Tag: European Union

Categories
Mediawatch

A call for Union

brussels_akkuza

It’s been a long break. I had planned to post earlier but the events in Brussels have been at the back of my mind for some time now and had sapped at the will to write and make whatever little difference another opinion could make – especially in this world that gives the impression of getting more cynicial by the minute.

Last week saw confessors of the world’s largest religion prepare for the most intense period of meditation and contemplation. Believer or unbeliever you could still listen to the words of Yeshua from Nazareth – a simple maxim – thta could have been revolutionary for mankind. Sat at a table of equals he would reportedly tell us that all humans had to do was to love others as they do themselves and do to others what they would do themselves. Simple really.

In Palmyra the Syrian forces advanced and freed the ancient city forcing ISIS forces back to stronger holds like Raqqa and Homs. They left behind them a trail of destruction – around these supposed “religious fanatics” hangs a stench of death, misery and desolation. Reports in the media informed the gawking world that a kidnapped priest had been crucified by ISIS over Easter. Humanity? Not much. Religion and faith? Another excuse to justify psychopathic actions, nothing more. Not in my name shouted millions of muslims worldwide.

As I am sure there are muslims in Pakistan who condemned the atrocious attacks in Lahore where over 60 christians died in an attack. Same goes for Iraq where an innocuous soccer event was cut short with an explosion causing over 30 deaths. Not in their name.

Which brings me to Brussels and Zaventem. ISIS have claimed authorship of the vile attack that took place at the airport and metro. For many Maltese this is even more familiar territory than Paris and New York were after previous criminal attacks. Around 36 hours before the blasts ripped through the departure lounges I was travelling home exceptionally via Brussels. Our check in row was row 8 – apparently only two rows away from the site of the main explosion. As the news pored out familiar marks of the airport were mentioned – the Starbucks in the main gallery where I had sat with my dad for a long, long coffee a couple of months ago stuck out.

It’s more personal for us now but it does not change the way we are all handling the matter. We still speak of “terrorism” and we are quick to link the issue to the wave of immigrants that has become a constant in Europe. The failure of integration is proclaimed. The EU’s nations retrench to their nationalistic stances and the biggest menace now is to one of the fundamental and most obvious pillars and advantages of EU membership – Schengen and free movement.

There are a few reflections to be made:

1. Terrorism as a label

It is worth noting that the way the media report the issue is facilitating ISIS’ business. A brilliant article in the Guardian noted that the media are acting as a lunga manu PR for the IS by attributing a larger sense of organisation where there is none. We are quick to rush to the label of “Terrorism” combined with “Islamic Fanatics”. In reality, and viewed with a cooler mind, these are cells of instability in our own society that are the result of multiple causes – and not just a religious orientation gone awry.

Europe has a long, recent history of terrorist cells of political, religious or sectarian and independentist inspiration. “Terrorism” is a label we use for a sophisticated type of crime against the general public – car bombs, explosions, gun attacks and now even a belt full explosives for a kamikaze ending. These perpetrators need to be treated as criminals first and terrorists later. By exalting their actions as being the result of some kind of intricate organised network and hidden army we are falling in the hands of ISIS and its supporters.

Finally these are mostly home-grown citizens who have a bone to pick with society in general. ISIS offers them a great means of escape and an excuse to unleash their anger with such devastating consequences. They must be treated as criminals – home-grown criminals – and the punishment must be exemplary of a society that deals strongly with these problems. Deportation to some trumped up “country of origin is an escapist solution. It is a solution adopted by nations that are in denial that social and economic problems within their borders lie at the real base of what is going on.

2. Crime exists and it is Europe-wide

Having said that the “terrorist” label is not helping the cause does not mean a denial of the existence of criminal elements that use the religious angle as an excuse for their psychopathic actions. What Brussels (and even Paris) taught us is that there is a systemic problem of lack of coordination in the EU. Too many hands, too many seperate limbs of enforcement that fail to communicate with each other and too much ambiguity about our common border.

The calls are out to suspend Schengen and for a retrenching to nationalist lines of control. The calls are wrong. The problems with which the member states of the European Union are faced today are in need of exactly the opposite remedy. The Union was built on the pooling of sovereignty in areas where the whole is better than the parts. We’ve all heard how the Common Market became the driving force of an Economic Community that strengthened its connections.

Now, more than ever the areas of Security and Justice require a stringer pooling – not a breaking down. A Union Police that acts across borders and on all borders is required. It cannot have the face and interest of the few states that are facing the problem of the moment – in other words it cannot be a Frontex that begs for the attention of states that are far from the action. This Union Police should have Union-wide powers of monitoring entry, exit, and also internal activity within the Union. Intelligence would be pooled and enabled by all parties, a budget would ensure it has the resources possible to combat crime and a clear delineation of its competences would enure it can work within its own range as well as collaborate with national forces.

Schengen is the target of the bomb touting criminals. Suspending Schengen, restricting the fundamental freedom that European Union citizens have so proudly achieved is not a solution. It is a dangerous step towards submission.

3. Integration

Finally, one last point about integration. As I said earlier the existence of such criminals cannot be linked to problems of integration. The religious angle is an excuse to unleash destructive wills – an excuse that could very well have been found elsewhere. Having said that a Union that is teetering on establishing its own ideals needs to take up this challenge and face up to it. Rather than speaking of integration we should be looking at the common values that the European Union member states hold dear and ensuring that anybody who is born or enters into their territories understands that these are the rules by which civil society lives.

Once again in the name of humanity the Union should be working to strengthen the commitment to the universal values of human rights and anybody wanting to live within its confines should be prepared to live along and not against such precepts.

Categories
Constitutional Development Politics

There Can Be Only One (Union)

union_akkuzaGordon Brown’s last minute appeal for Scottish voters to vote “No” in the referendum was the highlight of the campaign for me. It was not just that he seemed ever so passionate about the affair but also the reasoning that he gave as to why it was really “Better Together” that struck home home hard. Underlying his message was the assertion that voting against independence did not make anyone any less Scottish and that the identity and spirit could not only be hijacked by the Yes camp. Brown stressed that Scotland has always had a fundamental role in the building of the Union and that it can continue to proudly exist as a nation within such a Union. As one of the four nations.

His appeal also stressed that voting yes would be a vote that abandons Scotland’s crucial role of solidarity through which it has stuck to the Union through thick or thin and been a crucial part of the suffering as well as the achievements thereof. Sure, there may be a few tweaks to be made as to how power is divided and distributed within the Union – particularly to adapt to the modern day schizophrenic nation-state approach but there was much capital to be lost by abandoning the whole. Cliché it may be but “United We Stand” was really and truly hit home by Gordon Brown on that eve of the referendum final call.

Of course the referendum was not only about Gordon Brown – or Alex Salmond, or Alistair Darling. It was about a very defined people coming to terms about their chosen way of government. The stewardship of a sovereign people is at the heart of mechanisms of government and every Scot was being asked whether he preferred bearing the responsibilities of that stewardship alone – without depending or sharing such responsibility with other peoples. They risked abandoning the common path that had been trodden since the beginning of the 1700’s and going it alone.

The result has to be seen in this perspective too. The media hype on nationalistic sentiment as well as the hype and conspiracy theories about the subjugation to Westminster needed moderating in the sense that the Scots have (and will continue) to benefit from being in the Union. There were some telling signs from early figures in the polls. One of these was that middle and upper income voters were more likely to vote No and opt to stay in the Union. Which is rather interesting since if the myth that your average Scot would be richer and more comfortable through independence were true then the ones that would stand to gain the most (trickle down is just that, the drops trickle down but a huge part gets stuck around the waist) did not seem to be that convinced.

Without necessarily making it an issue of class, there could be some truth in the fact that the lower income brackets would be more easily persuaded by a nationalistic ticket accompanied by all the spiel of “get rid of the masters”, “stick two fingers up Westminster” and all that jazz. A young lass interviewed this morning claimed between one hiccup and another while wiping away her tears that “This vote condemns us to more austerity”. In a way it summed up the misunderstanding that somehow independence would shift Scotland into a vacuum utopia sealed away from the economic woes that has hit each and every nation in Europe.

Which brings me back to the “Better Together” theme plugged so passionately (and successfully) by Gordon Brown. In the run up to the referendum I had read an article that kicked off by reminding how kids in the Empire used to take pride in writing their address –  a representation of the concentric circles of society and power of which they formed part. It began with your house, your street, your town, your county, your nation, then United Kingdom, then Europe. Every step, every part of that concentric set of circles reflected a sense of belonging. Each and every step was  useful in its own way.

Scotland and the Scots has voted rather overwhelmingly to stay part of the Union. It is one of the “Home Nations” – a phrase that itself acknowledges the different national identities that form part of the whole. This vote is no threat to Scottish identity and national pride. Rather, it is a decision to continue to grow and function within a wider Union.

One last thing. The irony for the very pro-EU Scots is that the Union will be soon facing an in or out referendum of its own and they might be forced to follow a majority decision to get out of the EU much to their chagrin. What they can hope is that the UK electorate is made to understand the benefit of working in Union much the same way as the Scottish electorate understood this time round.

 

Categories
Constitutional Development Politics

Europeanism: the birth of an ideology

Comical-European-geopolitical-map

In the beginning was the Rome Treaty. 60 odd years down the line the visions that helped forge together that agreement need some new PR. The first steps of European integration were built on the idea that if the main strategic resources were pooled together (coal, steel, atomic energy) and if a situation of mutually beneficial economic interdependence could be created, then nations that had been at each others’ throats for centuries would have a strong incentive to be at peace. The carrot for such peaceful coexistence was economic prosperity and strength. The European Community was born.

60 years have seen the Community transform to a Union and expand exponentially to include 29 member states. The original driving force of the groups of states has long stopped to be simply of an economic character. The exclusive club of states has not only expanded numerically but also has gone through a bumpy phase of deeper integration that extended into the social and political spheres. In the late nineties one of the standard tensions that was closely observed in the community was that between intergovernmental and federalist forces. The reference was structural, the effect strongly political. The negotiation and the project – whatever shape it took – remained firmly anchored among nation states. The demos was still absent – in the late nineties it was still a matter of sovereign states notwithstanding the European legal order having made huge inroads into the national systems. The “give and take” and the legitimacy question was still firmly rooted at national government level.

Yet, even the early case law that shaped the European Union we now know contained references to the role of the demos in what would eventually be seen as a constitutional construct:

The Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields and the subjects of which comprise not only member states but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of member states, community law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the treaty, but also by reason of obligations which the treaty imposes in a clearly defined way upon individuals as well as upon the member states and upon the institutions of the community.

—Judgment of the Court of 5 February 1963 (Van Gend en Loos)
Scholars have very often focused on the first part of the above quote – intent on highlighting the dynamics between the member states and the Community/Union. Van Gend, perhaps prophetically, also highlighted the role of “individuals” (still not citizens in the jargon of the court – a concept that would only arrive in the Maastricht Treaty a good 30 years later). Already in 1963, the legal branch of the Community was recognizing the concept of a patrimony of rights being bestowed on individuals – describing it as becoming part of their “legal heritage”. For a long time this legal heritage was strictly tied to what could be termed as “economic rights”. The raison d’être of the Community still being forged around economic prosperity.

 

In 2003 two of Europe’s foremost philosophers – Jacques Derrida and Jurgen Habermas – co-signed an important article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (31 May 2003). The authors took their inspiration from a series of public demonstrations against the attack on Iraq (by the US backed by a number of EU states). Mass demonstrations were held in the main capitals and Derrida and Habermas stated that “The simultaneity of these overwhelming demonstrations – the largest since the end of the Second World War – may well, in hindsight, go down in history as a sign of the birth of a European public sphere”. In their analysis of this newborn phenomenon, the authors also examine the question of a “European identity”:

 

Until now, the functional imperatives for the construction of a common market and the Euro-zone have driven reforms. These driving forces are now exhausted. A transformative politics, which would demand that member states not just overcome obstacles for competitiveness but form a common will, must take recourse to the motives and attitudes of the citizens themselves. Majority decisions on highly consequential foreign policies can only expect acceptance assuming the solidarity of outnumbered minorities. But this presupposes a feeling of common political belonging on both sides. The population must so to speak “build up” their national identities and add to them a European dimension. What is already a fairly abstract form of civil solidarity, still confined to members of nation-states, must be extended to include the European citizens of other nations as well. (Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, ‘February 15, or What Binds Europe Together: Plea for a Common Foreign Policy, Beginning in Core Europe’, in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 31 May 2003.)

 

Fast-forward by ten years, past the Global Economic Crisis that managed to shake Europe at its core foundation. The people are back on the streets. Nationalism is on the rise and is an easy refuge for stirrers within the nation states. The demos in the states are less appreciative of the “add on” to their national dimension and are much the flames of self-preserving nationalism are much easier fanned. When battle lines are drawn – from London to Valletta – the talk is still the same: “Us vs Them”. National identity is not seen as a core of a much wider and wealthier “European Identity Heritage” but rather as an endangered species about to be engulfed by some European monster.

 

This is where Europeanism becomes an ideology present on multiple fronts. Those that are prepared to take up the baton of Europeanism are those that believe in a common political fate that is beneficial to each and every individual singled out by the court in Van Gend en Loos 50 years ago. The current debate on the sale of citizenship goes straight to the core of this new battlefield. Those who are prepared to defend and strengthen the concept of European citizenship fall on the Europeanist side of the battle lines. There is no space for traditional ideological demarcation lines – it has really become an issue of Europeanist vs non-Europeanist (with the core of the latter being the resurgence of the old nationalistic lines).

 

Europeanists face a daunting task. Theirs is the duty to convince that the time has come for the European demos to be treated as such. It is not simply a commitment to joining the club and then sitting back and reaping as many benefits without any worry about obligations. It is a commitment to develop a common European identity that can serve as a basis for improvement of the common wealth of all the Union’s citizens.

 

This raises the question of “European identity”. Only the consciousness of a shared political fate, and the prospect of a common future, can halt outvoted majorities from the obstruction of a majority will. The citizens of one nation must regard the citizens of another nation as fundamentally “one of us”. This desideratum leads to the question that so many skeptics have called attention to: are there historical experiences, traditions, and achievements offering European citizens the consciousness of a political fate that has been shared together, and that can be shaped together? An attractive, indeed an infectious “vision” for a future Europe will not emerge from thin air. At present it can arise only from the disquieting perception of perplexity. But it well can emerge from the difficulties of a situation into which we Europeans have been cast. And it must articulate itself not from out of the wild cacophony of a multi-vocal public sphere. If this theme has so far not even gotten on to the agenda, it is we intellectuals who have failed. (Habermas & Derrida, vide supra)

 

Derrida and Habermas were writing 10 years ago. The citizenship issue has been the elephant in the room for quite some time now. As has the issue of a defined and empowered “European Demos” beyond the nation (but part of) the nation state. Will this citizenship debate become the “difficult situation into which we Europeans have been cast”? Will it be the first domino that finally obliges the EU to take up a transformative politics that develops a common will empowered by citizens?

 

It is time for Europeanists to gain momentum. The call has been made and the moment must be grasped.

 

O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern lasst uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.
Freude!