United Europe still divided

San Diego -- This week, leaders of the 12-nation European Community will meet in the Netherlands town of Maastricht to fashion the new Europe.

On the eve of the historic summit, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (Adenauer was the father of post-war Germany who shared with France's Jean Monnet the vision of a united Europe) selected one of America's most beautiful cities to assemble leaders of business, government, education and politics -- including experts from Germany, the U.S., Japan and other Pacific Rim countries -- to discuss progress toward political, economic and military integration in Europe.

Whatever the outcome in Maastricht, conferees agreed that Europe has made tremendous progress since its establishment by the Treaty of Rome in 1958. Yet, despite euphoria about EC '92 in some quarters, the sessions here showed that many problems remain.

First, achievement of a common market by 1992 requires passage of directives to achieve free movement of people, goods, services and capital. Only a fraction of these have been passed.

Second, in December 1990, the EC ambushed GATT talks by refusing to liberalize Europe's agricultural policies. As a result, there is rising concern about EC protectionism. Now there is a scramble to establish trading blocs to compete with the EC -- including the North American Free Trade Agreement combining the U.S., Canada and Mexico. While trade blocs can expand global trade, blocs have many dangers, including increasing the role of government in international commerce.

Third, there are serious differences among EC nations on questions related to border controls and internal security. A backlash against foreigners is spreading and intensifying in many EC countries. And there is a growing fear that the continuing disintegration of the former Soviet Union could turn the Oder-Neisse River, the north-south border between Poland and Germany, into the Rio Grande of Europe. Accordingly, there is increasing reluctance to give up national control over immigration.

Fourth, the EC has an industrial policy dominated almost exclusively by big business, many of which are not globally competitive. Result: Entrepreneurship has been stifled by a hostile business climate in many EC countries. Job creation in the EC is half that of the U.S. Yet, entrepreneurship is precisely what is needed to rebuild the east of Germany and Eastern Europe.

Fifth, the desire of the EC to deal with intra-European matters has not been matched by their disjointed approach to the crisis in Yugoslavia. This is not an auspicious beginning for common foreign and defense policies.

Finally, programs to narrow intra-EC differences -- especially with the "gang of four" poorer countries: Ireland, Spain, Greece and Portugal -- are now having to compete for attention and resources with the wider Europe that emerged after the collapse of communism.

So, as we look to post-Maastricht Europe, we need to rein in the Europhoria that sometimes gets out of control. As new forces are unleashed in the world -- political upheaval, unprecedented human migration, new technologies driving changes in how we work and live -- the need for politically sensitive decision-making institutions is now greater than ever.

The Achilles heel of the EC may be the dominant role played by the Eurocrats in Brussels, who are increasingly disconnected from the political and cultural impulses emerging in grassroots Europe. As the rest of the world moves toward greater decentralization and more democracy, the vision of one Europe may ba a long way off.