EU's grim political determination

The important outcomes of the meeting included:

- the reopening of the Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC) on a Constitutional Treaty;

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

- the commitment to strengthen Europe's collective means of combating terrorism;

- a sharper definition of the Union's stance on key global issues -- notably the Middle East; and

- a new focus on implementing existing commitments by Member States to reform set out in the "Lisbon Process" objectives.

Everything now depends on whether this changed political climate really produces a new 'political will' at EU level to achieve results in practice. The absence of this critical ingredient in recent years has directly contributed to the stagnation and even disarray evident in so many important areas of European Union policy.

It is probably too soon to judge whether the constitutional negotiations are now "doomed to succeed." However, the negotiations led by the Irish Presidency should fairly quickly reveal if there really will be a signed and sealed agreement by the new deadline of the last Summit under the Irish Presidency (to be held on 16-17 June).

It might also take longer to ascertain whether the new determination to convert commitments by Member State governments at EU level into practice on the ground will break the log jam which threatens to paralyse progress in achieving the 2010 goals in the "Lisbon Process." It may be recalled that these were designed to make the EU the most competitive, knowledge based, socially cohesive and environmentally sustainable economy in the world.

The original, prime purpose of the spring European Council was a major review of the problems facing Lisbon Process and the urgent steps needed to give it renewed vigour and focus. The practical conclusions of the meeting contain little that is really new. This may encourage critics to dismiss the entire exercise. This would be a mistake. There is now an unmistakable acceptance that success or failure in meeting the Lisbon goals will have far-reaching implications, not only for Europe's capacity to maintain decent living standards in a global market which includes challenging new competitors in Asia and elsewhere, but for the very survival of Europe's sense of what a civilized economic and social model should be.

Nevertheless, there are many factors which have still not been addressed in their entirety. The more urgent ones among them will be the conversion of the detailed commitments by EU Member States with regard to the coordinating of their legal, judicial and intelligence services, together with Europol and Eurojust and the forging of a coherent and fully integrated strategy against terrorism.

It appears that the horror of the Madrid atrocity has played a decisive role in injecting a new mood of determination. There was also evidence of growing acceptance that an increasingly dangerous and unstable world situation imposes new responsibilities and a pressure to "show results" in the field of foreign, security and defence policy. This new mood was definitely reflected in the strikingly critical tone of the Summit conclusions on the crisis in the Middle East -- following the Israeli assassination of the Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yasin -- and in the leaders' worried conclusions about the deteriorating security situation in the Balkans.

Quite understandingly, much attention has been focused during the Summit on the decision to reopen the IGC with a view to agreeing to a new Treaty by mid-June. In this context, the change in political mood was truly dramatic. The decisive rejection in recent elections, of the outgoing Spanish conservative government, led by Jose Maria Aznar, has resulted in an unmistakable realignment of Spain closer to "old Europe" on most if not all the key constitutional and strategic issues. The consequential impetus for Poland to fundamentally reassess the hitherto dogmatic defence of its voting rights entitlement under the largely discredited Nice Treaty was given added drama at the end of the Summit when the Prime Minister, Leszek Miller, announced his forthcoming resignation. This followed a political revolt within his own party by political leaders who want a more pro-European orientation in Warsaw.

The note struck by the Irish Prime Minister, Bertie Ahern, the President of the European Council, at the end of the meeting was positive, while avoiding any trace of triumphalism. "We have a changed atmosphere and a new willingness to compromise," he declared. Mr Ahern and many other EU leaders -- including the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, and European Parliamentarians -- are apparently insisting that the Treaty should be agreed to before the 340 million EU citizens in the expanded 25 Member States are asked to vote in the European Parliament (EP) election in June. The EU leadership is finally accepting the view that the longer the agreement on the constitution remains unfinished, the harder it will be to settle.

The important breakthrough in the process is that everyone now accepts that EU decisions should in future be made on the "double majority" principle: that is a majority both of states and of the peoples of the enlarged Union. There is no final agreement yet on the equation. However, many believe that this should be balanced by 55 percent for population (notably Germany), while others are talking about figures of 60 percent or more for population. Some also want an explicit formula for what would comprise a blocking minority (in terms of both states and population) in the text as well. There is also an unresolved issue of when exactly the new system would come into force with dates ranging from 2007 to 2014. Unresolved details will probably be worked out during the planned meeting of EU Foreign Ministers at the beginning of May.

Some other highly sensitive questions about the possible extension of majority voting in the field of Justice and Home Affairs must also be agreed. There are some indications that the British government may accept some qualified majority voting in this area not only for matters affecting cross border fraud but possibly also in the fight against terrorism. This will probably be on the understanding that Member States will retain the national veto over defence, tax and social security.

Two other questions also remain unresolved. The first relates to the promised reduction in the size of the number of Commissioners as enlargement continues and how to rotate among Member States their right to a Commissioner in a future, smaller college. The earliest such a reform would come in would be 2014 when the EU might consist of more than 30 Member States. The other serious issue is about efforts to reduce the role of the European Parliament as a budget negotiating partner with the Council of Ministers. The Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are taking this attempt to reduce their role as elected representatives most seriously and it is anticipated that in the April session of the European Parliament -- the President, Pat Cox, may be invested with powers to negotiate with EU governments even after the outgoing Parliament has held its last plenary session.

The fact that some 20 pages of the Summit's conclusions were devoted to combating terrorism came as no surprise. The leaders have in effect adopted a revised European Action Plan against terrorism and expressed agreement on the goal of a Solidarity Clause in the new Constitutional Treaty which will oblige all Member States to come to the aid of one of their number subject to terrorist attacks. The Summit has prioritised the practical (if highly problematic) steps needed to be taken to ensure maximum cooperation by Members States at many different levels (police, legal, financial, intelligence) to confront this new global threat. Work on strengthening border controls will be stepped up with proposals for the exchange of information on DNA, fingerprints and visa data brought forward to the June European Council. The former Dutch MEP and Secretary of State for Justice, Gijs de Vries has been appointed to the post of "Counter-Terrorism Coordinator." His will be a difficult task, given the complex system of cooperation and information exchange that will be required between the national authorities. An area of difficulty will be the provisions of the European Common Arrest Warrant which have not as yet been agreed to by five foot-dragging EU governments -- Germany, Italy, Greece, Austria and the Netherlands.

The European Council Summit has left no doubt that the immediate priority is without question "better implementation of commitments already made." Some eyebrows will however be raised at the relatively upbeat assessment in the Summit conclusions that "the economic recovery that started in the second half of 2003 is gathering pace." This does not seem immediately consistent either with the latest, disappointing economic data from Germany -- the EU's largest economy -- nor the renewed pressure on the European Central Bank to cut interest rates to head off a possible reversal of the recovery.

The extensive Summit time devoted to world crises also reflected the ambitions of the European Union to be a serious global player. This European Council provided further evidence of the EU's intent to define increasingly detailed policies not only in its own "neighbourhood" but more widely. The condemnation of "the extra judicial killing of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yasin, and the demand that Israel reverse its policies both on settlements on occupied land and over "the construction of the so-called security fence on Palestinian land" were important decisions that have reflected maturity. In a way, this view reiterated that without a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, the wider fight against terrorism and global terrorism could be fatally weakened. The United States should take cognisance of this.

Another heartening feature was the unanimous agreement that the EU should assist in Iraq's transition to full democracy, while the UN should oversee the transfer of sovereignty, the preparation of elections and the reconstruction of the country.

What was less clear however, was whether this emerging consensus would translate into agreement on the precise mandate the UN should be given in Iraq in any new Security Council resolution. The appalling security situation on the ground is now being recognised as a major obstacle, and like many others, the EU governments also seem uncertain about how the future responsibility for tackling security should be organised after the transfer of power to the Governing Council in June.

In a further sign of EU Member States' willingness to shoulder formidable international responsibilities, its commitments to security and reconstruction in Afghanistan was also underlined.

The Summit has been a step forward.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador.