"Common Europe in Global world - illusion or
reality?
Dr. Victor Kamyshanov, IFPC (Moscow)
Paper for
16th Nordic and 4th Baltic Peace Research
Conference
St. Petersburg, Russia, September 11 – 13,
2003
NEW SECURITY CHALLENGES AS CHALLENGES TO PEACE
RESEARCH
Researching
the development of European Union in its modern form one should analyze the achievements of this integration project in
comparison with the reality of contemporary world.
The main
question in this context what is the starting point that defines whether we
observe the progress in or illusion of constructing the Common Europe.
There are a
lot of starting points for analysis of this problem. To answer the question in
consideration one has to establish the system of values that influence respective
position to the process.
It seems
that one has to render an account that the processes within the EU should have
diverse evaluation and get different definitions depending on the starting
point of consideration: whether these are relations within the “old” [1],Europe, between “old” and “new” Europe or within the
“new” Europe.
At the same time European Union is not a closed system. The
outside structures posses their own evaluation of the development
of integration. There are some outer reference points to be taken in
consideration. First of all it concerns the system of relations between USA and
Common Europe and Russia and Common Europe. Inside-European institutional
structures such as NATO, CE, WEU are also influencing this analysis.
This multi-pronged and many-sided situation determines the
main problems in evaluation of the conditions of development
of the European Union and its influence on contemporary political and economic
processes.
British prime-minister Tony Blair in his speech in Ghent (Belgium)
in 2000 extolled the EU saying «the European Union has been one of the
outstanding political achievements of the
twentieth century. It has provided a Framework for law and institutions which
respects the rights of Europe's democracies, large and small: which allows
competition but prevents dominance»[2].
In this
declaration we may trace that mentality of the “old” Europe posses the latent separation of Europe in many participants differentiated
by its political, economic, and social position. By this one can observe that
they have more and more difficulties in understanding each other.
Contemporary
period of development of the EU substantially differs from that corresponding to initial
period of the formation of the EU in the 50-60’s. The specificity of the initial steps of the integration
process consist in high level of demand
of the process by economic structures of Western Europe eager to withstand competition with the US economy.
Formation
of the Common Market and its consequent transformation to the EEC was going on
under the search of balance of economic interests and overcoming political contradictions among the participants to the
integration process in the name of this common goal.
The whole frame of the European community was done reckoning
with this assignment. However the emerging of
new political situation after the brake down of the USSR boosted political
vectors if transformation of the EU’s configuration, complicating at the same
time economic processes within the EU and its relations with potential
newcomers.
Despite
many successes in realization of the plans for Common Europe development of the processes of integration
today it is in close interrelation with existence of different economic,
military-political, and party-political groups and unions that peruse sometimes
incongruous interests.
The most vivid example of this many-sided standard in EU is
relations with Turkey. The country despite its long-lasting belonging to
north-Atlantic unity continues to be pariah among patricians. Last
consideration of abilities of Turkey to become EU member concludes in political
limitations, but not economic that contradicts to the principles of relations
formulated by founders of the idea of Common Europe fixed in Article 2 of Сonsolidated
version of the Treaty establishing the European community.
“The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a
common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing
common policies or activities referred to in Articles 3 and 4, to promote
throughout the Community a harmonious, balanced and sustainable development
of economic activities, a high level of employment
and of social protection, equality between men
and women, sustainable and non-inflationary
growth, a high degree of competitiveness and convergence of economic
performance, a high level of protection and improvement
of the quality of the environment, the raising
of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion
and solidarity among Member States”[3] .
«On Turkey, the European Council indicated that if at its
meeting in December 2004, it decided, on the basis of a Commission report and
recommendation, that Turkey fulfilled the
political criteria defined at Copenhagen in 1993 for the accession of third
countries to the EU, it would then open negotiations with that country without
delay.[4]
Thus the
progress in this issue mainly depends on ability of the constructors of the
western-European integration to overcome the confrontational national thinking
combined with the external economic policy and to adapt multi-polar political
and economic structures of “new” Europe to the common goals that are being implemented by European Union as integrative
structure of the “old” Europe.
So the conclusion is that European processes are suffering
the pressure of internal political contradictions and factions that are
sharpened by national processes and conflicts. Aiming to solve these problems EU has initiated
the substantial political discussion by organizing European Convention. [5]
The necessity of this move is proved both by the content and tonality of
contributions to the Convention. The elaboration of new frames of
functioning of Common Europe was different in its articulation. Enthusiasm of the accession candidate countries is next to moderate and
accurate critics of the ongoing processes of those who fill of their own for
some years complicated relations within the EU.
The
European Community admits that they are all equal but howbeit all feels that there
are some that are more equal in this process. Here is grounded the
biggest contradiction of unifying Europe.
Formation of European Union is a result of diminishing role
of national state in Western Europe at the last quarter of the 20th century. The first one is reflected by turn
to the neo-liberal monetarist values and ideologies and refers to mechanism of
relation of state and civil society. By itself it was not questioning the role
of national in the process. The other one aspect directly influences it.
It is the result of the shift that happened due to the three alternatives to
national social systems – supranational, sub-national and transnational. This
reflects the process of building in of the “old” Europe into global economic
processes that are the cornerstone for the globalization. It has provided the
framework for Europe's prosperity, not just free trade in Europe, but a single
market and, increasingly, a single economy.
On its own
“New” Europe consider its participation in EU as
a way to enforce and strengthen role of national state that has been
substantially grounded down in the socialist period under the leadership of the
Soviet Union. To prove it’s enough to analyze
ambitions of new leaders and interior political processes in former countries
of socialist community. First they appeal to the defense of national
interests but not to the unity with Europe. One of the examples of this approach is contribution of polish
representative at the Convention. «I am convinced that the enlargement
of the Union will have a positive effect on the economies and societies of
these countries but they must be convinced of this. This conviction will only
come if the Union shows itself open to establishing a new quality of political
and economic relationship with them. Of course we will insist on political and
economic conditionality but let us go beyond the Partnership and Cooperation
Agreements, let us talk free trade and
cooperation to create a yet far larger area of internal security in Europe».[6]
The well known declaration of “new” European countries in
support of US aggression in Iraq also reflects such conclusion.
“Old” Europe also is not given up terminology linked with
“national” interests. Mr. Blair looking back on position of British citizens
argues fore increasing role of Britain in process of formation of Common Europe
by national interests and patriotism: «At this crucial juncture, where reforms
of an absolutely momentous nature are being
debated and decided, Britain’s place must be at the centre of them. To withdraw
from them is not patriotic; it is an abdication of our true national interest.
Other countries playing a leading role in Europe do not see the European Union
as an alternative to the nation state; indeed, they see it as a way of enhancing
their national interests. At a time when countries are coming together ASEAN in
Asia, MERCOSUR in Latin America, NAFTA in North America - Eurosceptic
isolationism means marginalization.»[7]
This forceful attack at opponents of
Common Europe is clear. There is not so many changes in position jf the British
population on the EU.The Blair’s government would suffer shuttering defeat if referendum
on Euro was held in May 2003: 60 % of the respondents of the poll organized by The
Daily Telegraph are against Euro and only 30% - in favor. It means that
Britain possibly will face certain hurdles on the way to the next integration
period. The poll of The Sun
demonstrated that 81 % of its participants have no idea about the work of the Convention
and 84 % are in favor of the referendum to be held on ratification of the treaty establishing a
Constitution for Europe. [8]
As
concession to the national priorities have to be considered those multiple
proviso in official documents of the EU where underlined that Member States
have set up common institutions to which they delegate some of their sovereignty so that decisions on specific matters of joint interest can be made
democratically at European level.
Seems to be successful introduction of Euro enlightened a
lot of differences in EU. Palls
and referendums have clarified many opponents to this idea in France and many of he EU countries that
were the first to join Eurozone. It allows to the Eurosceptics to
consider that the European integration process is far from passing by its
turning point.
The work of
the Convention and national political processes also proved that internal
tensions in “old” Europe are not decreasing. According to the evaluation of the experts now it
is quire real seems the danger of undermining of the communitarian
decision-making method in the EU which considered to be a source of success for
the last 50 years due to the initiated on national level institutional changes.
Thus as it is seen also by members of the European Parliament the hopes for democratization of
the EU system may be buried and ancient authoritarian idea of the Directoire[9] will emerge in new institutional
form. [10]
Although
the leaders of the 15 EU countries are repeatedly underline that institutional
reforms facilitate accession of the “newcomers” many in Brussels consider it as slyness. The acting members of the EU now boost the
concordance in basic questions in accordance with their own interests. So the
“new” members have to join already ready-made system.
Perception of these complications comes to Europe step by
step. They are growing the more the process named as “globalization” develops. In its present form the EU becomes
an institution more political then economic.
At the same time it more meets the demands of economic globalization
but suffers problems of political globalization. This is the reason for the difficulties that
are articulated by Jacques Santer: “Situation with Iraq obviously demonstrats that our Union is not able to conduct common
external policy. The EU has not drawn a conclusion out of its economic
abilities and power. [11].
All this is complicated by emerging of the new approach of
the USA to the world developments. The new
concept appeared after the 11 of September 2001 – the USA has to have a right
to enforce its will to the rest of the world. A lot of politicians do not share
this approach and alarmed by this developments.
J.Santer carefully points to the fact that “there are no single pole in the
World whatever somebody wants. The world is multi- polar: there are US and
Europe, Asia, China, India, there is Russia. It’s reality. The attempts to act
unilaterally are unacceptable. We are partners. The partnership means first of
all full mutual confidence.” [12]
In relations with the US this confidence is undergoing test
period. The situation in Iraq
proves that careful position of Europeans as referred to the use of force
against as defined by US "axis of evil" countries has its real ground. The
US on their own are eager to fasten Europe more strongly to the solution of
emerging problems. Cooperation as it is seen by the US means move from the
stage of the multisided consultations on the problems to the direct actions.
The US insists on more direct cooperation in control on the non-proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction. The US insists on tougher approach to the EU
position on the Iran nuclear programme. In this way the Europeans are called to be in solidarity with priorities
and methods of the present US external strategy by limiting it
own independence and individuality.
Discussion on the construction of European Union in new
political circumstances have put aside and weakened the important direction
that supported the development of political
process in Europe – formation of the common responsibility for the security in
Europe and in the World. The Balkan war has become a reflection of destruction
of many basic principles of this European frame.
The ongoing
processes in Europe prove those security problems are
not any more the core of the European integration. The main difficulty
is slow development of common European
external policy and security policy as it is pointed by former prime minister
of Sweden Carl Bildt. [13] This is
explained by opposition to elaboration of such police by some leading European
countries and first of all by Britain that has specific relations with the US
not correlating with European position. The Convention once again lightened this differences where was pointed out that the UK has lots of concerns
here, not least the new double-hatted EU foreign minister who will work for both the
European Commission and the European Council. It does not want to call him or
her a foreign minister, is worried at the
commission gaining new back-door powers over foreign policy and is concerned with this.
While this
discussion is going on Europe continue to weaken in front of new challenges
that are manifested in increased threat of international terrorism, separatism,
as well as ecological and energy security problems.
It confirms
the existence of different evaluations and perceptions of development of the EU. Quite open
remarks on the process in Europe is demonstrated by German newspapers. Die Ziet by analyzing relations of
the USA and Europe wrote: “Some time ago seven prominent European
intellectuals in different European newspapers published a call for the renewal
of Europe. There were no one from the
Eastern Europe. Some two years
ago such a neglecting of Eastern Europeans would provoked a squall of
indignation. But it seems that after a war in Iraq a new rules of
political ethics were elaborated in Paris and Berlin. There is a filing that in front of Derrida and
Habermas[14] and other modern philosophers the
eastern Europeans have betrayed the idea of Europe and have lost their right to think over the
future of its culture by demonstration of angel obedience to Bush
administration. [15]
The serious
dilemma that is faced by Eastern Europeans consists of the lack of confidence
to the “old” Europe represented by Germany and France but at the same time they see their
future only within the EU and NATO. According to the German analysts this
dilemma becomes even more evident as this decision supported by all layers of
population and politicians defined not only by desire to substantially
modernize and regulate of their own society but to protect “new” Europe from instability
“Fear of Russia and not values and convictions that
are presented by Europe as if it is the only representatives of Good in the world pushes the
eastern Europeans to the embraces of EU and NATO. Eastern European societies
with hesitation accept the so called
“catalogue of values” brought before the candidates to the accession to the EU
because they see in it only senseless obstacle on the way to prosperity”. [16]
By
admitting this it is worth to pay attention to the fact “that in interpretation
of European ideas linked to the cultural and physiological factors, to the
theories of the European identity and perception of “the European” western
European public figures and
representatives of scientific and culture elite are still far away of accepting
Russia and their citizens as “Europeans”.[17]
While
having quite intensive political and economic traffic with EU Russia observes
the process of European integration from outside. First of all because the Russia’s integration in European Union
seems unreal as Russia have to solve a lot of internal
problems. Secondly EU in its turn is not ready for this as the present stage of
accession consumes in coming decade all economic resources of the EU. It seems
that on both sides this also supplemented with lack of confidence that the project
“Common Europe” as it is presented by policymakers will be a success.
That is why
in political official documents for visible future the today formulations
will be kept aiming at construction of common Europe without separating lines as well as
mutually linked and balanced strengthening of positions of the EU and Russia in international community of the
21st century. Valid now the Agreement on partnership and cooperation is
based on mutually shared and very ample principles starting with assistance to
international peace and security till support of democratic processes based on
political and economic freedom.
This
approach will assist certain progress in relations of Russia and EU but the interests of Europe will continue to be limited to
providing its own stable development at the account of Russia’s abilities, which is first of all
linked to energy security. EU being certainly the major trade partner of Russia will eager to maintain the present
trade balance expressed in 34 % of export and 35 % of Russia’s import. The energy trade amounts
to more then half of this turnover. But one should not overestimate this
situation – really Russia’s part in EU trade equals to import
– 3,2 % and export – 2,9 %.
Looking
positively at the process of cooperation between Russia and EU nevertheless it shall be
realized thad the existing model of relations doesn’t facilitate the overcoming
of differences of views on European integration. Speaking at Petersburg summit
President of Russia V.Putin called the
attention of the participants to the necessity to minimize the shortcomings of
the accession process to the EU: “Enlargement of the EU doesn’t foresee
automatically joining of newcomers to the Agreement on partnership and cooperation of
Russia and EU, pointed out V.Putin. [18]
Perspective of overcoming of European stereotypes is
grounded on variety of perceptions of the phenomena
of European integrations. There are perceptions of experts, of politicians,
financiers and perception of common citizen.
Reacting to
such a problem at Deutsche Welle German SD politician Peter Clotz points out
that “we have to make such a model that facilitates the fruitful cooperation of
the EC Council, European Commission and European Parliament. We have to become closer
to the people because they began to fear the unified Europe. Really the
experience of the creation of the EU in such a way so lame if it is necessary
to make so many changes now?” [19]
Uncertainty
that all the ideas of Common Europe will be accepted by the peoples of Europe was confirmed at the Convention
discussions: «Checks and balances are a fundamental feature of our democracies. People
have a sense that more and more of their daily lives is governed at the
European level. They want many important things to remain the preserve of
national and regional government. Whilst it is not the task of the Conventionion
to comb through the acquis communautaire in the search for possible abuses, it
is our job to make sure that we have system for the future in which we can all
have confidence».[20]
So the real
formation of the European space named “Common Europe”, which continue to
collect problems but not their solutions,
will depend on the way how the relations between the common people will
be organized, not burdened by ideological, economic and political tasks and
stereotypes.