Make no mistake: Europe's dream of uniting to form a superpower
counterweight to the United States died with the "non" vote in
France and the rejection, a few days later in the Netherlands, of
the European Union constitution.
The Blair government in England has put off indefinitely a
referendum there, and polls show it wouldn't win anyway. With three
of the most prominent states in Europe against the constitution,
backers have little chance of pushing it through.
This should bring relief on both sides of the Atlantic. The notion
of "ever-closer union" among the countries of Europe, set forth in
the 1957 Treaty of Rome, is a utopian idea whose time will never
come.
Not with this constitution, at least. The clunky document includes
448 articles; the U.S. Constitution has seven. Its language is
turgid and mind-numbingly detailed, yet clear as mud. Those who
have been able to make heads or tails of the document have found
plenty to dislike.
For instance, it commits EU members to framing a common defense
policy without explaining how that policy would interact with NATO,
the longstanding organization that many EU members see as the
pre-eminent guarantor of European security. The constitution leaves
this and many other loose ends to be worked out by the unelected
European Court of Justice, which was to interpret the law with the
goal of "ever-closer union" as its mandate.
Another serious drawback is its size. There's a reason it comprises
448 articles -- those who drafted it tried to please everyone. Yet,
to take the two countries that just rejected the constitution,
consider: The Dutch favor NATO and think the European Security and
Defense Identity (ESDI) should complement it; the French see ESDI
competing with NATO. The Dutch are pro-American; the French long to
establish themselves as leaders of a countervailing pole to
challenge American power. The Dutch have a relatively open,
free-trading economy; the French favor high levels of government
spending, socialism and protectionism.
Americans and Europeans should rejoice in these developments
because they clear the way for trans-Atlantic relations to proceed
in a more realistic manner. Americans and individual European
countries now can start working to strengthen ties economically,
politically and militarily. NATO can be restructured to make it
more diffuse, flexible and reflective of what the alliance will
need to defend itself going forward.
The defeat of the constitution affords some other opportunities as
well. For instance, the United States should seize this moment to
establish a Global Free Trade Alliance (GFTA). It should
aggressively recruit free-trading European states tired of being
held back by the economically sclerotic protectionist
euro-core.
In France, where a fifth of workers aged 25 or younger are
unemployed and government eats up 50 percent of total output, the
rejection of the constitution was, in essence, a vote of no
confidence in Jacques Chirac's government. In Germany, Chancellor
Gerhard Schroeder said a few years ago that if unemployment reached
3.5 million, he should be voted from office. It's at 5 million, and
Germans appear on the verge of taking him up on his offer. In
Italy, the government's debt amounts to 106 percent of gross
domestic product, and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government
lost 12 of 14 provinces in the spring elections.
Are none of these statist regimes ready to consider free-market
ideas as a way out of their long-term economic malaise? Will none
consider the path that has led to prosperity in Ireland, Chile,
Singapore, Hong Kong and elsewhere?
Also, the United States should make clear to every European nation
that while -- unlike European elites -- it respects the right of
the European people to decide the ultimate form of political
association with various states, it stands ready to work with
individual states on an issue-by-issue, case-by-case basis.
The death of the Euro-topian dream promises a more-realistic future
in Europe. It's a future that preserves the freedom and sovereignty
of individual states that stretches back to the Treaty of
Westphalia, and it's one that gives countries the opportunity to
escape the economic paralysis of their neighbors. The United States
should move quickly to support those European nations that wish to
retake control of their individual political, military and economic
destiny.
John Hulsman
is research fellow in European affairs at the Heritage
Foundation.
Distributed nationally on the Knight-Ridder Tribune wire