Old World Blues

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

We may be slouching toward a mutli-polar world but it won’t be the European Union that acts as a counterweight to US hegemony. Certainly the US has its fair share of conflicts and deep divisions. We’ve had one civil war and have come close revolution on more than one occasion. Even our last presidential election was an exercise in mass internal strife. But through it all we remain a republic, unified in both name and deed. Half of the country may hate the other half and wish they’d leave yet the republic still stands. The same cannot be said for the European Union whom even in infancy cannot get off the ground.

The latest setback in the affairs of the slowly blossoming and ever-dysfunctional EU is the resound “non” vote against the EU constitution. Reuters reports that, “France overwhelmingly rejected the European Union constitution on Sunday, pitching the EU deep into crisis and dealing a potentially fatal blow to a charter designed to make the enlarged bloc run smoothly.

EU leaders said after a referendum "no" vote that the treaty was not dead and member states should continue the ratification process. But British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the rejection raised profound questions about the future of the EU.

The heavy defeat dreaded by EU leaders could weaken France in the 25-member bloc, stall European integration and unsettle some financial markets. It also wounds President Jacques Chirac two years before presidential and parliamentary elections.”

There are many reasons why the French opted against the constitution. The one that stands out to me the most is their sense of distinct nationalism. It would appear that the French see the hierarchy of the universe as France below Heaven, the rest of the world below France and the US just above Hell. Many of the books that I have read show France to be extremely chauvinistic where their culture and society are concerned and often make grievous errors just to hold on to some semblance of distinct cultural identity.

Not that this behavior is entirely the sole province of the French. Most European countries want to guard their national sovereignty, their national culture, their national prerogatives and their protected national labor markets. We’re just as bad and just as schizophrenic. One moment we’re talking about free trade and globalization and in the next minute we’re all a bunch of protectionists screaming about outsourcing jobs and the plight of the poor American farmer. Everybody wants equality, we just want to be more equal than the next guy, and that’s probably why most of the French voted against the EU constitution.

It’s not all bad though and nor is the dream of a singularly unified Europe totally dead. I think what happened is that the politicians sold a radical idea to the people of Europe and when said people had questions their collective answers seems to have been, “mmm just trust us OK.” That never goes over very well with even a moderately informed public. Instead what this latest setback actually demonstrates is that there is a great desire among ordinary voters to have real input on the future of the EU. Ordinary voting Europeans were not sold on the nuts and bolts of the EU for far too long. Going forward the EU leaders should not retreat once more behind closed doors or call off the political process but instead make more of an effort to lobby the people behind what could be the future of global politics. They should be like President Bush and his campaign to dismantle Social Security only with less deception and the promise of abject poverty for the middle class.

Once again, all is not lost for the EU. All 25 members have signed the treaty, and all are committed to debating and ratifying it by November 2006. Nine states have already said, “Yes,” including two of the largest, Germany and Spain. Their views should not simply be dismissed because France has voted No. Nor should those of the countries yet to decide. If anything this would be an opportunity for other countries to take more of a lead in both domestic and global affairs rather than deferring to the leadership of a chauvinistic and opportunistic France.

In the immediate future, this does radically set back any real impact Europe has on Middle Eastern or Asian affairs. A unified Europe could have pushed aside an increasingly aggressive America and diplomatically resolved a number of international hot spots thus placing themselves in a very important role in global affairs. However, I contend that countries such as Iran and North Korea can hardly take the EU seriously when the will of the majority is not behind them. The US executive branch may be cynical and apt to mislead the public into war but at least when they do it results in having the will of the majority at your back…at least for a short time.

The old world is at a crucial juncture. As the Middle East and Asia slowly but methodically climb the ladder of development and the world’s economies become ever more entwined with one another, it may come to pass that Europe will continue to sink in importance. Markets have limits and if Europe is not careful the world may see that they do not need Europe’s markets, products or influence. If this happens the French will have more to worry about then their own petty nationalism.