The underlying tensions in Europe

The current developments in Europe are exciting. In the international arena we have seen the cleavage over Iraq. It also demonstrated Europe's relative military weakness. There have also been differences of opinion between EU Member States over several other issues.

However, it might be wrong to read too much into it. As I have observed earlier in several of my columns, this division is likely to heal more quickly than the transatlantic rift.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The "old-new" designation has also not been really useful. It has entered the vocabulary because of an accident of coincidence. Mr. Rumsfeld's comment has been generally taken up because subsequent events seemed to bear it out. In addition, the "old-new" concept is not something that most Europeans are comfortable with.

Analysts have commented that "new" Europe, until relatively recently, has been more or less occupied by a foreign military power. This has led them to be more aware of their own security and the important role in the context of a US security guarantee. There is this sensitivity, but at the same time one also discerns a yearning for their own voice.'

Most of 'new' Europe remembers that the US had always been a strong supporter of EU enlargement. They recall that in the 1990s there had been some trepidation of NATO enlargement but that had gone on smoothly because of US pressure. They now view EU and NATO enlargement as taking place more or less in parallel. It is this which makes them feel a degree of obligation towards the United States.

The notion of an EU that extends to the Urals is a conceptual change and hard to grasp in some quarters. With the EU enlarging eastwards, some are hoping that it would eventually look beyond the immediate Balkan neighbourhood to the Middle East. The US has been monitoring developments in this regard very carefully and senior US Officials have more than once expressed their hope that the EU and US could work together on this issue.

The teething problem of integration within an expanded Europe for the countries of 'new' Europe has been compounded by many of the new Member States not knowing as yet what their foreign policy priorities should be. They are used to having bilateral relations with their neighbours.

In this changed scenario, finding a consensus might well mean arriving at the lowest common denominator. Enlargement will certainly move the centre of gravity eastwards and policies will be required for dealing with new neighbours. However, the main difficulty will be not the policy itself but who would lead it. The equation has been made more complex with the question as to whether the new EU Foreign Minister will have the ability to pull together the various ideas and broker a consensus?

This aspect has also assumed importance in view of the significance of institutional changes that will be required with regards to Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The merger of the High Representative and the Commissioner for External Relations will probably be a valuable addition and provide leadership at the centre but the missing piece will still be the principle of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) for CFSP.

Having a merged figure to lead CFSP will need a lot of work to ensure that it functions efficiently. The job may have been merged but it will still involve two very different institutions (the Commission and the Council).

The last few weeks have witnessed a real debate in Europe as to how the EU should live together. Some believe that an EU constitution will raise the status of the Union as a foreign policy actor. Others have pointed out that many of the instruments are still missing. In this regard it is being stressed that while some countries might want to develop closer links on defence, there was hesitation on the subject of reinforced cooperation.

During the recently concluded EU-US Summit, President Bush has reaffirmed the importance of cooperation in the areas of economics, defence and security (particularly proliferation, Balkans and Middle East). He has however pointed out interestingly that the EU was not so visible in Washington DC. In this regard he has mentioned that "When the EU speaks as one, the US is happy to deal with it" and that this particularly applies to economic areas where the Commission had the right to speak for the EU.

In a way, this would imply that the EU was "non-aggregated" in political areas and here the Member States preferred bilateral relations with the US. In the post Cold War era there appears to be a conceptual confusion on both sides but the US and the EU continues to tackle issues, not just of short-term economic interest but also more long-term i.e. competition, regulation, financial services, energy etc. This fact is reflected in a report that almost 70 per cent of the work of the US Mission to the EU deals with economic issues. It demonstrates what a high priority these have. This is done apparently with the belief that economic growth on both sides of the Atlantic is a mutually reinforcing process. This is vital because economic clout is a prerequisite for an effective CFSP and a balanced partnership.

Some political commentators have been stressing that the Convention of Europe had not lived up to expectations. They refer to the lack of QMV in foreign policy matters as a serious set back and claim that this will mean very little change in the foreseeable future. Some Member States without QMV will have no choice but to move ahead, if necessary, outside the EU framework. This could eventually lead to difficulties.

Nevertheless, it is believed that special efforts will now be undertaken by the EU to identify common strategies for each interest area. This could then be the foundation for cooperation. The Balkans is being cited as a good example of where the EU had a common strategy that had been developed with the US. It is emphasised that when the EU took over in Bosnia it was important that the US underlined that it was not exiting. The Balkans has consistently demonstrated that things only go right when the EU and the US act in concert. The important thing to remember here is that even if the EU has no common strategy it is more likely to be with the US than against it.

At this point one also needs to reflect on whether there is a long-term future for NATO? Essentially, there does not need to be any contradiction between NATO and CFSP development. Both organisations, in the intermediate term will need to be their homework and will most likely develop a more strategic approach.

It must not be forgotten that while NATO as an institution is undergoing change, it still represents a US commitment to Europe on security issues. This relationship might be differently articulated as the European Union changes, but one does not see it as being a case of choosing between NATO and the EU. The recent Solana Strategic Security paper will help smooth existing wrinkles and also guide how current EU defence spending (a considerable sum of money) might be more effectively spent. This aspect is important because currently, the EU does not appear to be getting as much for its defence dollars as the US, in view of limited procurement and lack of inter-operability.

Another important tension beneath the surface in Europe is the question of managing and overcoming the problem of illegal migration. It is this aspect which involves human rights and will require attention. One understands that both 'Old' as well as 'New' Europe are tapping the trans-Atlantic services to discover a suitable mechanism. This is good. It might be a useful idea to have international transit centers on the outer edges of Europe's borders and close to troubled regions. With the cooperation of neighbouring states, facilities could then be provided through temporary shelters and new opportunities created for displaced people. Transit centers could then be a voluntary 'catchment mechanism' rather than simply processing centers. A suitable solution needs to be found.

There is also the question of human security and the response of each European state to this value. There is broad agreement that human security needs to be safeguarded and people's vital freedoms expanded. However, the approaches to this issue differ within Europe. Tension exists on how to protect people from critical and pervasive threats while at the same time empowering people to take charge of their own lives. Opinions differ as to the norms, policies and institutions essential to shield people. Rule of law and democratic governance are still stumbling blocks in the newly emerged countries of Eastern Europe. A debate is going on whether human security should seek to supplant state security or rather complement it. These are important areas which need to be resolved if Europe is to play a significant role in the world stage with regard to the shared responsibility of protecting international security, preventing conflict, ensuring the respect of human rights and eradicating poverty.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador.