Inside Washington's Headlines

by Ken Feltman
International Edition

Same destination, longer journey

Honfleur, Normandy - Not far from this picturesque, bustling harbor is a place where, years ago, I watched the cars zip through from ferry depots and nations to the east, many carrying holiday-makers to a pleasant destination. Sometimes, we would count the registrations - D for Germany, NL for the Netherlands, F for France, and so on, country by country.

Aside from the local French, the Germans were most numerous. Surprising numbers of Danes sped along. (Who was left minding the shop in Denmark?) They, and others from the European continent, moved smoothly on the road below us, most in comfortable, late-model autos. Then, along came somewhat older cars, often slower, their drivers hunched, both hands on the wheel, over-steering, anxious, fresh off the ferries from England.

These were the British, now abroad, forced to drive on the right side of the road as they made their way through a benignly hostile country. They hoped to make it across the border or to an English-speaking enclave within France. Only then, when they could find ‘a proper English breakfast’ and their native language, would they relax.

The French have never made it easy for the British. Indeed, the United States gained independence in large part because France made things difficult for Britain. Now, France will need to make things easier for Britain - or France may lose her grand vision of a European Union to rival the United States. Suddenly, the road to French leadership of a unified, cohesive continent is full of potholes. France has run into reality. That reality is rough.

Germany in the driver’s seat?

France is no longer in the European driver’s seat. France has played Germany and the United Kingdom off against each other for years, usually selecting the bigger and financially stronger Germany as the ‘other’ leader of the uniting Europe, but by saying non, France has given up the wheel to Germany. Changing drivers, however, is not without problems.

Today’s Germany is no longer the Deutschmark-driven financial power that it was. Germany is in a stagnation funk. So the Germans must decide whether to continue to side with the French protectionists who have cut sweet deals for French agriculture or look toward the open-trade views of the British. If Germany stays the course and follows the French lead, Europe should expect a long journey through recession to a new constitutional democracy. If the Germans move toward the British, the journey may be quicker but perhaps bumpier. What will Germany decide? We will know soon.

The German people will have the most to say when they vote in national elections in September. In a sense, then, the next major referendum on Europe’s future is the German general election because Germany will either stick with failed France or go with Britain – or neither, which will put Britain in the driver’s seat by default. But isn’t the German election about all sorts of local and national issues, with European unification down the list? Yes, all elections are really mostly about local concerns. So Germany’s decision on Europe will come indirectly. Still, it will come. Polls now show a lead for those who are expected to see things the British way.

During the past several days, I have talked with many Europeans from many regions and countries. I find only one common denominator: If they are part of the leadership class, Europeans from across the continent are concerned, confused, angry. They do not like it that the constitution was rejected. If they are regular people, they are completely unconcerned to passively interested to pleased that Brussels has been dealt a setback. But no one knows which way to go. They are all hunched over, going slowly, hoping to find a friendly place to stop while they consult the map. Except for the British, that is: They seem to have a sense that it is their turn.

First non, then nee

That English idea is not at all attractive to the bureaucrats of Brussels or to the political class from the major countries. The bureaucrats want action now, preferably reversal of the French and Dutch votes against the E.U. constitution. That will not happen, despite some amazingly brazen attempts, especially by French politicians, to circumvent the results. In the week before the French referendum, high-ranking French officials started to sound out constituent groups within the country with a plan: We will have Brussels tweak the constitution. We will announce that the tweaking is in response to the non vote. We will announce that the tweaking resolves the problems. We will say that, with the problems resolved, we will not need another referendum. Parliament will ratify the constitution. All will be well for the political elites of Paris and Brussels.

But what about the nee from the Netherlands? Unlike the U.S. constitution (which required approval by nine of the 13 original states), the E.U. constitution requires unanimous ratification. Dutch officials say that they will not call for another vote. Beside, other countries (including Britain) are postponing their votes.

Perhaps even without recognizing it, the other countries of Europe are following the British plan. Prime Minister Tony Blair was not shy about his plan when the E.U. leaders met in the wake of the non/nee votes. The leaders were in Brussels to approve a budget. They have ample time to agree later so the fact that they could not agree on the budget is not important. The way that they disagreed was. The meeting became an excuse for bitterness on all sides.

Even before Blair said a word, the bureaucrats and French President Chirac were busy backstabbing. For activist European bureaucrats, Blair’s plan is simple - infuriatingly simple, too simple. For French President Jacques Chirac, Blair’s plan is all too clear and dangerous. Chirac reacted the way he always does when threatened: He lashed out in harsh and personal terms. J’accuse!

Too distant, too aloof

Chirac arrived for the meeting looking haggard and looking for anyone else to blame. His demeanor belied his earlier words of conciliation to the French people who had just dismissed his grand dream. Even in the appointment of his new prime minister, Chirac proved that the voters were correct in their cynical view of their government: The voters said that the bureaucrats are too distant, too aloof. So Chirac turned right around and gave them a prime minister who has never faced the voters, whose every office has been an appointed one. He is a perfect example of Europe’s elite class of functionaries - unelected, unapproachable, unfettered by the day-to-day concerns of making a living in Europe’s increasingly troubled economy.

Chirac’s new prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, comes with a bonus: He is distinctively disliked in the U.S., where he tangled famously with former Secretary of State Colin Powell. It takes a lot to anger Powell. Powell is still angry.

Rather than seek constructive assistance, Chirac tried to humiliate Blair. He demonized Blair and the British because Britain receives billions of Euro in subsidies negotiated years ago. But France receives much more in subsidiaries for agriculture so Chirac looked, well, pretty disingenuous, to use a diplomatic term. Beside, the British contribute far more to the E.U. than is returned in grants, projects and subsidies. So do other northern E.U. members - and the Swedes and Danes are getting nervous about the imbalance. The Dutch demonstrated the concern in their negative vote (which exit polls show was also an anti-immigrant vote).

The northern nations and the newest E.U. members, interested in trade, shyly lined up with - or at least near - the British. Oh, it was a tentative and apprehensive line-up, but the beginnings of division were there. Those nations that see Europe as basically a trade and monetary union came together. On the other side, many of the strong social democracies, protective of their welfare states, decried ‘inhuman Anglo-Saxon economic policies.’ The term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ means the policies that Britain installed beginning under Prime Minister Thatcher - policies that allow more and more Brits to drive newer and newer cars. Alternatively, it means Yankee-style capitalism run-amok. Whatever it means, more and more Europeans think that the British idea is worth considering.

The waiting game

What is this Blair plan that it is so reprehensible to Chirac? Blair’s plan is to wait. That’s it: Let things settle and rely on those instruments of union that now bind the nations together with or without the constitution. Europe, after all, will not go away. It’s just this cumbersome, too-inclusive constitution that will be gone. The mechanisms of cross-border cooperation are in place. The Euro works, even though some major E.U. members are not part of the Eurozone. Barriers are being removed or reduced. Many of the stated goals of union are being achieved.

For Chirac, however, the European Union has never really been about economics or trade. It has been all about leadership: French leadership of a strong European counterpoint to the U.S. Was all the heated rhetoric during the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq less about French opposition to the invasion than it was about French fears that France is in danger of losing her place as the perceived (if not actual) leader of Europe? Sometimes, my European friends are surprised when I tell them that French officials are always in Washington ‘speaking for Europe.’ Oh, they assure me, France doesn’t speak for Europe. Really, I say? You surely would get that impression in Washington. France’s recent mission, it seems, has been to assure French leadership of Europe.

Chirac is headed for history. So is German Chancellor Schröder. Their parties will be hard pressed to win the next elections. A new generation of European leaders will get a chance to salvage some sort of constitution. They will succeed. After all, Americans would do well to remember that their founders failed on their first attempt at a governing document. The Articles of Confederation were too weak and were scuttled within a decade for the current constitution.

Some chicken

The Europeans, with a more difficult task than faced by the American colonies, have come remarkably far in a very short time. Just the fact of modern media attention makes the whole process nearly impossible. Give the fading French and German leaders credit: They got things this far against very long odds. Europe will get there – but not with a French driver. And probably not with a German driver, either.

Perhaps, a British politician who has just suffered through his ‘last election,’ a man who has been declared ‘finished up’ at home, now will lead Europe. Blair may not be at the end of his political career. As you get to understand how he works, you realize that Blair is amazingly unfinished as a person, as a politician, as a visionary. He is always reinventing himself as he learns and as the situation requires. He has not finished growing up. He has more work to do. Europe needs a little work done. Blair may be preparing for a larger stage. Ironically, here is a man from a country without a formal constitution, and he may be Europe’s best chance for a workable constitution that can actually get approved, country-by-country. He may have suffered humiliating losses in the recent British elections, but he held on to power. The British tend to hang on. When Hitler was confident that his blitz would subdue Britain, he proclaimed that he would ‘ring England’s neck like a chicken.’ Prime Minister Churchill responded: ‘Some chicken, some neck.’

The leaders of a demoralized Europe returned home from Brussels after exchanging recriminations. No one looked good. No one had much positive to say. The political leaders of Europe, it seemed, did not even like to be in each other’s company. Unfortunately, a few of them gathered again soon after the Brussels debacle.

Food fight for the future of Europe

At that meeting, and in support of the effort by Paris to win the Olympic Games, Chirac got into a food fight: He was caught on camera saying that British cuisine was awful. In fact, he suggested that only Finland has worse food. Did he forget that two Finns were going to be voting on the Olympic site? Did those Finns, perhaps, feel inclined to vote for London, the eventual winner?

Chirac is too public in his bitterness. His sad performance is the classic exit of the desperate and defeated. Only the British seemed to have it right. Then, within hours of their Olympic victory, Londoners were attacked by terrorists. Blair and the British politicians – and especially the British people - responded with noble resolve.

Americans - still among the biggest advocates of the European Union - watched the TV images of purposeful and resourceful Brits and were humbled. Many took to their houses of worship to pray for London’s victims. These British, once again, looked every bit the best people in the world in a crisis. They are just better at it than anyone else.

Europe’s unification drama continues. For France, the script says exit political left; for Germany, exit political right; for Britain, move to center stage, resolutely. Blair may soon take the wheel. Blair, of course, has already shown that he has a very tough neck.

Please click here to review previous issues.

copyright © 2005 Radnor Inc.