By Julio Godoy
BERLIN, Dec 20 2007 (IPS)

For the European Union, 2007 was a year rich in events, but poor on results. Next year promises to be as turbulent as this one, and probably as unremarkable in its outcome.

Among the uncertain achievements in 2007 was agreement on a new treaty in Lisbon in December to serve as the basis for a more coherent and transparent European Union.

The Treaty of Lisbon has been hailed as a breakthrough in European history. Portuguese Prime Minister José Socrates said after the signing ceremony that with the treaty "Europe finally overcomes the political and institutional impasse that limited its capacity to act during the last few years."

The treaty replaces the draft for a European Constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch citizens in referendums in 2005.

But brave words on the treaty have not found an echo in society at large. Former French president Valéry Giscard d&#39Estaing, coordinator of the commission that formulated the ill-fated constitutional draft, described the new treaty as "impenetrable for the public."

European leaders "have taken the original draft constitution, blown it apart into separate elements, and have then attached them, one by one, to existing treaties," Giscard d&#39Estaing wrote in Britain&#39s Independent newspaper.

The London-based group Open Europe, which campaigns for greater openness, flexibility and accountability in EU institutions, found that "96 percent (of the treaty of Lisbon) is a word-for-word carbon copy" of the rejected constitutional draft. "This is a deeply dishonest process," the group said in a statement.

In contrast to the constitution draft, which had to be approved by referendums in EU member countries where such procedures are traditional, the new treaty does not require such popular recognition for its validity, and needs only approval by parliaments. Ireland alone is planning to present the treaty to popular scrutiny in 2008.

This change in the need for public validation could arise from official fear of a new rejection. A Europe-wide poll Open Europe commissioned last March shows that 75 percent of people surveyed, including a majority in all 27 EU countries, want a referendum on any new treaty that gives more power to the EU.

The disparity between the EU&#39s positive appraisal of its actions, and a negative public perception, appears to be typical of 2007.

This is particularly so with the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) that the EU is trying to agree with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group, which includes 79 small and developing nations.

The EPAs foresee division of the ACP into six regional groupings which would liberalise trade among themselves and sign regional agreements to lower trade barriers with the EU, in exchange for EU import concessions.

While the EU defends the EPAs with Africa as a "contribution" to its "economic integration and development", African governments and many European non-governmental organisations say they are likely to benefit European corporate interests, to the detriment of African economies.

The proposed agreements are a "new economic colonialism," Dieter Simon, spokesperson for the German Coordination Centre for Southern Africa told IPS. "Calling the EPAs instruments of economic development is simply telling a lie. In Kenya alone, the EPAs will bring about the loss of some 625,000 jobs in the milk industry as a result of cheap imports from Europe."

Susan Sechler, senior fellow at the German Marshal Fund, described the EPAs as a "huge market grab." Economic analysis conducted at the Paris-based Institute for Political Sciences and the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute also suggests that the ACP countries would lose from the deals.

"The EPAs would result in massive trade diversion in favour of the EU," Sechler told IPS.

But while the EU appeared in 2007 to be bullying apparently weak partners – such as the ACP countries – into unfair agreements, it was unable to force through an appropriate agenda on global issues when facing powerful partners.

On climate change, the EU appeared to be playing a lead role in announcing ambitious objectives to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions (GGE) – only to accept U.S. opposition to global mandatory reductions at the UN conference in Bali.

Among its own members the EU has had to deal with disunity in foreign policy – especially with French President Nicolas Sarkozy trying to give European diplomacy a new direction with little attention to allies&#39 opinions.

This will gain importance when France assumes EU leadership for the second half of 2008. By aligning himself closely with U.S. President George Bush, Sarkozy threatens to undermine a policy of EU independence from Washington.

Earlier this summer, Sarkozy&#39s foreign minister Bernard Kouchner went so far as to speak of war against Iran, in line with the Bush government. The line later proved untenable in view of a U.S. secret services&#39 report that Iran had abandoned its military nuclear programme in 2003.

But Sarkozy is going his own path in other areas. Earlier this month he agreed to sell weapons and nuclear technology to Libya during the course of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi&#39s visit to Paris. Until very recently Gaddafi was considered in Europe a "major sponsor of international terrorism." Many countries do not share the French view on Libya.

And the EU foreign policy split could widen in the new year over Kosovo. In backing independence for Serbia&#39s southern province, the EU could end up accepting the controversial principle of ethnic pre-eminence to redefine national state borders.

Excerpt: