Current Events and Politics: A Disappointing Lack of Style

The question of how nations are to govern themselves in a globalized world is not a new one. Answering it demands wisdom and a clear grasp of history. In his recent book Statecraft, Dennis Ross suggests that a sense of style should be considered as well. Using his experience as a former United States' envoy to the Middle East, Ross states that "In this sense, our 'style,' or public positioning and packaging, creates the context in which we deal with others and (how) they respond to us."

The bulk of Ross's book laments the lack of style or statecraft that he believes he sees in the present administration of the United States. However, the noted peace negotiator provides a compelling definition for all governing authorities to consider as they face today's challenging realities in current events and politics.

"As a former policy maker, I would describe statecraft as knowing how best to integrate and use every asset or military, diplomatic, intelligence, public, economic, or psychological tool we possess (or can manipulate) to meet our objectives. Statecraft involves influencing others--those who are already friendly and share our purposes, and those who do not. But statecraft requires more than orchestrating all the resources directly or indirectly at our disposal. It requires putting our means into a broader context of goals and capabilities."

When taken at face value, Ross's definition provides a template for all nations to follow. There must be consideration (and understanding) of the common goals of the individuals who comprise a nation or group of nations. And these benchmarks need to be achieved after contemplating the shared values and resources that are fundamental to the interests of all. The packaging or style presents the public face of these interests as the nation sets out to exert its influence on the world stage.

Some feel that a lack of style is present in the newly signed treaty for the European Union. And serious questions and concerns about it have surfaced quickly after EU leaders signed the document in Lisbon on December 13, 2007.

The Treaty of Lisbon contains new rules for the EU that attempt to reform the course for a cooperative stability among the 27 member states. According to the EU Observer, the Lisbon Treaty is "designed to make the EU more effective on the world stage both by giving it a more coherent foreign policy and by allowing it to make decisions quickly."

The more than 175 pages of treaty text (English version) sets rules for all member states concerning immigration, employment, citizen's rights, and common objectives such as addressing an energy policy and climate change. The major accomplishments include the establishment of a U.S.-style President for a two and a half-year renewable term, a foreign policy chief, a commission of finance ministers including a chairman, and a NATO-like mutual defense clause. Some have described the contents of the treaty as being similar to the failed European Constitution. However, they acknowledge that the treaty departs from the constitution by dropping the EU symbols such as the use of a flag, anthem and motto. They further acknowledge that there was an attempt to address some of the concerns that led to the constitution's defeat in national referendums. (See Reuters article "Factbox: EU's reform Treaty main points".)

The Treaty of Lisbon will certainly be hailed as a historic landmark. But voices of alarm and concern have blunted the celebration before the ink has dried on it. On a mild note, Jose Manuel Barroso stated that the treaty was "not perfect" before the signing ceremony. However, the stronger voice of criticism seems to be from those in the United Kingdom who fear the perceived loss of sovereignty written into the text. A headline to the online version of the U.K. newspaper The Sun states with alarm that "Miliband signs Britain away." The article describes the challenges to U.K. sovereignty in areas of immigration while suggesting that U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown's support has betrayed Britain and her citizens.

In a similar vein, Timothy Garden Ash stated in a column for the Guardian that the treaty resembled the "instruction manual for a forklift truck." However, Ash contends that while the document is a "mess"--he is hopeful that it will free the EU to be more effective as a political entity.

Ash writes: "In itself, it will do nothing to convince Europe's citizens, or the rest of the world, of what the European Union is good for. But it will help the EU to do things that may convince them. Now that the end of this long, disappointing constitutional debate is at last in sight, it should free us to concentrate on what this union does, rather than what it is, or says it is. In fact, the EU will define what it is by what it does. Will it help to create jobs, strengthen a free-trading world, encourage development, or combat climate change? What can it offer neighbours who will not become members, in the arc of crisis that surrounds us, from Murmansk to Casablanca? We cannot wait until January 2009 to address these questions. By then, a new American president will want to hear our answers." (See "This treaty is a mess, but it will free Europe to do more important things".)

The Treaty of Lisbon has hurdles to jump before it becomes more than just a well-intended document. It faces the rigors of ratification by the governing bodies of each member state that make up the European Union. An even higher hurdle may be the direction that this new packaging of the EU will lead. There are high hopes that the treaty will bring about Europe's potential as a leader among the democracies of the Western world on a par with (and as a counterbalance to) the United States. On the other hand, there are those who view it as another step towards a dominating imperial power with dire consequences.

The question of whether or not the EU will use its considerable resources for the benefit of her society and culture is in the process of being answered. The next step will be to see if the Treaty of Lisbon will provide the style the EU needs to influence the world for the better.
If history is a guide for us, the answer to that question may be far from promising.