Is Europe Abandoning Itself?

Nearly a year after a meeting in Saint-Malo between France and Great Britain broached the topic of a special European security system, French President Jacques Chirac and British Premier Tony Blair have announced a “decisive step” in this regard at a London summit. It has taken about one year for what seem to be two very influential nations to understand that they have got more important things to consider than quarrel over beef (just before this event there were a number of optimistic reports about London and Paris having finally come to terms). This year something has happened: in particular the Kosovo tragedy and absolutely senseless NATO campaign against Yugoslavia. This year one might understand that Yugoslavia is not on the moon but near the center of Europe. And, obviously, one might understand that all the developments concerning the Balkan crisis are disgraceful to the new generation of West European leaders who have virtually demonstrated that the only thing they can do now is to wage cold wars over beef but surely not to understand what is happening on their own continent. Perhaps it was precisely this pettiness that made Zbigniew Brzezinski note recently that no matter how upset Western Europe might be, it will still remain a US dominion. In fact, virtually all of the last decade’s global agreements, which were not only directly related to Europe but also shaped its future, had been developed or thought up first in Washington. All of the international operations in the Balkans were planned by the US, which now proudly states that it carried most of the military burden during the last Balkan operation (bombing of Yugoslavia), while Europe’s task now is to pay for the rehabilitation of Kosovo. In outward appearance it looks like a father showing his children their place and duties in the family. It should be admitted that so far such a situation has fully satisfied Europeans: the latest research shows that in terms of security, each European country would prefer to keep relying on NATO and the US than on itself. In this context, Chirac and Blair say that their striving for the accelerated creation of a European security system will have no negative implications for NATO, but will only provide broader decision-making autonomy. And, adds Blair, Britain would like, as he sees it, to remain a bridge between the United States and the European Union.

At the end of the year it appears like there have been no radical changes at all. For Blair, Chirac, Schroeder and all the more so for the population of their countries, Europe as before is in practice limited to not even all EU members. The lessons of Kosovo have still not been properly learned, given the statements by head of the UN Administration in Kosovo Bernard Kushner, who is asking the public to realize that, while in five months it is impossible to reach understanding between the Albanian majority and Serbs, he is happy that in the past few days the number of murders has fallen, silencing the fact that the Serbs, Gypsies and other non-Albanians are not even guaranteed their natural right to live in Kosovo, while the administration itself is not in control of the situation and would not admit that all this could have been avoided, had Europeans really wanted. So far, no serious analysis has been made or, at least, published regarding this subject: what does the Balkan crisis actually mean to Western Europe, limited by its own apartment and used to cushy living, and what example can it apply from Kosovo to Corsica, the Basque Country and the like?

As of now, the European Community is neither European nor a community. Perhaps, the development of the Chirac-Blair initiative will only lead to initial steps in making it so. Or not — then everything will be limited to beef wars, hopes that Washington will always provide protection against “wild Moscow,” and nothing more is needed.