Europe Tomorrow
-Joachim Fritz-Vannahme, Germany
History presented a kind face. The president
spoke and all criticisms ceased. At the European Parliament in Brussels, the Convention on
the Future of Europe applauded its chairman, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, with heartfelt
sincerity regardless of passport or party affiliation. Only a few hours earlier, however,
a shadow had been cast over the inaugural celebrations. Before they had even convened, the
105 members-delegates from national assemblies and the European Parliament,
representatives of governments of the 15 EU member states, and emissaries of the 13
candidate countries-raised their voices in protest against the rules of procedure. If
Valery Giscard d'Estaing had had his way, the Convention would have had as little right to
determine the frequency of its meetings as the composition of working groups and the
selection of experts. "VGE", France's former head of state, had underestimated
the parliamentary immune system in Brussels. In all, 72 of the 105 members of the
Convention are parliamentarians, and most the 28 government representatives also know from
personal experience what interests and inspires a parliamentary chamber. Yet, as already
mentioned, this was just a passing cloud. Peals of thunder were not required to dispatch
the planned rules of procedure to oblivion. A little determination and politeness were
sufficient to do the job. The rules of procedure matter enabled the Convention to find
itself. Its quiet rebellion transformed a presidential event into a parliamentary
gathering.
Over the next one and a half years, the
Convention will be able to publicly think aloud about what the Europe of the future should
look like. Last December, at their summit meeting in Laeken, the EU heads of state and
government gave the new body more than 60 questions to consider. The schedule is thus very
tight. An inspirational thread is required, no more, explained the Belgians, and also the
Germans, and attempted to secure the greatest possible freedom for the Convention. The
question still being asked in Laeken was: What can the Convention do? Today most people
are asking:; What will it do? Michel Barnier, for example, the French European
Commissioner in the Convention, is asking: "What kind of Europe do we want? What do
we want to achieve together? And above all, what can we achieve together?"
The democracy question:
Major issues are the distribution of powers and the roles of the European Union
institutions and national parliaments and government leaders declared that "citizens
are calling for a clear, open, effective, democratically controlled Community approach,
developing a Europe which points the way ahead for the world". The democracy question
thus has been raised. The convention has an enormous job ahead of it. This profusion of
tasks could not be dealt with at the EU summit meetings in Amsterdam in 1997 and Nice in
2000. Furthermore, the views of the 15 member states differ substantially when it comes to
what Community institutions should be allowed to do and in which direction each of them
should develop. How should powers be distributed in the future not only between the
institutions, but also between the member states and the Union? How can community
institutions be democratized and their work reorganized so that it can again be understood
by ordinary citizens? What role should national parliaments play? How can so-called civil
society become involved? And how can the EU regain people's trust?
Modest proposals or bold strategies?
Irrespective of whether they eventually turn out to be a modest list of alternative
proposals or a single, bold strategic plan, the convention's recommendations will be
rejected or accepted by the heads of state and government at the next intergovernmental
conference in 2004 and then presented to parliaments for ratification. That's why, now at
the beginning of the process, the convention's 105 members dread nothing more than lofty
ideals: federalism, constitution, supra state or super-state, or even "United States
of Europe". All these concepts mean different things in each EU country, warns Klaus
Hansch, the social Democratic MEP who is the only German member of the Presidium: "If
the convention gets tied up in discussions of definitions, models and methods, it will be
lost. It should simply follow the categorical imperative that each of its recommendations
could be a basic element in a European constitution". One of those frightening words
again. The fears and concerns of some Europeans barely leave great room for great plans at
the beginning. Things will soon begin to move. "So let us dream of Europe" were
the words Giscard d'Estaing used to conclude his introductory speech. Only an assembly of
free thinkers will find route to success-and in this process Chairman d'Estaing must
provide encouragement rather than direction.
Determining the agenda: Who
will shape opinion in the convention? Certainly, Chairman d'Estaing. Then there are the
two vice chairmen: the federalist Belgium, Jean Luc Dehaene, the former Christian
Democratic prime minister, and the integrationist Italian, Giuliano Amato, a moderate
Socialist who was prime minister twice and originally a professor of comparative
constitutional law. Britain is sending Minister for Europe Peter Hain and France Pierre
Moscovici: Belgium is offering Foreign minister Louis Michel and Sweden Deputy prime
minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen. The representatives of the candidate countries are impressive.
They will also be present at all debates, even if they officially only have observer
status and are initially not represented in the Presidium.
First of all, the convention has to determine
its working procedures and its agenda, and then, in autumn at the latest, it will have to
swiftly deliberate on dossiers that fill entire filling cabinets: How should powers be
divided between European institutions, and between the member states and the Union in
future? How can Community institutions be democratized and their work structured so that
it can once again be understood by ordinary citizens? And how can the Union regain
people's trust? All these issues are extremely difficult to resolve and their complexity
has increased significantly in the last few years of the Community's development.
By comparison, the convention responsible for
drafting the Charter of Fundamental Rights under Chairman Roman Herzog has a relatively
easy task. It found itself on untilled soil, in a field that has received little attention
from the EU, but one that has long been intensively cultivated by the nation-states with
their different traditions of fundamental rights. Finding a synthesis was therefor easier
for Herzog's assembly. This convention, on the other hand, has to work its way through
dense undergrowth. This fact alone prevents any historical comparison with the great
conventions of the American or French revolutions, or even the group that the newly
established Lander sent to Herrenchiemsee after the Second world war. In all of these
cases, democracy was still a matter for the future, and the participants had to take the
liberty to proclaim liberty. And yet each time, this liberty was limited: In Philadelphia,
in 1787, 55 white men, delegates from 12 of the 13 independent states, met in strict
secrecy for an entire summer-women, African Americans, and native Americans were not
considered and were not even present.
The situation was rather similar in
Versailles two years later: When the Estates General declared the establishment of a
National Assembly in 1789 under the leadership of the third Estate, it was already an
exclusive circle of merchants and lawyers, supplemented by liberal priests and
aristocrats. There were no peasants and no artisans among them. After the II world war,
the Parliamentary Council in Bonn was ultimately "overshadowed by the Frankfurt
Economic Council, which enjoyed far greater public attention", as the Dresden based
political scientist Hans Vorlander writes.
None of the great historical processes was
perfect: there was no democratically elected constitutive assembly and no endorsement of
decisions by popular referendum. And yet the European Convention shares one thing with its
predecessors: they are were all great initiators of change. The emotive cause of freedom,
of liberte', may be missing, but the hope attached to a fair and equitable political
framework links the 105 members of the convention with their famous predecessors in
Philadelphia and Versailles. This is the yardstick against which they will judge their
efforts-and against which they will be judged by citizens throughout Europe.
The author is the Brussels based Europe
correspondent of the weekly newspaper Die Zeit. Text courtesy: Deutschland E4 N2/2002.
Embassy of Germany in Kathmandu.
International Relations:
TAF activities in Asia
The United States has a profound interest
in seeing that events in Asia continue down the path of progress and regional peace.
Driven by American resolve to respond to
terrorism, the geopolitical environment of Asia is fundamentally shifting. Crucial Asian
fault lines between secular and religious views, elite versus the poor, and regional and
power relations and interests are all being tested. The stakes are high and complex. The
United States' reinvigorated interest in Asia can contribute to peace and greater
stability in the region.
The Asia Foundation's 15 offices throughout
the Asia-Pacific region provide access to an extraordinary broad range of current and
emerging national players, allowing a unique perspective on the forces at work within
Asian societies. Our local presence gives a window through which to observe and help
understand the dynamics and complexities of recent changes, as well as an appreciation of
the repercussions of those changes on international affairs. As a trusted non-governmental
actor, the Foundation is able to bring together key Asian and American leaders from
different institutions, countries, and points of view to discuss a wide range of issues in
a balanced, considered, constructive manner that fosters dialogue and understanding.
America's role in Asia: In 2001, the
centerpiece of this effort was the America's Role in Asia project, which brought together
groups of senior American and Asian foreign policy specialists for a thorough review of
major issues in US-Asian relations as a contribution to the incoming American
Administration. In February 2001, The Asia Foundation published the reports and
recommendations of both groups. In addition, key members of both groups met in Seoul,
Korea, to explore both shared views and differences of opinion concerning regional
security, economic and political issues.
East Asia: The rise of China, Japan's
continuing economic difficulties, and the relationships of both country to a militarily
and economically powerful United States are crucial factors affecting stability and
security in the region. In this regard, the Foundation has long supported dialogues and
exchanges among foreign policy and security specialists from the United States and the
countries of East Asia. Programs in the past year included an ongoing trilateral security
conference involving security specialists from the US, Japan, and China; a regional
security conference on the Future of the Korean Peninsula, held at Fudan University in
China; continued support for the U.S National Committee of the Council for Security
Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific, CSCAP; a Trilateral Conference on Security in Northeast
Asia conducted by the Korea National Defense University, and a program of conferences and
exchanges on the Taiwan issue in US-China relations, in cooperation with the Sanghai
institute of International Studies. In addition, the Foundation's Japan office continues
to organize a regular public policy series that addresses a broad range of issues
important to US and Japan interests.
South Asia: In 2001, the Foundation began to
expand its International relations program in South Asia. The Foundation supported an
Indian diplomat for a six-month fellowship program in national security and foreign policy
studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. The
Foundation also supported research on the political, economic, and security repercussions
of nuclear proliferation on the subcontinent. To complement official diplomacy between
India and Pakistan, the Foundation enabled ten Pakistanis to travel to India to attend a
Pakistan-India People's Solidarity Conference that focused on providing their country's
leaders with citizen perspectives on the issues of nuclear weapons, democracy and Kashmir.
Supporting citizen involvement and capacity
building: Foreign policy dialogue has expanded to include citizen's organizations and
businesses operating outside the public sector. This past year, the Foundation supported
30 individuals from Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines, and Cambodia to attend the
first ASEAN "'People's Assembly". Among the issues covered in the two-day
meeting were the empowerment of women, role of media, human rights, poverty, the
environment, education, the role of civil society, and good governance-all issues in which
the Foundation has been involved for more than four decades. The Assembly was the most
significant attempt to date to provide constructive non-governmental input into the
discussion of ASEAN's future direction.
In addition to supporting conferences and
dialogue on key foreign affairs issues, the Foundation also provides grants for graduate
degree scholarships, short-term training opportunities, study tours, and research support
that contributes to the growth of a professional foreign policy community in countries
where the Foundation operates. Longstanding efforts to improve US-China relation include
fellowships and study tours to the US for Chinese diplomats, military officers, scholars,
and journalists. With support from the Henry Luce Foundation, the Foundation is also
providing opportunities to Vietnamese foreign policy professionals to visit the US for
study tours and research affiliations at American Universities.
Text courtesy: The Asia Foundation 2001
Annual Report, TAF Kathmandu. |
