THE GOD OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CONSTITUTION

By Ulrich Duchrow

[This article originally published in: Zeitschrift Entwicklungspolitik (5/6/2004) discusses a series of problematic definitions of the European Union constitutional draft and is translated from the German on the World Wide Web,  http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb10/frieden/themen/Europa/duchrow.html. Ulrich Duchrow is a professor of systematic theology at the University of Heidelberg and member of Kairos Europe.]

The preamble to the draft of the “Constitution for Europe” completed by the European Convention in July 2003 is “drawn from Europe’s cultural, religious and humanist traditions”. This is not enough for different states. They urge mentioning the “Christian inheritance”. The chairperson of the commission of the EU-Bishops’ conference, Bishop Josef Homeyer, the former chairperson of the EKD (Evangelical church in Germany), Manfred Kock and the CDU/CSU plead for an explicit reference to “God” in the constitution. [1]

However one may judge this discussion, it would have been interesting if the churches had asked which God is worshipped in the draft of the constitution. The European crusades also appealed to God. Even George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden speak of God and mean an imperial state terror and an anti-imperial counter-terror. What God is proclaimed in the European constitutional draft?

The European constitutional draft begins with noble principles and goals. Freedom, equality, justice and solidarity are found among the “values”. After promoting the general goals, values, peace and well-being (1.3.1), “freedom… without internal limits” and a domestic market “with free genuine competition” are cited as the highest concrete goals (1.3.2). The “social market economy” is described as the basis for Europe’s development but is qualified as a “competitive social market economy” (1.3.3).

The goal in the international realm begins with the sentence: “The European Union protects and promotes its values and interests in its relations to the rest of the world” (1.4.4). The Union wants to contribute to “peace, security and sustainable development etc” but couples them with “free and just trade”. Within the Union, “the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital and freedom of establishment” are guaranteed. What all this means concretely will be examined in further parts of the draft.

After protracted struggles in the convention, the charter of the basic rights of the union was included as Part II of the constitution. The dignity of the person, freedom, equality, solidarity and civil and legal rights are among these basic rights. Several observations seem appropriate.

Entrepreneurial freedom is introduced as a new basic right (Art. II.16). The explosiveness of this innovation first becomes clear when it is seen together with the article on the right to property (II.17). Art 14.1 of the German constitution declares: “Property and inheritance are guaranteed. Their content and limits are defined by the laws.” Thus property is not made absolute here but relativized as to what legislators define as its substance and limits.

ENTREPRENEURIAL FREEDOM

In contrast, the EU constitutional draft says unequivocally: “Every person has the right to possess, use, control and bequeath his legally acquired property.” Art 14.2 in the German constitution enjoins: “Property obligates. The use of property should serve the well-being of the general public.” The EU constitutional draft (II.17.1) recognizes: “The use of property can be legally regulated as far as this is necessary for the well-being of the general public.”

This is not an insignificant subtlety. A fundamental shifting of weights occurs here away from the social obligation of property enforced by legislators to the basic rule of property whose use the legislator can at best influence if the political hierarchies of power force him to this. “Intellectual property is protected” (II.17.2) is added explicitly for international relations. Thus the TRIPS agreement of the WTO with its disastrous consequences for the basic provisions of people, for example with seeds and medicines, has a constitutional rank in Europe!

SOLIDARITY

Solidarity is one of the basic rights. In Part I of the constitution, this keyword only turns up in the values and goals and concretely in the context of combating terrorism (I.42). Now it is addressed as a basic social right (II.27-38). One important social right is missing: the guaranteed right to pensions. Access to all social rights and services is put under a reservation: “according to the measure of union rights and individual state3 legal regulations and customs”. What this means concretely appears in Part III, the explanation of political areas.

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND SERVICES

On 1: Foreign employees from outside the union are exempted from freedom of movement (III.25). The problem that capital may be globally mobile but not people who are the victims of that mobility is ignored. Possible restrictions of free service traffic for suppliers within the union are “prohibited” (III.29). This prohibition can be extended through laws on suppliers from third countries. The liberalization of the services of banks and insurances in capital traffic should be “implemented with the liberalization of capital traffic” (III.31).

A massive problem affecting both Europe’s social future and the future of developing countries is hidden in the theme of services. This problem is connected with the GATS negotiations in the scope of the WTO. The EU urges liberalization (and privatization) from all countries in the “sensitive” areas of basic provisions (water, energy, education, health care, transportation etc) but leaves aside these areas with regard to its own liberalization in view of the growing public pressure.

As everybody knows, the effects on developing countries are disastrous. In the best-known example of Cochabamba/ Bolivia, conditions resembling a civil war arose because the poor could not and would not pay for the privatized drinking water.

In Europe the further liberalization and privatization of basic services, obviously desired by the EU and included in the constitutional draft, would intensify the division of society into two classes. The well funded could afford the basic provisions, not those without purchasing power.

COMMODITY- AND CURRENCY TRAFFIC AND COMPETITION

On 2: At least two problems are implicit in the section on free goods traffic. Firstly, the goods traffic from third countries can be restricted (III.36.2) – a serious well-known disadvantage for the agricultural products of developing countries. Secondly, a pressure on public institutions toward privatization is clear. “Member countries shall redesign their state commercial monopolies so all discrimination in supply- and marketing conditions between member states is excluded” (III.44).

On 3: Restrictions are prohibited in capital- and currency-traffic between member states and between these states and third countries. Political instruments, for example against speculative attacks on currencies, would now be excluded” (III.44).

On 4: The section on rules of competition in article III.55 explicitly prohibits states from promoting public enterprises in the common interest: “Member states in relation to public enterprises and enterprises granting special or exclusive rights cannot make or retain any regulations contradicting the constitution, especially Article 1.4.2 (against discrimination of foreign firms) and Articles III.55 to III.58.”

According to III.56, “grants of member states or subsidies granted from state funds that falsify or threaten to falsify competition by favoring certain enterprises or production branches are incompatible with the domestic market.”

This is actually an attack on the principle of “public necessities” in the form of subsidies for the state educational system, public media etc. This aspect is immediately connected with GATS and the liberalization of trade with services (public until today) supported by the EU.

On 5: Only indirect taxes should be harmonized (III.62), not the direct taxes like business taxes for example. The tax dumping of corporations, one of the main reasons for the over-indebtedness of public budgets, must be stopped on the EU plane.

Altogether the domestic market is treated as the highest political area. Private interest comes first on that market, not the social and public interest.

PRIVATE ECONOMIC INTEREST COMES FIRST

This trend intensifies in the second-highest political area, economic- and monetary-policy. Art III.69.1 declares that this policy is obligated to only a single principle, the “principle of an open market economy with free competition”. The cat is out of the bag. There is no emphasis any more on the “social” market economy. The social market economy is part of the lyricism of general “values and goals”.

On top of this, according to III.69.2, both monetary- and interest-rate policy pursuing the goal of price stability should support the general economic policy of the union following the principle of an open market economy with free competition”. What all this implies will be explained in the following articles. The prohibition against promoting public institutions occurs in III.74.

A “free” market economy with monetarist monetary policy for Europe should now be fixed in the constitution. Neoliberalism becomes a constitutional asset. This will happen if this constitution comes into effect.

EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL POLICY SUBJECT TO NEOLIBERAL IDEAS

After the domestic market, economic- and monetary policy were first discussed, the constitutional design now turned to “individual areas”.

The first “individual area” is employment. In the introductory article III.97, we are taught the place of employment policy in the EU. “The European Union and the member states work toward the promotion of the qualification, training and adaptability of employees and the capacity of labor markets to react to the demands of economic change.” In other words, workers and labor markets are only promoted with view to adaptation to the (globalized neoliberal) “open market economy with free competition”. “The goal of a high employment level is considered.” (III.99.2)

How comforting given the fact that the enforcement measures of economic liberalization and monetarist monetary policy in the preceding chapters are all iron laws with prohibitions and sanctions!

The second “individual area” is social policy that is also completely subordinated to neoliberal-monetarist economic- and monetary policy. As Art III.103 states, the union and member states in pursuing social policy accept “the necessity of preserving the competitiveness of the economy of the union. Thus both wage dumping and the release of the capital side from the budgetary obligations of the solidarian social system can be justified.

It sounds rather cynical when the same article declares that the operation of the domestic market “favors” the coordination of the social orders of the different member states. In reality, this means that they are all subject to the globalization pressure of social cuts.

In addition, the flexibilization of people in the interest of the economy is cited as a goal, namely promoting “the vocational flexibility and the local and occupational mobility of employees and facilitate adjustment to the processes of industrial change and changes of production systems through occupational education and retraining” (Art III.113).

In the section on agriculture (III.121ff), no references are made to ecology and the “third world”. The highest goal is still “increasing productivity… by promoting technical progress, rationalization of agricultural production and the best possible use of production factors, particularly workers” (III.123).

A remark on 5, environment (Art III.129ff) and 10, energy (Art III.157), the other “individual areas”, is necessary. Franz Alt has emphasized that nuclear energy is made a privileged source of energy in the constitution through an additional protocol on the Euro-atom treaty. [3] The chance for privileging renewable energies for the future is missed although only four EU states will rely on nuclear power in the long term.

The foreign trade of the union has several subchapters. Its hierarchy is not uninteresting: 1. General regulations. 2. Foreign- and security policy. 3. Trade policy. 4. Cooperation with third countries and humanitarian assistance and so forth.

TRANSFORMATION OF THE EU INTO A MILITARY POWER

On 1: The principles extend from democracy, human rights and solidarity to the acknowledgment of international law according to the principles of the UN Charter. No objections can be made against the goals and promotion of security, democracy, international law, peace etc. “Developing countries are encouraged to sustainable development in relation to the economy, society and the environment with the precedent goal of removing poverty” (III.193.2).

How should we react to the goal a) to promote the “integration of all countries in the world economy through the gradual dismantling of restrictions on international trade”? What if goals d) and e) contradict one another? What does it mean in this context “to promote a world order based on (a) strengthened multilateral cooperation and a responsible world order policy”? Let us analyze the individual policy areas as an answer to these questions.

On 2: Like section 1, the common security- and defense policy gives a first sign. Under responsibilities of the union, Part I declares: “Member states commit themselves to gradually improving their military capabilities. A European office for armaments, research and military capacities will be established with the task of identifying operative needs, promoting measures for satisfying needs and contributing measures to strengthen the industrial and technological basis of the defense sector” (Art I.40).

In other words, the constitution should include an appeal to the member states to permanent rearmament. An office for rearmament should be created although disarmament is also named among its tasks.

Thus the EU according to the constitution should be transformed into a worldwide military intervention power. One can easily understand what this means in the strategic developments and actual wars of the last decade. NATO has already proclaimed the right of self-mandating. Even offensive wars like the wars against former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan would now be constitutionally legitimated in Europe. Thus Europe will probably soon join the preventive war strategy of the US.

DEVELOPMENT POLICY THAT CREATERS POVERTY

Thus the German constitution will be ultimately suspended. This law includes the command of peace and only allows defensive wars. Allowing the worldwide security of one’s economic interests and the “maintenance of free world trade as a legitimation for military intervention appealed to the German public since the new guidelines of the defense ministry in 1992. However annulling the German constitution will be fully justified for the future with the EU constitution.

On chapter 3, Common trade Policy, a comprehensive confession to liberalization is made.. The European Union intends the harmonious development of world trade, gradual removal of restrictions in international trade, direct foreign investments and dismantling tariffs and other barriers.

Why is “development cooperation” only discussed very briefly in chapter 4? “Combating and removing poverty” is identified as a main goal (III.218). However the attainment of this main goal can only fail because of the two fundamental contradictions in this contradiction. The first is the priority of liberalization pervading the whole constitution. The development of weaker countries in the framework of the world economy can only succeed with protective measures for their economies.

This is a truism that can be proven a hundred times in the history of capitalism. The second contradiction is that development cooperation in Article III.218 is explicitly bound to the policy of competent international organizations, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. That their policy creates poverty instead of removing it can be empirically documented.

FALLING BEHIND THE GERMAN CONSTITUTION

The article on the functioning of the union (III.232f) cautiously upgrades the European Parliament. However a democratic-parliamentary order is not envisioned in the constitutional draft. The parliament cannot choose the commission president and doesn’t have the right to its own legal initiatives. The constitution seals the massive democracy deficit of the European Union for the foreseeable future.

In summary, the constitution draft does not correspond to the standard of the German constitution in any way. The social obligation of property, the social state command, the limitation of the military to defense and the peace command are not explicitly mentioned to name only several decisive points. On its basis, a European constitution could have been developed with the vision of a Europe of social and international justice, peace and sustainability in legal forms considering the increasingly irresponsible actions of the US government against international law and considering the superiority of financial markets over democratically elected governments. According to the former president of the German Central Bank Tietmeyer, the financial markets as the fifth branch should control governments. Concrete proposals in this direction were presented to the convention. [4]

Which God is worshipped in the draft of the EU constitution? Which God should govern us in the future? It is the god of the neoliberals, the god of corporations, the god of military strength enforcing its own interests. It is the god of the strong in absolute competition. It is not the God for whom the life of all people and particularly the life of the poor is important first of all. It is not the God of peace on the basis of justice. It is not the God who loves the creation and therefore seeks to preserve creation in all its diversity and beauty.

Therefore the only real moral rules are those that lead to the “calculus of life: private property and contract” [5]. The EU constitution sacrifices people to the idol of the open market economy with free competition whose central goal is increasing the assets of owners of capital.

THE MARKET ECONOMY AS AN IDOL

European churches should be concerned about this question of God. The ecumenical process could help them on questions of globalization. The 2002 letter to the churches in Western Europe declares: “Churches that participate in the ecumenical process confirm that the ideology of neoliberalism is incompatible with the vision of the ecumene, the unity of the church and the whole threatened earth. Far-reaching growing injustice, exclusion and destruction of the earth are the opposites to sharing and solidarity that are indispensable if we want to be Christ'’ body. What is at stake is the quality of church community, the future of the public interest of society and the credibility of the confessions of the churches and their proclamation of God who is with the poor and for the poor. For the sake of the integrity of their community and testimony, churches are called to oppose neoliberal economics and practice and follow God.” [6]

For the churches together with Attac and the European Social Forum, this means subjecting the neoliberal EU constitutional draft to a referendum and then working for a majority No vote.