See also:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0601-33.htm
Published on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
What European Crisis?
by John Buell
----
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0601-25.htm
Wednesday, June 1, 2005
Given the Chance, the People Reject "Globalization"
French Say "Non" in Thunder!
by Diana Johnstone
PARIS -- The French went ahead and did it. Despite being lectured by
government and party leaders, media pundits and foreign leaders flown
in from neighboring countries, all telling them that they must vote
"yes" to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European
Union or the sky would fall, a solid majority of 55% voted "no"! The
high turnout of 70% gave the rejection indisputable credibility.
This was essentially a vote against dogmatic free market policies,
and the type of economic globalization being pursued by the
"neo-liberal" free marketeers.
The "non" was resounding, and, for those who were listening, the
message was clear. But who was really listening?
The day after the vote, mainstream politicians and media were all
scurrying to misinterpret the event to suit their own repudiated
agendas. No wonder, because the referendum result amounted to an
extraordinary rejection not only of a bad text, but also of the whole
political class -- newspaper and television commentators included --
who had zealously resorted to every possible exhortation, deception
and threat to sell the "oui" vote.
And it was not only the ardent salesmanship of the familiar faces on
the screen that was rejected. The "non" was also an expression of
exasperation with the whole lot of mainstream politicians and media
stars, the "oui-ouistes" as they were dubbed, for years of preening
self-satisfaction and unfulfilled promises as more and more
businesses shut down leaving employees out in the cold. Part of the
satisfaction of voting "non" was to watch television and see the
consternation on all those familiar faces, and listen to each one's
frantic attempts to blame the others for the disaster in hopes of
salvaging his or her own political career. This was a highly amusing
spectacle, but also extremely disturbing. Because although the
meaning of the vote was clearly a desire to throw all the rascals
out, they are still there. They are still there in the media
especially, where they need not fear losing the next election. They
are there to interpret events as it suits them, not least to the rest
of Europe and the world.
The interpretations of the French vote making the rounds display an
unshakable determination not to understand what happened.
Of course, all the stale, ignorant clichés about "the French" are
being trotted out. Typically, to explain the French psychology, the
International Herald Tribune quoted a Polish human resources
consultant on a Warsaw parkbench, who opined that "France still has
nostalgia for its empire". No doubt people all over Europe and in the
United States could come up with the same absurdity, because that's
what their media tell them.
That being the case, let it be observed that France's "nostalgia for
empire" is a fantasy, especially current among certain imperialist
Americans who cannot conceive of any lesser national ambition. There
has been no significant nostalgia for empire in France since
President de Gaulle decided over forty years ago that it was in
France's best interest to withdraw from its colonies. In any case,
that has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the May 29 vote. Exit
polls showed that the number one motive for the "no" vote -- 56% of
respondants -- was the state of the economy. This means unemployment.
Because in terms of business profits, the French economy is not doing
so badly, thank you. But ten percent official unemployment, as
profitable firms shut down plant to move to countries with cheaper
labor, is considered intolerable.
The second motive indicated, with 46%, was the "neo-liberal" nature
of the Constitution treaty. The third most frequently mentioned
motive was the desire to have the Constitution renegotiated.
These data show clearly that the vote was not "against Europe". Of
course, there were bound to be contradictory motives behind the no
vote -- and behind the yes vote as well. The far right National Front
voted "no" to the European Union, which will surely be the choice of
an even larger segment in the United Kingdom, if the UK referendum
takes place. But the bulk of the French "non" was pro-European and
anti-globalization. If anything, it was for a stronger Europe more
inclined and able to resist the destruction thrust of globalization
and to protect social and environmental standards.
On the right, voters wanted to preserve national sovereignty. There
is nothing really so dreadful about that. But most of the "no" vote
came from the left. Despite increasingly frantic efforts by their
party leaders to shore up the "yes" vote, a large majority of
Socialists (59%) and an overwhelming majority of Greens voted "no".
The current leaders of those parties are in for a rough time.
Socialist Party leader François Hollande is perhaps the major
casualty, with his main rival, Laurent Fabius, who prudently endorsed
the "non", waiting politely in the wings to take over the shattered
party.
The party leader who comes out of this test with flying colors is
Marie-George Buffet, who may have succeeded in saving the French
Communist Party from total oblivion by cutting loose from the
Socialist Party while at the same time abandoning all past
sectarianism in favor of a unitary campaign with the whole
rejectionist spectrum from the center to the left,
includingTrotskyists, dissident Socialists and Greens. An eventual
left coalition with Laurent Fabius can be imagined.
Meanwhile, the Eurocrats who were warning of a cataclysm in case the
French voted the wrong way, are trying to pretend that nothing has
happened. The particularly unattractive Portuguese head of the
European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, and the current
Luxembourgeois head of the European Council, Jean-Claude Juncker,
announced blandly that the ratification process will go ahead as
planned in spite of this "accident de parcours" -- a chance mishap,
like a flat tire to be repaired before continuing in the same
direction. However, legally, the Constitution cannot go into effect
unless it is ratified by all 25 member States. Rather than recognize
that the French have killed this text, and demanded a better one, the
Eurocrats sputter that it's not fair for one country to decide for
all the others. But one reason people voted against the proposed
Constitution was precisely that it required unanimity for amendment,
meaning any country could decide no for all the others.
Wednesday the Dutch will vote. Their no will probably have a somewhat
different coloration than the French, but so what? There is in fact
an emerging clash between the sort of "European construction" pursued
over the heads of Europe's people and democracy. If "Europe" can't be
constructed democratically, should it be constructed at all?
The biggest question mark is Germany, where the left is already in
political crisis because of the drastic anti-social economic reforms
pursued relentlessly by the "pink and green" government of Gerhard
Schroeder. The Social Democratic Party (SPD) was just voted out of
office in its last major stronghold, North Rhine Westphalia. Oskar
Lafontaine, who left the leadership of the SPD years ago in
disagreement over Schroeder's turn to neoliberalism, has now
officially left the SPD and is working to create a new more
progressive party. At a "non de gauche" rally on the eve of the
French vote, Lafontaine was given a huge, overwhelming ovation that
obviously left him deeply moved. The revival of the French left
around the referendum has encouraged Lafontaine to try to revive the
German left. While mainstream Germans converged on Paris
condescendingly lecturing people who knew more about the Treaty than
they did, Lafontaine is one German who understands perfectly what
this vote was all about. And there are more. The crucial task for the
future of Europe will depend on cooperation between the French and
German left in explaining the meaning of the French rejection to the
Germans and in inspiring a new common political course.
President Chirac warned that France would be the "black sheep" of
Europe if it refused to ratify the Constitution. Significantly,
Germany ratified the Constitution by an overwhelming vote -- of the
Bundestag. If French ratification had been up to the National
Assembly, the "yes" vote would have been just as overwhelming. The
German Constitution bans popular referendums. But one can imagine
that a popular referendum in Germany might have produced exactly the
same result: at first, polls would have shown a majority in favor,
but little by little, as people examined and discussed the actual
text, opinion would have shifted. After all, the economic situation
in Germany is even quite a bit worse than in France. The reasons to
reject free market dogma are equally valid in both countries.
For this to be realized, trade unionists and political activists have
to overcome the obstacle of chronic media misrepresentation. For
this, they have a new weapon, which already played a significant role
in the campaign for the "non" -- the web.
Diana Johnson is the author of Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, Nato, and
Western Delusions published by Monthly Review Press.
© 2005 Counterpunch.org
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the full Biofuel list archives (46,000 messages):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Search the Biofuels-biz list archives:
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuels-biz/