What Brussels Has Joined: European Disunion II Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Just a quick Friday afternoon note, to get my points for prescience or look bad Monday morning:  things are not looking good for the EU Constitution referendum in France this weekend, and even worse for the follow-on in the Netherlands next week.

Folks I talk to confirm what we're seeing in commentary; this represents less a specific rejection of the frankenstein-of-a-constitution than a general sense of unease with the EU's "democratic deficit" overlaid by a very specific sense of anger at incumbent governments, the problems associated with immigration, and --dare I say it? -- a soupcon of malaise with the 21st century in general.

Saw a marvelous quote involving the Dutch foreign minister stumping for the treaty (amusing to imagine Secretary Rice pressing the flesh for a treaty, no?).  A citizen informed him that he couldn't possibly change her "no" vote, and he politely asked why.  "I just want to say 'no' to something," the woman replied. 

Meanwhile, the same day the German parliament approved the Constitution, having declined to submit it to popular vote, the German public showed its disaffection another way -- opinion polls showed Angela Merkel, leader of the conservative opposition CDU, overtaking incumbent chancellor SDU Gerhard Schroeder for the first time.  Polls said 60 percent of Germans want a new government -- at the same level they showed just before Germans dumped longtime chancellor Helmut Kohl in 1998.

All this suggests several things.  If France and the Netherlands both vote no, the EU will be consumed with containing the damage, and probably negotiating several less all-encompassing treaties to put some of the Constitution's practical provisions (the arduously-reached new rules on who gets how many votes, Commissioners, etc.) into practice.  Even if one or both squeak it out, which is looking unlikely, this heralds a period of turbulence and inward-focus for Europe.  Bad news, I think, for big issues like UNSC reform (Suzanne will correct me if not), final status for Kosovo, new approaches on development assistance, and other areas where Europe either does or should take the lead.  It shouldn't, one hopes, affect the highest-profile issues like Iran... but one wonders.  The more unsettled things are, as well, the more incentive for politicians on all sides to take shots at the US, disturbing those relationships just as they seemed to be calming down a bit.

Bad news for US exporters, good news for US tourists and foreign-affairs boondogglers:  BBC had someone on this morning confidently predicting that the euro would fall a bit if France votes "non."  Buy those plane tickets now!

European Disunion Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Laura Rozen prints a few letters from European commentators talking about why the new EU constitution may be on the verge of being voted down in the Netherlands and France.  At some level its hard not to think it may do some good for the Europeans to be reminded how local politics, economic interests and popular fears can interfere with even the noblest geopolitical intentions.   

Is Europe off the hook? Posted by Derek Chollet

One of the significant positive shifts of the Bush Administration’s second term foreign policy has been its approach toward Europe. Part of this is a reflection of the past -- after the first four years, it is hard to imagine how transatlantic relations could get any worse.

Yet as the Economist has recently pointed out, there has also been a notable change in the Bush Administration’s attitude toward Europe -- the Europeans are happy with the visits by President Bush and Secretary Rice and they praised the important speeches each delivered in Brussels and Paris respectively (the substance of both speeches American progressive internationalists could and should agree with).

Despite this charm offensive, the Europeans are still negatively obsessed with Bush -- I think they are more obsessed with him than most Democrats in the United States.  At a policy conference in Germany I attended last weekend, someone posed the question of what it meant to be European. The first answer offered: "not Bush." Now this was partly a joke, but it also received a round of hearty applause. In fact, many participants argued that Europe’s loathing of George Bush has done more to bring about European unity than anything else. Again, this is certainly a stretch, but has an element of truth.

This leads one to ask: if being anti-Bush is an important part of being a European, then what will being a European mean in 2008, after Bush is gone, or what would it have meant this year if John Kerry had won? (This is a good reminder for progressives as well -- it’s not good enough just to be against Bush, we need to stand for something).

Of course, the Europeans were shocked that Bush won reelection -- but in reality, this let many of their leaders off the hook. Oddly enough, while a Democratic victory would have created a great deal of goodwill between the two sides and made the Europeans much happier, Transatlantic relations would be more challenged today, not less. The reason is simple: Democrats have higher expectations of our European allies -- and quite possibly, these expectations are unrealistic.

For example, the progressive answer for Iraq is not to pull out tomorrow, but to get the Europeans and organizations like NATO more involved to ease the burdens on our troops and give the occupation greater legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people and the world. Our belief is not that Bush has asserted too much leadership concerning Europe, but that he has asserted too little.

But what’s striking is how unprepared the Europeans would have been for this -- the limits of their military capabilities are well-known, but few in Europe seem to recognize that a Democratic Administration would have asked more of them. They still want to debate what happened three years ago in the run-up to the Iraq war, not what they can do to help us today in Iraq. I don’t think that this is good for them; but I know that it isn’t good for us.