Commentators

Rain (AM and PM) 17° London Hi 18°C / Lo 14°C

Denis MacShane: Europe needs to speak with one voice

Friday, 20 June 2008

As Europe's leaders meet in Brussels today their thoughts are on Ireland.

France's President Sarkozy is seeing his hopes of an exciting, delivery-focussed French presidency disappear in the mists and peat of Europe's western edge. He will shunt the Lisbon Treaty into a siding leaving over-excited Europhobes and Europhiles to celebrate the referendum vote or dream up their Plans A to Z to find a way out sometime in 2009, if ever.

Meanwhile, how does Europe show it means business? A key area is a new relationship with America as President Bush's valedictory Europe tour gives rise to excited hopes that his successor will want to repair the fractured Atlantic alliance. Yet for the US under either a President Obama or McCain to have an effective European partner, the EU must learn to speak with one voice. The Lisbon Treaty is not necessary to achieve EU unity. Leadership is and that is missing in today's Europe. On key issues facing the world, both President Bush and his successor face an EU that shies away from taking the core decisions that demonstrate unity in Europe.

The bitter division over Iraq may be over as the main European protagonists such as Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schröder and Tony Blair have quit the stage, though supporters of the intervention in Iraq like Silvio Berlusconi and José Manuel Barroso, as well as the Dutch and Danish prime ministers, are still around.

But Europe is far from agreeing on how to shape a new military profile that could share with the US joint responsibility for the security of the Euroatlantic democracies. Only France and Britain spend more than 2% of GDP on defence. But lectures on military strategy from European nations that will not spend the money or risk their soldiers fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan hardly makes the EU a convincing partner on defence matters.

This could change if Britain and France would agree on European military doctrine building on President Sarkozy's historic reversal of General de Gaulle's policy of withdrawal from Nato's military command. Yet egged on by a press and Conservative Party that fulminates against European defence cooperation, London effectively stops the EU from becoming a viable military partner for the US.

Or take the Western Balkans, Europe's backyard which European leaders were unable to stop from chaos in the 1990s until the US got involved.

A decade later, the US and major EU nations have recognised Kosovo just as other breakaway nations from the former Yugoslavia now have full state-hood. A victory for partnership between the US and a united EU? Anything but. Key EU nations like Spain, Greece, Romania and Slovakia weaken the unity of Europe by refusing to recognise Kosovo. Greece blocks Macedonia's EU and Nato ambitions while Spain lobbies in Latin America against recognition for Kosovo. This bodes ill for the notion that a united EU diplomacy of weight can develop.

On energy, Germany opposes any EU policy aimed at developing nuclear power. German politicians have every right to reject nuclear power for the German nation. But an EU that wants to talk energy policy with Washington but cannot use the word "nuclear" is hardly a convincing partner. EU leaders are also giving in to the hysteria over rising fuel costs instead of saying it's game over for cheap petrol transportation.

The EU remain divided on what line to take towards Russia and the restless attempts by Russia to strike out on its own over Iran, the Balkans, energy policy or interference in Ukraine, Georgia and the Baltic States. Perhaps the softly-softly approach of a re-invented Ostpolitik by German social democratic ministers is the right approach. Or perhaps the more robust line from the foreign ministers of Britain, Sweden and Poland should be the common EU position. But there is no united EU answer when the next US president asks Europe: What do we do with Russia?

So before telling America what to do, it would be better if Europe worked harder at speaking with one voice. After the first years of this century when rampant anti-Americanism in key EU capitals was matched by condescending scorn about Europe from American neo-conservatives, it makes sense to repair those divides. Both Senators McCain and Obama have indicated that is their wish. Europe needs to wean itself off anti-Americanism but also needs to speak and act as one. A Europe divided on defence, on Kosovo and Macedonia, on energy and on Russia is little help to the 44th president of the United States.

The author was Europe Minister, 2002-2005

Interesting? Click here to explore further

Comments

30 Comments

Mr.McShane you are absolutely right in your article. I'll use a simple everyday dialogue, to show the bizarre European prospective for Macedonia:
Hi, My name is Goran. I am interested in joining your club...
EU: Hi Goran nice to meet you! There are rules of the club. Please read and prepare.
Bakoyannis: NO WAY this could be Goran. He needs to approach with a different name. You know there are 2 mil. Gorans in my country and they are upset how "slavophones" choose their names.
G.W Bush: That is absurd. You are neighbors. You must respect each other. Sure there must be a way to settle your differences?!
Goran: No idea what's with Bakoyannis but alas!
UN: We've initiated mediation over the issue.
GR: Goran must simply choose new name, less insulting to our fellow compatriotes. or he is not eliglble to join!
Sarkozy of FR: Look Mr Brown, M-mme Merkel, we have to show solidarity with Mmme Bakoyannis. She's our friend, ally. What rules?! Goran needs a new name!
Solana: Perfect!

Posted by Goran | 25.06.08, 00:38 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

The EU solution to the Irish vote is simple in that it must not insist in Ireland doing anything. Instead it must thank Ireland for showing the EU the need to become honest with its citizens and that instead it is the EU who must:-

(1) totally eliminate, - the democratic vacuum.

(2) Open up its accounts to public scrutiny and have them properly signed off by qualified chartered accountants.

(3) put an end to corruption and the MEP gravy train.

Posted by Ian Miller | 22.06.08, 23:24 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

The so-called 'European Union' does not represent the people of Europe, so for those who oppose it to be called 'anti-European' is slanderous. The so-called 'European Union' is a burgeoning superstate developed from the re-unified Germany and run by unelected Kommissars.

No sooner was Germany re-unified than the Treaty of Maastricht was introduced leading to the Exchange Rate Mechanism, whereby all European economies were to conform to the German economic cycle. The subsequent rebranding of the Deutsch Mark as the 'Euro' was a neat trick by the Bundesbank, now known as the 'ECB', to socialise the cost of re-unification onto other countries.

Thereafter 'Eurozone' interest rates were kept low for the benefit of one country and one country alone, leaving others with no counter-inflationary tool, resulting in the Irish and Spanish property bubbles. Germany has benefitted from being able to control the European economy and now looks to expand its empire eastwards. Fourth Reich anyone?

Posted by Paul | 22.06.08, 19:59 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Princip, how many countries have won independence since the creation of UN? Until then, their territories belonged to UN member countries, but their independence was still legal.

For instance, Algeria was part of France, which not only was a UN member, but was also a veto-holder in the Security Council.

Based on Serbia's logic the process of decolonization in the world would have ended once UN was founded.

It was apparently fine for Serbia to declare independence from the Ottoman Empire but it it is not right for Kosovo to do the same thing from its occupators.

Well, there are no deadlines in history for the right of nations for freedom and independence.

Posted by Ruben | 22.06.08, 08:45 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Anti Americanism - forget it and replace it within Anti Bushism. Most Europeans are anti torture, anti Guantanamo, anti extraordinary rendition, etc. It was not Europe that thrashed the international legal system - it was GWB. Any normal government would sit up and pay attention when the Supreme Court goes negative on Guantanamo. A Europe divided on defence - after the British decision to twist the evidence on Iraq, the British and French decision to invade Egypt over Suez - falsify evidence and Eden having to resign - America falsifying evidence over Gulf of Tonkin, Arms deals with bribery etc, etc, is it any wonder Europeans are wary of the big powers. Would you join a club that twists and turns the evidence to this extent. Of course it is easier to send other people´s sons and daughters to death than one´s own. Of course one is not surprised by Labour anymore, since they parked the soul for big business.l

Posted by Michael O´Leary | 21.06.08, 09:38 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Macshane points to serbia's province of Kosovo Metohija and suggests tha EU needs one voice but it is the EU who in their wisdom to get out of a mess they faced now of illegal war waged by NATO in 1999 who said that "individual states" are responsible for recognition of others. This was an EU choice to have a multiple choice opinion.

Beyond that has it not crossed Macshanes mind that the likes of Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Slovakia and Portugal who have not recognisd this illegal unilateral decalaration by an ethnic minority who happen to be a local majority in Serbia' province are not right to stick to the obligations that all UN members including the UK in upholding international norms and laws respecting erbia's internationally recognised territorial integrity?

Pacta sund Servanta - UK has an obligation to respect Serbia's Soverignty as they formuated and signed UNSC Resolution 1244 which "reafirmed" Serbia's territroial integrity inclusive of its province!

Posted by Princip | 21.06.08, 08:18 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

They say i am lying, they say Dimosthenis that is lying but beyond that the is not any facts from a not bias-source to prove the opposite. You can name your self any way you want but for everything there is a reaction some times positive some times negative. In human relations when i take someones name and act as them is called identity theft.
How you would like it if i call my self like you and come and claim your house?
How you would call that in countries?
And how you would solve it especially when this identity has territorial claims? .
I think is allot better for Greece to stop you in a diplomatic state now then allow you to go further.
In the II World war you allied with the Nazis and the Bulgarians just for these territorial claims what makes you think that you will not ally with an enemy of Greece in the future so you will fulfill your territorial inspirations.
We are in the Balkans and we manage to stay away from all this turmoil. We will not allow you to get us in.

Posted by Dimitri | 21.06.08, 07:08 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

What is the lie? i hear Dimosthenis expressing.

Dimosthenis you are the lie, and so are the others that follow your propoganda.
Macedonia will forever be apart of the people of Republic of Macedonia and the poor people who must hide their true identitiy in Pirin Makedonija (west bulgaria) and Egej Makedonija (north greece).

We are all meant to be brothers, we are all Orthodox! It is a shame for people like you not to recognize us, not only as a small country, but as people who have survived with Greece since the time before the Bible!!!

stop this brainwashing and think alittle.

Posted by Say Macedonia, not FYROM | 21.06.08, 04:27 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

What is the lie?
That the area where FYROM is today was Named Paionia and Pelagonia?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paionia
That the Macedonian kingdoms in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan had Greek identities?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yavana_Kingdom
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Greek_Kingdom
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Bactrian_Kingdom
That the Language in FYROM today is a Slavic dialect?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_language
That the Strategies did not changed since the end of Ottoman Empire, and the name Macedonia means only territorial claims?
en.sae.gr/files/img/full/1228.jpg
Why people are misled?
This is what I see as the truth and I share information from a non-bias source so people will create their own decisions and opinions.

Posted by Dimosthenis | 20.06.08, 17:40 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

There in not a lye in Dimitri's comments
The photo speaks by its self:
img396.imageshack.us/img396/6149/bulgarian125ip9.jpg
In this photo you will see the banner of great Macedonia also you will see the the photo of Hitler. Do you know the atrocities the Bulgarians and the so called peaceful Macedonians committed against the Greeks in Macedonia during the German occupation of Greece in the second wold war.
Now Greece, Germany and Bulgaria are Nato members.
Macedonia continue to have territorial claims against Greece.

Posted by Dimosthenis | 20.06.08, 17:15 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

30 Comments

Most popular in Opinion