THINKING OF EUROPE – WHAT EUROPE? – PART II

Europe in a world of shifting powers


This is the second part of an essay on the present and future outlook of Europe. For the first part, see:
Thinking of Europe - Part 1


Institution building and the sentiments of history

Throughout modern history the process of nation building and of establishing the fundamental principles and rituals of a people’s governance has been a profoundly historic one. Constitutions were wrought from the claws of one or the other agonizing struggle – from the suppression by tyranny, a foreign usurper or severe civil conflict.- and invariably the transition is recorded as a moment of renewal: the promise of a better future, often coinciding with new liberties and (increased) democracy. Without exception these momentous transitions in a people’s history continue to be celebrated; their remembrance is transferred to the next generations, mementos are erected.

In more recent history similar milestones have been reached at the international level, such as the conclusion of wide reaching treaties and the fall of the Berlin Wall, a defining moment with world wide implications. The establishment of the European Community and its subsequent enhancement both in scope and membership can be seen as similar major accomplishments after nearly two centuries of continental strife and destructive competition between its - then – major powers.


Europe in the present public’s mind

Today, this European pre-history seems all but forgotten. In the eyes of many Europe has become synonymous with a distant and burdensome reality. Public sentiments are firmly fixed at the national level, regardless the gradual erosion of the member states’ autonomy. This prevailing sentiment, even in countries which have been ardent supporters of a strong Europe, stands in sharp contrast with the ongoing unification process. New rules of European governance and member state compliance are being drawn up with major implications at the heart of national budgetary prerogatives. It happens not so much in the wake of one or the other great historic drama or long term European inspiration but rather more as an expediency for the short term fiscal and monetary survival of the members of the Euro zone. It may steer those member states towards greater unity, but it may equally stir new disparity between the European nations.

I believe the project of Europe is on a dangerous path if the governments of the member states merely treat this transition as a technical issue. They should pro-actively mobilize broad public support for the likely further enhancement of Europe’s political clout in national fiscal and budgetary policies. Failing this, it will only add new frustrations to what is already a widespread skepticism of the union’s faceless intrusion in domestic interests.





Yet, all of this can still be seen as concerns to overcome immediate challenges only, leaving the greater question of Europe’s future unaffected – or at least undecided. It remains a question with many faces. The issue of Turkey’s potential EU membership, on which Member States have in principle agreed, epitomizes the manifold dilemma’s – some would call it crises – that linger in the union’s undercurrents. As a country on the brink between the Christian and the Islamic – Arab – world the sentiments against Turkey’s membership have become more articulate, such as those of Germany and France. They most of all reflect the growing uneasiness in European countries with their internal demographic reality of a sizeable Islamic population. Thus, more than ever before, the question of extended EU membership hits the union – and the individual Member States – in the heart of their own sense of European identity.


Our history is moving towards new paths

It is a foregone conclusion, I would think, that the EU will not become the super power that once was considered its destiny, at least not in the foreseeable future. No single, shared interest nor any major issue would rally the current EU members to speak and act in one voice and with sufficiently credible muscle. In fact the whole idea of Europe as a super power rather stems from an era in which it served as a logic – to assert itself against two major super powers, the Soviet Union and the USA. Today these powers have not only lost their pre-eminent position in the emerging multi-polar world, the countervailing pressure towards devolution and regionalization seems stronger than ever at the same time.



Lastly, the history of nation states and their alliances may not yet be at an end but it faces increased competition with the rise of the modern day commercial super powers and the history of their impact in our modern world. It is just as easy, and perhaps more pertinent, to describe the past few decades in terms of Microsoft’s ascent in the lives of almost everyone on our globe (or that of Apple, Samsung, Google and the like) as it is to write about the cumbersome efforts of the various nations to maintain a reasonable level of peace and security. In this respect too, the future of our political conglomerates has many faces, more particularly so as and when we move away from the current oil-driven power equilibrium.




Conclusion

In summary, no single future path for Europe can at present be defined as credible or likely. It may as well become a matter of merely historic interest as it may still emerge as a priority on our agenda. Shifting powers in our world, between major regions as well as between public and private (commercial) interests make a plausible prediction about the position of Europe in the next forthcoming decades a hazardous undertaking. At the same time, EU Member States have arrived at a perilous cross road if they persist in strengthening the political role of the EU whilst simultaneously ignoring to mobilize broad public support in doing so.

POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY IN OUR FUTURE WORLD

Whom should we look at to clean up the mess?


This blog is an ongoing exploration of the factors affecting our longer term future, not merely in terms of economy, politics or private wealth but in its fundamental parameters. It is often said but I will repeat here that this exercise is not about predicting the future but, in essence, about getting to grips with the present. Secondly, if we want to have an understanding of where we are today we can not go without some basic knowledge of how we got here, in short: of our history and of the key events that have shaped it. To some extent the exploration of our history is just as speculative as that of the future. One can have many different, viable perceptions of it. And invariably they evolve over time. Thus however we go about it, it is an ongoing effort indeed, every time and again.

The history of the past century can be described in terms of shifting powers. From the early to the late 1900s a momentous transition has taken place from ancient nation based autocracies to power structures on a global scale, in part supported by national democracies, in part by private enterprise. The 20th century saw citizens become mass consumers at the same time and it is a matter of debate whether their influence – on average – on the direction of their future, their immediate environment and the general conditions affecting their welfare has increased or, to the contrary, whether they have in fact have been reduced to mere statistics in a global system of mass slavery. I have elaborated this viewpoint in an one of my previous postings (See Archive: March 2010 Unleash your shackles; slaves ought to be free).


The source of all current power

At another level the global shift towards internationalism has brought us a new tension between the private and the public sphere of interests. The resolution of this tension in my view is the major challenge for the next forthcoming decades. Again I should refer to an earlier posting (See Archive December 2008: The society of owners vs. the public society) in which I addressed this topic much against the background of our present-day financial problems and the need for ensure that the financial (and industrial) world become less driven by mere short-term profit rather than longer term sustainability.

But there is a more profound issue at stake and perhaps we should call this a crisis too: the crisis of responsibility. The underlying reality is not dissimilar from the one that caused massive peril a hundred years ago, when power was exercised by those who didn’t care to take true responsibility for the world on which they imposed it. And perhaps this is a theme running through the longer stretch of history when time and again power rather than need -the needs of the people, for instance – determined its actual course. This is as much true for the instances at which such power eventually was overthrown. The struggle against irrational power can be seen as one of the major spoils in the story of humanity. And even though we may not perceive our current challenges in the same light, much of what happened in the past can still happen to us today, or tomorrow. Do we ever anticipate a new war on European soil? And whether we answer in the affirmative or otherwise, why?

We are facing irrational power that stems from our own guts, our own desires, our own hypes and fads. We are fed the goodies we want in exchange of our non-interference with corporate power. Not as a mere consumer, that is. Which is what most of us are. The challenge is not power – its distribution or concentration – in the first place: it is what we want ourselves.

If the previous history was about the role and responsibilities of labor versus capital, it is the consumer versus capital now. The consumer who is a citizen of the world and of his country as well.

Do we continue to consume at the expense of our planet’s very existence as the harbor of humanity? Much of my blog content revolves around this theme. We may be increasing our knowledge about infinity, but our need is to accept its opposite as well. When nothing is left, nothing is left.



Who has the true power – and the responsibility – to effectively help to curb this trend of global depletion? Can we truly sustain many more billions of people on this planet. Or should more drastic measures to control birth rates be taken? From a humanitarian point of view this seems self-evident, but from the point of view of logic it is not. Accellerated death rates, war and devastation would be more logic and more effective. It is the other conundrum that constitutes our humanity. Will we control it?

In this light too the question of power and responsibility in our world becomes paramount. We have many international institutions but they have neither. Multinational corporations have far greater impact, in both dimensions, but they lack the essence: full accountability. We have only recently had the first instance of great corporate accountability of BP in the aftermath of the Mexican Gulf oil spill.

Perhaps a serious attempt should be made to critically assess the current world situation of power and its corollaries. It underscores the need to come to new terms between the private and the public interest, the latter meaning: us all, together or similarly. Fresh air, clean water, security, education, etcetera. All of this against our true private – individual - needs.

And as already indicated: it all starts with (and within) ourselves.