarkozy, reflecting France’s opposition to any reduction in costly EU farm subsidies, a key element of the Doha round of negotiations on liberalising world trade.
Paris is also hostile to José Manuel Barroso, the commission president, because he is seen as representing an anti-protectionist, “Anglo-Saxon”, free market agenda. Berlusconi recently called for action to change “the attitude of the European commissioners, who leave governments in difficulties with their declarations”.
The Italian leader is especially peeved at a commission decision to launch an illegal state aid probe into an emergency 300-million-euro loan aimed at saving flag carrier airline Alitalia from bankruptcy.
The EU executive is fighting back. Barroso has hit out against Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi for using ‘populist slogans’ to woo public opinion. But neither Sarkozy nor Berlusconi are likely to change their ways. The commission has always been a useful whipping boy for EU governments seeking to escape public criticism for unpopular reforms. However, fighting between leaders is hardly the best way to win the hearts and minds of European citizens.
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Brussels.
|
RSS