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.
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
The wrap-up press event on Feb. 1 for the new local period suspense film Murder of the Century (世紀血案), adapted from the true story of the Lin family murders (林家血案) in 1980, has sparked waves of condemnation in the past week, as well as a boycott. The film is based on the shocking, unsolved murders that occurred at then-imprisoned provincial councilor and democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) residence on Feb. 28, 1980, while Lin was detained for his participation in the Formosa Incident, in which police and protesters clashed during a pro-democracy rally in Kaohsiung organized by Formosa Magazine on Dec.
RSS