Archive for the 'Διεθνής πολιτική' Category

Shall we wave a flag?

According to the words of the European Commission’s Vice- President, Margot Wallstrom, we shall not. In her message for the Europe Day (May 9) the EU is conceived as an institution that “doesn’t do passion” and this feature is presented to be a success. There can be no doubt, that currently the majority of the European citizens have neutral emotions towards the EU. What we do doubt is that the EU can exist as a strong entity without invoking positive emotions among its citizens.

It is widely known that the EU technocrats approach their tasks in a bureaucratic, almost beyond-politics manner. For the EU is a child of modernity and the neo-liberal consensus of the last decades, views politics in their rational dimension and ignores their affective aspects. But, as has been shown during the course of the time to the 21st century, politics do include affective aspects. They are still conditioned by “love and hate” (or for those who prefer by the “Eros and Death” twins). Moreover, the emotional factors play a major role in the formation of any political entity and the bonds connecting its constituents members. It is these factors that create a collective identity which  ties each member to the whole and ensures his or her support to the community.

Until now the European Union has failed to generate such an identity. The bureaucratic nature of its administration combined with the democratic deficit that characterizes its politics, make people feel that the EU is not relevant to them and their everyday lives. However, if the European countries are to carry their cooperation further, sooner or later they will have to invest in a common identity.

Rational arguments were strong enough to keep European cooperation going during the prosperous post-war era, and to carry it through the various economic crises that took place during this period. But back then, the size of the Union and the range of its politics were still restricted. In the 27 member EU, the divergences between in national interests and culture are increased manifold; it will continuously be harder to come up with policies that satisfy the citizens of all member states at the same time. Furthermore, nowadays the EU dictates a wide range of the member states’  the national politics. Its jurisdiction is not restricted to the ordinary, “boring things” of the past, and with policies extending from market regulation to health and educational issues, it influences important aspects of people’s daily lives. Margaret Walstrom, asserted that people treat the EU “like the insulation of their house”, i.e. they care for it, but they do not constantly think about it. We think this is not entirely true. Because of the extended jurisdiction and responsibilities the EU is assuming, people are becoming aware of it. And they need to be involved and identify with the Union, in order for such far reaching policies to gain support and for consensus among so many states to be possible.

The EU already evokes emotive reactions. Like Wallstrom puts it, “A tiny minority detests it”. The extreme left and the extreme right condemn it for being a cruel, capitalistic instrument. Even worse,  to them, membership in it implies a devastating loss of national sovereignty. This kind of perspective includes a highly emotional substratum and cannot be confronted with pure economic jargon. People need to feel that they are part of the EU and that the European vision regards them as real people, with real needs. In an economic crisis, societies are polarized and radicalized and the mainstream is weakened. This could very well lead to disintegration – and we should all be well aware that Europe has been through that on numerous occasions in its long history.

To be sure, we are far from seeing dictators back in power; and we will probably get through the  current financial crisis, without a major political crisis such as the one described above. But we never know when an a number of factors can converge to create a severe crisis which could jeopardise the coherence of the EU. There are many within the most powerful states of the Union wondering about how long will richer countries with sound economies continue to drag along those lacking behind. An intensified crisis could very well lead member-states to put their national interest above all other considerations, and only few europeans would be  disposed to make sacrifices for the distant and and ”subsidiary” EU.

Due to its history and experience, Europe can be a sober power for peace, economic growth, and political development. The EU is a fundamentally collective entity, drawing strength from  cooperation among the member states. Thus the EU shall wave a flag inviting its people to identify with it and ensuring its coherence.

“The Economist” on Cyprus

An article on Cyprus appeared on the Economist, on 23/04/09. The article can be found following this link, and it is worth a read.

We enjoy the Economist. It is a generally balanced publication, and its reporting most of the time is accurate. But articles like this disappoint for their blunt, and shameless, one might add, one-sidedness. Conspicuous in this article is the absence of even a minimal exposition of the Greek-Cypriot side – which, after all, represents the vast majority on the island.

Reading the piece, one immediately recognizes that its underlying assumption is that Cyprus is keeping Turkey from joining the EU, by sabotaging accession talks. To begin with, we do not see why Cyprus, 36% of whose territory is occupied by a foreign power, Turkey, should let that power join a community of nations to which it belongs without setting the most strict preconditions. Bear in mind that the Turkish invasion and occupation is illegal by international law, and international courts have ruled in favor of Cyprus. Another, minimum precondition would be Cyprus’ own recognition. Yes, Turkey has not recognized the Cypriot Republic, an EU member. This has a host of anomalous implications, contrary to the very spirit of political and economic cooperation that lies at the foundations of the EU: for example, Cypriot ships are not allowed to sail to Turkey, free movement of persons and goods is hindered, trade relations are not developed etc. Turkey must fulfill its full obligations to all members of the EU. Cyprus already does.

Second, Turkey has a lot of serious and exigent problems in a number of sectors, other than its relations with Cyprus, that keep it from joining: its human rights record, social and economic development, military domination of civilian affairs, the treatment of Kurds are some among many.

Third, the article paints the Cypriots in a very bleak image because they rejected the Anan reunification plan. The Anan plan was rejected because it did not allow Cypriot citizens to return to their hometowns and get their properties back. Hometowns from which they were expelled, and properties from which they had been forcefully removed. Worse, Turkish-Cypriots are now illegally selling these properties to foreigners – an illegal activity, ruled a top EU court. The plan also allowed Turkish bases to remain on the island. It made no mention of the Turkish emigrants, which Turkey has been illegally shipping to the island in the hundreds of thousands (they are currently estimated to be between 150.000 and 160.000) to alter the demographic balance and present a fait accompli in negotiations for reunification. And it also divided power equally between the two communities, when Greek-Cypriots are the overwhelming majority, 90%, on the island. This very notion, we think, is contrary to any notion of proportionally representative government. Under these circumstances, rejection was forthcoming, and welcome, we may add.

Lastly, we don’t see why Turkey should be let into the EU without stringent rules before joining. The European Union is already fatigued from enlargement, and concerned as we are for its preservation, we don’t want to see it taking rash steps. For this, Cyprus is not to blame. Having said that, it is very clear that the British government does not wish to see a closer and more perfect union in Europe. It is thus, willing to admit Turkey into the club, precisely because it will weaken Europe politically and only expand the common European market. The fact that Cyprus has traditionally been a nice place for British military bases, which the Turkish-Cypriot side is most eager to provide, only makes Cyprus fit into this grand scheme more neatly.

We respect the Turkish and British pursuit of national interest. That is, after all, every state’s raison d’etre: the right and duty to pursue its national interest in the international arena. What we did expect is that the Economist would do its own research before expounding something that sounds like standard British government policy. And until a truly balanced compromise is reached, that will address the concerns of both sides in equal measure, the Greek-Cypriots have a right to reject any solution prejudicial to their interests.

PostScript: An Emerging Balance of Power

A while back, we wrote about the emerging balance of power between Russia and the US, and its consequences for Europe and the Middle East. We predicted that a new accommodation would be reached in Europe, whereby the US would abandon its missile defense plans, in exchange for Russian cooperation in the Middle East. This week, The New York Times reports that Obama had sent out a letter to Medvedev, proposing an agreement along these lines. As mentioned in the NYT article:

News broke on Monday that President Obama had sent Russia’s president, Dmitri Medvedev, a secret letter in January raising the possibility of a deal — the United States might abandon its plan to build a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Russia would help end the Iranian efforts toward nuclear weapons.

The Christian Science Monitor also reports in an article that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is seeking an agreement to for nuclear arms reduction, a proposal welcomed by the Russian government:

The world’s two major nuclear weapons states are preparing to stage a public spectacle not seen since the peak of the cold war: full scale negotiations for a new deal to slash their still-bloated arsenals of offensive strategic arms.

It seems that the new policy is being set in motion…