Certain Middle-East countries such as Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, have begun to experience the seeds of democracy.
The political climate following the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has brought an unprecedented display of political activism, as shown by the massive public demonstrations, the successful withdrawal of Syrian troops and the achievement of free elections. In Egypt the People's Assembly approved an amendment to the Constitution allowing multi-candidate elections to the presidency. In Saudi Arabia elections were held from February to April 2005 for half of the seats on municipal councils, the remaining half being appointed by the government. Women were excluded from both voting and candidacy. Partial though this first exercise of democracy has been, it nevertheless represents a significant sign of change in the Saudi Arabian political scene.
If we then add the presidential elections in the Palestinian territories and, in spite of the climate of civil war, the parliamentary elections in Iraq we can conclude that all these events testify the will of the peoples of the region to take their destiny into their own hands. Although these moves need confirmation, they do seem to point to a new and welcome trend toward democracy in the Middle-East.
The idea that democracy is a luxury for the wealthy is an old-fashioned viewpoint and not in tune with prevailing tendencies in the contemporary world. First of all, there is the case of India, a fifty years old, deeply rooted democracy in a developing country. The success of democracy in other Asian countries such as Japan immediately after WW II and, more recently, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and Indonesia, show that democracy is not incompatible with Asian values, as Huntington's theory of the clash of civilizations wrongly maintains. The case of Indonesia is extraordinarily interesting, because it shows how the world's biggest Islamic country has adopted a democratic political structure. Turkey is now no longer the only exception to a 'rule' which was supposed to prove that Islamism presents an insuperable obstacle to democracy.
Is the springtime of democracy evidence of the success of the Bush doctrine of bringing democracy to the Middle-East? In small part only. Military occupation cannot significantly reshape the fundamental social and economic structures needed to enhance the likelihood of a successful democratic transition in Iraq or in Afghanistan. The real impediments to democracy lie not simply in economic inequalities, but also in social inequalities in, for example, education and health care. Furthermore, the frequency with which we see weak or failed states plagued by corruption and violence suggests that the rule of law is an indispensable requirement for democracy. As regards Iraq, the deep ethnic and religious cleavages among Shiites, Sunnites and Kurds present another serious obstacle to democracy. Each group is divided between fundamentalists and secularists as well as along class, tribal and regional lines. Lastly, it must be taken into account that Iraq has no experience in democracy, unlike Germany, Italy and Japan which experimented with democracy at the beginning of the last century and, in the post-war period, received a decisive help from the US in restoring of democracy.
Of course, the factors which might either enhance or possibly reduce the likelihood of a successful transition to democracy are not independent of the international context. In this connection, we have to ask ourselves whether the US intervention in Iraq which allowed the elections to take place has truly paved the way to democracy and generally improved the overall situation in the Middle-East.
One of the consequences of the Iraqi war not foreseen by the US government has been the growth of terrorism, which did not exist during the Saddam Hussein era, but has now taken root, and the strengthening of fundamentalism in the country. A real movement toward democracy is clearly impossible in a society suffering from daily terrorist attacks. The tragedy of overwhelming American military superiority lies in the fact that, although the US can win wars, it is unable to rebuild the states it has defeated.
This observation leads to a further reflection. The US is waging an open war against international courts, since it is not willing to recognize any international jurisdiction. Its refusal to recognize the pre-eminence of the rule of law contradicts the liberal spirit of a power whose ambition is to play a role in the promotion of democracy abroad.
The EU also wants to increase the number of democracies in the world. Lacking a powerful military apparatus, it aims primarily at promoting democracy in its neighbouring countries.
EU enlargement has been an extraordinary success and proves the effectiveness of an innovative form of foreign policy. The so-called Copenhagen criteria setting out the conditions which candidate countries have to meet ? respecting the principles of democracy, the rule of law and a market economy ? have given a powerful impulse for political and economic change, first in Southern Europe where three fascist regimes (Greece, Spain and Portugal) survived until the 1970s, and then in Central and Eastern Europe. It is no exaggeration to say that the attractive force of the EU made a decisive contribution to bringing about the end of those hateful regimes.
The process has not ended yet. Bulgaria and Romania are supposed to enter the EU in 2007. Negotiations with Turkey will start in the near future, and the mere expectation of accession to the EU has already produced deep changes in its laws and institutions, such as the abolition of the death penalty, the recognition of the rights of the Kurd minority, and the elimination of the political privileges of the army. On the horizon we can discern the prospect of the pacification and democratisation of the Balkans. This is the way to bury the horrors of civil war. The entry of Slovenia in the EU in 2004 was the first step in this direction.
Democratic changes can only succeed and endure within a framework of security linked to a prospect of development. Both these elements can be brought to the Middle-East by a process of regional integration. This is lacking in the American plan for a Greater Middle-East. The EU could promote such a regional integration process, starting with a peace-keeping intervention by European security forces to assure peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine. This could create a climate of détente in the Middle-East and foster international co-operation in the region. Moreover, a development plan is needed, similar to the Marshall Plan which promoted European integration after WW II, whose task would be to stimulate the economic integration in the region and contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq.
Broadly speaking, the EU is now a big market without a political head. This is the idea of Europe the UK supports. For this reason, the UK has chosen to stay out of the euro area. The rejection of the Constitution by the French and Dutch citizens shows how a divided and powerless EU, able neither to stimulate economic growth nor to speak with one voice at international level, is losing the support of the citizens and opening the way to the return of nationalism and fear of the future. The voters' "No" to their leaders unmasks the ambiguity of all those, and in particular Mr Chirac, who claim to be independent of the US, but are unwilling to transfer foreign and security policy powers to the EU.

Throughout the long, sultry Roman morning, the crowd had gathered in St. Peter's Square. Nearly one hundred fifty thousand souls from around Europe and the planet waited patiently. Then a Pentecostal rumble of languages was hushed suddenly, then given full throat as the familiar, perspex armoured scarlet and white "popemobile" turned into the square, the unmistakable figure of John Paul II standing in the truck bed, right hand raised in greeting and blessing as the weekly audience unfolded. Halfway to the raised dais before the steps of St. Peter's, the chanting of a group of Spanish teenagers overwhelmed the background cheering: "Juan Paul Segundo, premiere in el mundo!" To the obvious dismay of the bullet catchers, the popemobile ground to a halt, and the stooped figure climbed out, touching hands, conferring blessing. Like a rock star? Yes - and no. There was something more - always something more. Later, after the multilingual homily and blessing, I waited with the rest of the "prima fila", the front row, along with some thirty others including the Spanish Ambassador to the Holy See and a Nicaraguan priest on furlough, for my brief moment with the Pope. My friends at the Canadian Pontifical College had briefed me on his deaf ear. He listened to my greetings, smiled brightly enough to edge out the Mediterranean sun, said, "United Church of Canada! Thank you, thank you very much." Then he blessed me. And I felt blessed. Whatever else, John Paul was a man of God...
The personal is political, we're told. In John Paul II's case, the personal was pontifical and political. His personality and his history defined his twenty-seven year pontificate, the third longest since Peter himself. He redefined charisma for the last quarter of the twentieth century, and the dawn of the twenty-first. He translated the role of Bishop of Rome into a religious icon for much of the world, and not the Roman Catholic world alone by any means. For the Star Wars generation, "J2P2" was the Roman Catholic Church. For Protestants who remembered the great reconciler, John XXIII, from whom this pope took his name, along with those of his two immediate predecessors, John Paul II has both built on the foundations of Vatican II - and, in some measure, dismantled them.
Few pontiffs have been more embracing of the wider world, of Protestant and Orthodox Christians, of other faiths, of Christ's poor. Few have been so relentlessly traditional in enforcing Roman doctrine.
Karol Woityla, coming of age in Nazi-occupied Poland, preserving the faith in the Stalinist Eastern block, and ascending to the throne of Peter in a global, secular, plural age, was staggeringly intelligent, multi-faceted, but not so complex as many would make him. Athlete, actor, poet, linguist, theologian - he was all these things, but mostly, he was a priest who sought to do nothing but Christ's will. This meant ensuring the freedom and integrity of the Roman Catholic Church in the late Soviet Empire, and demonstrating that the love of God in Christ is for the whole world, much of which he visited. All the issues that perplex and bedevil Catholic and non-Catholic alike, from priestly celibacy to the ordination of women to birth control have not been part of his agenda. He has left them to his successor and to his church, confident, in his lifetime, in the efficacy of longstanding doctrine.
Seen in that light he succeeded admirably. Later generations are unlikely to credit Ronald Reagan's military spending spree for bankrupting the Soviet Union and causing its implosion half so much as they are to acknowledge the impact of John Paul II's support in 1981 for Lech Walesa's Solidarity Movement and the shipbuilder's of Gdansk in his native Poland.
Then, and through his papacy, John Paul II understood and made use of international media. His was a film clip pontificate, inviting the world to adopt him as a spiritual leader. The moments are legion and legend: his trips abroad, with his trademark kiss of the tarmac; the throngs at every rally; his stoicism in the face of the attempt on his life in the early years, and in the face of Parkinson's in the later; quietly sitting as a participant in the Riva del Garda conference of the World Conference on Religion and Peace; his prayer at the Western Wall in Jerusalem; his staff surmounted with a poor person's crucifix; his blessings from the balcony of the papal apartment.
He understood that personal exposure, done well, meant influence. He spoke out against the soulless greed of unbridled capitalism, and the deadening hand of totalitarian socialism. He stood with the poor and the marginalized, yet eschewed political engagements for his priests. And in the great balance of life, it must never be forgotten that he was silent in the face of genocide in Rwanda, when his influence might have made a difference, and that his principled but surely debatable stand against birth control continues to exact a terrible price in HIV/AIDS plagued Africa.
Under his leadership, the Roman Catholic Church established a new relationship with Judaism, expressing contrition and forswearing the demonization and oppression of the past. He has led the way in establishing a new Christian relationship with Islam, an exercise which the rest of Christianity is just beginning.
In Canada, John Paul II's pontificate has seen the full membership of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in the Canadian Council of Churches - an historic "first", and clearly in the spirit of John XXIII. But statements like Cardinal Ratzinger's Dominus Jesus are stark reminders that this has been a very Rome centred papacy withal, and it is beyond the ken of the best analysts to foresee the future for which John Paul II has laid the foundation. Irish scholar, statesman and dean of letters, Conor Cruise O'Brien, warned in the 1994 Massey Lectures of a sobering, even dangerous liaison between the conservative Catholicism of John Paul II and fundamentalist Islam.
But now he is dead, and, as was said of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and others, he belongs to history. A new Pontiff reigns in Rome: new, and yet familiar. Joseph, Cardinal Ratzinger, a German national, and now Benedict XVI, is not so much a pope of transition as of continuity. He was John Paul II's "Chief of Doctrine", and, so far, it appears little will change.
Much will depend on this new Pope. John Paul II leaves a high profile house in the eyes of the world, but the domestic affairs of the Roman Catholic Church are in serious disarray, perhaps more so than at any point since the great schism of the 14th century, which saw popes reigning concurrently in both Rome and Avignon.
Benedict inherits the curia of his predecessor. It is conservative, most cardinals having been appointed by John Paul II over more than twenty-five years. This will sit well with much of the global south, if Philip Jenkins is at all accurate in his assessment of the Next Christendom: the Coming of Global Christianity.
European and American Roman Catholics are dismayed, with perceived hopes and aspirations delayed for the unforeseeable future.
On the other hand, Europeans have hardly been overly sensible to religious dogma since the end of the second world war. Witness the late Pope's desire to see the rights of religion enshrined in a European constitution repeatedly, now finally, dashed.
Of greater importance to Federalists is the sense that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI represent in some measure the new Europe. The nature of the European Union was forever changed by the events triggered in part by John Paul II, which saw the end of the old Soviet regime. Benedict is a reminder that Germany is to be a player in the unfolding future.
John Paul II refused to uphold western ambitions when they seemed unjust and imperialistic as in the tragic Iraqi conflict. Benedict XVI takes his name from his early twentieth century predecessor who opposed the 1914-1918 conflict, and sought a peaceful and just Europe.
Both the late pope and the new one have a global perspective and a global reach; both see the world as their parish; both see the human community, regardless of creed or politics, as one global household. Both argue for respect among peoples, religions and nations, and for what the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, Jonathan Sacks calls, "the dignity of difference".
Federalists should have worked more with John Paul II; we should certainly find ways to work with Benedict XVI.
So, vale, John Paul II; ave, Benedict XVI. May the former rejoice with the angels; may the latter be on the side of the angels. In the building of a truly new world order we could use a few good saints and a few good Popes.

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war"
(Albert Einstein)

Albert Einstein was honored by Time Magazine and others as "The Person of the Century" in 2000. This year, his life is being celebrated on the centennial of the publication of his extraordinary papers, that in 1905 "revolutionized" the intellectual understanding of our world. He was also one of the greatest world federalists. It was Einstein who introduced me to WFM-IGP when I stumbled upon Einstein on Peace in the Denver Library 35 years ago. His first recorded public political statement was the Manifesto to Europeans, drafted shortly after the beginning of World War I. "We are stating publicly our faith in European unity ... we hope this public affirmation of our faith may contribute to the growth of a powerful movement toward such unity." Signed by only four scientists, it had no impact at the time, but they kept pressing over the years.
The EU delegation to the US published an article in the latest issue of EU Focus, entitled, "The European Constitutional Treaty." It states: "The Constitutional Treaty proposes neither a federal state nor a mere confederation of states, but rather continues on the path of developing the EU as a unique political entity in the world: a federation of nation-states, each ceding sovereignty to a larger union through common institutions while maintaining a unique society, culture, and political structure."
Europe cascaded into unimaginable, murderous darkness in 1914, and again 24 years later, devastating entire generations and introducing highly sophisticated warfare that made civilians a primary target. From the ashes emerged first the League of Nations, then in 1945 the UN. A few years later, the beginnings of the European unification movement that Einstein called for began to materialize. Political realists denounced the EU as a liberal pipe dream for decades - yet within the next months, 25 nations will vote on the constitution of this new "federation of nation states".
During the formation of the League of Nations and the UN, extreme US nationalists in our government were the main opponents of international law and institutions. Yet individuals like Andrew Carnegie and President Woodrow Wilson were among the main proponents. Today, this infuriating paradox continues. UN headquarters remains in the US world capital, New York City. New York is home to many institutions, human rights groups and foundations that provide the strongest support for the UN.
Yet the US government and rightwing political organizations are clearly the greatest and most dangerous opponents of the UN. President Bush has nominated a man reviled in the international community for his UN-bashing and disdain for international law to become the new US Ambassador to the UN. Best known for declaring that there is no United Nations, and "the happiest moment" of his government service was when he renounced the Rome Statute on the ICC, John Bolton is to be the US leader in preparation for what is to be one of the most important UN reform and strengthening summits ever this September.
Still, in reading the galleys of WF News 49, I am amazed at the depth and breadth of the issues relating to our promotion of international federalist principles. WFM-IGP was one of the first groups with whom the new Special Adviser to the Secretary General on the Prevention of Genocide met. WFM-IGP supported the first public launch of the report of the Secretary General's High-level Panel on Threats, Challenge and Change. We are working to garner support for the world summit in September. Our leadership role within civil society in promoting international democracy is described in the article on the International Conference of New or Restored Democracies. Other articles tell of WFM-IGP's work on promoting the Responsibility to Protect and a UN Emergency Peace Service. The center-spread illustrates WFM-IGP's considerable work at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil. We also report on some developments of the African Union, the next likely "federation of nation-states." Compared to 1914, 1939, 1945 and 1955, those of us seeking to "save future generations from the scourge of war" have infinitely greater resources than we had at any other time in the last five generations. Step by step.

Jeremy Rifkin
The European Dream
New York, Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2004

The American author Jeremy Rifkin, best known as a "futurologist", after having announced the end of the work, proclaimed hydrogen potentialities, envisaged the advent of a new globalized society - based on new information technologies - and stood up for animal rights, now reveals himself to be a good political scientist in his recent book, The European Dream.
One of its most important theories is enunciated in the subtitle: "How Europe's Vision of the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream" - that dream based on faith in individual achievement and responsibility, promising personal wealth and economic growth to those who commit themselves to hard work and risk-taking, and which is now plainly fading. In fact, in the United States people spend increasingly more time at work, receive lower salaries, have no time for leisure, and see their hopes for a better future slowly dissolving.
Europe, on the other hand, emphasizes "community relationships over individual autonomy, cultural diversity over assimilation, quality of life over the accumulation of wealth, sustainable development over unlimited material growth, deep play over unrelenting toil, and universal human rights, global cooperation rather than the unilateral exercise of power." The fact is that most European citizens can benefit from more social protection, longer life expectancy, a wider culture, more time for leisure, less poverty and crime, less blight and sprawl than Americans. The Old Continent seems to be overtaking the New World in many respects. In part this is the result of the unification process, which restored peace in the entire European territory, thereby allowing economic integration, business growth and the formation of a political transnational space without precedent in history.
Rifkin regards the European Union as an impressive success. Exploring European history (despite some lacunae and inaccuracies) in the post-World War II period, the author expresses, in a chapter entitled "United States of Europe," his positive judgment on the European Constitution's achievements, which he defines "the texture and the warp of the new European Dream." However, Rifkin has a static vision of this Union. He looks at the way it is, and not at what it should become in order to fully develop its potential and reach its goal. He gives a picture of the existing situation, neither venturing to comment, nor advancing proposals about what remains to be done to complete the European unification process. In fact, by signing the Constitution, the EU has taken only the first step towards federalism, though a very important one.
Further in his book Rifkin states that the European Union is the most avant-garde example of a new form of transnational government which is essential to regulate the globalization - a theory with which I completely agree. Moreover, Rifkin points at the European Union as a model for the entire world, a Dream which could be potentially universal. Europe becomes the new "city upon a hill" and its example will necessarily be contagious because within twenty-five years no nation will be self-sufficient. Europe has been the first to understand this. Others will follow.
Attempts to create free-trade areas and common, transnational institutions in different geographical regions - such as Mercosur in South America, African Union in Africa and particularly Asean in South-East Asia - are the first signals of such a tendency. Nevertheless, Rifkin writes that to extend the European Dream to the entire world requires the spread of a universal morality, entailing the will to fight for universal human rights.
In the book's final chapter the author suggests the possibility of creating a moral connection between the "self" and the "other than self" on a global scale and in a universal perspective. According to Rifkin, this might occur as a result of natural catastrophes, such as climate change, the spread of new viruses or lethal bacteria, famine, terrorist attacks, etc., showing the world that humankind is destined to be a single community.
Moreover, the commitment of youth will be essential, young people being more and more interconnected through the diffusion of new information technologies, redoubling the contacts among people. On this point, Rifkin finds it unacceptable that billions of people use these new means of communication for the sole purpose of exchanging information, trading in a worldwide market or just for fun. He reckons it necessary to find a unifying common purpose binding all these connections together so that everyone feels part of a huge whole: the biosphere.
From Rifkin's viewpoint, to stimulate awareness of the unity of humankind throughout the world (with the aim of realizing and asserting people's rights) it is necessary to appeal to the power of good ideas to conquer inhibitions and guide people toward a common good - a view which I personally find places too much reliance upon individual morality and strong will. In my view, Rifkin does not identify the incentives which would mobilize the citizens to recognise the need to extend democracy to a global area in which, with the passing of globalization, new interests and new rights must be regulated on the basis of the broader common interest. Furthermore, Rifkin proves to be completely unaware of the means of extending local rights to the entire world: namely, through federalism as a political formula combining different nations together. By this means countries will lose the power to wage war (all being associated) but acquire the ability to face problems relating to world safety, wealth and progress, not by individual action, but collectively.

Tzvetan Todorov
Philosopher and Anthropologist

Professor Todorov, how do you assess the French NO to the European Constitution? What is missing in this document in order to move European people's feelings? What about citizens' passions?

Does the European project need passion or only rationality? I think that a rational calculation of benefits and costs is not enough. The European people need reasons to love Europe as well. Human beings and their behaviours are usually driven by feelings and emotions. In this perspective, I believe it's important to return to the issue of European values so that we can support Europe because it involves our feelings, and not only for we think in rational terms. To my mind, an emotional support is a really crucial element. I think that this aspect was unfortunately missing in the French campaign. To be sure, this NO vote has been biased by other variables, which deal with French politics, internal struggles for power, political careers... all but European issues, and - as we all know - I'm not the only one who thinks so.

You wrote about a "new world disorder". Do you think that a European Government, deriving from the Commission, and accountable to the European Parliament, would be a proper solution for a more adequate world order? Do you think it could be feasible in the short run? What about the consequences of the French and the Dutch NOs?

Predicting the future is a tricky job... I'm not that confident about it... However, I believe that Europe, in order to play a stronger role on the world stage, has to speak with a single voice. It is essential that it has something similar to a Government, at least as far as Foreign and Security Policy is concerned. Europe needs also its own defence. Without it, a country can't be really autonomous. Provided with such tools, Europe could really follow its own way, not against the USA, which is a liberal democracy as well, but modifying the American approach to international affairs and to the current world order. The French and Dutch NOs are very bad answers. However, I don't think they represent the end of the story. We have just lost a battle, not the war (and luckily it's not a war!). I'm pretty convinced that the movement towards European integration.

Do you think that Europe should have a proper Army? Which kind of role should it eventually play?

Going back to the issue of the Army, I think that it should have a well-defined role: it's not our concern to compete with the US. It's neither possible nor easy - due to very high costs - let alone the fact that nowadays wars are different... The European Union doesn't need to be involved in, for instance, Indian or Chinese conflicts. Europe should be a "quiet power", that is, a limited one, mainly devoted to the defence of its territory. Well, I'd like to say: "No one threatens us!" but I think that unfortunately that wouldn't be true. Something bad might come from East: Russia is nowadays quiet, but who knows how it will look in ten, fifteen or twenty years? A new nationalism, or religious fundamentalism could bring Russia back to the aggressive role that it played in the XX century.
Weapons of Mass Destruction can't be overestimated. We must control them and their destructive potential. The same applies to international terrorism, and I don't mean only the Muslim one. Nowadays every small group could easily build small arsenals, for technology spread quickly and without obstacles. In the end, we must avoid civil wars at all events. Therefore we must think how to hinder conflicts such as the Yugoslavian one. Considering all the above. mentioned reasons, we need an Army, although not as powerful and costly such as the US one. I don't think it would mean a waste of money because it would give the Europeans a tool to live together in peace.

Some scholars hold that the European Union, with or without its Constitution, is already a kind of federation; other ones believe on the contrary that Governments are still the Lords of the Treaties. What do you mean by federalism in the XXI century.

As far as federalism is concerned, I'm neither a specialist of the federal state nor a jurist: I don't think I'm the right person to give a proper answer. I'd like anyway to stress a point that seems to me crucial: the European Union is the expression of something which has never existed in the past. We don't have proper models and we don't know where we are going to. Our federation is neither an empire - where all states are subject to a more powerful one - nor a federal state, such as Switzerland or Belgium, where some entities gave up their sovereignty in order to build up a single state. We are a federal union, but we're discovering it on the way, step by step. To sum up, I don' think that power is still completely in the hands of Governments. States have given up parts of their sovereignty, which lies to some extent in European institutions. We're building Europe step by step. The Constitution was just one of them; let's not dramatize its rejection in the French referendum.

You spoke about passions and emotions, which were missing when French people went to vote but are still present in the souls and hearts of people who are active in pacifist movements, no global movements, and so on. By the way, some of them were supporting the NO side in France. Which are to your mind the true European passions? Which role can pacifist movements play in the construction of Europe and in the world?

The so-called "No-global" movement is important as its message is spread worldwide, but in electoral terms, it represents only a tiny minority of voters. I think that more than half of the NO vote is due to the Extreme Right. Several "No-global" ideas have already entered the public debate and have been captured by political parties. Let's think about sustainable development, working conditions, and so on and so forth. With regard to passions... well, it's not a philosopher's task to decide which ones they ought to be. It's up to all of us. However, I believe that especially during the Iraqi War we all felt that a crucial European value is the rejection of the use of force to impose the Good. We must defend and strengthen this ideal which is a legacy of our history - featured by colonialism and totalitarianism.
There are other values as well: for instance, secularism. You might have heard of the French movement Ni pute, ni soumise (Neither whore, nor submitted), formed by young women in peripheries who defend their chance to avoid what some people would like them to do. Such movements are inspired by a strong idea of secularism. Individuals must have the chance to choose their own life. It's an important ideal. We must go ahead giving them the right place. They mean something more than barely technical issues - customs, or whatever.

The French and Dutch peoples' NO to the Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe has opened an unprecedented crisis in the European constituent process. Indeed, whilst it was the national political elites who rejected the European Defence Community and the Spinelli project, the refusal this time has been by the citizens of two founding countries of the European Community, and in both cases the referendum turn-out has been so high as to exceed those of all recent elections. This happened, in addition, in clear contrast not only to their governments but also to the overwhelming majorities in their Parliaments. To complete the picture, we have to add that of the ten countries that have so far ratified the Constitution, only Spain put the question to the people and there the turn-out was quite low.
This being the scenario, one cannot but pose the question: have European citizens become hostile to the very idea of European integration? Do they cherish the illusion they can cope with the challenges of an ever more globalized world by going back to the more familiar structures of the nation state? Although a part of the no's certainly came from that ideological background, we do not think that this is the prevailing sentiment among the overall majority of European citizens. Our assumption is that the vote has not been against the European Union per se, but against the method used in recent years to pursue integration.
Lately, many crucial decisions have been taken by member states' governments without any real democratic debate. That was the case with the introduction of the single currency, with the decision to enlarge the Union from 15 to 25 members without having first consolidated EU integration, and even with the decision to convene the Convention that drafted the European Constitution. No doubt national elections acted in effect as an indirect check on those decisions, but European policies have seldom been the most important issues debated during such electoral campaigns. It is worth recalling that the Laeken Declaration itself, which instituted the Convention, resulted from an awareness of the citizens' growing distrust of the European construction process, as disclosed by the Danes voting No to the Maastricht Treaty and the Irish voting No to the Nice Treaty, as well as the steady drop in turn-out in the European elections. It was for that reason indeed that it was decided to pass from inter-governmental conferences to the Convention at which representatives of the national and European Parliaments, and of the Commission, would for the first time take part in the European constituent debate together with representatives of the member states' governments - although, to protect their right of veto those same governments limited the assembly's prerogatives to such an extent that the significance of that move was essentially negated. The Convention had, in effect, to proceed by almost unanimous vote while at the same time knowing that the draft would later be reviewed by the 25 governments in an inter-governmental conference at which each one could, if it wished, veto every individual proposal. Partly because of these constraints, partly because of the decade-long habit to delegate to the governments the management of European issues, neither the European nor the national political leaders, including those that today are inciting the peoples to vote no, really fought so that the text of the European Constitution be the outcome of a veritable public debate, in which national and European parties, and through them the citizens, were involved.
This, in our opinion, is the fundamental deep-seated meaning of the votes of the past days: the citizens wish to become protagonists in building the future of Europe. A survey by Ipsos¹ on May 29^th (the day of the vote), indicated that 39% of the French who voted No did so because, among other things, "this will allow for renegotiation of a better Constitution". And it is obvious that for renegotiation to result in a better Constitution the method by which it is drawn up must be changed.
On these pages we have already fully analyzed the limits of the Constitution project. The main elements include the continued presence of the right of veto in fiscal, budgetary, defence and constitutional revision matters. Despite these limits, the European federalists decided to defend the text, mainly because they thought that, given the political will of a group of States, it would have allowed further progress towards the building of the European federation. This would be possible through the provisions regarding structured cooperation in matters of defence, the citizens' legislative initiative, and the possibility for the European Parliament to call for a new Convention for revising the Constitution. Activists from many different countries have upheld this choice with passion and courage, participating with astonishing generosity also in the French referendum campaign.
This ability to see the text in an historical perspective, and to evaluate its long-term effects, could be expected from federalist militants, but certainly not from the European citizens in general. To those who followed the French referendum campaign, as we did, the difficulty of defending this text became immediately evident, for after all it did not answer European citizens' expectations such as how to give a new impetus to the European economic growth, preserving our social model. How to speak to the world with one voice, and become emancipated from the American dominance? If we want to regain the consensus of European citizens we must start again with these questions.
The Commission and the Luxembourg Presidency, supported by the French and Dutch governments themselves, have so far limited themselves to calling for the continuation of national ratifications. The European Parliament, divided in its interior, did not even manage to adopt a resolution on the matter. Such a request rests on the content of Declaration 30, included in the Constitution, which states that if, on October 29, 2006, four fifths of the member States have ratified the Treaty, the matter shall be referred to the European Council. In principle, it is a correct proposal, based on the intention not to leave the power to block the entry into force of the Constitution in the hands of one or a few States. However, for it to be politically more effective, it should have been put in black and white before the referendum day, there being the precedent of Art. 82² of the Draft Treaty establishing a European Union approved by the European Parliament in 1984. If the French and the Dutch had known, when voting, that other States would go forward without them, the outcome of the ballots would probably have been different.
To remedy that mistake now is quite difficult. In all probability, the no by France and the Netherlands will adversely influence the following referenda which will take place even in traditionally euro-skeptical countries. The UK, followed by other States, has decided already to freeze the ratification process. The British intention is clear: to declare clinically dead this project, and with it the idea, never really accepted, that Europe shall have a Constitution.
There is only one possibility to save the Constitution: the States that have already ratified and those that, even if they have not yet ratified, do not intend to ditch sine die the constituent project, must solemnly declare that the Constitution, as it is, could enter into force if it will be ratified by at least twenty States, before the next referenda on ratification take place. Only such a declaration can give back a significance to a popular vote on a text which, in any other case, would be dead even before seeing the light.
A confused and in some way dramatic phase is opening. Already loud voices are being raised by those who, in a partisan spirit, attack the entire European construction, preaching the need to go back to national currencies and to close their borders against the invasion of the chimerical Polish plumber.
Europe will emerge from this situation in two ways: either resigning itself to its decline and to the progressive dissolution of its political and monetary integration, which will make us impotent in the face of Asian competition, slaves of the American hegemony and once again exposed to the nightmare of nationalist hatred, or else by finding the courage to turn down the logic of compromise, and to start a new era of European democracy, launching a political project capable of regaining the consensus among its citizens. Whatever the outcome, one thing is certain: the people have stormed into the constituent process, and will never leave. No governmental alchemy will ever pass their judgment unhurt.
In case the last tentative to save the Constitution fails, the only way the European project can be re-launched is by convening a true Constituent Assembly whose representatives shall be elected by the people. If the European Constitution dies in the ballot-boxes, in the ballot-boxes will return it to life. The debate preceding its election will for the first time seriously confront the citizens on the future of Europe and on a European plane at last, unlike the debates in France and the Netherlands which were strongly conditioned by their national political contingencies. As with every genuine constituent assembly it will have the legitimacy and the mandate to adopt a draft Constitution by qualified majority. It would then be directly submitted to the European citizens through a consultative referendum to be held on the same day throughout the Union, and would eventually enter into force in those States that have ratified it, providing they represent a majority both of the citizens and of the States of the Union.
The European Parliament's federalist inter-group has been in the front line defending the text, organizing demonstrations both in the assembly hall and in the city of Paris. It is now the primary duty of the European Parliament to launch this new proposal. We know that very powerful voices will be raised against it, and that it will not be accepted by all of the EU member States. For this reason it is necessary that a group of States should declare themselves ready to support it and to go forward with it together with those who share the same aim.
Today the survival of European integration is at stake, and with it that of the federalist project in the rest of the world. It is a choice on which we cannot allow anyone to have the right of veto.

1 http://www.ipsos.fr/CanalIpsos/poll/8074.asp.
2 "This Treaty shall be open for ratification by all the Member States of the European Communities. Once this Treaty has been ratified by a majority of the Member States of the Communities whose population represents two-thirds of the total population of the Communities, the Governments of the Member States which have ratified shall meet at once to decide by common accord on the procedures by and the date on which this Treaty shall enter into force and on relations with the Member States which have not yet ratified".