The European Council meeting
In the run-up to the summit, the Union’s external relations, security policy issues and the relations to its strategic partners were supposed to be discussed during the European Council meeting held in Brussels on 16 September. Since the first anniversary of the Lisbon Treaty approaches (in force since 1st December 2009) and the old continent still groans under the impact of the Big Recession, the concretion of a common European diplomacy as well as the improvement of the EU’s economic coordination were expected to be the outcomes of the summit.
Just as many times before, expectations could not be met and the trend of ‘window dressing’ is carried on. Among the meagre conclusions rank a declaration on the relations with the Union’s strategic partners, an outline for the upcoming G20 Summit in Seoul and a commitment to take common steps in humanitarian and development assistance for Pakistan after the flood. Ironically, that is the ‘usual’.
All the same?
Once again, the French President Sarkozy was the star on Brussels’ stage. As easy as it would be to assert the contrary, it would not be fair: It is not all Sarkozy’s fault. More than one thing went wrong concerning French EU politics, already since his arrival to the Elysée Palace: he has presented himself and been allowed to play the role of the leader of the European integration, the promoter of a new German-French alliance first, British-French alliance later (not by chance when the UK voted Tories) – both of them for the same purpose of heading towards a new and even more conservative direction of the Union. He decided to play the markedly Gaullist card of defending French national interests and stressed again the ‘duty’ to guarantee public order.
His audience was not at all reluctant to getting lost in the whirlpool of events. If the focus of attention turned to him and his debate on the Roma expulsion, instead of focussing on the previous agenda of the Council, it is primarily because this situation results convenient also for other conservative and nominally social democratic European leaders (including the President of the European Commission Barroso himself) – at least in the short-term perspective of national politics. Talking about migration issues and the reinforcement of the nation state seems the perfect escape from touching heavily weighing and conflicting themes such as the insufficient cohesion funds, and technical support for the new member states. The entertainer Sarkozy made it possible: the Roma dispute finally not only dominated but completely engulfed the EU summit.
Why now?
Though several social and political actors denounced and demonstrated against the way the French government treats Roma migrants, it took the Commission too long and agonising months before it decided to take action and to defend the rights of EU-citizens living in the EU. As argued before, the summit provided the circumstance it needed to react. At least, it is a good sign that finally the common institutions decided to act also in front one of the ‘big’ European states.
Wait! Expulsion of EU-citizens from a EU country?
Un monde bizarre! The defence of the EU’s borders executed via FRONTEX is as immoral as the treatment of Roma in France. However, this time the ones that are being discriminated are European citizens having European passports! Opting for a European Darfur? What kind of voice can the EU have in the world if it cannot even guarantee the free mobility of its own citizens within its own borders? How different would the Union be from other Free Trade Agreements, as the NAFTA, if the mobility of persons and workers was not guaranteed? The practice of naming, blaming and shaming seems to have lost its effect. If sanctions imposed by the Commission are not a viable deterrence for the French government to review its position, then the answer to those questions will be negative.
There are more indicators of things going wrong. Van Rompuy only appears quoted in the news on the Councils proper webpage. Is it not him being the President of something? Apparently, it is not a matter of names; it is a signal of how the formal enforcement of the new Treaty – as bad and good as it is – is not sufficient by itself to guarantee the prosecution of its goals. To the common practice of blaming the European arena for the unpopular domestic public policies executed by nation states has now been added the idea of direct and public confrontation with the basics principles of the European common liberties. The only most alarming thing about France’s attitude towards Roma migrants is the silence of the majority of the other European leaders who suggest that this is an issue of domestic interest only; an interest that prevails even over the most basics European rights.
As greens, we should, more than ever, make visible our role as the main anti-racist pro-integration movement of Europe.
By Agustin Rossi, JEV International relations responsible.
Recent Comments