OLD AND NEW EUROPE

By Greg Mills and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

BARCELONA, Jan 1 2003 (IPS) - Just when the leadership of France and Germany was commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Elysee Treaty, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, irritated with Paris and Berlin for their opposition to war against Iraq, lashed out at the Franco-German position as simply coming from the \’\’old Europe\’\’, writes Joaquin Roy, Jean Monnet professor and Director of European Union Centre at the University of Miami. In this article for IPS, Roy writes that to believe that Lithuania, Slovakia, or even Poland, because of their fast conversion from satellites of the Soviet Union are today the true representatives of Europe is preposterous. In the post-September 11th world, the \’\’old Europe\’\’ is the one formed around the nucleus forged by two nations tragically mangled by self-inflicted wars that ended in near suicide (Germany) and humiliation and occupation (France) in World War II. Their leaders concluded that the only way to end their tendency to bloody conflict was to place the means of war under the control of common institutions. The grave danger raised by Rumsfeld\’s remark is that the US might persist in considering the European doubts irrelevant. The risk is that the US will decide to carry out the war by itself and believes that others will follow. Only when the cards are down on the Security Council table or the first shots are fired over Iraq will we know the truth. Until now, fortunately, only words and pots of ink have been launched. It is an improvement, given past experience.

Just when the leadership of France and Germany was commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Elysee Treaty, signed in 1963 by Charles de Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, irritated with Paris and Berlin for their opposition to war against Iraq, lashed out at the Franco-German position as simply coming from the ”old Europe”.

The ”new Europe”, supposedly constituted by the new members of NATO (Rumsfeld and President Bush never mention the European Union), apparently fully understands the new world scene, knows how to identify its dangers, and accepts mutual interests with the United States.

Shouts of outrage still resound in the European parliaments, op-ed pieces still burn in the most influential papers, and dramatic announcements still echo from the desks of TV anchorpersons. It seems as if the European leaders were just waiting for a new excuse to vent their criticism of recent US policies, and Rumsfeld offered them this opportunity on a silver platter.

Although Europe is no longer partitioned between ”West” and ”East” as it was during the Cold War, Washington is now inscribing a new division. But, what is the ”old Europe”? How is it different from the ”new”?

In the post-September 11th world, the ”old Europe” is the one formed around the nucleus forged by two nations tragically mangled by self-inflicted wars that ended in near suicide (Germany) and humiliation and occupation (France) in World War II. At the end of the 1940s, having learned their lesson from this slaughter, their respective leaders concluded that the only way to end once and for all their tendency to bloody conflict was to place the means of war under the control of common institutions.

On May 9, 1950, Robert Schuman, French Minister of Foreign Affairs, inspired by Jean Monnet, the adviser for economic reconstruction, issued at the Quai d’Orsay his now famous Declaration (”of interdependency”, as EU scholars fondly call it). France proposed to pool the coal and steel ndustries –the two main sectors involved in making war– and place them under a common authority.

The EU was created not merely to market coal and steel but ”to make war unthinkable”, as the Declaration reads. Just in case, it will also make war ”materially impossible”. The offer was intended for Germany, internationally prostrate, its industrial territories occupied. It was also an offer to all European states qualified to join.

Modern European integration began with the European Community of Coal and Steel, later transformed into the European Economic Community, and recently into the European Union. Its common currency, the euro, adopted in January 2002, was one of very few components of national sovereignty not yet fully shared. Now only a common defense remains to be realised: the Eurocorps are already in place, a military multinational conglomerate around a Franco-German nucleus with its headquarters in Strasbourg, a city that has changed sovereignty several times in the last two centuries. The Eurocorps is destined to be the basis for the EU’s Rapid Reaction Force, commissioned for peace-making and peace missions.

De Gaulle, who had a different concept of cooperation between the two states, decided in 1963 that Franco-German reconciliation required a more solemn pact. He offered Adenauer a place in history with the Elysee Treaty.

Both agreements, complementary and irreplaceable, have proven to be among the most successful processes of European history. Europeans have insisted on this method to solve differences and preserve peace, renouncing the use of force. The EU economic shield provided a complement to NATO, sending the message that the temptations of the centralized Soviet-led economy led down the wrong path.

To believe that Lithuania, Slovakia, or even Poland, because of their fast conversion from satellites of the Soviet Union are today the true representatives of Europe is as preposterous as believing that in 1985, about a decade after their transition from dictatorship to democracy, Spain and Portugal became the backbone of the EU.

The grave danger raised by Rumsfeld’s remark is that the United States might persist in considering the European doubts irrelevant. The risk is that the US will decide to carry out the war by itself and believes that others will follow. Only when all the cards are on the Security Council table or the first shots are fired over Iraq will we know the truth. Until now, fortunately, only words and pots of ink have been launched. It is an improvement, given past experience. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)