STEP IN, PRODI!
The “joint reaction” of fourteen European Union governments against their partner, Austria, threatens to weaken the Union at the moment when it faces its greatest challenge: opening its membership to the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe. For the political boycott implemented by the fourteen against Austria undermines the Treaty on the European Union, and raises serious doubts about the functioning of EU-institutions. The intentions of the fourteen were the noblest imaginable: that the union should be safeguarded against the xenophobia manifested in the rhetoric of the leader of the Austrian Freedom Party, Mr. Jorg Haider. When Austrian conservatives in January started negotiations with Haider’s party on a new coalition, alarm bells went off all across Europe. Suddenly, fourteen members of the European Council of state and government leaders found themselves able to take a quick decision.
Too quick, alas. They decided to establish a political boycott against Austria, should the new coalition become a reality. When Austria’s new coalition government was sworn in, the boycott ensued.
The problem is that the Treaty on the European Union sets out clear rules for how member governments shall treat each other if the fundamental principles common to them are endangered:
Article Six of the treaty describes these common values: “...principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law...”
Article Seven states that the European Council “may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of ...(these) principles after inviting the government of the Member State in question to submit its observations. Where such a determination has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of this Treaty to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representatives of that Member State in the Council.”
So far, so good. Now fourteen heads of state and government deem it appropriate to invent their own new rules. They tried to camouflage their joint action as something that had nothing to do with the EU. They talked about a “joint reaction” by fourteen governments, as if they accidentally happened to put their heads together, as if such Orwellian newspeak would fool anybody.
I am definitely no admirer of Mr. Haider and his so-called Freedom Party. His attitudes toward opening Europe to the new postcommunist democracies are worrying; his lack of sensitivity in regards to the shadier sides of Europe’s history is disgusting. These are just two reasons why we kicked him and his party out of the European Liberal and Democrat Party (ELDR) some years ago. But a democratically elected government should be judged on its politics, not on the rhetoric of a populist politician, however vulgar and repulsive.
The action against Austria causes anxiety all over Europe, not least among the new democracies applying for membership. The new Austrian government was judged by its European partners without being able to “submit its observations” as stated in the treaty. Everybody is confused: which set of common values has been broken by the Austrians?
Why act, for example, against the Austrian Freedom Party when no action was taken in other European countries (like Italy) when parties from the extreme right took part in government? Does Europe have one set of rules for small countries and another for big ones? What if communists suddenly appear in government coalitions? Will that also lead to political boycotts from other EU governments? If not, is that because eleven out of the fourteen governments today are socialist or social democratic, and jumped to help out when fellow Austrian socialists were poised to lose power? Do we have one set of rules for the extreme right and another for the extreme left?
These nagging questions threaten to undermine the authority of the European Council. This institution has grown in influence over the last 10-15 years. Heads of state and government meet more frequently than before and are increasingly active in EU decision making. They have developed what sometimes looks like an old boy network. They have often given a welcome boost to European integration, when snap decisions needed to be taken and red tape cut. But when they act as in this case — without consultations with their diplomats and the Commission (“guardian of the Treaty”) — it begins to look like the sort of arrogance of power that makes European integration seem so frightening to a lot of people.
The fourteen government leaders have painted themselves into a corner. Nowadays it is not a pretty sight to watch the proceedings of the Councils of Ministers: some ministers behave like small children in a kindergarten. I don’t want to shake your hand; I don’t want to sit next to you; I won’t listen when you talk... This is not a dignified way to act. The big question is: can this situation be reversed? In their wisdom the fourteen forgot to tell the Austrians what to do in order to be accepted again as playmates by their colleagues.
Perhaps the president of the European Commission should try to cut this Gordian knot. After all, it is his responsibility, and of those of his colleagues in the commission, to safeguard the treaty. He cannot remain a passive spectator when one member state is being mugged by the others in clear conflict with the treaty’s rules. Step in, Signor Prodi! Save what is left of everyone’s face.
