When Valery Giscard d'Estaing handed in the manuscript of the European Constitution last July with an expression of "intense happiness," it is said he offered a lettuce leaf to Wukei, the ceramic tortoise that had served him as a mascot of prudence and longevity during the interminable consultation process.
At a similar moment in the drafting of the US Constitution, roughly 200 years earlier, Thomas Jefferson ordered his cook to prepare a pudding of his own devising -- Baked Alaska.
Giscard's Dada-esque gesture and Jefferson's simple pragmatism are symbolic of the gulf that separates the most successful written constitution of all time and the draft charter that the Europeans spent this weekend arguing about in Brussels.
There's another, more fundamental, difference between these two documents. The EU Constitution is expressed in 69,196 words and runs to 263 pages (depending on what language you read it in). The original US Constitution, by contrast, is just 4,608 words long on four pages. One has been the product of 26 plenary sessions, 11 working groups and three so-called "discussion circles"; the other was cooked up by half a dozen remarkable young Americans.
So where did it all go wrong? First, and most obvious, the Americans wrote their constitution in a world turned upside down by war and a revolution. Their historic step was reached through the simplifying necessities of violence and destruction. Europe has spent much of the past 100 years at war, but mainly with itself, and certainly not to declare "the United States of Europe." The only weapons Giscard and his 105 "co-authors" (from 28 countries) have seen during their deliberations have been knives and forks.
Second, when Jefferson, Madison and the rest settled down to invent a nation they were drawing on a century and more of philosophical argument about the proper relationship between the governors and the governed. "We the people," the US constitution's ringing and momentous opening words, are simple and profound. They usher in a system of checks and balances as elegantly calibrated as an Age of Reason clock. The European Constitutional Convention has had too many models to refer to. It is a hodgepodge, an impenetrable potpourri by comparison. Crucially, where the US Constitution just itemizes the citizens' rights against the state, the EU Constitution lists the rights to which the citizen is entitled.
There is no reason why a committee should not produce an elegant, concise constitution. But -- and here's the third difference -- ours is an age of the soundbite, not of great rhetoric. Steeped in the language of the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer, and communicating with a likeminded audience of gentlemen farmers and white colonial setters, Jefferson was working in a tradition of brevity, simplicity and transparency.
Thus, where the preamble to the US Constitution describes its objectives in 52 words, the proposed EU Constitution's preamble drones on for 293 words to little purpose. Leaving aside the inevitable ambiguity of its language, the EU Constitution is attempting the impossible: to communicate with some 500 million Europeans, readers and non-readers, rich and poor, from Lapland to Sicily.
The framers of the US Constitution -- Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, Adams and Jefferson -- were possibly men of genius who were not above mythologizing their achievements. Jefferson later described the Philadelphia convention as "an assembly of demi-gods." But what is now forgotten is that, even with all these historical advantages, the arduous deliberations during the incredibly hot summer of 1787 so nearly failed to achieve the vital spirit of compromise that lay at the heart of the document the 13 states signed up to.
A lot of the political horse-trading was done in Benjamin Franklin's garden, beneath the boughs of a shady mulberry tree with a cask of dark beer to soothe and conciliate the hot-heads.
Berlusconi, Blair, Chirac and Schroder will be lucky to find such a mulberry tree in mid-winter Brussels. Giscard d'Estaing and his ceramic tortoise is hardly the 21st century's answer to the benign wisdom of Franklin.
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
In 2009, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) made a welcome move to offer in-house contracts to all outsourced employees. It was a step forward for labor relations and the enterprise facing long-standing issues around outsourcing. TSMC founder Morris Chang (張忠謀) once said: “Anything that goes against basic values and principles must be reformed regardless of the cost — on this, there can be no compromise.” The quote is a testament to a core belief of the company’s culture: Injustices must be faced head-on and set right. If TSMC can be clear on its convictions, then should the Ministry of Education
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) provided several reasons for military drills it conducted in five zones around Taiwan on Monday and yesterday. The first was as a warning to “Taiwanese independence forces” to cease and desist. This is a consistent line from the Chinese authorities. The second was that the drills were aimed at “deterrence” of outside military intervention. Monday’s announcement of the drills was the first time that Beijing has publicly used the second reason for conducting such drills. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership is clearly rattled by “external forces” apparently consolidating around an intention to intervene. The targets of
RSS