3. The future of the eu

There is in Europe both a sense that the EU should continue to press economic and political integration forward and a hesitancy to move toward becoming the United States of Europe. This duality was evident in a speech by France’s president Jacques Chirac to Germany’s parliament: "Those countries that want to proceed further with integration, on a voluntary basis and in specific areas, must be allowed to do so without being held back," he declared. But, he added, his image was of a "united Europe of states rather than a United States of Europe." How much further and how fast the EU proceeds down the road of integration and expansion rests on a number of factors.

Popular Support for EU Integration

The level of public support for EU integration is one factor that will determine the EU’s future. A poll, the Eurobarometer, that tracks opinion in Europe, finds somewhat mixed signals about how Europeans feel about the EU. For example, popular support for their country’s membership in the EU can be viewed in two ways. From one perspective, only about half of Europeans voice support. But only 12 percent voice opposition, with others uncertain. Over time, average support increased from about 50 percent in the early 1980s to approximately 70 percent during 1989-1991, then dropped back to about 50 percent in 2000 and 2001.

There are numerous indications, however, that Europeans support EU integration, want it to proceed further, and want it to proceed faster. For instance, people are relatively comfortable with EU governance of at least some areas once exclusively the realm of national governments. The Eurobarometer finds 66 percent of the EU’s population supporting the principle of a common foreign policy, and 73 percent in favor of a common security policy. Support for EU decision making in domestic policy areas is lower. There is only 34 percent support, for instance, for an EU role in setting education policy.

Polls also indicate that about two-thirds favor a European Union constitution. To that end, the Convention on the Future of Europe convened in Brussels, Belgium, in February 2002. Chaired by former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing the meeting is commonly referred to as Europe’s "constitutional convention" and is scheduled to work for a year to draft an EU constitution. Speaking to the delegates at the opening ceremony, Giscard d’Estaing told them that the complexity of treaties that currently govern the EU have rendered its decision-making structures "complex to the point of being unintelligible to the general public," threatening to create an inertia toward integration that he termed "euro-sclerosis." "So let us dream of Europe!" the former president exclaimed. "Let us imagine a continent... freed of its barriers and obstacles, where history and geography are finally reconciled, allowing all the states of Europe to build their future together after following their separate ways, East and West." In sum, although he was careful enough politically not to say it, Giscard d’Estaing challenged the delegates to create a federal United States of Europe.

The EU Economy

The degree of economic prosperity of EU members and their citizens is a second factor that influences the course of EU integration. Whether Europeans feel that the EU is beneficial is based in part on their perceptions of its impact on their prosperity. During the 1980s, the average annual growth of the EU’s GDP was 2.2, and on average 55 percent of poll respondents said that their country benefited from EU membership. During the 1990s the EU’s average annual GDP growth dropped off to 1.7 percent, and that was reflected in a drop to 48 in the average percentage of those saying that their country benefited from EU membership.

While the potential for the European economy is immense, there are numerous possible obstacles to overcome. One is economic disparity. The original six members were relatively close in their economic circumstances. The addition of new countries has changed that and will continue to do so. As it stands, the average annual per capita GDPs of EU countries range from Luxembourg’s $44,340 to Greece’s $11,960. Adding East European countries, such as Poland ($4,200), which have applied to join the EU, will further complicate the integration of the EU’s diverse economies.

Just as expanding EU membership has potential pluses and minuses, so does the implementation of the euro as the official currency and the abolishment of the German mark, French franc, Italian lira, and the other national currencies of the EU members. Having a common currency is necessary to achieve full economic integration and to move further toward political integration. Still, the introduction of the euro has created major issues as the EU struggles to resolve longstanding national differences over fiscal policy. Three EU countries (Denmark, Great Britain, and Sweden) are not in the "euro zone," that is, they will not substitute the euro for their national currencies. Moreover, the currency was not received with confidence in the world financial markets. When put into circulation on January 1, 1999, it was pegged at 1 euro = $1.17. From that point, the euro’s exchange rate fell 24 percent to 1 euro = $0.89 when euro coins and bills went into general circulation on January 1, 2002. Among other negative effects, the falling value of the euro spurred European exports, but it also had the effect of driving up the price of petroleum and other imported products.

Satisfaction with EU Institutions

The degree to which the EU’s rule-making and administrative institutions function effectively is a third factor that will affect the future of EU integration. Some European voters oppose expansion of EU functions because of their sense that so-called Eurotaxes are too high and that the EU bureaucracy, the "Eurocracy," is too powerful, unresponsive, and even corrupt. Some of the tales of Eurocratic excess that circulate are related in the box, When Is a Banana a Banana?

Polls taken in late 2001 showed a marked increase in the public’s trust of EU’s institutions, but that spike was almost surely a reaction to the fear of terrorism in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks on the United States. The increase to 53 percent in trust in the EU was paralleled by similar jumps in the degree to which Europeans trusted their national governments and the UN. There was a similar upsurge of trust in the U.S. government by Americans. What is likely is that in time, the level of trust in the EU’s institutions will ebb to the usual range of 40 percent. This does not mean, however, that Europeans are any more skeptical of the EU than of their national governments. Indeed, Europeans trust them even less by a margin of about 3 percent.

This feeling was substantiated in March 1999 when all 20 members of the European Commission, including its president, Jacques Santer, resigned amid allegations of mismanagement and cronyism and were replaced by a new set of commissioners headed by Italy’s Romano Prodi.

Political Identity

How Europeans identify politically is a fourth factor that will impact EU integration. It will be necessary for Europeans to shift their political loyalties away from their national states and toward the EU for integration to proceed much further.

Recent polls give some evidence that this is occurring. While almost no one considers themselves, politically, a North American or an African, 52 percent of people in the EU countries indicated they see themselves, at least partly, as European. But the sense of Euronationalism is also limited in several ways. Only 10 percent of EU citizens see themselves as simply European or as more European than national.

Nationalism-based resistance is especially evident in the newer EU members, but it is an important emotion in even the original six EU members. "Our nations are the source of our identities and of our roots," President Chirac of France recently proclaimed, "The diversity of our political traditions, cultures and languages is one of the strengths of the union. In the future, our nations will stay the first reference point for our people."

Perceptions of Germany

Wariness of Germany is a fifth factor that impinges on EU integration. Germany accounts for 21 percent of the EU’s population, 25 percent of the GDP, and 22 percent of total EU merchandise exports. One survey of British, French, German, and Italian citizens asked which country, if any, "will become the dominant power" in the EU. A majority of the British, French, and Italians, and even a plurality of the Germans, replied "Germany." When asked if they liked the idea of Germany dominating, 91 percent of the British, 73 percent of the French, and 71 percent of the Italians said no.

Furthering the disquiet in some, Germany has been a leading proponent of ever greater economic and political integration. In May 2000 German foreign minister Joschka Fischer commented in a speech that the current EU structure was too cumbersome to achieve a fully integrated Europe and should be replaced by "nothing less than a European Parliament and a European government which really do exercise legislative and executive power within [a]... federation." In short, Fischer proposed creating a more powerful European government and a federal United States of Europe. Reaction was swift and sharp. "There is a tendency in Germany to imagine a federal structure for Europe which fits in with its own model," warned France’s interior minister, Jean-Pierre Chevenement. "Deep down, [Germany] is still dreaming of the Holy Roman Empire. It hasn’t cured itself of its past derailment into Nazism." Fischer later protested he was speaking as an individual, not as German foreign minister, and Chevenement apologized for his undiplomatic reference to Germany’s Nazi past. Still, the incident reflected a concern that is not far below the surface in Europe.

Expanded Membership

Popular willingness to accept new members into the EU is a sixth pivotal issue in the future of the EU and is also related to nationalism. Support for integration does not necessarily mean support for expansion, and the latter is being limited by the recent upsurge in antiforeigner sentiment in Europe. As a result, public support for the enlargement of the EU is mixed. Support for expansion can muster only a weak plurality of 43 percent among EU citizens, while 35 percent are opposed to it, and 22 percent are unsure.

In sum, the evolution of the EU has been one of the remarkable events of the past half century. It does not take much imagination to foresee a day when the once antagonistic states of Europe are forged into a United States of Europe. That is just one possibility, however, and what is certain is that the progress of the EU toward further economic and political integration, whether or not it leads to true federation, will be difficult.

Many people consider Europe the epicurean center of the world, and the EU’s "food fights" bear out the intensity of that continent’s decision makers toward gastronomical policy.

During one discussion in the Council of Ministers h 2002 over a proposal to locate the new EU food safety agency in Finland, Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi argued that it should be put in Parma, Italy, on the grounds that "Parma is synonymous with good cuisine. The Finns don’t even know what prosciutto is." Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt of Belgium pointed out reasonably that "the gastronomic attraction is not argument for the allocation of an EU agency." And President Jacques Chirac of France asked aloud, "How would it be if Sweden got an agency for training models, since [it has such] pretty women?" Berlusconi was unpersuaded. "My final word is no," he proclaimed, and the conferees put off the decision until after lunch.

The many tales of attempts by EU bureaucrats to regulate everything, which have become part of the political lore of Europe, have also often included skirmishes over what food can be called.

Many Europeans reacted with bemusement, for example, at the EU’s banana contretemps. The details are slippery, but it all stemmed from a bunch of regulations promulgated by the EU bureaucracy that, among other things, specified that imported bananas had to be at least 5.5 inches long and 1.1 inches wide, and could not be abnormally bent. Great Britain, where archeologists uncovered the remains of a banana skin dating back to the mid-1400s, was especially offended. "Brussels bureaucrats proved yesterday what a barmy bunch they are—by outlawing curved bananas. The crazy laws were drawn by thumb-twiddling EU chiefs who spent thousands on a yearlong study," protested the British newspaper, the Sun. An EU spokesperson replied that while, indeed, bananas of an abnormal shape could not be imported, that "in no sense" meant that EU regulation banned "curved bananas because a curve is a normal shape for a banana."

Once the Europeans agreed on what a banana was, they also agreed to impose lower tariffs on bananas from their former colonies than on bananas from other places. That drove Americans bananas be¬cause many of those other places were Caribbean and Central American countries with close ties to the United States. Washington then butted heads with the EU by threatening to retaliate by barring cashmere and other EU products. This got the goat of Scottish cashmere producers. In the end, the two economic superpowers were able to escape the horns of this dilemma by agreeing that the EU would gradually end its preferences for its bunch of favored countries and equally admit the bananas from the U.S.-favored bunch of countries.

The reputation of the Eurocracy was further darkened by the chocolate imbroglio. Having decided that bananas could indeed be bent, at least somewhat, and in the right places, EU policymakers turned to the sticky issue of what constitutes chocolate. The battle line was drawn between the eight EU countries that require chocolate to consist entirely of cocoa butter and the other seven EU members that allow up to 5 percent vegetable oil in chocolate. Representing the purists, the head of the Belgian chocolate company Godiva proclaimed that only " 100 percent chocolate should be called... chocolate." Answering back for the nondoctrinaire chocolatiers, a representative of Great Britain’s largest chocolate maker, Cadbury, urged, "Let’s celebrate Europe’s regional diversity and recognize that there are different ways of making chocolate." The purists won the first round when the European Parliament voted 306 to 112 in favor of their position. But the war was not over, for the European Council of Ministers had to make the final gooey decision. "Whatever we do will be attacked from one side or the other," an EU spokesperson has complained. Compromise was the sweet solution. An early 2000 ruling declared that chocolate with vegetable oil could be shipped throughout the EU. Moreover it could be labeled chocolate, but only in the seven nonpurist countries. In the purist eight, it would have to be labeled "family milk chocolate." Not that it has anything to do with families or milk. Ah well, as Forrest Gump mused, "Life is like a box of chocolates.

KEY POINTS

• The organizational genesis of the EU dates back to 1952. In 1957 the six countries signed the Treaties of Rome that created the European Economic Community (EEC) to facilitate trade in many additional areas and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) to coordinate matters in that realm.

• Interchange among the 6 countries expanded rapidly. Therefore, the 6 created the European Communities (EC) (1967).

• The eventual goal of the EU is to encompass all the region’s countries.

• For about 30 years, the integrative process in Europe focused on economics. The Single European Act (SEA) of 1987 amended the basic EU agreement and committed the EU to becoming a fully integrated economic unit.

• Europe entered a new, more political phase of integrative evolution in 1993 when the far-reaching Treaty on European Union (known as the Maastricht Treaty) went into effect.

• Political decision making occurs within the Council of the European Union, usually called the Council of Ministers. Most sessions are held in Brussels, Belgium, which is the principal site of the EU administrative element.

• Bureaucracy in the EU is organized within the European Commission. The 20-member commission administers policy adopted by the council. Individual commissioners are selected from the member-states on the basis of two each from France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and Spain and one commissioner from each of the other members. One of the commissioners is selected by the Council of Europe to be the commission president. This official serves as the EU’s administrative head and is the overall director of the EU bureaucracy headquartered in Brussels.

• The European Parliament (EP) serves as the EU’s legislative branch and meets in Strasbourg, France. It has 626 members.

• The Court of Justice is the main element of the judicial branch of the EU. The 15-member court hears cases brought to it by member-states or other EU institutions and sometimes acts as a court of appeals for decisions of lower EU courts.

• There is in Europe both a sense that the EU should continue to press economic and political integration forward and a hesitancy to move toward becoming the United States of Europe. The level of public support for EU integration is one factor that will determine the EU’s future. The degree of economic prosperity of EU members and their citizens is a second factor that influences the course of EU integration. The degree to which the EU’s rule-making and administrative institutions function effectively is a third factor that will affect the future of EU integration. How Europeans identify politically is a fourth factor that will impact EU integration. Wariness of Germany is a fifth factor that impinges on EU integration. Popular willingness to accept new members into the EU is a sixth pivotal issue in the future of the EU.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. How has the EU integrate economically / politically?

2. What commission organizes the bureaucracy of the EU?

3. What organ represents the legislative branch of the EU?

4. What is believed to be the main element of the judicial branch of the EU?

5. Why the opinion concerning the integration of Europe has dual character?

6. Name several factors that can determine the EU’s future?

CHAPTER 11.THE UNITED NATIONS

1. From the League to the UN

2. How does the UN work?

3. Future of the UN: challenges and reform

The United Nations (UN) is the best-known international organization. Its special characteristics distinguish it from most others; for instance, its mem-bership includes almost all independent states. The end of the Cold War helped the cause of universality, when in 1991 Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, North Korea, and South Korea - long denied a place in the UN - finally gained admission, and the next year the breakup of the Soviet Union enabled the newly independent fourteen non-Russian republics of the former Soviet Union to join also. With the 1994 entry of the tiny state Palau, the organiza¬tion reached 185 members, and will probably grow further when and if long¬standing controversies about the status of potential new members are settled.