The European Question

What the European Union faces now is not a crisis over the issue of its very existence – the  EU had learned how to steer safe of dangerous waters of controversial issues. However, such navigation will not take it to meet the challenge across the Atlantic. What the European Union faces now is a crisis of legitimacy, best reflected in the lack of democratic rules in the Union’s endeavors. I argue that the best, and indeed, only way for the EU to play an important role in the world is to adopt the concept of two-speed Europe.

On the surface the EU looks democratic. The members of the Parliament are elected in equal elections throughout the EU, chosen in varying numbers in accordance to the given country’s population. There is an independent judiciary (surprisingly independent given the often-cited Franco-German pressures), which in matters regulated or overseen by the EU, maintains the final voice for European citizens who feel that their rights are either abridged or denied. There is no clear executive, with power oscillating between the commissioners, presidency countries, and other officers, yet it seems to work fine even in these conditions.

Where does the crisis of the EU finds its roots? The single most critical impediment to the development of the Union stems from the gargantuan number of opinions, ideals, and views clashing each day in Brussels and Strasbourg, some questioning the simplest issues of the day, and some the core foundations of the Union. The Founding Fathers in America understood they could not attain political stability and effective leadership with so much, what they referred to as, “faction”. In order to prevent that they did the only thing they could to preserve the Union: they deferred much power to the states, with just a few areas where the federal government was to take lead, namely, for example in common defense, interstate commerce, and making sure Americans in every state are protected like citizens in other states (later especially, equal rights).

How is that relevant to the EU? “Faction” and unclear responsibilities cloud and distort the image of the EU in minds of most Europeans who see EU responsible only for cheaper abroad text messaging and restrictions to the shapes of cucumbers.

The only way to re-legitimize the EU and make it move forward is to adopt the two-speed Europe concept. It holds that Europe should have its “core”, which will be integrating faster than the other countries, which for one reason or another would not like to integrate further. Now we have a situation in which one country can block the decision of all the other 24 states, as was shown with the rejection of the Constitution by France and Belgium, and more recently, by failing to ratify the new treaty by Ireland. This is probably the most undemocratic measure of seemingly democratic governmental action in the world. All precedents in history where unanimity was the manner of business failed miserably. Now we have a situation where citizens of Spain suffer from the decisions of the Irish, who do not wish to integrate. It is as absurd for the other side – why would the Irish integrate just because Spain is integrating? This blade cuts both ways, the willing and unwilling, in the end leaving both disgruntled (Ireland is repeatedly being pushed to integrate). It is almost authoritarian. No wonder conservatives see the EU as another Soviet Union, there are reasons for that.

It has to be established that Ireland is free to stay at the right lane of integration if she wants, there has to be liberty for her, as for the states who wish to come together more effectively. Two-speed Europe means democracy. Freedom to select in which lane the country is going to go on is a inalienable right of its elected leaders. If a “core” Europe develops, it’s going to be able to address critical issues of energy independence, in order to be free to make good foreign policy, and of a European army, an area where Europe will continue to lag behind the US and be disregarded as a less important partner if it does consolidate its military budget. In my opinion, these are the most important issues facing the EU. The core will have an independent budget of the other nations, and the countries in it will receive a more generous share of each other’s money, while the “outlying” countries will have to do with what they themselves contribute. No one if forced to anything, there is no tyranny. Each member state integrates at a level it finds necessary. In a long run, the “core” Europe, if successful, will be able to lure other of its members into its “core”, thus expanding more naturally than it does not where many countries admitted are hardly ready to be in the EU (the issue of deputies in Brussels who are staunchly against the EU, and at the same time take out generous pensions and privileges is a philosophical conundrum).

The Union has to be legitimate in order to establish its position in a world that is calling for international unity by being an exemplar of cooperation. In order for that to happen, though, it has to become democratic first. Without democracy, there is no legitimacy.

The Making of History

Today is not the end of racism, but yet another day of the struggle for equal rights. It is unlikely that the choosing of an African-American will alter in any major way the views of people on affirmative action. Harlem is the same today as it was 2 days ago, so is east DC.

Unfavorable political commentators like to pinpoint the mass effect of Obamamania and attribute it to this sweeping victory. No doubt the main cause of Obama’s victory was his perfectly planned political campaign. It is, however, foolish to say that all these Obama supporters crying the tears of joy have no idea about his stance on issues or that they “don’t know who Obama really is” (whatever that means). Even the less gladiatorial voters who decided to vote for Obama voted for him not because of Obama girl or because of the aggressive mass media campaign. These small-town voters, just like the ones who voted for McCain, gathered what limited knowledge of the candidates they had and cast their votes. In addition, it is aggravating to hear from cynical pundits that Obama supporters see him as a Messiah, or that they know he will heal all the plagues that roam between the marble buildings of the Mall. These people know that tough times are ahead of America and know there will be setbacks, just as Obama admitted in his first speech as president-elect. Obama’s force does not come from his nebulous message for hope, but rather from his strikingly clear honesty and moderation, qualities without which even the biggest number of leaflets would not mean anything. Hope is just a buzzword for these qualities that landed in the dirt during the last decade.

What do these elections resonate with around the world? The most remarkable feature is the elevation of an ethnic minority representative to the highest office in the land. America has proved that it stands by its ideals. Can anyone imagine an Arab as the president of France? Or, a Hindu as the PM of United Kingdom? I thought so. Here lies the the real measure of the often cited European liberalism – Europe is lagging possibly decades in such a development bringing to mind the question whether racism in Europe is not more prominent than in the States.

I do not think Europe is “racist”, but I do think that the American sense of the opposite revolves around the framework of a different semantic field. “Tolerant” in the States connotes not only “tolerance” – cohabitation, mutual respect, or judicial protection. In America, it also means shared responsibilities, working together, and, above all, being equally American – things European leaders are silent if not hostile to. European political elites have to start acknowledging that difference and looking at America as a guide. It can be said that African-Americans played an important role since day one of the Union, in a more or less favorable context, and that in Europe it was not so. Not until the 1950s and 1960s did European countries receive an influx of ethnic minorities after the respective empires shattered to pieces. That is all true, the context is different, but I do believe that in the XXI century context becomes less important to the political discourse than in the past due to the relativization of borders and regions and to the culture of information. The only way for a great paradigmatic shift to take place in Europe is to start looking at the US as a ground for not only of equal opportunity, but of cooperation in advancing the state’s interests. The stereotype of the US as a racist place is delusional at best. Sure, many Americans would not elect a president because of his race, but is that really better than the situation where ethnic minorities across the Atlantic are held under a glass ceiling to even enter the political arena of representation, even if proportionate to their numbers?

I wish Obama good luck and I am sure the American people will do everything to help him in office. As to McCain, I applaud him for the very sincere and generous post-defeat speech. McCain remains a person of great personal standards and I deeply believe that all the controversies he cause during the election were faults of his campaign managers and his not so deferential VP pick.