Ivo Daalder is concerned that the current crisis in the European Union over the proposed new constitution and other issues has reached a point where it may put the long-term peace and stability of Europe at risk: The End of a Europe at Peace? TPM Cafe 06/21/05.
[EU] Enlargement has proven to be the most successful strategy of regime change ever devised. While NATO enlargement proved important, for it provided security to countries living in the Soviet and Russian shadow, EU enlargement was absolutely crucial because it provided the basis for solidifying political freedom and enhancing economic prosperity in countries that had known little of either.
Yet, this extraordinary success of western policy is now severely threatened by the crisis that has engulfed the European Union during the past month. For all the differences among the EU members, there appears to be widespread agreement — or at least resignation to the fact — that the doors to Europe have closed for a considerable period of time, if not forever.
The current crisis in the EU is a positive event from the point of view of the Bush administration. Prior to Bush II's presidency, it has been long-standing American policy under both Democratic and Republican presidents to promote European integration among democracies there. The Bush administration, with its strong unilateralist/nationalist bent, has feared a strong EU as a potential counterweight to a US that has declared its national policy to be one of waging preventive wars.
I don't think we can say that this development is a direct result of US policy. It results more from internal problems within the EU. But it is surely a welcome development for the Bush team. As Daalder clearly recognizes, it is not a good development for the real interests of the United States. The EU has been far and away the strongest force in Europe, and in the world for that matter, for democracy, peace and stability in the last decade and a half.
The one major way in which Bush policy has contributed to this is by bringing Tony Blair and Britain into the Iraq War. Blair seems to relish the prospect now, as Britain assumes the rotating EU presidency, of helping the Bush administration to weaken the EU.It could very well come a point where the European democracies have to choose between and strong and effective EU, on the one hand, and an EU that includes Britain, on the other.
Daalder writes:
The United States and Europe must urgently recognize the problem that ending the prospect of EU enlargement will likely cause on Europe’s periphery. They must develop a strategy that minimizes the damage, even while recognizing that a return to the earlier policy is now unlikely. NATO expansion, which has languished in recent years as the Alliance’s attention has drifted elsewhere and EU enlargement took center stage, offers one way to address the fears and aspirations of countries like Ukraine, Serbia, and Bosnia (though not Turkey, which has been a member since 1952). The EU might also consider various association arrangements that fall short of membership, but do not evoke the kind of public opposition that full membership now does.
During the past fifteen years, Europe has been transformed into a democratic zone of peace unprecedented in history. This transformation has been extraordinarily beneficial to the peoples of Europe — as well as of the United States, which fought three major wars in the past century to make it possible. These gains must not be lost.
The only reservations I have about his comments there is that it's hard for me to see how NATO can continue to be a viable alliance. A military pact which binds Europe to a US committed to preventive war will surely become an increasing problem for European democracies. Perhaps even for Britain.
Timother Garton Ash defines the challenge immediately facing Blair, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown (the likely successor to Blair as Prime Minister) and Foreign Minister Jack Straw during Britain's EU presidency: No time for petty rivalry Guardian (UK) 06/23/05.
In this tricky corner, the language and tone adopted by Blair, Brown, Straw and others is critical. On the continent, they are talking to a deeply disaffected audience, many of whom believe both that the European Union has gone wrong and that Britain is not truly committed to any larger vision of the European project; would rather go back to a glorified free-trade area; would always chooseAmerica over Europe; really prefers American-style free-market solutions; and isn't doing half as well as it thinks it is economically.
I hope Garton Ash is not being too optimistic about the Bush administration's policy even in this guarded comment:
When they now talk bitterly of "national egoism", new members of the European Union mean both Britain and France - the two countries that used to be, for them, the model of what it is to be a "normal" European country. The Bush administration in Washington, which has belatedly and tentatively held out a hand of partnership to the EU, watches with dismay, tinged with contempt.
The contempt part I believe. I'm not so sure about the hand of partnership part. It seems to me that the Bush admistration is looking for European democracies to be vassals taking order from the White House, not genuine partners.
No comments:
Post a Comment