2004, Year of Europe
A Reunited Europe
"A reunited
Europe" - this fine prospect deservedly hails the enlargement of the European Union
to include eight Central European countries, plus Cyprus and Malta. In May 2004, the years
of forced separation imposed on Europe, first by the Second World War, then by Soviet
domination, will be formally erased. Warsaw, Budapest, Prague, the Baltic states and
others will regain the rightful place in a concerted Europe that History acknowledges as
theirs.
Philippe Lemaître, journalist
We will have waited fifteen years after the
fall of the Berlin wall for this great venture to reach a successful conclusion. Fifteen
years of methodical and painstaking preparation, with the inevitable tensions that the
European dialectic implies, to dispel mistrust, to bring together those who had lost
contact with each other, and to find compromises between opposing interests.
It is not without apprehension and hesitation
that "New Europe" joins "Old Europe" and that the latter welcomes the
former. But the divisive forces are apparently wasting their time. The logic of the
European construction is such that while meeting the challenge, which may sometimes appear
unattainable, is far from a certainty and the way to achieve it often thankless and
laborious, there has never been any lack of determination on the part of those involved.
Greater prosperity, greater influence and, if possible, greater fairness - the objectives
of the Union are shared by all. The day-to-day debate proper to European life does not
often leave room for emotion, but impressions can be deceptive: these bellicose old
countries, passionate converts to peace, are quite determined to make their mark in an
uncertain world, and are a long way from seeing the "End of the Story".
Continuity in Change
Tenacity and continuity in change are the
main themes of this fifty-year-old story. Successive enlargements (five of them already!)
(see box) have very obviously changed not only the geography but also the nature of
Europe, which has undoubtedly become less centred on the Rhine and more oriented to the
wider world. The new enlargement seems bound to accentuate this trend, which may be
regretted by some. But nostalgia is unproductive – what is most important is to
continue to build on the basis of the new balances. This line of action is all the more
valid since the change is not yet complete and it is intended that Romania and Bulgaria
will join the Union in 2007. Turkey’s case will be examined late in 2004, when the
European Council will decide whether or not to open membership negotiations. The case for
Croatia, as well as for the other Republics belonging to the former Yugoslavia will also
be raised.
This enlarged Europe necessitates the
consolidation of the basic pact. In the 1950s, the "fathers of Europe" decided
to ensure Franco-German reconciliation, and thus peace, through the development of closer
economic ties. It was on this "small steps" method that the European
construction was based for some forty years. The return to the "political",
still in the process of development even today, only began in the 1990s, with the
Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties.
The most serious incidents along the way have
confirmed the validity of this cautious approach. There was the "empty chair
crisis" (June 1965-February 1966) caused by France under General de Gaulle when the
European Commission, under its then president Walter Hallstein, tried a kind of coup de
force in an attempt to increase its powers. The still-present double line of fracture
characterising European construction was already apparent, and all those involved have to
make allowance for it. On the one hand, it is between the federalists concerned to hasten
the transfer of authority to supranational institutions and those favouring
intergovernmental links, or in other words, defending the prerogatives of States and on
the other, between supporters of a Europe that gives priority to links with the United
States and those seeking to endow it with a more autonomous status.
A "European Europe"
It was this concern to construct a
"European Europe" that led General de Gaulle in the early 1960s to oppose the
admission of a Great Britain deemed too inclined to look across the Atlantic. In 1969,
French president Georges Pompidou lifted this veto, which was holding back the progress of
the Community - so unfavourably was it perceived by France’s five partners. The
inclusion in 1973 of the United Kingdom, whose vision of Europe was very different from
that of the founder countries, did not take place without difficulties.
Added to the effects of the international
economic recession caused by the "oil crises" of 1973 and 1979, the budgetary
battle which divided Great Britain and the other member states for a dozen years or so was
the start of a long period of stagnation for the Community adventure. But despite this,
nothing was seriously questioned - the Common Market and the Customs Union were saved, the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), already disputed, was not challenged again, and on the
contrary, some considerable steps forward, in the light of the perilous nature of the
times, were made. Thus, in the economic arena, there was the introduction of the European
Monetary System, and too, in relation to Europe’s institutions, the creation of the
European Council and the election of the European Parliament by universal suffrage on the
initiative of French president, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing.
The creation of the single market
While nothing was compromised, nevertheless
the Europe of Ten (Greece joined in 1981), which emerged from the Fontainebleau European
Council (June 1984), experienced a hard time: inflation, numerous obstacles to free trade,
unpredictable monetary stability ... A re-launch policy was essential. This was the
"single market" battle, initiated by the Commission presided over by Frenchman
Jacques Delors and won thanks to the support of the French President, François
Mitterrand, and the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl. More than three hundred directives
were adopted in seven years! A strong economic situation facilitated things. In 1993, the
target year set by Jacques Delors, the Community was entitled to feel proud: the
"four freedoms" (free movement of people, goods, capital and services) had made
considerable progress.
The establishment of the single market, while
not entirely complete, appeared irreversible. Facilitated by a significant financial
outlay (a doubling of structural funds on two occasions, in 1988 and 1992), Spain and
Portugal’s joining was a real success. To the outside world, especially the United
States and Japan, the European construction was more fascinating than ever, regarded with
a mixture of fear ("fortress Europe") and approval for its stabilising virtues
at world level.
In the late 1980s, the Community started work
on economic and monetary Union. This operation, for which methods and procedures were made
clear in the treaty concluded at Maastricht in December 1991, is regarded both as the
necessary complement to the single market and as a tremendous political step on the road
to integration.
The European Union as a diplomatic
high flier?
The disappearance of the Soviet threat, which
had acted as one of the levers of the European construction, led the Community,
strengthened by its economic success, to try to launch itself as a diplomatic high flier,
keen to carry more weight in world affairs. The Treaties of Maastricht, then of Amsterdam,
mark this determination to establish a common foreign and security policy. Yet this phase
(the 1990s) was less fruitful than its predecessor. Economic and monetary problems,
arising mainly from German reunification, hit growth and employment. Public opinion, too
long ignored, began to manifest reservations about a path judged to be too technocratic.
Evidence of this came with the defeat in the referendum for the ratification of Maastricht
in Denmark and the scant success of the same exercise in France.
In diplomacy, Europe’s interventions in
the Yugoslav conflict were for a long time uncoordinated. Further enlargement to Austria,
Finland and Sweden took place in 1995, without work on reform of the institutions getting
under way, even though they had run out of steam, as was revealed most notably by the
forced resignation of the Commission in 1999.
Despite the resounding success of the
introduction of the euro and the smooth working of the European Central Bank (ECB),
responsible for the monetary policy of the twelve countries sharing the single currency,
it was an exhausted Union, incapable of trying anything new, that found itself at the Nice
European Council in December 2000. A year earlier, enlargement had been decided upon in an
almost irreversible way. It was thus a matter of urgency to react in order not to
compromise what had been achieved and to lay the foundations for new and fruitful ways of
cooperating. This was the mission of the Convention on the Future of Europe which, during
the presidency of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, brought together representatives of
governments, the Commission, national parliaments and the European Parliament. As a result
of the composition of the Convention, the institutional reforms contained in the draft
then submitted for endorsement by the governments, enjoy exceptional legitimacy.
The next part of the story is no less
challenging. Europe will have to take a pragmatic approach to finding new ways to enable
it to act effectively. The rifts caused by the war in Iraq reveal that differences
persist. However, despite this crisis, the desire to work together seems to have won the
day, as shown by the dynamic of reconciliation vigorously embarked upon during the second
half of 2003 by French president, Jacques Chirac, the German Chancellor, Gerhard
Schröder, and the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. The idea of a Europe as master of
its own destiny, more autonomous, apparently, beyond the ups and downs, exerts an ever
greater and stronger attraction.
(Label France Magazine, Embassy of
France)
IFJ documents press freedom and state
of journalism in South Asia
Release of second annual IFJ Press
Freedom Report for South Asia
The year since May 2003 has been a turbulent
time for journalists in South Asia. As in previous years, governments, insurgents,
terrorists, corrupt officials, gangsters and fundamentalists of all religions were seen to
be targeting media for its free and fearless reporting.
Despite major challenges and difficult
political situations in the region, there were many examples of the work of journalists in
highlighting discrimination, promoting peace and resisting attempts at censorship and
repression.
The second annual report on press freedom in
South Asia has been coordinated by the International Federation of Journalists, the global
voice for journalists. The report, covering Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, the
Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka records and spotlights a worrying trend of increasing
violence against journalists, including the deaths of at least 12 journalists and other
media workers in the 12 months to this day.
The report also monitors the commitment of
governments across the region and their actions on press freedom, saying: "Ruthless
criminality and political indifference often mean that little can be done to stop
determined killers. But governments must continue to be challenged. They must respect
democratic rights, investigate and follow up every attack and be held accountable when
there is official complacency, negligence or, as in some cases, official complicity in
attacks on media."
The report shows that journalism in South
Asia continues to be a risky affair, and that those journalists operating in regions of
civil, political unrest and ethnic violence do so under enormous pressure on both their
safety and their ability to do their job freely. In many cases, the attacks on journalists
could be directly linked to their free and fearless reporting.
Journalists need support not only to do their
jobs in safety but they also need professional training and proper working conditions.
A coalition of journalists’
organisations and press freedom groups in South Asia continue to challenge those that
violate press freedom and independent journalism through protest and solidarity actions.
The publication of this report, which documents and publicises violations, with
contributions from organisations across the region, is one of these solidarity actions.
"While there have been some positive
developments in improving media freedom in South Asia, sadly these are grossly
overshadowed by attacks and persecution of the press," the report concludes.
"Clearly, though, there is a long way to
go to achieve the conditions necessary for journalists to fulfil their democratic
function. And journalists and media workers have the best hope for achieving this by
acting collectively through strong, independent media associations that demand respect for
independent journalism and give journalists a voice in negotiating proper training, a
fairer legal environment and acceptable working conditions. Attacks to hurt, harass and
silence journalists can no longer escape proper investigation and punishment as they so
often have in the past." |
