The Signing of the EU Constitution: Further Violation of Sovereignty Rights and Increasing Dangerous Contradictions on a World Scale

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

The Signing of the EU Constitution: Further Violation of Sovereignty Rights and Increasing Dangerous Contradictions on a World Scale

EU Youth Policy to Focus on "Common European Values"

Germany and Turkey

On October 29 at a ceremony in Rome, 25 leaders of the member states of the European Union (EU) signed the new EU constitution. These states now have two years in which to ratify the constitution in order for it to come into force. Indications are that a referendum on the constitution will be held in Britain in the first half of 2006. The ratification of the constitution would be a further step in the efforts of Europe's big powers to transform the EU into an imperialist superpower in its own right, capable of contending with the USA for world domination.

Commenting on the signing of the constitution, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw asserted that the constitution was "... a constitution for our kind of European Union – an organisation in which we can enhance our power and prosperity and with which people in Britain can feel comfortable". But from the British owners of capital, they are concerned that they get what they perceive as a "fair crack of the whip" within the EU. This is the meaning of "our" power and prosperity and not a "comfortable feeling" of the people of Britain.

The constitution itself proposes a number of changes to the arrangements under which "European integration" has been proceeding to date. For example, it would replace all preceding EU Treaties and become the legal basis for the existence of the EU. It proposes giving the EU legal personality for the first time and establishing a president, a foreign minister and a public prosecutor. It would replace the existing voting system within the EU to allow more decisions to be taken on the basis of majority vote, as long as this majority encompasses at least 60% of the EU population. Commentators have noted that with this new system, it will be impossible to prevent any measure that the big powers in the EU, namely Germany, France and Britain, are agreed upon. It would consolidate a system whereby these big three force open markets for their goods and capital worth literally many billions of euros, and further ease the movement of surplus social product and enforce the claims of the principal owners of capital across the EU.

With regard to foreign and military policy, Article I-15 states: "Member states shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the acts adopted by the Union in this area." In this direction, the constitution proposes the establishment of an EU diplomatic corps, increased military spending of all member states and the establishment of a European Armaments and Military Capabilities Agency (EAMCA). This latter is intended to "help member states increase their military capacity" and to seek to ensure that arms contracts are placed with European war armaments companies. Not surprisingly, the European Defence Industries Group, which brings together Europe’s military-industrial monopolies, issued a statement welcoming the new constitution and the proposal for the establishment of EAMCA. In their statement, they declare: "The European defence industry supports all efforts aiming at improving the European military capabilities and implementing a common armaments policy, reinforcing the European Security and Defence Policy and therefore the Common Foreign and Security Policy."

The proposals in the EU constitution indicate clearly the direction in which the political representatives of the monopolies that control this organisation are heading. Just like British big business, whose representative Jack Straw states that their aim is to enhance "their power and prosperity", the European monopolies are seeking the same aim. However, contrary to Jack Straw's pronouncements, this is not a situation that the people of Britain, Europe or the world can be comfortable with. The entire project of European integration is a reactionary one based on the agenda of the EU monopolies to maximise their profits and compete for world domination at the expense of the world's people.

The proposed constitution is intended to advance this agenda in the present conditions of the neo-liberal onslaught of war, aggression and privatisation abroad and privatisation and suppression of rights at home. As well as violating the political sovereignty of the member countries, subordinating them to the big three, and running against the modern conception of the rights of nations, it is intended to further concentrate power in the hands of the monopolies, and attempt to resolve the contradictions between them. Within this, the British government sees its role as also pushing for the agenda of US imperialism within the EU. While the contradictions between the big European states are intensifying, as well as between these and the new entrants to the EU (and the contradictions between the so-called "Old" and "New" Europe), as well as between the monopolies and the European peoples, they are also pursuing the neo-liberal programme of war, aggression and privatisation.

There are 12 European countries directly involved in the war of colonial aggression against Iraq, including EU members like Britain, Italy and Poland and non-EU members like Albania, Norway and Romania. German troops are involved in the colonial occupation of Afghanistan and French troops are violently suppressing the people of Ivory Coast. Yet contradictions are evident over the intensification of the aggression and outright barbarity in Iraq. Hungary announced on November 3 that it would withdraw its 300 troops from Iraq. Speaking at a ceremony for the end of military conscription, the newly appointed Prime Minister, Ferenc Gyurcsany, said Hungary was obliged to stay until the Iraqi elections scheduled for January, but would withdraw the troops by March.

"To stay longer is an impossibility," he said. Spain's government withdrew its 1,300 troops after it to power last March. Poland, the fourth-largest contributor, with 2,400 troops, says it intends to withdraw by the end of next year, and the Netherlands, with 1,400 troops, said last week that the latest rotation of troops would be its last contribution to Iraq. These moves are all the more notable given that in January 2003, Hungary joined ranks with Poland, the Czech Republic, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Denmark and Britain (Slovakia signing later) in endorsing the Bush administration's drive to use force to subjugate Iraq, a move that deepened Europe's divisions over Iraq.

The intensifying contradictions, and the EU constitution designed to further fashion the European Union as an imperialist superpower to contend and collude with the US and Japan on a world-scale, carry within them the seeds of a cataclysmic world war.

The working class and people cannot afford to have any illusions about the dangers facing them from the signing of the EU constitution and must be actively involved in the work to block its ratification. In doing so, the opposition to the neo-liberal programme of the oligarchy must be intensified and the sovereignty and rights of all nations and countries must be upheld. The demand must be raised for the disbandment of NATO, the EU and all imperialist blocs; for British troops to be withdrawn from all foreign countries and all foreign troops expelled from Britain. The workers and people must demand that Britain end its economic plunder of and interference in other countries, renounce the crimes committed by the British monopolies against the world's people and pay reparations for them. This is the road to frustrate the dangerous plans of the oligarchies of Europe and Britain, signified by the signing of the EU constitution in Rome.

During the EU Education, Youth and Culture Council which has just ended, the EU ministers for youth adopted two resolutions on "common objectives". One resolution was on voluntary activities and one on better knowledge of youth.

Mrs Ross, Minister for Youth of the Netherlands and President of the Council, stressed the importance of the resolutions on "common objectives". She especially drew attention to the resolution on voluntary activities for young people. "Since the number of volunteers in a lot of the member states is decreasing, we have to involve young people more in voluntary work!"

In July the Commission presented its Communication on "Youth in Action". The aim of this programme is promotion of "European citizenship". The Council the Member States welcomed the Commission’s proposal, saying that "in a search of common European values, [it is] a programme that provides especially young people with the possibilities to learn about the lives of people in other European countries".

From german-foreign-policy.com of October 25, 2004

BERLIN/ANKARA - As the EU summit approaches, German interventions are leading to new tension between the European core powers. German business associations and military strategists are forcing Berlin's Turkish expansion and are increasing pressure on their foreign competitors. The German government parties demand rapid expansion of the EU's sphere of influence which is to be advanced past Ankara to the borders of the resource rich Arab states. It is feared in Paris and London that Berlin makes every effort to promote processing Turkey's acceptance in order to obtain further advantages in the Middle East. The rivals increasingly use cultural arguments in the intra-European competition for influence. Berlin's opposition parties use the arguments of Christian critics of Turkish expansion, while supportive minorities and lifestyle activists are integrated into the German Greens.

Due to special, unrivalled German-Turkish relations, the EU-wide resistance against the Berlin-Turkish demands is increasing. Germany is Ankara's most important western trade partner and most significant foreign investor. Turkey, i.e. the Ottoman Empire, had been a traditional ally of Middle Eastern expansion by several German regimes. The economic significance of German-Turkish policy has been emphasised by recent remarks of German Chancellor Schroeder, who emphasised that, German exports to Turkey rose by 20 percent during the past year, making Ankara a, highly attractive economic partner. Berlin's bilateral military relations with Ankara, which exclude the rest of NATO's members, are part of this partnership.

Protests

Strong opposition has been mobilised within the French state apparatus against further German competitive advantages at the beginning of Turkey's process of admission to the EU. It supports opposing currents among the socialists (PS) and conservatives. The goal is to completely delay the German-centred EU policy by boosting French national interests. In Great Britain, members of the government and opponents of the German alignment resist as well. According to London, the further loss of influence of Britain's Middle East policy will be pre-programmed by Berlin if the application for unconditional support comes up in December. The pressure for the admission also has created vehement protests in Italy. In spite of considerable interest by the Italian automobile industry, which produces in Turkey, parts of the government coalitions threaten a break if Berlin prevails.

Priority

Projected targets which are held in common are given priority in the national competition for influence. Thus, the Centrum fuer angewandte Politikforschung (CAP or centre for applied political science), with close ties to the German foreign office (AA), is reminding of interests held in common by the European core powers, meaning that Turkey, as an EU state fronting on the resource-filled regions of the Middle East, must be armed. CAP writes, with a view to the cooperating armaments industries of the European competitors: The direct neighbourhood of Iraq, Iran or Syria offers the opportunity for the EU "to further extend its foreign, security and defence policy capabilities and capacities." The military priority interests (i.e., reinforcement of international ability to act) even appeal to representatives of the conservative German opposition parties, which normally oppose the membership of Turkey in the EU for cultural reasons.

Consultations

German conservatives propose a compromise, which would diminish the foreign policy admission pressure by Berlin's government without relinquishing the interests of the Foreign Office (AA), to circles of the European competitors, of the western Christianity persuasion to safeguard geo-strategic common interests. Thus, Turkey should be offered a, privileged partnership but no membership status. This would preserve the internal stability of the EU core powers while preventing the imperialistic extension of the alliance. Even, the Roman Empire succeeded "only arduously and during a historically brief period;" in its expansion, to Iraq and Syria. Furthermore, the final conquest failed, in the wedding of British, French and German imperialism. Instead of renewing a sharp exacerbation of national competition because of its ties to Turkey, Berlin's conservatives are offering the EU competitors prohibition of any unilateral access to the outpost of the Middle East through limited partnership. The chairman of the French PS, Francois Hollande, travelled to Berlin to attend political consultations, which took place over several days for the purpose of taking advantage of the offer.

It will not take Place

From the spectrum of minority activists, the German government party, Buendnis 90/Die Gruenen, the Greens, will undertake the neutralisation of European opponents to admission. After the conclusion of a party conference in Istanbul, the Green politician, Daniel Cohn-Bendit appeared convinced that the EU admission of Turkey would not result in a disadvantage for the European haute couture consumer. It would be possible to assure that luxury quality products will continue to be available only to higher income consumers and will not become general merchandise because of Turkish, product piracy. Mr. Cohn-Bendit reassured the worried market clientele that, export of Lacoste brand shirts in the EU for three Euro, will not take place.