An enlarged Europe is on
the cards
-Alain Lamassoure, MP, European
Parliament
Masstricht, Amsterdam and soon Nice….
European political union is falling into place with each new treaty. European enlargement,
however, poses the crucial question of the permanence of a Europe of thirty countries, the
present institutions and organization of which are designed for fifteen. If the proverbial
"strength through unity" is the aim, its development will require in particular
"team spirit", more decentralized management and an adaptation of the
decision-making process.
The European Community came in to being
as a result of the Second World War. It has had a successful, but very different history
to that envisaged by its founders. Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet would have been very
disappointed if they have been told that half a century after the visionary speech at the
Salon de l’Horloge on May 9th, 1950, the six founding countries (Belgium, France,
Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and Netherlands) had still not achieved full political union.
The United States of little Europe have not come in to being. A trick of history? The
federal myth has greatly helped in reconciling Europeans and in bringing about a happy
ending to Cold War, but paradoxically, it was its partial failure yesterday that is making
the concept of the political structure that an enlarged Europe needs easier today.
An economic base, a political aim: European
construction now concerns the whole continent. It is founded on an economic and monetary
base, but its aim is clearly a political one: the agenda of the French presidency includes
both the adoption of the charter of Basic human rights, the extension of jurisdiction to
foreign and defense policy and the democratization of the institutions. In addition, in
the major international organizations, from the World Trade Organization-WTO-to the
International Monetary Fund-IMF, compared with other continents, the European Union is
defending a social model of its own. The rise to power of the far right in Austria, in
February 2000, was amazingly revealing of the existence of these truly shared political
feelings, outstripping those of the institutions: "Not in our back yard!" was
the spontaneous reaction of public opinion and of the fourteen governments from Helsinki
to London, from Berlin to Madrid and from Lisbon to Athens, and not as diplomatic
interference, but as a family intervention.
And yet this federally inspired structures
unites countries that very much intend to remain sovereign. There are fewer Community
officials than there are local authority officials in Paris or Marseilles alone. And the
budget of the ambitious Union is financed with barely more than 1% of the income of the
member. Are these embarrassing contradictions? Not at all. This is the highly original
essence of the implicit founding pact that unites our fifteen countries.
For, in the mean time our view of political
management has changed. In a complex world where there are an infinite variety of
activities and skills and where those involved are highly cultured, union makes for
strength, provided that it acts as a team and does not think of itself as a monolith. The
21st century hardly is a refuge for dinosaurs. Whether they are industrial or political,
the major entities must be managed, especially since every one of the Member States has
its own strong identity.
At the same time, the prospect of a Europe
with thirty member countries raises new problems. The treaty of Nice should resolve the
most urgent ones: The European Union’s right to make effective, democratic decisions
however many partners are involved. There are others, which the French presidency will at
least provide the opportunity to tackle in depth for the first time.
The challenges of a Europe of thirty
countries:
The doctrine of enlargement was defined only very partially
at the European Council in Helsinki in December 1999. All the countries applying for the
membership have been placed on the same starting line. It is understood that each will be
judged on its own merits. The compulsory reference point is the application in full of
current European legislation, the "community Acquis". Neither the countries
applying for membership, however, nor the European Union itself are able to work without
the reference point and incentive of a timetable. How would governments that have
undertaken a difficult and courageous policy in order to make a success of their
membership be able to face their electorates, without being able to specify the review
date? How could we think that the European Union would be able to work effectively if it
is continually negotiating enlargement and making room for one or two extra members every
year, for fifteen years? As in the past, two or three successive series of accessions will
have to be organized. With whom as passenger? The issue of the European Union’s final
frontiers can no longer be evaded. Building a Union of thirty will indeed be an un-hoped
for historical achievement. Allowing it to expand with no limits beyond the continent in
the strict sense of the word would ruin the whole enterprise.
The third issue is stronger cooperation. Even by keeping the
"Community Acquis", an enlarged Europe will find it difficult to mix external
growth with internal growth. Several of the European Union’s current members need to
move forward together on new issues. The achievement of the Euro is making a real
co-ordination of policies on budgets and taxes, still in their infancy, a matter of
urgency. The establishment of a European defense policy must quickly lead to a common
policy for the arms of the future. The multiplication of mixed marriages between Europeans
is beginning to raise totally new problems in civil law, etc. How can we deal with these
new issues and even these new areas of jurisdiction in greater detail in a Union very
deeply engrosses in its own enlargement, where not all members want further progress?
Beyond the mechanisms of what is called "stronger cooperation", the fundamental
question we should be asking is whether these new areas of the European issue have to be
explored within the present institutions or outside them.
There is nothing iconoclastic about this question. In the
past, embryonic European defense system, the European Monetary system and then the
Schengen area cam into being outside the European Economic Community-EEC, before joining
the European Union once the initial problems had been ironed out by the courageous
pioneers. Today, however, the multiplication of parallel agreements and organizations
would make Europe unmanageable. If the countries of the European avant-garde chose to
launch their future experiments outside the European Union, it would be preferable to
conduct them within a single new, common organization, with the advantage of flexible
action, but the risk-or benefit? -Of helping to create a two-tier Europe.
SUBJECT: An Op-Ed by the UN Secretary-General -"A new
coalition for universal values"
I am pleased to send you herewith the above-mentioned article for your information and
use.
Thank you for your cooperation.
A NEW COALITION FOR UNIVERSAL VALUES
By Kofi A. Annan
Eighteen months ago, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, I warned international business
leaders that globalization might be far more fragile than they realized. Since then,
events in Seattle and elsewhere have reinforced my warning.
But it would be tragic if local or national communities react
to the challenges and shortcomings of globalization by repeating the mistakes of history,
and turning in on themselves. Why? Because open markets offer the only realistic hope of
pulling billions of people in developing countries out of abject poverty, while sustaining
prosperity in the industrialized world.
What we must do instead is to ensure that the global market is embedded in broadly shared
values and practices that reflect global social needs, and that all the world’s
people share the benefits of globalization.
That is why, in Davos, I proposed the Global Compact, based on nine key principles drawn
from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Labour
Organization’s fundamental principles on rights at work and the Rio Principles on
environment and development – which were agreed at the Earth Summit in 1992 and enjoy
universal consensus among the world’s governments.
The essence of the Compact is that, to help make markets sustainable at the global level,
enlightened corporate leaders of the new world economy will act on these principles in
their own corporate management practices.
At today’s meeting, the corporate leaders who are prepared to take this step will be
joined by heads of international labour and civil society organizations active in the
fields of human rights, economic and social development, and protecting the global
environment.
They, too, are taking a bold step. Their joining this coalition doesn’t mean
they’ve abandoned whichever cause their particular group was set up to champion. It
does mean they accept the need to place that
cause in a broader context, because it is more likely to flourish in a freer and more
prosperous world.
Some may say that business should stick to business, and leave wider concerns to
government. Certainly it is true that neither corporations nor voluntary groups can
replace the indispensable role of the state.
But we cannot wait for governments to do it all. Globalization operates on Internet time.
Meanwhile, governments tend to be slow moving by nature, because they have to build
political support for every
step. That is especially true in international affairs, where they also have to reach
agreement with each other.
Over the last 12 months, many of the firms and organizations represented at today’s
meeting have been working with the United Nations to define their roles in the Global
Compact.
Specifically, our business partners have agreed to do three things:
- They will become public advocates for the Compact and its nine principles in their
corporate mission statements, annual reports and similar venues.
- At least once a year they will post on our website specific examples of progress they
have made, or lessons learned, in putting the principles into practice in their own
corporate domains.
- And they will join with the United Nations in partnership projects, either at the policy
level – for instance, a dialogue on the role of corporations in zones of conflict
– or at the operational level, such as
helping African or South Asian villagers link up to the Internet, or strengthening small
and medium-sized firms in developing countries. The labour and civil society partners will
help build and deepen the
Compact, and lend their expertise and support to designing and implementing its
undertakings.
So, what do I hope today’s meeting will achieve? First, I hope it will send out a
clarion call for others to join us. We need to gain a critical mass among leading
companies, and in their supply chains, so that the Compact can truly be called Global.
Secondly, I hope we can establish the Compact as a forum for ongoing dialogue among the
three sets of partners – devising common solutions to common problems.
Thirdly, and most important, our new coalition for universal values must move swiftly to
translate good intentions into concrete actions. The success of the Global Compact will be
measured by its ability to
make a real difference to the lives of real people.
The author is Secretary-General of the United Nations -chief editor.
|
