With warmer relations with Paris and Berlin, Washington might be
forgiven for thinking that its strategic interests are now
protected in continental Europe. However, this discounts the threat
posed by the European Reform Treaty, signed by all 27 European
Union (EU) member states on December 13 in Lisbon. The Reform
Treaty, which is substantially the same as the failed European
Constitution of 2004, must now be ratified by all member states
before its planned introduction on January 1, 2009.
Under the personal leadership of German Chancellor Angela
Merkel, the EU breathed life into the rejected constitution, which
contained the building blocks of a United States of Europe. The new
treaty will shift power from nation-states to Brussels in critical
areas of policymaking--such as defense, security, and energy--where
the United States finds more traction on a bilateral basis. It will
restrict the sovereign right of EU member states to determine
foreign policy and poses a unique threat to the Anglo-American
Special Relationship. Above all, it is a treaty that underscores
the EU's ambition to become a global power and challenge American
leadership on the world stage.
Substantially the Same
The Reform Treaty retains all the essential components of an EU
superstate that were included in the 2004 constitution, including a
single legal personality, a permanent EU presidency, an EU-wide
public prosecutor, and the position of foreign minister in all but
name.[1] It extends qualified majority voting to 40
new matters, in areas such as foreign policy, energy, transport,
space, commercial policy, humanitarian aid, sport, tourism, and
investment. In a stunning indictment of British government policy,
the Labour-dominated House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee
reported in October 2007 that, "Taken as a whole, the Reform Treaty
produces a general framework which is substantially equivalent to
the Constitutional Treaty."[2] The Committee's report makes clear that the
British government has not carefully considered the Reform Treaty
and that few, if any, exemptions from the Constitution's excesses
have been secured in a way that will be unchallengeable by the
European Union.
Foreign Policy Implications
Before undertaking any action on the international scene or
entering into any commitment which could affect the Union's
interests, each Member State shall consult the others within the
European Council or the Council. Member States shall ensure,
through the convergence of their actions, that the Union is able to
assert its interests and values on the international scene. Member
States shall show mutual solidarity.[3] (Treaty of Lisbon)
EU-integrationist Richard Laming argues that, as the Single
European Act brought about the Single Market and the Maastricht
Treaty instituted the euro, the major success of the Reform Treaty
will be the EU's beefed-up role in foreign affairs. He states:
"Henry Kissinger's famous request for a phone number to call will
now have an answer."[4]
The EU boasts that the Reform Treaty compels member states to
speak with a single voice on external relations. With a single
legal personality, Brussels will now sign international agreements
on behalf of all member states. The European Commission arrogantly
claims that with the Reform Treaty in place, "the European Union is
uniquely well placed to find the answers to today's most pressing
questions... and to see European values promoted effectively in the
global community."[5]However, the EU already has an extensive
sanctions arsenal through the Common Foreign and Security Policy
(CFSP) but more often than not, chooses not to use it. The EU has
refused to use sanctions to fight the broader war on terrorism and
continues to drag its feet over implementing tougher sanctions
against Iran.
The Reform Treaty formally abolishes the EU's pillar structure
that provided for nation states to maintain the lead role in
foreign affairs, and America must recognize the dangers.[6] In the
few areas where the EU does speak with one voice--at the United
Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the
World Trade Organization (WTO), for example--the United States has
lost traction in dealing with its European allies on anything
resembling a bilateral basis. Frequently, it has found itself
pitted against an institution whose position has been
pre-determined and which is intent on morally prosecuting American
policy. This sets a dangerous precedent. If the EU's ability to
supersede the autonomy of its member states is replicated in wider
areas of foreign policy--such as the decision to join the United
States in military action--America will find itself isolated and
facing hostility from an organization that has been endemically
anti-American in recent years.
A Threat to the Special
Relationship
The institutional and political constraints of further European
integration will severely limit Britain's ability to build
international alliances and make foreign policy. The biggest damage
would be done to Britain's enduring alliance with the United
States.
Britainhas found its strongest, most enduring alliance in its
Special Relationship with the United States. The common political,
diplomatic, historical, and cultural values shared between
Americans and Britons are deep and strong. Further still, Britain
and America are prepared to defend these values--with military
force if necessary. Common values are meaningful only if both
parties are ready to defend them.
The EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy has always intended
to assert the EU as a supranational actor on the world stage in
place of nation states. The Reform Treaty gives great momentum to
the CFSP and its defense arm, the European Security and Defense
Policy (ESDP). The imposition of qualified majority voting in major
foreign policy areas represents a significant loss of sovereignty
for member states, especially the appointment of the EU Foreign
Minister.[7]
The fact that its main European ally, the U.K., will not be able
to veto the appointment of the EU's primary foreign policy actor
should be enough to make Washington nervous. But the enhanced role
for this unelected minister should be an even greater cause for
concern. Under the treaty, the EU foreign minister will have the
power to appoint EU envoys; a larger profile, budget, and
diplomatic corps; the right to speak on member states' behalf in
multilateral institutions (including the U.N. Security Council upon
request); and the right to propose EU military missions on behalf
of the European Commission.[8] Brussels clearly seeks to become the U.S.
Administration's first port of call to conduct its European foreign
policy. The Administration should not, however, expect the warm
response that it gets in London and other national capitals.
It is vital that the United States recognize the value in
dealing with its enduring allies on a bilateral level. In its
desire to create "One Europe," the European Security and Defense
Policy has already duplicated NATO's role and structures and
significantly downgraded the possibility of traditional
alliance-building by the United States. Replacing individual
European allies with a single EU Foreign Minister means inevitably,
even if unintentionally, American interests will lose in the
discussions that matter most.
Conclusion
A demonstrably political document, the Lisbon Reform Treaty was
only made available in English on July 30, 2007. The British
government is effectively being asked to sign away its independence
and self-determination after less than five months of deliberation.
If there were ever a time for the White House to become unnerved
about further European integration, then this is it. The Reform
Treaty moves forward elite-driven plans for ever-closer union and
will ultimately distance London from Washington. Britain remains in
a unique position to fashion a European Union that better serves
its interests as well as the transatlantic alliance. Its reluctant
signature of the Reform Treaty can certainly be reversed during
this ratification process. Washington must send its closest ally
the message that it would have U.S. support in doing so.
Sally McNamara is Senior
Policy Analyst in European Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center
for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation.