HAS THE EU REACHED ITS LIMIT?

By IPS Correspondents 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.

//NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN UNITED STATES AND SPAIN//, Oct 1 2006 (IPS) - In the wake of the announcement that Rumania and Bulgaria will be admitted into the European Union, the new anti-enlargement code words –\’\’indigestion\’\’ and \’\’capacity of absorption\’\’– are echoing across Europe, writes Joaquin Roy, Jean Monnet professor and Director of the European Centre at the University of Miami, and currently Visiting Professor at the University of Barcelona. In this analysis, Roy writes that the true mandate for this enlargement is not a recent decision, nor the Nice Treaty of 2003, but rather the offer made on May 9, 1950 by French foreign minister Robert Schuman, drafted by his associate Jean Monnet. It proposed \’\’that Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority\’\’. But, immediately after, it adds that this entity should be placed \’\’within the framework of an organisation\’\’, and finally, and most important, that the latter should be \’\’open to the participation of the other countries of Europe.\’\’ That is the original \’\’contract\’\’: the EU at its birth was the property of all European countries that comply with the essential conditions of \’\’membership\’\’. As for the voices that today claim that \’\’indigestion\’\’ was caused by enlargement of 2004 and will be made worse by future additions, it\’s simply too late.

In the wake of the announcement that Rumania and Bulgaria will be admitted into the European Union, the new anti- enlargement code words –”indigestion” and ”capacity of absorption”– are echoing across Europe.

The previous EU enlargement of 2004 was blamed for increasing uncontrolled migration towards EU countries, the rise of nationalism and racism, inflation, the erosion of quality of life, and a loss of prestige and cohesion.

However, the reality is that the true mandate for this enlargement is not a recent decision, nor the Nice Treaty of 2003, which tried to regulate the adjustment of the decision-making process in the Council and Parliament, but rather the offer made on May 9, 1950 by French foreign minister Robert Schuman, drafted by his associate Jean Monnet — affectionately referred to by many as the ”Declaration of Inter-Dependency”.

While it was obviously an offer that Germany was in no position to reject, it was also an open invitation to the rest of Europe. Indeed, it would provide a suitable framework for the cooperation and benefit of the rest of the world.

First, the text made the initial overture to France’s perennial enemy, Germany: It proposed ”that Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority”. But, immediately after, it adds that this entity should be placed ”within the framework of an organisation”, and finally, and most important, that the latter should be ”open to the participation of the other countries of Europe.” That is the original ”contract”: the EU at its birth was the property of all European countries that comply with the essential conditions of ”membership”.

The universal reach of the original offer is permanently enshrined in the same crucial paragraph where the ultimate objective of the European Union is stated: ”The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.” It then adds: ”The setting up of this powerful productive unit, open to all countries willing to take part and bound ultimately to provide all the member countries with the basic elements of industrial production on the same terms, will lay a true foundation for their economic unification.”

This means that even outside members can be associated with the project in a special manner distinguishable from full membership that is reserved by the foundational statements made to European countries. Having fulfilled the geographical-historical condition, prospective members have only to satisfy the implicit democratic and economic requirements present in the original foundational document, later explicitly spelled out in the so-called Copenhagen criteria.

The Schuman Declaration reads that the ”production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organisation”, implying that the elements considered to be the causes of wars (coal and steel) are available in an open market economy and that the common administration exercised by an entity (High Authority, predecessor of the Commission) is in the hands of an organisation (the former ECCS and the current EU) managed through a democratic, legal, and voluntary process. In other words, the original membership requirements were and still are having a market economy and a democratic political system.

Any doubts about the validity of these original conditions should be dispelled on two grounds. First, the terminology used in the subsequent treaties is impeccably market-oriented and based on the customs of liberal democracy. Conditions for ”free trade”, establishing a ”customs union”, and following a path to guarantee the ”freedom of movement of goods, capital, services and people” are clearly the features of an open economy.

Second, the record of the admission process to the EU is very clear. No European country has been admitted while having a dubious political system. In this context, consider the customary requirements presented by NATO. While Portugal under the Salazar dictatorship was a founding member of the Alliance, it took more than a decade, along with Spain, to become a EU member once democracy was restored in both countries. Greece was not expelled from NATO when the colonels took over. Turkey has remained a solid Alliance member for decades in spite of the military’s influence in politics.

The process to enter the EU is long and arduous, but there is only one end for a European country: membership. Europe and the European Union are like the two spheres in solar eclipse. When there is a gap between the circle of the moon and the sun, the eclipse is partial. The EU will be completed when both circles coincide, when all countries that want to belong are allowed in, not before. But the goal is still the same.

As for the voices that today claim that ”indigestion” was caused by enlargement of 2004 and will be made worse by future additions, there is only one response: It’s too late. Fifty years ago was the time to work out a different form of EU. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)