Why Herman van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton are the right choices for EU top posts

Across Europe, the press has been quick to dwell on an apparent lack of star power possessed by the first European Council President elect, former Belgian Prime Minister Herman van Rompuy, and the new foreign policy supremo, former EU Trade Commissioner Catherine Ashton.
Who are they? This seems to be the overarching question amongst many commentators and EU experts, many of whom view European affairs too much as a sort of 21st century Kremlinology.

In the Soviet Union, Kremlinologists used official pictures to predict the rise and fall of Soviet leaders based on who stood next to whom during official parades on the Red Square. So when Tony Blair stood next to Nicolas Sarkozy at the latter’s UMP party congress in 2008, many Brussels-based neo-kremlinologists saw the former New Labour leader as the first President of Europe. Few seemed to care about the legal fact that the Lisbon Treaty, which would create the new EU top posts, did not provide for such a job as European President.

So when Herman van Rompuy met the press and pointed out that his position was that of President of the European Council, and not President of Europe, and his role was one of mediation amongst colleagues rather than self-promotion amongst the press, the latter seemed almost a little bit hurt. How could one care more about the subject matter than about appearance in today’s media age? Well, Herman van Rompuy seems to be successful in doing exactly this, bridging opposing views behind the scene in his native country Belgium. This country was about to fall apart when he took up office. Today it enjoys a relative stability in Belgian terms. As Council President, it will be for Herman van Rompuy to deploy his skills of quiet diplomacy amongst peers in the European Council, and history will judge him most favorably if he succeeds quietly behind the scenes.

Catherine Ashton, too, was both surprised and indeed a surprise candidate for the post as Vice President of the Commission and High Representative of Foreign Affairs. Yet just like Herman van Rompuy, Ms. Ashton carries a very solid track record once one scrapes off the media surface and one gets down to the subject matter. As Trade Commissioner, she held the arguably most powerful position in the European Commission after Mr. Barroso, and closed a trade deal with South Korea. This really matters, since failure on the trade deal with South Korea would have blocked any future trade deals the EU might now be on the track of signing with emerging powers such as India.

With the appointments of Mr. van Rompuy and Ms. Ashton, the political trend that top leaders should care more about appearance than results to be successful has been reversed at top EU level.
More than anything, this is a positive development, and it might even become an inspiration for a new sense of political seriousness in Europe.

It is the morning after the financial crisis; the first seeds of economic revival planted at emergency summits last winter now blossom in autumn. Yet on the horizon lays a real risk of new financial woes – inflation, long term unemployment and sluggish world recovery, all in the absence of a deal any time soon in the WTO Doha trade talks. In parallel, sense the prospect of a climate change nightmare.
At present, negotiations preparing the upcoming UN COP15 climate summit in Copenhagen are off track. Instead of a new global deal to succeed Kyoto, one could fear a cauchemar in Copenhagen in December.

The link between the economic crisis and the global climate change crisis is not universally recognized, and may seem opaque. Yet the hypothesis that 2008 saw both an economic and an environmental breaking point when the price of oil reached USD 147 is convincing. It has been put forward by economists and environmentalists such as Jeremy Rifkin and Thomas L. Friedman.

In 2008, oil prices rose to historical levels in response to increased demand from emerging countries such as India and China, whilst the size of future reserves is seen to be limited.
“Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand”, wrote recently Jeroen van der Veer, the company’s chief executive.

So if the economic and environmental crisises are linked, their solution might be linked too. Hence the case for linking two sets of multilateral negotiations currently off track – the WTO Doha trade talks and the UN climate negotiations. Indeed, on each of their separate tracks, both sets of talks are stalled partly for the same reasons.

The common denominator between the Doha and Copenhagen talks appears to be a twist between industrialized nations and emerging economies. Without all the nuances that are the nitty-gritty of current day multilateral negotiations, one might paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, the former US Secretary of Defense, and speak about a struggle between the Old and the New World on both trade and climate change, or the very nature of 21st century sustainable development.

Take the position of India; in the WTO talks, India put domestic farmers first and last summer just before the outbreak of the financial crisis trade talks broke down on a dispute between Delhi and Washington on safeguards for agricultural goods. In parallel, in the climate negotiations, India has adopted a hard line position, refusing to sign up to binding targets for CO2 reductions in order to safeguard its emerging industrial production. In both cases Delhi protects national interests, as any country would do. However, in the two examples, its sectoral special interests diverge significantly between agriculture and industry.

Striking a sustainable balance between agricultural and industrial interests in both emerging and developed countries could be at the heart of both a trade and a climate deal. In a game where all players would have to give and take in order to harvest the bigger prize of rapid sustainable development that both the Doha and Copenhagen talks promise to generate, the Old World might look toward agricultural concessions in return for binding targets of New World CO2 reductions.

The devil is in the detail, but success would set the 21st century more firmly on track for sustainable economic growth throughout the world.

The biggest economic crisis since the 1930s and the climate summit in Copenhagen in December are among the challenges for Sweden during its EU presidency. According to the Brussels based EU blogger Tobias Gräs, expectations are high that the Swedish can add stability and efficiency to the Union. Both values are in demand and needed to successfully steer through one of the most loaded and decisive political periods the Union has seen for a long time.

By Tejs Laustsen Jensen (www.needtoknow.dk)

The Czech presidency was marked by government crisis and the curious fact that the president of the presidency country is the most EU sceptical EU head of state. Inside the EU’s institutions, expectations are high that the Swedish presidency brings Scandinavian IKEA functionalism to Brussels, estimates euobserver.com blogger Tobias Gräs. He underlines that stable and competent leadership is needed at a time when a newly elected European Parliament and a new Commission are to settle in, whilst the question about the Lisbon treaty remains open.

“The EU is in a situation where all are waiting to see if Ireland accepts or rejects the Lisbon treaty. Such a situation makes it difficult for Sweden to move the EU out of this waiting position, until the treaty question will hopefully be resolved by October. At the same time, one has to remember that a new Commission does not only mean the designation of a Commission President and Commissioners from the Member States. It might also very well lead to a restructuring of Commission services, which in turn might also limit the speed of the EU and provide challenges for the Swedish presidency”, says Tobias Gräs.

In spite of the many institutional changes and the risk for a treaty meltdown in the event of an Irish no vote in October, Gräs estimates that Sweden stands a good chance to succeed with the presidency. Since the stated top priority for Sweden during the presidency is to reach an agreement at the Copenhagen climate summit in December, which the EU system is well prepared for. Also, the climate topic is directly linked with the other major challenge for the Swedish presidency, which is the continued handling of the economic crisis.

“It is true that the crisis has led to a rhetorical shift, with crisis and not climate being most widely referred to, also here in Brussels. However, when one takes a closer look at the initiatives that are underway in the EU system, it is striking that they have a whole lot to do with climate, and it is equally important that the economic crisis has not been used as a pretext to extend environmental deadlines or for downgrading climate priorities in other ways. Indeed the fact that the EU has held on to clear climate priorities gives Sweden a good starting point for the December summit.

Gräs also underlines that the EU needs to keep its climate priorities, since neither politically nor economically can the Union afford to downgrade in this field. The EU has a stated ambition to use the fight against climate change to create new green jobs.

“The West – in particular but unfortunately not only the US – is highly indebted and risks not being able to afford investments in the jobs of the future. Therefore the EU needs successful initiatives aimed at mitigating the effects of climate change as a means to secure further investments in research and development. Such investments in innovation and new technologies are needed in the medium term to bring the European economy forward, and in this respect Swedish achievements in the coming months and a positive outcome of COP15 are important. In particular, a global climate agreement might serve as a means to secure that money are allocated for enhanced research and development in the next financial perspective 2014 – 2020, says Gräs.

Hence there is a hope in Brussels that the Swedish EU presidency may end like a true IKEA fairy tale in which functionality and good ideas create a simple yet previously unseen success. When Sweden hands over the presidency on 1 January 2010 a new EU treaty might be in place, together with a new Commission, and the EU may have been a driving force behind a global climate deal in Copenhagen. It might also prove to be impossible to deal with all these challenges, and experience shows that the EU is subject to pressure both from the outside and from within. However, as Gräs points out the EU needs success. So maybe there is a chance that all the screws are actually in the pack when the Swedes take on the assembling of their IKEA presidency.

More: www.needtoknow.dk

Let me be the first to admit a fair bit of hypocrisy for there is no such thing as a red tartar steak from Ireland, and I enjoy it very much. Yet with climate change, world population growth and continued economic progress in emerging economies it might be time to start preparing for more poultry, Danish bacon and vegetables from the healthy part of the food pyramid. And they might all very well be genetically modified.

Picture a white and brown stripped cow on a sunny summer afternoon. Behind its big eyes it is hard to see a serious perpetrator of climate change. Yet according the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and its study on Livestock’s long shadow, in 2006 some 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions came from livestock, and cattle are by far the most serious emitters, due to the simple fact that they both eat a lot, and fart a lot.
Indeed, one kilo of methane is equivalent to 11 kilos of CO2. Add to this equation that one kilo of beef takes seven kilos of grain to produce, why today a third of the grain grown in the world is used to feed cattle, and that much of the new farm land that is required during this process was previously forest in places such as the Amazon. In the end, one ends up with a disturbingly convincing case for more responsible consumption of beef.
Moreover, with world population expected to increase by some 30 percent during the next 20 years towards 2030, and food patterns in emerging countries such as China and India giving more people the opportunity to diversify from rice it is difficult to imagine facing such challenges without also changing our diets.
Some might argue radical universal solutions such as a simple ‘bye bye beef’ approach. Yet, once again, mind the attractiveness of the red tartar steak and it seems unrealistic to successfully prescribe beef abstention. Indeed, even in India where Hindi religious taboos tell people not to eat beef, consumption is increasing alongside the country’s economic growth.

Instead, with food like with energy, one might think in terms of enhanced diversification of our diets towards less land and CO2 intensive meet products such as poultry and pork. Also, as some of the poorest countries in the world have to deal with some of the worst consequences of climate change it seems paramount to develop crops that are more resistant to extreme weather conditions that are caused by climate change such as draughts and floods.
Therefore the safe development and use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) beyond its current applications that are mostly designed for traditional industrial production, subject to dedicated scrutiny, heralds to be part of such a new diversified food mix, which might also include enhanced use of organic foods.

In Copenhagen in December, the world strives to secure a successor to the Kyoto agreement. The stakes are high, and hopes are high that a new deal might be within reach. Yet even if Copenhagen proves successful, the next decades provide formidable challenges for the world writ large. In such challenging times, we need to adapt both as societies and individually. Indeed, the world is in all our hands, and that is both a source for optimism, and its opposite.

Metal workers in the car industry, construction workers and migrants on temporary contracts were first in line to be hit by the current Great Recession. Factory closure and outsourcing is synonymous for unemployment among low skilled labour. In response, education and training are often prompted as means to mitigate social consequences of structural changes – and rightly so.
Yet as the world emerges into a new order beyond this current economic crisis, also Europe’s highly praised creative class might find itself exposed to a new sense of vulnerability – even in the face of renewed economic growth. The fall of the creative class is a real risk, if Europe fails to innovate before it is too late.

During the past decade, from 1999 to 2003 the creative class in Europe has been subject to formidable economic growth of some 19.7 percent, thereby exceeding the EU average by an impressive 12.3 percent. In a 2007 study on “The economy of culture in Europe” by the independent KEA consultancy for the European Commission, the economic impact of European creative industries was measured at some 2.5 percent of GDP – larger than more traditional industry sectors such as tobacco and food, or even the than flourishing real estate. Indeed, before the recession 5.3 million Europeans or 3.1 percent of the work force was employed in cultural and creative industries.

Yet fundamental structural challenges loom. As the world prepares to exit the recession, emerging economies such as India and China might succeed in picking up growth faster than more indebted countries in the West. Such a decoupling of economic fortunes will enable emerging economies to continue dedicated public investments in research and development (R&D) in a wide range of industry sectors where intellectual property rights are currently held by European or American companies. Indeed, for the first time since the first industrial revolution, we might see the progressive shaping of a new regime of more equality of knowledge in the world.

More equality of knowledge is not in itself a bad thing, in fact, in principle it is quite the contrary, and by all means emerging economies deserve our admiration when they succeed in developing their societies, sometimes from very difficult starting points.
Yet, by all means, such developments represent an unprecedented challenge to the creative class in Europe that during the past decade has flourished thanks to comparative advantages in terms of both capital, human capital, and intellectual property rights.

The creative class is dependent on continued innovation and investments to stay ahead on all of these accounts: Why hire a European architect, if his emerging market colleague masters new and more environmentally friendly building materials better, the intellectual property rights of which are held by his company, and the architect moreover is able to use such technical insights to develop more modern and creative forms?

In Europe, the Lisbon strategy’s target of investing 3 percent of GDP in R&D has yet to be achieved.
The prospect of more equality of knowledge in the world conveys a new sense of urgency in this respect.

Recently in Amsterdam, I walked where the old tram lines end in a district that was built in the 19th century. I had just gone about the narrow streets in the 17th century canal districts whose bending houses once held the financial centre of the world. My friend pointed out that between the two neighbouring districts the 18th century is missing in the Amsterdam skyline.
For a century following the take off of the first industrial revolution, the city had remained rich but stagnant in the face of a shift in trade routes and a shift in innovation and creativity.
So Amsterdam provides a convincing case for the importance of R&D investments. This is not a fairy-tale, yet it touches on the lives of millions of Europeans, within and about our creative class.

The world is confronted with three crises: The economic crisis; the energy crisis; and the impact of climate change. All are intertwined and their caurse and effects are reciprocal, according to Jeremy Rifkin, the American author of The European Dream. Recently in Prague he passed a stark message that we must take on the move towards a low carbon society within the next decade or risk “the end of civilization as we know it”.
So challenges are enormous and it falls within the remit of the next European Parliament to deal with a fair share of them. Against such a back drop, why is the sentiment I ain’t bothered leading in the polls prior to the 5-7 June vote?

It is often said about the European Parliament that it has gained much influence over time, yet election turnout has declined since 1979 and a recent Eurobarometer poll suggests that a mere 35 percent of the electorate bother to vote in June. Lack of press coverage of the Parliaments’ daily work is frequently cited as one explanation for this apparent influence-interest gap, whilst such low turnout is also politicized at times as part of the ongoing debate on the future of Europe.
Whilst mutually contradictory, such explanations have one common denominator: They provide for excuses for the majority which doesn’t vote, assuming that society is to blame.

Meanwhile, political scientists on both sides of the Atlantic have observed a decline of civic culture from the early 1960s to the present day. In Britain where turnout in June is predicted to be among the lowest levels in the EU, waning of traditional bonds such as social class, party and common nationality – and with them such old restraints as hierarchy and deference – have been singled out as explanatory elements in the tale of this decline.
Whilst turnout at national elections in Europe remains comparatively high, voter dissatisfaction has increased parallel to the decline of civic culture, and at lower levels of government, such as the regional level, turnout matches the European level in low numbers.

So I ain’t bothered  is gaining ground both within the EU’s Member States and at European level in the EU.
Therefore explanations that single out only European factors as elements generating the predicted low June turnout fail to grasp and to challenge the full scope of this decline of civic culture in Europe. 

See also Catherine Tate as Laureen: I ain’t bothered! Will she vote in June? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFWkJuPhApc

Soon the sun will set on the sixth European Parliament when on 5-7 June Europe goes to the polls in what is set to be the second largest expression of popular will on the planet. Meanwhile, the greatest vote on Earth is taking place right now in India, where until 13 May some 714 million people are electing 543 members of the parliament, the Lok Sabha.

So, whilst we all still remember Latika and Jamal from the Bollywood-meets-Hollywood European super production Slumdog millionaire, – the British movie received EUR 830,000 in support from the EU MEDIA programme – let’s ask in a ‘who wants to be a millionaire style’ question:
What can Europe learn from India about democracy?

A: Size is an impediment to democracy
B: Politics does not work if parliament is a mix of both ideological and national parties
C: You need one common language to meaningfully share a public debate
D: Democracy works everywhere if people care

India is a gigantic country, and with its 1.2 billion people it is the World’s second most populous nation after China. Together, the Lok Sabha and the European Parliament represent some 1.7 billion people, or more than a quarter of the world’s population. Yet India shows Europe that even such a large size is manageable. Indeed, when 543 politicians are able to represent 1.2 billion people in Delhi, odds are good that 736 MEPs may represent Europe’s 500 million citizens in Brussels.
So take away option A.

Continental politics differ from politics in the nation state, and it has been said about the European Parliament that the strongest divisions are not between the political left and right, but rather along national lines between MEPs representing sometimes diverging national interests. In a lively academic dispute, scholars such as Simon Hix of the London School of Economics have sought to prove this statement false, using statistical means such as EP voting records to argue that the European Parliament on most occasions votes along partisan lines. Yet, be this right or wrong, India shows us that continental partisan politics on the traditional left-right dimension are perfectly capable of coexisting with parties on a different dimension, representing local state, religious, or even minority interests. The common bipartisan image of India, fueled by the traditional competition between the centre-left Congress party, and the centre-right BJP Hindu nationalist party is likely to falter after the election. Indeed, the next Indian government, just like the current one, is predicted to be a coalition between one of the two big parties, and a winning majority of the other 1053 parties that contest the election.

Options C and D are left.
Language always heats up discussions, and in the past language diversity in India between the Hindi dominated North and southern languages such as Tamil fueled violent tensions, leading to predictions that the country would simply fall apart. 1967 The Times of London reported that Indians would soon vote in “the fourth – and surely last – general election”, amid internal division among states; “the great experiment of developing India within a democratic framework has failed” the paper concluded.
Yet such alarmist predictions did not materialize. Instead the language issue was dealt with by more extensive use of English, which alongside Hindi is now an official language and serves as a common means of communication across the subcontinent. At state level, a myriad of local languages persist with names such as Kokborok, Garo, and Jaintia amongst many others. In the old French colony of Pondicherry, people even speak Voltaire’s language to this day.
So Europe’s language diversity is not exceptional, although the EU does hold a record number of 23 official languages. In Europe as in India, English increasingly serves as a common means of communication across linguistic borderlines, whilst national languages show no sign of decline.

So Europe can learn from India that democracy works everywhere if people care about their right to vote and participate in the shaping of the directions future policies may take.
Across India, democracy is alive and well (not forgetting the challenges of poverty and terrorist threats), and reportedly, a dalit woman party leader from an untouchable caste might end up as the Kingmaker on 13 May.
Will Europeans follow the Indian example and vote on 5-7 June? Indeed we can, if people believe the correct million dollar answer is D.

See also: http://observatory.euronews.net/what-can-europe-learn-from-india-about-democracy

I’ll be on your side for ever more. Recall Led Zeppelin; 1969. Year one in the world post the student rebellion of 68. Yet this was at a time when only a year earlier Soviet tanks had ended the Prague Spring. A time when Europeans East and West were striving for change, but change was not shared evenly.
1969 – the first year also of the European Customs Union, and with it the beginning of a process that would lead to the creation of the Single Market. Essentially, a year which planted the seeds of the EU’s four freedoms, which are yet to be fully enjoyed by all Europeans: the free movement of goods, capital, services and the free movement of people.

Far from being technocratic, these freedoms represent solidarity amongst peoples. They have always been challenged on particular accounts, whilst cherished in principle.
In good times, and bad times, the EU has evolved as the four freedoms have matured from crisis to crisis, yet successfully on major accounts, successes such as the introduction of the Single Market in 1993, the adoption of the euro in 1999, and Erasmus student exchange since 1988. Because of these freedoms, Europe today is stronger and richer than ever before, and we are living the longest period of peace in recorded history.

Yet whilst every new day we enjoy the Spring of 2009, the horizon is full of challenges to the four freedoms. So now is the time to stand up in their support. In good times, we can afford to blame everything that is bad on Europe, and historically the EU has been a much beloved scapegoat for many national politicians finding it difficult to undertake tough yet necessary decisions at home.
However, in these times, blaming Europe for some of the impacts of the Great Recession carries seeds that historically have proved fertile at the worst of times.

The return of the notion of economic nationalism in Europe, and indeed across the world is a challenge which cannot be underestimated. Such sentiments speak to basic instincts in human nature, striving for security and protection, whilst projecting blame and responsibility on the “other”.

And the “other” foremost in the frontline right now is Europe’s migrant workers, regardless of the colour of their skin, regardless of their religious beliefs. People who give life to the EU’s four freedoms, who put faces on notions of workers mobility and intercultural dialogue by being mobile within Europe, sometimes crossing the very divide that separated the students in Paris and the tanks in Prague when Led Zeppelin first sang their tunes in 1969.
Such people will be blamed for taking other peoples’ jobs when times are tough, whilst the much more complex story about how mobility within Europe contributes to making all of us richer will be met by a more sceptical audience. Yet that does not make the latter story less true.

So in these times, we need solidarity and leadership to counter basic instincts. And we need to hear the voices of all those who still believe in the four freedoms.
…that’s what friends are for. And Europe needs friends to speak out and stand up for the Single Market right now.

In cyberspace, distance is more about knowledge and connections than about time and space. In less than a minute, online communication tools link the world from Europe to Australia and beyond, and words flow that in the past would have been priced heavily by phone providers and express mail services.

So when on a recent Saturday morning I was speaking via the net to a friend in Sydney, I was alerted about an Op-ed from the New York Times by the American author Thomas L. Friedman on the current financial crisis. The fact that the cost of the internet video call was zero, and its environmental impact fairly small, meant I both saved money and could be proud of my light carbon footprint.
Yet the low cost of getting Friedman’s article did not affect its value, which seemed high to me and made me reflect a fair bit that Saturday:

“What if the crisis of 2008 represents something much more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall — when Mother Nature and the market both said: ‘No more.’”

It always takes at least seven factors for a plane to crash I was told once by a retired air-captain when flying into Vager in the Faroe Islands, which is considered one of the most dangerous civilian airports in the world. The information was meant as comforting words, since the captain must have noticed a somehow disturbed look in my eyes when suddenly the Faroese mountains emerged very clearly out of the fog on the right hand side of the aircraft. It did comfort then, yet today the idea of the impact of multiple negative factors happening in tandem seems less comforting, when indeed it appears that both stock markets and icecaps are falling at the same time.

Recently in Copenhagen, news broke that the rise in sea levels is happening much faster than previously estimated by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. One of the reasons why such information appears now is the availability of much more precise data sets generated from satellite and ground based Earth Observation systems supported by the European Union, amongst others.
So this is the good news; rather than being presented with harsh facts in tandem when it might be too late and reality unveils itself from the fog, today we have an increasing capability to look ahead and hence navigate in advance.

Indeed, navigation towards sustainability takes place and the notion of green growth was part of the European stimulus package that emerged from the December European Council on the financial crisis. Also, reinforcing the Lisbon strategy means reiterating the commitment to spend at least three percent of GDP on science and innovation, which is at the heart of any sustainable growth strategy.

So there is plenty of reason for hope that is fueled by knowledge, which is more easily shared, breaking down distances, and connecting people and ideas.
All we need right now is an equally plentiful amount of green growth.

It was one of those spring days embedded with latent energy back in Warsaw in 2005 when our professor, Bronislaw Geremek, facing his students from the podium of his chair in European civilization stretched his eyes and said: “And when you are in Brussels, and it is late in the day, and you are dealing with some technical detail of a regulation or a decision, never forget that Europe, elle est quand même, merveilleuse!”
This was a man who had survived the holocaust in his native Poland, embraced communism in his youth, but for whom enlightenment meant freedom of all peoples and ideas, and a constant strive for peace in Europe – Geremek was imprisoned with Walesa in 1981 and represented Solidarity at the Round Table talks which gave birth to democracy in 1989. In a sense he – a historian by profession – opposed Europe’s demons in all their forms throughout time, whether they took the forms of crusades or pogroms or ethnic cleansing or aggressive nationalisms, whilst refusing to believe that these sentiments would ever go away.
Europe is Europe for better and for worse.
Once again the great clock of history is moving and Europe, and the rest of the world, is faced with a Great Recession, which might make 2009 one of those years future historians will take reference to, for better or for worse, depending on how policies are designed to exit the current financial crisis, and avoid that it develops into a political crisis of unknown proportions.
Against this backdrop, recent months have provided for a renaissance for pessimisms of all kinds, and often, unfortunately, with good reason. The danger is that such dark prophesies might be self-fulfilling.
In his blog, Nicu Popescu has asked if the EU is a mistake of history, a post modern moment in a dark Hobbesian world, which is bound to fail, in 50 or 300 years. Popescu says yes. Perhaps because he was too optimistic on the part of some post-modern utopian idea in the first place: Remember Geremek, one might oppose troublesome sentiments, but they will never go away.
On a similar note, yet from a somewhat different angle, Bruno Waterfield has in his blog suggested that the current financial crisis might spark a need to start thinking about life beyond the EU, comparing European solutions to today’s challenges to 30s style protectionism.
Recall Mark Twain: “Rumors about my death have been greatly exaggerated.” Fortunately this statement also applies to the EU.
Today more than ever, consolidated European solutions are in demand as the world struggles to find a way out of the current economic crisis. Quoting IMF, more coordination is needed, not less. In Europe, the internal market might be the single most important force against 1930s style protectionism. Yet Europe also needs to set a progressive and future oriented agenda that will secure European competitiveness and values in the longer term.
Recently I was inspired by a “Brussels debate” debate set in the context of the 2009 European Year of Creativity and Innovation. Confronted with the challenge of this Great Recession, participants argued that this crisis should also be used as an opportunity to take Europe forward toward the 21^st century knowledge society, further unlashing Europe’s creative and innovative potential.
More investments are needed in research and innovation at all levels of government and governance in Europe, as well as in the private sector. And who should pay?
Maria João Rodrigues is Professor of Economics at the University of Lisbon, and she makes the case for Eurobonds as a means to further enhance the economic potential of joint European investments. Such bonds might generate capital investments directly from the citizens, financing cross-border projects in Europe. What an innovative, and creative idea.