In other circumstances, a march forward could be approved by the French, writes Jean-Noël Jeanneney.
Sometimes a distressed citizen can take solace in being a historian. That is my case, living in these times. Let me explain myself.
Observing what Europe is living through at this precise moment is enough to make one sad, if not despairing. The efforts undertaken for years to move our institutions forward, with great difficulty and great merit, by a good number of brave, imaginative and free spirits from different countries of the Union, have been knocked down.
After the fact, one may discuss the appropriateness of this or that measure. But overall, what was proposed to the peoples of Europe was a mode of government that would have given the Union three major advantages: inside, a better understanding of responsibilities and what was at stake; outside, more influence over the fate of the world; everywhere, more clarity in the definition of the values and objectives that are the foundation of the originality of our continent. The slam on the brakes is brutal. The wake-up is bitter.
So should we resign ourselves and hark back to this saying by Nietzsche that de Gaulle recalled, one weary day in Dublin when Ireland so generously welcomed him after he left office in the wake of his defeat in the referendum of April 27th, 1969? In the French ambassador's copy of his "Mémoires de guerre," the general wrote: "Nothing is worth anything. Nothing comes to pass. And yet everything happens. But it doesn't matter . . ."
With the help of history, let us reject the temptation to give up. History teaches us to go beyond the transience of emotions. History knows that the European adventure has surmounted other cruel crises. But especially, she reminds us that events which leave their mark are the result of the interwoven rhythms of the short term, which grabs attention, of the medium term, which breathes over several years, and of the long term, which reflects mentalities and lasting behaviour. The distinction is indispensable - and reassuring.
There is much that is accidental, thus temporary, in the negative vote of the French, which encouraged that of the Dutch several days later.
The wearing away over time of the popularity of the French head of state is accidental. It is linked to specific conditions, to a specific time. By refusing to change prime ministers after his defeats in the European and regional elections of 2004, Jacques Chirac made many voters want to seize the opportunity to repeat their disapprobation; what was at stake for Europe counted little for them.
Accidental too is the absence of strong leadership in the French Socialist Party. However eager and talented its first secretary, the party suffers from the absence of a leader whom everyone expects to represent the left in the race for the Élysée in 2007. The clash of personal ambitions helped to prevent the choice of party militants in favour of the Yes - a 58 per cent majority last December - from resulting in a similar attitude among socialist sympathisers in the national vote.
The tactical choice made by Laurent Fabius, the former prime minister of Francois Mitterrand, in advocating the No was also accidental. He believed that by cynically breaking with the legacy of his master, he had found the way to take over the Socialist Party, in the hope of being its candidate in 2007. Whatever the success of this sad manoeuvre (we shall see), it relieved the guilt of a good number of hesitant left-wing voters who in good faith believed this absurdity: that one could very quickly, after rejecting the constitution, bring forth a "more social" Europe. (On the contrary, the advocates of the "market only" were licking their chops in advance.)
Inveterate adversaries of European construction on right and left, those who refuse the slightest sacrifice of sovereignty, those who want to shoot everything down, would have voted No in any case. But they are a minority. So we must believe that in other circumstances, a march forward could be approved by the French people, who will not play the same distressing role that they've just played on a different chess board. They will regain the pride of figuring among the principal actors of our collective ambition.
Here we come to the medium term. Our world is so replete with threats that a feeling today subdued must resurface among the people who comprise the Europe of 25: that only stronger and better defined institutions enable us to meet these challenges. The challenge of energy, whether hydrocarbons or nuclear; the ecological challenge, against American egotism; the terrorist challenge, on a planet where the Enlightenment is receding; the demographic challenge, facing the famished masses of the South . . .
This is what elected officials, intellectuals, teachers, even artists, must tirelessly explain. If they do, they will be convincing. A monetary policy for the euro zone, led by a Central Bank that is obsessed only with inflation, cannot continue without the counter-weight of a European government that places joblessness at the centre of its concerns. A defence policy that gives in to the domination of the United States - both in intelligence gathering and military capacities - cannot last forever. A diplomacy that cannot make a strong, unique voice be heard in times of international crisis will not be accepted for long.
Whatever the reluctance of the nations who have just joined us to free themselves of American tutelage, because of their recent past, experience teaches us that in times of great commotion, a collective pride takes over, along with the will to be master of one's own fate.
I thought of all this as I watched the pitiful Brussels Council, with its egotism and petty quarrelling, and the temporary triumph of a Britain that gave in to the temptation to promote the doctrine dear to Washington of a Europe limited more or less to a free trade zone. So many deep forces will work in the opposite direction that this success, made possible by the weakness of France, cannot last long.
Will people say I'm mistaking my wishes for reality? Not if we are able to discern an even slower rhythm of history, that of generations to come.
Paradoxically, it is the very success of the founding fathers of Europe that slackened Europe's energy. Peace between the peoples of the continent goes without saying for our children; what's the point of fighting for the unity that ensures it continues?
Two answers will come forward. One will insist on the precariousness of this calm. The other will talk about the good fortune of differentness. Both demand policies that exert influence, through schools and the press, the way things are represented, stereotypes and the cross-fertilisation of national cultures. We need publicly-owned media that help us know each other, cinema and television production that public authorities do not abandon to the sole interest of private sector profit: an organisation of knowledge that would belong to Europe.
This is the battle I've been fighting since last January, to create a European virtual library. It's about standing up to the Google research engine that is so powerful across the Atlantic. It is about offering the world millions of books on the Web, chosen and organised according to the principles and rules of our own civilisation.
Am I drifting away from our immediate concerns? Not at all! For the success of this initiative, supported by 23 national libraries (including Dublin, of course) and approved by Brussels, is proof of a comforting reality: actions co-ordinated in the field of culture can nourish future bursts of energy and guarantee their efficacy, helping us, enlightened by history, to surmount the sinister weeks that Europe has just lived through.
Jean-Noël Jeanneney is a historian, president of the Bibliothèque nationale de France and of the Europartenaires group. He is author of Quand Google défie l'Europe.