May 2005
The European Union Constitution: The Biggest Current Threat to the Atlantic Alliance?
 |
|
|
Charles Grant, Radek Sikorski, Jeff Cimbalo |
|
As the race to ratify the European Union’s new Constitutional Treaty heats up, many on both sides of the Atlantic are wondering what this will mean for the transatlantic alliance. Some argue that the Constitution is the EU’s internal affair. Others wonder whether the EU is attempting to create a counter-weight to American power. Does the EU Constitution represent a threat to the Atlantic alliance, or will the Constitution transform the EU into a more capable partner for the United States? These and other questions were considered at a May 9 AEI conference.
Jeffrey L. Cimbalo
The ratification of the European Constitutional Treaty would have serious implications for the transatlantic alliance. The Constitution would provide the European Union with legal personality and create a completely new international actor. In particular, if the Constitution is ratified, foreign policy and security matters will shift into the European Union’s competence. This would restrict the sovereignty of the member states and diminish the role of NATO as a discussion forum as well as an international actor. The creation of a European Defense Agency is in open conflict with NATO’s prerogatives and it diverts attention from the alliance and deprives it of funds, hampering the stability and reliability of the institution. The European Constitution is a step away from the path of the transatlantic relations, and the changes that it would introduce would be substantial and enforced by the European Court of Justice. The latter will have the power to punish the transgressor states. If the ratification does not occur, the Treaty of Nice will keep on regulating the EU as it is doing today, and NATO integrity will not be put at risk.
Charles Grant
Centre for European Reform
The European Constitution will transform the European Union into a more reliable partner for the United States, especially in matters such as security and foreign policy. If the treaty is ratified, the European Union will have a more efficient bureaucracy and will be able to speak with a single voice in foreign affairs. This should not be regarded as a threat to the United States, but on the contrary, as an opportunity for a more reliable and stable partner. The assumption that a more united EU would foster anti-Americanism is unsubstantiated. As the Iraq crisis showed, the EU has many souls. The ratification of the EU Constitution will bring more unity in foreign policy, but member states will retain veto power in the matter. This would provide the newer, more pro-American member states with a stronger voice, counterbalancing the Franco-German axis and strengthening the transatlantic alliance. The appointment of a president and a minister for foreign affairs will give the EU a consistency in its international dealings, which the current six-month rotating presidency fails to provide. Failing to adopt the new treaty would represent a huge victory for those who opposed the 2004 enlargement and endanger future expansion. Smaller groups with different interests in foreign policy would emerge within the EU. This would hamper effective cooperation with the United States.
