home > by publication type > interviews > Kupchan: Vote to Ratify EU Constitution ‘Up in the Air’ in Both France and the Netherlands
Email
| Interviewer: | Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor |
|---|---|
| Interviewee: | Charles A. Kupchan, Senior Fellow for Europe Studies |
May 16, 2005
Charles A. Kupchan, the Council’s director of Europe Studies, says the debate over ratification of the European Union’s constitutional treaty is the top issue in Europe today, serving as a “proxy” for soul-searching on other problems. With France due to vote on the treaty May 29 and the Netherlands June 1, Kupchan says the results are “still very much up in the air. If I had to bet money, I would bet that it would pass in France. I’m slightly less confident about the Netherlands.”
Kupchan, who is also a professor of international relations at Georgetown University, was interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman, consulting editor for cfr.org, on May 16, 2005.
What are the most important issues facing Europe today?
Many issues today are being encapsulated in a debate over whether to ratify the constitutional treaty that has been agreed upon by the European Union [EU]governments. And in many respects, that debate is a proxy for a larger process of soul-searching on some critical issues. The first issue is: How will an enlarged EU function? Where are the borders of Europe as enlargement proceeds quickly? We’re now talking about a union of 25 [nations] that may yet be increased. The second critical issue is that of immigration- whether the Europeans will do a better job of integrating Muslim immigrants into the social mainstream and at what cost economically and socially. The third big issue is the future of the welfare state and the social safety net, with the unions- the traditional leftists- beginning to fight back harder against deregulation. Finally, there is a geopolitical debate underway on whether Europeans should continue to look to America as a partner on global affairs or set out on their own course and look to the EU as a new global actor.
Could we go through these points? What is unique about this constitution?
The constitution, I think, is notable in the following areas: First, it creates a new voting system for the EU as a whole to prevent paralysis in the wake of enlargement. The main change is that qualified majority voting would pass when you have 55 percent of the nations representing at least 65 percent of Europe’s population voting yes. The second change in this respect is that one area of policy- justice and home affairs- will now be subject to qualified majority voting rather than require unanimity. Only two areas will still require unanimity: foreign and defense policy, and tax policy. The second big change is on the issue of institutional centralization. There would be, assuming the constitution passes, a president of the European Council [whose term would be two and one-half years.] Right now, the presidency rotates every six months. There would also be a single foreign minister for Europe as a whole. That foreign minister would have his own European diplomatic service.
This is in addition to each country maintaining its foreign minister?
That’s correct. It would give the Union, as a whole, a much more distinct collective identity and capability. Remember the quip attributed to Henry Kissinger, “What number do I call when I want to talk to Europe?” There will now be an answer to that question.
There are two votes approaching on the constitution: May 29 in France and June 1 in the Netherlands. Is the constitution likely to fail in either case?
Every parliament in the EU member states has to ratify the constitution for it to take effect. Some countries, including France and the Netherlands, have also chosen to have a referendum. The debate right now is seized in France. There is concern the referendum may not pass and that would be seen as a crushing blow to Europe, because France has been the engine of European integration since the very beginning. One of the issues I think is troubling is that what would be seen as a vote against Europe would really be a “no” vote based on other sorts of concerns. People who are inclined to vote “no” are doing so more because they are against [French President Jacques] Chirac and the current government than because they are against the EU’s further integration. There is also a split within the Socialist party. The leader of the Socialists, Francois Hollande, supports the constitution, and former Socialist Prime Minister Laurent Fabius opposes it on the grounds that it would weaken the social welfare state. And therefore, a debate that really ought to be about Europe’s future has turned into a heated domestic debate.
There are obviously differing degrees of support for supra-nationalism, or federalism, in different countries. The French have historically favored a Europe that is strong externally, but relatively weak internally. That is to say, in which the nation-state is the primary engine of political power. We are, to some extent, witnessing this struggle over how supra-national the Union should become. But it is surprising that it is the French who are in doubt about the treaty. It would be less surprising if this were the British. And the British may well vote “no” when their turn comes later.
Is immigration an issue in France as well? How does the immigration issue play a role in this debate?
The EU operates within the context of the Schengen Agreement, which basically means a free flow of peoples within the Union. And that has led to concern that a larger EU would ultimately mean an uncontrolled influx of both legal and illegal immigrants. There is no question that Turkey, and the possibility of Turkish accession to the EU, is in the back of people’s minds. Turkish accession, which is now in play, raises the prospect of many, many Turkish workers flowing westward and northward into traditional EU member states where there is already a great deal of social tension between the traditional Christian populations of Europe and growing Muslim communities.
Let’s turn to the Dutch. I always think of the Netherlands as the center of European integration going back to the early years of post-war Europe. But there is strong opposition, I gather, to this vote in the Netherlands?
I think that this vote is coming at a time of subtle re-nationalization of political life across Europe. In the Dutch case, immigration is playing as big a role as any factor, and there have been instances of violence in Holland. If you go to cities like Amsterdam or Rotterdam, certain parts of the city are predominantly Muslim. This has led to a kind of soul-searching about the future of Holland and its identity.
The issues come to the question of how multi-ethnicity can be encouraged. How can communities that are essentially segregated be integrated? How can greater tolerance be promoted within the immigrant communities and within the dominant communities? The second issue that has created a sense of re-nationalization is the Iraq war. There has been a rift between the Atlanticist members of Europe and what you would want to call the neo-Gaullist members.
Who would you would include as Atlanticists?
Britain, Holland, Denmark, Spain, and Italy. They tend to be the countries that are either bordering the Atlantic or have large communities in the United States and that fear domination within the EU by France and Germany. The Iraq war forced these countries to make a choice that they didn’t want to make- and that was between the EU and the United States. That debate and the fallout from the Iraq war have also created a period of soul-searching about Europe’s direction.
Let me put you on the spot. Do you think the vote on the constitution will carry in France and in the Netherlands?
It’s still very much up in the air. If I had to bet money, I would bet that it would pass in France. I’m slightly less confident about the Netherlands. And then the big question down the road is the UK [United Kingdom]. There is a huge debate that is just beginning on the question of what happens if the UK or the other members vote “no.”
What is the debate about?
The debate is about, first of all, would you simply try again with another vote a year or two later? That would allow governments to try to shift public opinion. And that has happened. For example, there was a referendum on the Nice Treaty on European expansion which failed in 2001 in Ireland. And then the Irish took a second vote in 2002 and it passed.
The second issue would be: Should there be a renegotiation of the treaty if there is one or more “no” votes? I think that would be very, very complicated and dangerous.
The third issue would be: Could there be a decision to move ahead even though one or more members votes “no”? Let’s presume, for example, that the UK voted “no.” The 24 remaining members could agree to go ahead. They would then have to essentially renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the EU. It would be a long, complicated, drawn-out affair. The final option- in some ways this may be the most likely- would be that you would have informal groups within the EU move ahead on their own. For example, you could go ahead with a foreign minister or diplomatic corps with a grouping of core states and continue to rely on the existing sets of treaties as the foundation for the Union.
Let’s talk a bit about the transatlantic relationship. At the time of the Iraq war, there were great tensions between the United States and France and Germany. Bush made a trip to Europe in February. Did that help out?
There’s no question that the transatlantic relationship is on a more even keel than it was during Bush’s first term. Both sides have made an effort to reach out to the other. Bush’s February trip through Europe helped considerably on this front. It was an issue both of style, with Bush going to the European Union in Brussels and talking about a new period of amity, and to some extent, of substance, with Bush supporting European unity after several years of quiet efforts to divide Europe.
The United States has now backed the EU on Iran in its diplomatic efforts to shut down its nuclear program. There is greater cooperation now in the Middle East peace process. I would not, however, go so far as to say we are out of the woods. The rhetoric has improved. The style on both sides has improved. But if one looks at substance, I think there are still numerous areas of disagreement and potential crises looming over the horizon, Iran being most prominent among them.
How could relations break down over Iran?
The United States has backed the European negotiating position and the Europeans have said, “If Iran does not play ball, we will take them to the U.N. Security Council.” In the first instance, that means going to the board at the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], and then the IAEA would refer the issue to the Security Council. I don’t think there would be a great deal of disagreement about that. I do think that from there on, Europeans and Americans may head in different directions. Should there be sanctions? If so, what kind? What sorts of options are on the table in the military realm? I hear little agreement on the two sides of the Atlantic on this rather unpleasant issue of what to do if Iran does not cease its effort to develop its military nuclear potential.
What other issues do you see on the horizon?
I would say that the Middle East process, although enjoying more momentum today than it has for a long time, will be fraught with difficulty and transatlantic disagreement. It’s probably fair to say that there is no area in which American and European perceptions are further apart than on the Palestine-Israel conflict. Europeans think Americans are too pro-Israel and Americans see Europeans as too pro-Palestinian. And that means, I think, there will be disagreements on substantive issues, such as should the United States allow further building in West Bank settlements? What should be the transatlantic position on the security wall [between Israel and the Palestinian territories]? What types of steps should the Europeans take to facilitate moves in the direction of the so-called roadmap?
What about the future of NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization]? Since 1948, NATO has been the centerpiece of the European-American relationship. With Europe now comprising 25 nations and the Cold War over, is there really any future for NATO?
I think there is a future for NATO, but it will be a future that doesn’t look like the past. The NATO that is evolving is one in which it will continue to act as an irreplaceable institution for the coordination of military operations, such as in the Balkans or Afghanistan, but not as an institution that serves as the central forum for transatlantic debate. Too much of what Americans and Europeans need to talk about today is not on NATO’s agenda. For example, the potential lifting of the EU arms embargo on China, the question of the euro-dollar exchange rate, and supporting democracy in the Middle East. These are issues that are at the top of the transatlantic agenda, but not on NATO’s agenda. We really need to begin to have a dialogue about some sort of new institutional linkage.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
Start-Up Nation addresses the trillion-dollar question: How is it that Israel—a country of 7.1 million, only sixty years old, surrounded by enemies— produces more start-up companies than large, peaceful, and stable nations like Japan, China, India, Korea, Canada, and the UK? With the insights of geopolitical experts and investors, the authors examine this nation’s adversity-driven culture to answer this question and offer prescriptions for a global economy on the rebound.
In Forces of Fortune, Vali Nasr presents a paradigm-changing revelation that will transform the understanding of the Muslim world at large. He reveals that there is a vital but unseen rising force in the Islamic world—a new business-minded middle class—that is building a vibrant new Muslim world economy and that holds the key to winning the cold war against Iran and extremists.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba's unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
Complete list of CFR Books
The report of this bipartisan Task Force of distinguished leaders and experts represents a strong consensus on the importance of repairing America's immigration policy. It makes the case that maintaining America's political and economic leadership depends on attracting talented and hard-working immigrants, and on securing the country's borders in a smart, effective, and humane way.
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
Identifying international threats and acting on them may be the most difficult job for U.S. policymakers. This report
provides an actionable road map for managing international threats before they erupt into crises and makes a strong case that preventive action is not a luxury but a necessity.
For more than a decade, the United States has mostly watched from the sidelines as Asian countries organize themselves into an alphabet soup of new multilateral groups. In this report, the authors review the relationship between pan-Asian and trans-Pacific institutions and suggest policy guidelines for a new U.S. approach to this new Asian landscape.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.