Editorial: A French lesson worth learning

France has rejected the European constitution that aimed to further the integration of Europe -- the first EU member to reject the constitution. This has dealt a devastating blow to the process of European integration, and while it has not killed the constitution project, there is the possibility of a domino effect for the 15 members that have yet to ratify it. Without a doubt, the project has been set back significantly.

The biggest loser in the referendum is President Jacques Chirac's government. The biggest winner is France's democracy. There was heated debate in the run-up to the referendum, and in the face of unfavorable polls, Chirac even appeared on TV calling on the French people not to reject the constitution just to show their dissatisfaction with his government. He asked them to ratify the constitution for their own future, the future of France and the future of Europe. Their failure to heed his call has greatly embarrassed Chirac and is a splendid example of democracy at work.

Many academics and politicians in this country see the EU as a potential model for dealing with the cross-strait issue, even though former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) rejected the model outright. France's rejection of the EU constitution should give Taiwan food for thought.

Those who applaud the EU's proposed constitution and those who reject it are actually in a tug-of-war over what kind of lifestyle the French want. The benefits brought by European integration would be immense -- politically, economically and socially. It would be the first time that the countries of Europe united peacefully and rationally, achieving what the Mongol invasions of Gengis Khan and his successors, Napoleon and Adolf Hitler, failed to achieve.

In addition, France, as one of the EU's most important founding nations, would also have more room to maneuver within the international community under a European constitution. Once Europe is united under the EU's constitution, it would become the most powerful and prosperous regional bloc in the world. It would also inspire integration in other parts of the globe.

But a dream of a better future is no match for the experience of everyday life. The French are worried that the passage of the EU's constitution would bring a huge influx of immigrants seeking employment, vexing a nation already plagued by high unemployment, as well as create an additional welfare burden. As the French government would need to shoulder a high proportion of the EU's budget, French taxpayers would face higher taxes and reduced prosperity. The French have showed their unwillingness to assume these responsibilities for other European nations, thereby bringing the dream of everlasting European integration to a halt.

The political, economic and social disparities between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are far greater than those between EU members. Even if both sides agree to closer integration by adopting an EU-like framework, the process is certainly going to be long and problematic. Political leaders should not ignore the discrepancies that exist across the Strait and willfully push ahead with such a framework.

Both sides should continue to develop individually and independently, while seeking cultural and economic exchanges. This way, there will be a chance to establish understanding and trust, as well as provide time for China's economy to consolidate, its politics to liberalize and its human-rights situation to fall more in line with international standards. Not until the differences between the two sides of the Strait have been reduced will it be time to discuss models for resolving the cross-strait issue.