|
In a decisive vote, France, one of the founder
nations of the European Union, rejected the
draft European Union Constitution. A shocked
French President Mr. Jacques Chirac conceded
defeat and talked about new "impulses" that he
would initiate.
Several times before, different efforts have
failed to unite all of Europe. From military
maneuvers of the Roman Empire to the current
democratic effort, a unified Europe had always
been a problem. Differences in language,
geography, economic status along with old
rivalries, clans, political differences,
ethnical grouping separate the many countries of
Europe. The modern effort was as much a
political unification of these divided lands as
is about economics and inter-dependence.
A unified European Union brings many benefits to
Europe and even the world. A strong unified
currency provides a degree of stability and
hedge against the dollar. It removes trade
barriers and makes it easy for countries to
import from and export to Europe. It enables a
consistent trade policy making it easier for
companies to collaborate, trade, and transact
efficiently. It makes traveling to Europe easier
as tourist and business travelers to Europe will
not have to deal with multiple visa regulations.
Through the unification, militaries, diplomacy,
customs, and other bureaucracies are optimized
clearing budget allocations for development,
trade, and other positive investments. A unified
judicial system and system of governance makes
it easier to achieve global laws and
understanding. A unified Europe will create a
parallel global power that competes positively
with the United States and act as a check
against unbridled unipolar power. It would serve
as a stabilizing force in the world to arrest
the growth of radical and destructive nations
that manipulate a divided world to achieve
nefarious objectives.
Analysts point out that the French "Non" vote is
rooted in fear, self-interest, and opposition to
Mr. Chirac's policies. They cite the high
unemployment rate (above 10%), a drastic
increase in working hours from 36 to 45 a week,
and a fear that their constitutional rights of
equality, fraternity, and freedom as reasons for
the vote. They cite the success of the coalition
of left wingers who actively campaigned against
the EU constitution on the platform that it was
pro-rich and anti poor. They say that increased
membership of EU dilutes French position,
respect, and influence in the EU. They say the
new Constitution would make Europe more
Anglo-Saxon and less French. These seem to be
fascicle analysis on a complex vote. These may
have been symptoms and strong reasons but there
are numerous other undercurrents at play.
The new Constitution was authored by a
Convention chaired by a former French President;
would he have not influenced the text to ensure
the preservation of European (or French)
influence? Would not the people of France know
that a dilution of EU is a departure from what
they have supported earlier? Would not the
French understand that the dilution of EU means
weakening of the Euro and therefore a loss of
wealth for Europe? Would not the French
appreciate a loss of opportunity for business
means more unemployment? Actually, one of the
strangest things that happened was that most of
the arguments for the "Non" vote was centered on
old texts of the draft Constitution that
constrained too many amendments that few
understood.
The collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of
the Cold War brought together Germany and also
the concept of unification of Europe. This
however graduated to a point where countries
clambered to become part of the European Union
to get a piece of the benefits listed above. The
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) pushed
to include former Eastern European states. The
Russians claimed this was to marginalize the
fledgling Commonwealth of Independent States
(CIS) formed soon after the collapse of the
Soviet Union. The greed to expand Europe grew to
a point where Turkey is now a prospect to join
the EU. This brought home the truth that
inclusion of these economically backward and
socially different states could radically affect
and perhaps erode traditional European values
and culture. Can France sustain an unbridled
invasion of populations seeking economic
benefits from Turkey when it cannot even handle
controlled influx from Africa and Asia? With
existing French immigration laws being the way
they are-- liberal, naive, and overly gracious,
could an influx of large populations into France
take away money from social, infrastructural,
and community spending to finance incoming
populations who really do not have to work? Can
France accommodate increased ghetto
populations outside Paris? Clearly, the French
have instinctively said "Non."
An optimistic analysis of the French "Non" is
that the vote has created an unknown period of
uncertainty for the fledgling union and the
world. A Dutch "No" (another founder member to
vote next week) followed by a British "No" will
arrest the progress of EU for a long time.
Apparently, there was no "Plan B" as such a plan
would mean diluting the Constitution. But EU
Commission leaders are quick to point out that
they will pursue with the plan of getting votes
from all member states and then ask nay-Sayers
to vote again since all 25 member states must
say "Yes" or "Oui.". This may be a decent
strategy. But a better one is to go back to the
drawing board and evaluate the current situation
with the original concepts behind EU. Answers to
the French "Non" will be evident. The EU could
possibly learn a bit from the Indian American
experience in living with culturally and
ethnically diverse, religiously polarized,
illegal economics-seeking migratory populations.
The EU is India's largest trading partner. And,
a collapse of the EU or its stunted existence is
not in India's or anybody's interest. The only
people who would benefit would be extreme left
wingers who want a resurrection of Communism.
|
