By Ellen Hale, USA TODAY (26-02-2002)
LONDON — An unruly alliance of states gathers to plot its future, each zealously protective of its own identity. Some push for a strong federal union and a president and legislative body with clout. Others, wary of a new super-state, demand freedom to determine their own policies on taxes, immigration and foreign policy.
More than two centuries ago, a convention in Philadelphia hammered out the Constitution of the United States of America. Now Europe is beginning a similar effort to craft a unifying charter.
Thursday, leaders of the European Union gather in Brussels for the start of a yearlong convention that will determine the future of Europe. The convention is expected to produce a written constitution that binds the group economically, politically and socially.
The goal: create a union powerful enough to challenge the world's sole remaining superpower.
The man charged with running the convention, former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing, has loftily compared the gathering to the Philadelphia convention of 1787. Even the word "forefathers" has crept into his talk.
There are additional similarities between the constitutional efforts of the New World and the Old:
Representatives of 13 states gathered in Philadelphia in 1787; 15 nations will meet in Brussels over the next year.
Like the United States back then, Europe is struggling to find its place in a new world order.
A common "bill of rights" is under consideration, as is a common army.
Meanwhile, many of the same touchy issues are being addressed — from finding a way to balance power between large and small states to deciding who else will be allowed to join.
This convention will be "rather more modest" than the Philadelphia one, says Peter Hain, the British minister for Europe and the country's official representative at the meetings. Even so, his own prime minister, Tony Blair, declared at the December summit that set up the convention that the ultimate goal should be to build a new "global superpower."
Flush with success from the virtually seamless introduction of the new single currency — the euro — this year, many European leaders (and many regular citizens) are wondering whether superpower status is not within reach. Ten countries have been tapped to join the EU in two years. Two more could join soon after that. By the end of the decade, a united Europe would boast half a billion people and a combined economy larger than that of the USA.
But there is broad disagreement among the 15 member countries over an issue that would certainly strike a chord with the forefathers of the American Constitution, and which even now reverberates in the USA: How much power should the federal government have?
Some countries, most notably the powerhouses of France and Germany, want a strong central government in which member states have little veto power over federal decisions. They want Europe-wide positions on diplomatic and military issues and common policies regulating everything from crime to immigration. They also want a stronger parliament and a president.
Britain has opposed closer integration, as have many of the smaller countries. Blair, however, recently has been edging closer to integration-minded Germany and has recommended that the six-month rotating European presidency be abolished and a permanent post created. (It also has been rumored that Blair would like to be the first president of an empowered European Union.)
Even if these obstacles are overcome, formidable challenges will remain. While most Americans automatically identify themselves as American, no one in Europe calls himself "European."
Moreover, many people here apparently don't even know what the European Union is: A recent poll of Britons revealed that one in 15 believed the United States was in the EU, and one-fourth didn't know Britain was a member. "That's a big gap," Hain admits, "between the leading and the led."
But the most overwhelming obstacle may be history. Whereas the United States was a brand new country when it launched itself, the nations of Europe have pasts that stretch back thousands of years and often involved warring against one another.
Each member has its own strong cultural traditions; most speak different languages. They squabble among each other and disagree about everything from supporting U.S. plans for a missile-defense system to adopting the euro. (Britain, Sweden and Denmark have refused to adopt it.) Often, the EU more closely resembles a giant, dysfunctional family than a union of countries. Members can't even agree on what to call the written document expected to come out of the meetings that start Thursday. Constitution? Charter? Legal framework?
"Part of the problem with the idea of a united Europe is that there is no one single opinion about anything here, and no way to make for one," says Donald Cameron-Watt, a retired constitutional scholar at the London School of Economics. "There is no common history to unite Europe the way it did the United States."
A United Nations of Europe might be a more apt moniker, many observers suggest. But whatever it becomes, and no matter how strong a constitution it drafts, some doubt whether the European Union will ever be able to stand up to the United States.
London Times columnist John Humphreys asked last week: Is it enough for the European Union to have a document binding it together so that its voice can be "heard in a world increasingly dominated by one superpower"?
"Europe can huff and puff," read the headline over Humphreys' column, "but it won't challenge America."
LONDON — An unruly alliance of states gathers to plot its future, each zealously protective of its own identity. Some push for a strong federal union and a president and legislative body with clout. Others, wary of a new super-state, demand freedom to determine their own policies on taxes, immigration and foreign policy.
More than two centuries ago, a convention in Philadelphia hammered out the Constitution of the United States of America. Now Europe is beginning a similar effort to craft a unifying charter.
Thursday, leaders of the European Union gather in Brussels for the start of a yearlong convention that will determine the future of Europe. The convention is expected to produce a written constitution that binds the group economically, politically and socially.
The goal: create a union powerful enough to challenge the world's sole remaining superpower.
The man charged with running the convention, former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing, has loftily compared the gathering to the Philadelphia convention of 1787. Even the word "forefathers" has crept into his talk.
There are additional similarities between the constitutional efforts of the New World and the Old:
Representatives of 13 states gathered in Philadelphia in 1787; 15 nations will meet in Brussels over the next year.
Like the United States back then, Europe is struggling to find its place in a new world order.
A common "bill of rights" is under consideration, as is a common army.
Meanwhile, many of the same touchy issues are being addressed — from finding a way to balance power between large and small states to deciding who else will be allowed to join.
This convention will be "rather more modest" than the Philadelphia one, says Peter Hain, the British minister for Europe and the country's official representative at the meetings. Even so, his own prime minister, Tony Blair, declared at the December summit that set up the convention that the ultimate goal should be to build a new "global superpower."
Flush with success from the virtually seamless introduction of the new single currency — the euro — this year, many European leaders (and many regular citizens) are wondering whether superpower status is not within reach. Ten countries have been tapped to join the EU in two years. Two more could join soon after that. By the end of the decade, a united Europe would boast half a billion people and a combined economy larger than that of the USA.
But there is broad disagreement among the 15 member countries over an issue that would certainly strike a chord with the forefathers of the American Constitution, and which even now reverberates in the USA: How much power should the federal government have?
Some countries, most notably the powerhouses of France and Germany, want a strong central government in which member states have little veto power over federal decisions. They want Europe-wide positions on diplomatic and military issues and common policies regulating everything from crime to immigration. They also want a stronger parliament and a president.
Britain has opposed closer integration, as have many of the smaller countries. Blair, however, recently has been edging closer to integration-minded Germany and has recommended that the six-month rotating European presidency be abolished and a permanent post created. (It also has been rumored that Blair would like to be the first president of an empowered European Union.)
Even if these obstacles are overcome, formidable challenges will remain. While most Americans automatically identify themselves as American, no one in Europe calls himself "European."
Moreover, many people here apparently don't even know what the European Union is: A recent poll of Britons revealed that one in 15 believed the United States was in the EU, and one-fourth didn't know Britain was a member. "That's a big gap," Hain admits, "between the leading and the led."
But the most overwhelming obstacle may be history. Whereas the United States was a brand new country when it launched itself, the nations of Europe have pasts that stretch back thousands of years and often involved warring against one another.
Each member has its own strong cultural traditions; most speak different languages. They squabble among each other and disagree about everything from supporting U.S. plans for a missile-defense system to adopting the euro. (Britain, Sweden and Denmark have refused to adopt it.) Often, the EU more closely resembles a giant, dysfunctional family than a union of countries. Members can't even agree on what to call the written document expected to come out of the meetings that start Thursday. Constitution? Charter? Legal framework?
"Part of the problem with the idea of a united Europe is that there is no one single opinion about anything here, and no way to make for one," says Donald Cameron-Watt, a retired constitutional scholar at the London School of Economics. "There is no common history to unite Europe the way it did the United States."
A United Nations of Europe might be a more apt moniker, many observers suggest. But whatever it becomes, and no matter how strong a constitution it drafts, some doubt whether the European Union will ever be able to stand up to the United States.
London Times columnist John Humphreys asked last week: Is it enough for the European Union to have a document binding it together so that its voice can be "heard in a world increasingly dominated by one superpower"?
"Europe can huff and puff," read the headline over Humphreys' column, "but it won't challenge America."
