Charlemagne
Who speaks for Europe?
Feb 6th 2003
From The Economist print edition
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1563772
France and Germany can no longer call the shots in Europe
TRUE believers in the Franco-German special relationship have a theory about why those two countries, above all others, should lead the way in Europe. In Paris and Berlin they like to argue that it is not the similarities between Germany and France that make them so dynamic a duo, it is their differences. Germany is Europe's leading industrial power, France its leading farming producer; Germany is mainly Protestant, France largely Catholic; Germany wants a European federation, France believes in the nation; Germany straddles eastern and western Europe, France is both northern and southern; Germany is yin, France is yang. You get the picture. Together, the pair encompass Europe's diversity. If these two countries form a common view, the rest of Europe can fall happily into line, confident that all conceivable interests have been taken into account.
This argument was always self-serving. But it has taken the row over Iraq to show just how out of date it is. Last week's decision by eight European countries to sign a letter of solidarity with the United States was a calculated snub to the Franco-German couple in its claim to speak for Europe. And it came just a week after that couple had renewed their marriage vows at ceremonies in Paris and Berlin and affirmed a common aversion to the idea of a war against Saddam Hussein.
The French and German leaders were taken aback by the letter of the “gang of eight”. Their diplomats insist that the Franco-German stance still represents European views more accurately than the joint letter signed by Britain, Italy, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Hungary, Denmark and the Czech Republic. The French point out, correctly, that even in the countries that signed the letter, public opinion is against war. They also argue that the eight are still in a minority in the European Union of 25 members that will come into being next year. Here, they are on increasingly shaky ground. Britain, Spain, Italy and Poland are four of the EU's six biggest countries. And since the letter was issued another ten “new” European countries, including all three Baltic and most Balkan ones, have also endorsed the American case for war. In any event, European division dramatically weakens the impression of American isolation over Iraq. But it also has big implications for Europe. The gang of eight have, quite deliberately, undermined the idea that the Franco-German couple can continue to set the EU's agenda.
France now faces an unpleasant moment of truth. It has long been queasy about the EU embracing the central Europeans. Together with Germany's reunification, the EU's enlargement threatens France's traditional domination of the club. Faced with the horror of the new Union being pro-American, economically liberal and English-speaking, its strategy has been to try to reassert the traditional leadership of France and Germany within the EU. If Germany could only be tethered to France in perpetuity, then together the pair could still set Europe's agenda.
For the last four months, this strategy appeared to be working quite well. Just before an EU summit in October, the French and the Germans grabbed control of events by cutting a deal to delay reform of farm subsidies. When Britain's Tony Blair protested, the French president, Jacques Chirac, upbraided him in front of the other leaders and postponed a Franco-British summit (which took place this week). Meanwhile Mr Chirac embraced Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, who has been weakened by a faltering economy and rattled by a bitter row with the Americans over his unconditional opposition to a war with Iraq. Mr Chirac pointedly remarked that it was Mr Blair who was isolated in Europe over Iraq, not Mr Schröder. Together France and Germany issued a stream of joint positions for the EU's convention on Europe's future. The lovefest culminated last month in much-hyped 40th-anniversary celebrations of their friendship treaty.
The French failed to notice how much the trumpeting of the duo's revived leadership role irritated other European countries
But, perhaps misled by their own propaganda about the wondrous benefits the Franco-German alliance brings to Europe, the French failed to notice how much the trumpeting of the duo's revived leadership role irritated other European countries, not just the traditionally isolated British. Ana Palacio, Spain's foreign minister, gave voice to widespread unease when she said this week that France's and Germany's unilateral tightening of their relationship undermined other European countries. The gang-of-eight letter was, in part, a reaction. And its implications go well beyond Iraq. It suggests that the entire French strategy for the enlarged EU is flawed. Other EU countries are simply no longer prepared to accept a Franco-German directoire.
Germany's dilemma is just as sharp. Unlike Mr Chirac, Mr Schröder has condemned the war so unconditionally that he has left himself no escape route. If, as many suspect, the French ultimately back a second UN resolution endorsing the use of force, the Germans really will be isolated in Europe. Mr Schröder's longstanding efforts to “normalise” Germany and ease it into a leadership role in the EU will have been severely set back.
Nobody's in charge
Who would then lead the new Union? The gang of eight is not an alternative leadership. If the centre-left regained power in Italy and Spain, their new governments might well be more in tune with France and Germany. The Poles may differ with the French over security but they will be with them in the battle to preserve farm subsidies. The Czechs and Hungarians are less wary of military force than the Germans but sympathise with their approach to the EU's constitutional reform. In truth, there are no more fixed and reliable alliances in the EU. Countries will team up with each other, depending on issue and circumstances. As Lord Palmerston, a British prime minister of the Victorian era, put it, there are “no permanent alliances, only permanent interests”. For all the talk of a new European way of politics for the 21st century—transcending the old ideas of national interest and sovereignty—his dictum still has a certain force.
Bump for later reading.
>That is why the 16th century church did not tolerate translation of the scriptures into the vernacular.<
Garbage Alert!
It was because the many attempts at translation resulted in significant error, both malicious and unintended.