An Evolving Union: A conversation with European Commission Vice President Margot Wallström

The Foreign Policy Association and Sarwar Kashmeri, FPA Fellow and author of America and Europe after 9/11 and Iraq: The Great Divide are pleased to announce the launch of a special series of interviews celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which laid the foundations of the European Union. This unprecedented series kicks off with a discussion between Kashmeri and European Commission Vice President Margot Wallström. Wallström speaks of the evolution of the European Union, what it means to young Europeans today and the challenges presented by its complexities to U.S. policymakers. The series will continue in September with conversations with other officials of the European Commission and member states.

Click here to listen to a podcast of the conversation between Kashmeri and Commissioner Wallstrom.

Growing Up In An Evolving European Union

The EU is arguably the most important political development of the last half century. But it is also a bonding of cultural thought, an acknowledged success at eliminating the brutal wars that had savaged Europe for centuries, and an economic success story. The generation that built the EU is fast giving way to a new generation of Europeans that grew up in a borderless Europe with its single currency, European parliament, and a sense of Europeaness that none of its forebears has ever had before.

I had the pleasure of listening to four bright, articulate young Europeans discuss their views and experiences growing up in an evolving EU at a wonderful event organized by the University of Vermont's Global Village and European Studies Program.

We are all Europeans today!

Around a quarter of a century ago, one of my favorite magazine (woops! sorry, newspaper), The Economist's, cover showed the stars from the EU flag all crashed on the ground. As I recall it was the breakup of the European Currency Rate Mechanism. All was lost, the single market dreams were over. Well they were not, the stars rose back up again and we stand at the fiftieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. Bravo.

Happy Birthday EU--we are all Europeans today.

US & EU should focus on light bulbs!

I've long been of the opinion that it will be easier to renegotiate a new transatlantic-alliance if we approach the process as a series of projects, each designed to achieve a tangible result, rather than a big bang to pull the erstwhile allies together again. That was the successful Schuman approach to create the EU from nation states that had fought each other for centuries.

Here is a project that should have wide support on both sides of the Atlantic: The elimination of incandescent light bulbs on both sides of the Atlantic.

These are the light bulbs that most of us use; they were invented in the 19th. century and are very energy inefficient. The EU has just decided to phase them out by 2009. This will save EU citizens billions of euros in fuel bills per year, and also 20 million tons of carbon emissions.
Among the manufacturers of light bulbs that have agreed to this EU initiative is General Electric, headquartered in the U.S.

So here is my suggestion: President Bush should send a Cabinet Secretary to Brussels and join the EU project to banish these old Victorian era bulbs in the EU and America. Elimination of incandescent light bulbs will conserve a signifiant amount of energy, reduce carbon emission, and generate transatlantic goodwill.

If a salve is needed to soothe U.S. anti-green conservatives: Australia, that stalwart American ally, this year passed a law to ban the old light bulbs by 2009, in fact it was Australia's decision that inspired the EU.

It is, as they say in America, a no-brainer.

EU-US single market moves ahead?

The US and EU could set a date for the creation of a transatlantic trading zone at a summit in April 2007, the Financial Times reported a few days ago. This would be progress indeed, and is a tribute to the strategic thinking of Germany's Chancellor Merkel who proposed this initiative and has moved it to the top of the transatlantic agenda.

As the the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has succinctly put it: "The EU and US are each other's main trading partners. Our economies represent 58 percent of Global GDP and 37 percent of world trade....a genuine transatlantic marketplace could increase GDP in both the EU and the US by more than 3 percent." The American ambassador to the the EU declared that the US President and his cabinet are politically committed to this project.

The political relationship between the EU and the US is in intensive care, continued efforts to strengthen the business ties will buy the politicians on both sides time to re-discover the importance of the transatlantic alliance.

2007 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome that began the powerful European common market. Let's celebrate by initiating concrete steps to move ahead with a transatlantic common market.

U.S. missiles negotiations with Poland & Czech Republic a bad idea

Here we go again, playing off the divisive "old-Europe" and "new-Europe" neoconservative scorecard.

What else to make of the American initiative to try and place anti-missile systems in Europe by working through Poland and the Czech Republic. If the threat from missiles launched from the Middle East and/or North Korea is real (and I believe it is prudent to consider this threat to U.S. and EU security) would it not have been better to deal at the U.S.--EU level rather than with individual states in Europe? The former approach carried the risk of longer negotiations but would force EU wide discussion of this important security issue, which would result in a far stronger agreement, especially in the face of growing Russian opposition and criticism from Germany.

Ofcourse there is always a risk that EU public opinion would not be convinced that the risks of a rogue missile attack outwiegh the benefits, but isn't that a risk worth taking? As it is, public opposition and the razor thin parliamentary balance in the Czech Republic might well derail the plan and another opportunity to strengthen defenses and begin to rebuild the transatlantic alliance by recognizing the desire of Europeans for ever-closer union will been lost.

NATO: Corpse on a horse?

U.S. President George W Bush has called on other NATO members to step up their battle against Afghanistan's Taliban. He said that NATO had to hold true to its founding principle - "an attack on one is an attack on all."

This must have come as a real surprise to NATO members. Immediately after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 NATO, for the first time in its history, invoked Article 5 of its Charter—the one that states “an attack on one is an attack on all,” and offered to fight shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. as it prepared for war in Afghanistan. A magnanimous gesture, that was immediately rejected by the U.S. The American side felt NATO was ill prepared to fight a real war and would be more of a hindrance than a help. After spending billions of dollars and an enormous amount of political capital to keep NATO going, the first time the organization wanted to march into war it was judged incompetent.

If this is the entity on which the future of Afghanistan now depends, I’d say the Afghanis ought to be really concerned about their future security! I can just see the Taliban shaking in their boots.

Does anyone out there disagree with me and still believes NATO can save Afghanistan?

More importantly: do we still need NATO?