EU constitution: Who has the last laugh?

A fool-proof process
Whoever might have done this successful field-work or ground-work at grassrootlevel had done it very successfully without creating any suspicion in the mind of the leadership of the two countries, particularly France. Credit must be given where it is due. And he deserves this credit. It has not been done in a day or two. He must have gone through a long fool-proof process. He must now be enjoying the last laugh and the best laugh, over his mission possible. This reminds me of two recent events that brought about radical changes in two countries, namely, Georgia and Ukraine, both belonging to former Soviet Union, and now having the closest link with present day Russia. In the recent presidential elections held in the two countries, millions of US Dollars were reportedly spent by Washington to install pro-US Presidents, which was bitterly criticised by the Russian President Putin. But Washington had its good field day.

The European media had already written 'obituaries' to the sad demise of the EU constitution, and some even to the EU itself. They consider, and that is correct, that the EU constitution is already dead and the earlier a decent burial is given to it the better. Thus metaphors of death of the EUC echoed and re-echoed in some leading British and European dailies. The British daily The Guardian said: "If France's vote dealt the treaty a critical blow, the Datch have now delivered the coup de grace". Naturally, an inquisitive mind would be eager to find the media reaction from other countries, particularly, America. So what was the US media reaction?

US media reaction
Newsweek International editor Farid Zakaria had given a clear picture of US mind in his article (D.S. 12.6.05): "Most Americans are not quite sure what to make of this. The clearest and loudest voices have been gleeful. Conservative commentators have delighted in the

results, seeing them as a defeat for Jacques Chirac and his dreams of an alternative to an American hyper power." Here the writer had focussed on reactions of three different categories of people. The first category refers to the "most Americans" who are "not quite sure of what to make of this." This reflects general attitude or thinking of the most American people who care less about what is happening outside their country and that is how the majority of the Americans voted George Bush for his second term in the Presidency, despite world-wide criticism of his war against Iraq.

But the second and the third category of reactions bring out the true picture of US stand vis-a-vis EU. And most interestingly, "the clearest and the loudest voices have been gleeful". This brings out the mewing cat out of the bag, showing the suppressed US feeling about the EU. Otherwise why this gleeful delight? And the third category of "conservative commentators" had hit the bottomline of the US policy towards growing in stature of the EU as a rival power on world stage, expressing their "vicarious pleasure" over Jacques Chirac's "defeat" in his efforts to build the EU as an "alternative hyper power". This exhuberance on the part of "conservative commentators", perhaps representing the ruling Republican hawks, clearly shows that Washington was not sitting idle while Chirac and his colleagues in the EU were marching ahead to fulfil their "dream". But the "dream" of Chirac and company had been shattered.

Many may think that it would be too far-fetched to drag in America in the tragic wreckage of the EU constitution by the French and the Dutch. Yet the possibility of such a wrong track can't just be dismissed as foolish thinking. In order to preserve its dominant role in moulding and shaping world affairs, any policy would be considered, on the part of America, as justified, to cripple its new rival, the EU.

America's greatest victory in the post WW II world was the demolition of the only powerful rival, the Soviet Union, thanks to the wonderful role played by CIA there. Therefore, there will be nothing wrong if America had to play some behind-the-scene role in the EU countries to bring down the newly-built castle.

America had a sweet dream
History does not lie. History tells us that America had a sweet dream about making the war-devastated Europe a nice pasture to march hand-in-hand to face any eventuality together. That dream partially came true when US-led North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) came into existence in 1949 to serve as a bulwark with the assistance of the European forces against any push by the then Soviet Union towards western European countries. The European nations, for whom America had spent billions of dollars under the Marshall Aid Plan for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of their shattered economy, were too eager to extend their hands of cooperation to America to run the NATO to achieve its goal. But thus far, no further. And the American dream was eclipsed. Bad for America, but perhaps good for Europe.

Then there came a renaissance in the socio-political life of the European nations. The unity among the Western European nations that was cemented by NATO took a new turn with their gradual realisations that they, as a united bloc, can also become a big force on the world stage, instead of being guided always from across the Atlantic. So the 'seeds' sown in Europe by the US-sponsored Marshall Aid Plan in 1947 produced the 'rich crop' in 1957 for Europe when on 25 March of that year political leaders of six Western European countries -- France, W Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg -- met in Rome for the first time to chalk out their own future programme and thereby established the European Economic Community (EEC), which is considered as the first step towards the creation of today's European Union (EU). In 1992, there came another turning point when, under the Maastrich treaty, a new monetary programme, named Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) for Europe was set up, which ultimately evolved the new single currency for Europe, called 'Euro,' which became a big rival of the currency king US dollar. By then America was in deep water up to its neck, losing gradually its ground and grip in Europe. Henceforth, the newly-emerged EU has shown its muscle whenever it confronted a clash of interest both at WTO and the UN with its former benefactor, America. Hence whenever there appears a crack on the wall of the EU, whether it is its constitution or any other related matter, it is not perhaps difficult to guess who is having the last laugh

Now, therefore, time has come for the EU member countries, both old and new, numbering 25, to realise the hard truth that 'A chain is no stronger than its weakest link.' If the EU constitution happens to be its 'weakest link'. Then they would have to rectify it by framing a new one acceptable to all members. That seems the only proper means to put the European 'house' in order.

EU going to play its role: Solana
Meanwhile, the most encouraging voice had come from the chief of the EU foreign policy, Javier Solana, a former secretary-general of the US-led NATO forces in Europe. Dismissing all apprehensions that the EU is coming to a stand-still, following the deadly blows given to its constitution by the French and the Dutch voters, Mr Solana had vowed 'to go ahead with boosting' its role on the world stage, adding that the vote "does not effect how we will run the 25-nation bloc's foreign policy." He also pointed out that the EU had been an 'actor' even before its member countries started to talk about a constitution. Mr Solana had shown new hopes that the constitutions mishap would not work as a hindrance to the mission for which the EU was created. It is time for the EU member states to falsify the prediction of those who think that the EU had come to an end.

AMM Shahabuddin is a retired UN official.