Another divergence of ideas has buoyed among the members of the 27 member-block while the European Summit looms on the horizon. Was the enlargement wave a bad idea?
It, sure, is not. The future of the old continent, as ex-Secretary of Defence put it, could not be left merely to arrogant French, belligerent Germans or senseless Britons. There is nothing more meaningful than mainstreaming dynamic nations into the decision process of the Organization. The EU project is, after all, an idea of peace. Nonetheless, quantity does not always mean quality. It is a fact that the current organization wobbles with the new members.
It becomes increasingly difficult to adopt a common stance within bodies consist of representatives of 27 different nations. This particularly is the case with regard to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). This week, the Community has decided to resume the partnership talks with Russia which was suspended by the recent war in Georgia. However, it is not easy to explain why it was resumed without any precondition ,such as the withdrawal of Russian troops from the disputed Ossettia enclave in Georgian territory, to members particulary Poland and Baltic States. The answer was Union's high reliance on Russian natural resources, oil and gas seemingly, and France's concerns to ensure the continuum of resource flow into EU's energy markets. This is also a bad news for Kosova whose recognition is still problematic because of the solid opposition of Russia in the UN Security Council. Concerned by the delay and inadequacy in the deployment of EULEX which should have taken over the countries control from UN peace keepers months ago, Kosovars are now deeply worried whether EU would give up on them for a possible appeasement policy.
Internal politics do not illustrate brighter picture. Endeavors to reform and corollarily revitalize the Union by simplifying the bureaucracy and amplifying efficiency have been defeated by the Irish voters' fears. For 4 years now, Eurocrats have been trying to rejuvenate the organizational structure under different names, either Treaty of Lisbon or infamous draft constitution. However, they constantly faces with public opposition. Trying to by-pass the European public opinion as the 24 members did, further stains the already unpopular image of the Union. It seems people should be broadly consulted first before engaging in a new comprehensive reform effort.
On the other hand, it should be depicted that foreign policy and organizational reforms are the least of Union's problems. With numbers pointed out %0.2 downturn in Euro area GDP, the continent is now officially in recession. A concerted action is again a distant dream. The offer to establish a common fund worth 300bn€ by the Dutch, was widely declined due to the German reluctance to chip in another EU fund, even though France was welcomed the idea. Moreover, wide divergence among members has further deepened by Ireland's decision to guarantee all saving deposits in Irish banks, leaving all the competition rules of the Union in ruins. Weak opposition, especially from Britain and Union's competition commissioner lost within economic dust all around Europe.
The reason of the failure to establish a profound and efficient organization lies in the adverse effects of globalization. Eurocrats evidently fell short of protecting their so called "European citizens" in the face of several woes brought by global phenomena. Tragedy in the Middle East could not be eased, let alone averted; efforts to integrate new members to the Union was not a success since that free movement of workers have caused a furore, antagonism and racism in several European countries. Economic crisis still lacks of a common stimulus package; Iceland's bankruptcy and bursted housing bubbles in Britain and Spain are still posing serious threats to system and deflationist risk began to be felt.It is crystal clear that Europe has materialized a phenomenal economic integration and development since the last two centuries. However a political integration necessitates stronger dynamics than simple economic and commercial interests. It requires a common cause -if not an enemy- and an organizational structure that could safeguard the people gathered around that cause. This institution should not only find solutions to daily problems but also look after economic, social and political interests of European people by even resorting to force if and where necessary. EU does not have such mechanisma today. It could be deemed as a bunch of organs deciding for the whole without consulting to whom would be effected. This unhealthy image has embodied itself in referandum in 2005 and now in the rejection of Lizbon Treaty. Remediation of this tainted image could be a good point to start.
