EU appointments reflect growth of national conflicts in Europe

[Antid Oto]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

EU appointments reflect growth of national conflicts in Europe
23 November 2009

There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from the appointments
to the two new top posts in the European Union: In future, national
interests will set the tone in Europe.

Those entrusted with the leading positions by the European heads of
government are little more than puppets of national power interests.
The appointments were largely agreed between Berlin, Paris and London.

The new president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, owes his
office to Germany and France. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and
French President Nicolas Sarkozy had agreed on the Belgian prime
minister in advance. His membership in the conservative camp and the
fact that he originates from a smaller EU state gave him the necessary
majority among the remaining EU government heads.

In recompense, Britain was awarded the new office of EU foreign
minister. British EU commissioner Catherine Ashton's membership in the
Labour Party secured her the support of the European Social Democrats.

Both candidates are virtually unknown. They have no power base of
their own and no particular experience in foreign policy. They
therefore pose no serious threat to the national interests of Berlin,
Paris and London. Indeed, the new European foreign minister originates
from the very country that has most vociferously opposed a common
European foreign policy.

It has taken the EU ten years to create these new top positions. The
Lisbon Treaty, which finally emerged from an endless series of
negotiations, back-room deals and mutual extortions, set in place a
new leadership structure for the EU. Three times—in France, the
Netherlands and Ireland—these efforts fell victim to a “no” vote of
the electorate, which correctly regarded them as an attempt to bolster
the most powerful European business interests.

The necessity for a stronger European leadership was always justified
with the argument that Europe could be on a par with the great world
powers only if it spoke with one voice. The anecdote about former US
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who once famously asked, “Who do I
call if I want to call Europe?” was repeated endlessly. But now, after
the Czech Republic became the last of the 27 EU members to ratify the
Lisbon Treaty, the desire for a common voice seems to have evaporated.

For once, the entire European press is in agreement on this point.
Italy's Corriere della Sera sees the appointment of “a Mr. and Mrs.
Nobody" to the two top EU jobs as a “European declaration of
surrender” and “a step, or more precisely, two, towards insignificance.”

Germany's Die Zeit opines that the EU has missed “an important
opportunity" and that Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown
are “the true decision-makers in the EU—and want to remain so."

Poland's Dziennik Gazeta Prawna writes: “It has been demonstrated that
the community does not need a strong president, but rather one who
does not get in the way of the implementation of individual [states’]
interests."

The Lisbon Treaty is a reactionary project. It does not embody the
interests of the European people, but those of the most powerful
European banks and corporations. The attempt to establish a
European-wide great power is accompanied by the dismantling of
democratic rights, deeper attacks on working class living standards,
and increasing militarism. The project is being carried out on the
backs of working people.

But if Berlin, Paris and London are now prioritising their national
interests, this does not make things better. On the contrary, it
underscores the reactionary essence of the effort.

National sovereignty cannot be equated with democracy, as right-wing
opponents of the EU claim. The national European governments have long
pursued foreign policies in defiance of the wishes of the majority
within their populations. Opinion polls have shown time and again that
an overwhelming majority rejects the war in Afghanistan. Nevertheless,
Berlin, Paris and London not only continue the war, but increase their
troop deployments.

Now the growth of militarism is converging with an intensification of
national antagonisms within Europe. The installation of secondary
figures in the top EU posts demonstrates this.

Tensions within the EU are not new, but they have clearly increased
since the beginning of the world economic crisis. This is shown by the
fierce disputes over what constitutes the permissible level of state
debt, the aggressive and unilateral actions of the German government
at Opel, the emergence of new disputes between Germany and Poland over
populations that were expelled during World War II, and the unilateral
foreign policy initiatives of President Sarkozy in the Middle East,
accompanied by the sale of French weapons, atomic power plants and
high-speed trains.

Nobody should believe that the national conflicts that plunged Europe
into two world wars in the last century that cost the lives of
millions could not flare up again. These contradictions were dampened
temporarily after the Second World War by means of substantial
American economic aid, high economic growth rates, and Western
Europe's position at the forefront of the Cold War. On this basis, the
emergence of the European Union was possible.

But these factors no longer exist. With the intensification of the
international economic crisis, centred in the decline of the world
economic position of the United States, national conflicts are once
again erupting.

The European governments find enthusiastic support for their
unilateral actions among the trade unions and the social democrats,
who bang the nationalist drum the loudest when it concerns the defense
of national economic interests.

Marxists have always held the view that the peaceful and harmonious
unification of Europe is not possible on a capitalist basis. As long
as the interests of capital dominate politics, each European great
power seeks to organize the continent by forcing its will upon its
rivals and upon the smaller nations. This was the background to both
the First and Second world wars.

The unity of Europe is in principle necessary and progressive due to
the continent’s close economic interdependence. But unification can be
progressive and can serve the interests of the European masses only in
the form of the United Socialist States of Europe. This requires a
movement from below, which welds together the European working class
as part of the international working class, links the struggle against
social attacks and militarism with the defence of democratic rights,
and fights for the socialist transformation of society.

Peter Schwarz

Copyright © 1998-2009 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/pers-n23.shtml

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********