The EU likes to think of itself as post-modern. The superior embodiment of soft-power and post-national politics, where interdependence and the pooling of sovereignty makes it possible to move beyond decades and centuries of animosities, conflicts, and narrow state interests. The EU clearly achieved that. But the bigger question is whether the EU as an experiment is indeed a qualitative change of international politics that will affect the course of history, or just a temporary experiment.
Many Russians I spoke to think the EU is only a temporary phenomenon. L’exception qui fait la règle. When this experiment will fail, everything will return to “normal”: power politics, “concert of europe”-style diplomacy, inequality of states, spheres of influence, and interests, not values, as the driving forces behind international politics. Their relations with many EU member states only reinforce this belief.
I also assume that such scepticism is quite wide-spread throughout the world. The EU as a project has to unconfirm history. I am sure the EU, as such, is a temporary phenomenon. It will dissapear – in 50 or 300 years. The bigger question is whether the “EU way of doing things”, its “post-modernity” as a successful experiment will survive, be exported to other regions and change international politics as we knew it. Will EU’s post-modernity survive beyond the EU, a bit like ancient greek philosophy, or roman law survived ancient greece and the roman empire. No one knows whether the EU will change the course of history and the way international politics will be done in the future, but we better realise it is an uphill struggle.
#1 by Peter Nayland Kust on February 18, 2009 - 2:13 am
Is the EU a mistake of history? No, although it may be a mistaken interpretation of history. The goals of interdependence and interlocking economies may succeed in eliminating much of the “normal” (historical?) competition among nations, but the natural variations in degrees of economic success in such an arrangement can foster their own forms of envy, animosity, and divisiveness. Unless the EU can address these concerns in the current economic climate, it may very well end up a failed geopolitical experiment.
#2 by Andrew Rettman on February 18, 2009 - 3:04 am
Nice to see you looking back from 300 years in the future, Nicu. What else do you see? Have the glaciers grown back? Is the rush-hour traffic in Brussels still a nightmare? Perhaps those Russians you spoke to have melancholy, Hobbesian assumptions about human nature. It must be comforting if you live in a brutal kleptocracy to think that it is in some way a realistic, honest way of life. A 50 or 100-year long gap in warfare or dictatorship in Europe would already be a welcome achievement. If the EU is to live on only as political theory on the analogy of Greek philosophy, it had better hire some good writers. The mumblings of a Ferrero-Waldner are some way off the poetry of Plato’s Republic.
#3 by Bojan Petrovski on February 18, 2009 - 7:28 am
If the EU is to disappear in “50 or 300 years” and we go back to power politics then the only relevant question left would be not whether we manage to destroy ourselves and the rest of the world, but by which means we are to achieve it – environmental change, nuclear war or something else.
#4 by Eduardo Ereño on February 18, 2009 - 11:00 am
Post-modern is not only the EU project but also the minds of the people underpinning it. It would be, I guess, impossible to the Erasmus generations (which I am part of) to get back to the paradigm of Nation-State and to question the moral validity of a Farewell-to-Arms civilisation (bearing in mind that conscription is now banned from most EU countries). And, Andrew Rettman, may God, if any, or Providence or Contingency prevent us from Plato’s Republic model. For all its poetic language, the Republic is about individual submission to an overarching harmony of society. We know all to well what this sounds like.
#5 by Massimo on February 18, 2009 - 2:17 pm
It could be, but it depends on Europeans. We need to make the final step towards a European federation this will show it was not a mistake and that it is possible to face problems together. If we are not able to make this step than we might go back to national states. But with this old nationalisms will revive with all their horrors.
#6 by Stamatis on February 18, 2009 - 4:14 pm
A less provocative title would be nice for a post whose only use is to tell us what some Russians think of the EU.
#7 by Eurojunkie on February 18, 2009 - 5:25 pm
Struggling with the logic. If the EU is “L’exception qui fait la règle,” then, it could definitively be more than a temporary phenomenon.
#8 by Lucian on February 18, 2009 - 6:53 pm
Powerful beginning for your new blog – my congratulations dear Nicu, and please continue shaking our system of beliefs. Yes, I do agree with Andrew, that a 50 years gap of dictatorship in Western Europe is already an achievement; with Bojan, that our most important decision as a species is how will we choose to be destroyed; and with Eduardo, that the minds of new Europeans started to change. Unfortunately, that is not enough – just have a look at how European affairs are dealt with in Brussels by our national representatives.
My question to Nicu would be, what can we Europeans do to prevent this “post-modern” spirit to fade away? Internally, the EU seems stuck on the crucial issue of making real its internal market. Externally, my opinion is that the EU has to prove its ability to use hard-power instruments, instead of its regular fluffy talk-shops.
In any case Nicu, if you’re bent on challenging EU myths
I would also like to hear your opinion on how the EU has evolved from its humble and technical childhood (up till the fall of the Soviet empire – is that a coincidence?) to the behemoth of today.
#9 by Octav on February 19, 2009 - 8:39 am
I am curious to know what will remain of EU “postmodernism” once NATO leaves Europe?
#10 by Alexis Kuhl on February 19, 2009 - 2:27 pm
The real “mistake” of history is to take the constructed fiction of the nation-state for granted.
Nor is the EU an “exception” but rather a model of macro regional cooperation for the rest of the globe. Genuinely a step forward in history in spite of what state-centred sceptics or other backward thinking conservatives might believe.
Nevertheless, just a step forward since the ultimate objective of the development of social structures is World Order.
#11 by Nicu Popescu on February 19, 2009 - 2:30 pm
Andrew: I don’t see anything in the future. I just see quite a lot of hubristic complacence in the EU now: on its soft power, the deterministic belief that interdependence and prosperity will almost inevitably lead to a more EU-like world, a deterministic attitude to change, and a focus on the long-term which becomes an excuse to under-deliver in the short term.
on good writers: we have Robert Cooper
Eduardo, my fear is that many people underpinning the project are not that post-modern. And the Erasmus generation exists only in the EU.
Stamatis: well, knowing what others think of you is often a good reality check… and the title reflects the subject of the post.
Lucian: i guess it will slowly move into less existential, and narrower staff related to the neighbours…
On your question: maybe we can. I don’t think it is only an issue of hard power. It is also about preserving EU’s soft power, which is not unchallenged in the neighbourhood.
On the technical EU during the cold war… i actually think that the same technical, gradualist, incremental, low-profile approach still persists in most areas. even in foreign policy. just look at the list of EU missions: border management, security sector reform, police missions, rule f law missions. all are as depoliticised as possible. When it comes to the highly politicised stuff (like peace-keeping in Lebanon or stopping the Russian-Georgian war, the EU is usually pushed aside). the EU still tries to reproduce its low-profile, technical, approach to very political issues… not sure how well it works.
#12 by Nicu Popescu on February 19, 2009 - 2:38 pm
Alex, I don’t beat you on philosophy, nor euro-optimism
fair point on nation states. but violence and raw power as the main instrument of international politics – have existed before the “constructed” nation state. so the EU is not just built in opposition to the nation-states, but to pretty much everything that was before it.
The EU as a model of global cooperation in the future. True. But just one of the models, that is in competition with the historical record for most of known history. the EU faces an uphill struggle in other words. and the good guys and good models do not necessarily always win. And I am not pessimistic about the EU at all. I also think it is a wonderful succes, that works and will influence human history. I simply say we tend to take for granted its “exportability” in space and time, and that will not come easy.
#13 by Alexis Kuhl on February 19, 2009 - 3:00 pm
Violence is indeed inherent to the nature of international politics but so are cooperation and commerce for that matter. I therefore do not agree that it is built in opposition to “everything that was before it”.
The nature of the beast, the EU, is however more than mere inter-national or inter-governmental as we are genuinely building a European public sphere (an identity?). It is an ongoing project, something under construction not a rigid system where the cause and effects are naively confused such as in the realist school of thought.
The EU is clearly not the only model available for global cooperation. Still it tends to be the most sucessful up to now. But true, just a model. Nevertheless, it is in the nature of this model to evolve and adapt so it leaves some room for optimism I’d say
#14 by Kestas on February 19, 2009 - 7:35 pm
I don’t think that Russians are the one who we have to take example from…
#15 by Rene C. Moya on February 20, 2009 - 2:17 am
I am sure the EU, as such, is a temporary phenomenon. It will dissapear – in 50 or 300 years.
Well I agree…only because all things must end, is it not the case?
It is nevertheless the case that not enough has been done by European state and European citizens to realise the potential of its citizens if they only truly step forward and give ‘ever closer union’ a chance.
Britons have much to blame here, and its elites too. No Briton who voted in the 1970s referendum to stay in the EC could rightly claim they didn’t know what they were signing up to. ‘Ever closer union’ was a part of the Treaty of Rome: political integration of some sort was always a part of the project. That is what Winston Churchill himself envisaged–in a federalist guise, to boot–when he called for a United States of Europe. And even though he initially thought Britain didn’t need the EC because of its Empire and Commonwealth–neither of which Britain has in any real sense any more–he seemed to shift away from this view once he was out of power in 1945.
Whatever those truths, Britons have become progressively less interested in Europe and its political and cultural processes (whilst they are daily bombarded by goings-on in America, 2800 miles away) and more sceptical of European integration as a result. It is a lie that they are less pro-Europe because they ‘now know’ about it; quite the contrary–it is their almost complete ignorance of EU efforts, and of their government’s intransigence to work with its European allies, what informs their ‘Euroscepticism.’ Alas, they are right to be sceptical: they have been kept in the dark, despite the EU’s best efforts, about anything the EU does and anything the EU tries to do, and indeed of what the EU itself is. Meanwhile, the BBC dedicates a full hour late at night called ‘BBC America’–news about, quelle surprise, America! The Guardian’s United States section (which, on its website, has its own tab SEPARATE from the International tab; a little odd, no?) is kept bristling with updates, whilst its section on the European Union, or indeed Europe in general, receives infinitely less prominence. And this, from Britain’s ‘least pro-American’ paper.
I am an American, and I am not suggesting Britain become anti-American; but as a young American who has lived in Britain for some time now, I can tell you how strange it is to hear British commentators bang on about the necessity not to be anti-American–which I rarely see demonstrated; indeed, Britons practically salivate over news from and about America, its celebrities, its politics–whilst generally ignoring Europe, European politics, European culture and (increasingly) not learning European languages.
If the EU fails at its periphery, it will not be because Europe is too parochial; it will fail because Britain cannot let go of its intense gaze on America. Call it a rather sad case of inferiority complex vis-à-vis the US, as I do. Whatever it is, it is counterproductive to European interests; counterproductive to UK interests, as a law-abiding, internationalist European power; and on the global outlook of Britons themselves.
Knowledge of America is not knowledge of the world, Britons…especially not when you fail to understand, or willfully choose to ignore, the histories, languages, cultures and current affairs of your closest neighbours and allies, countries which–despite British protestations–have much more in common than meet the eye, and in which in any case share much more with each other than they often do with the US.
The British media–shrill, tone-deaf, infatuated–and the craven political elite, who have done nothing to inform their citizens, are to blame here. How can it be otherwise, when the British media often lapse into such foolish turns of phrase as ‘Britain and Europe’–as if they were distinct geographical, or even political, entities? Why put so much faith on the transatlantic relationship–one which, BELIEVE ME, Americans on the street-level put infinitely less emphasis on, indeed many don’t even know it’s supposedly ‘special’ to begin with, and many whom are (understandably) rather ignorant of modern British/European life. Why ignore–and when not ignoring, denigrate and berate–fellow Europeans, and their politics? Don’t believe me: take look at any right-wing paper in the UK, take your pick–the Telegraph, or any of the tabloids. And the leftist papers aren’t any better: their silence on most European issues is defining.
#16 by Rene C. Moya on February 20, 2009 - 2:20 am
PS I should also mention how the BBC even shows a late-night broadcast of America’s ABC News. Before anyone says anything about language being the reason: bollocks. Euronews manages to report in at least 5 languages, and it has much broader–less parochial–world news on offer than does BBC News (24) these days. Couldn’t the BBC find it in itself to dedicate a full hour in primetime to world news alone? Or–horror!–on European press perspectives from elsewhere in Europe? Like a press digest from Europe?
#17 by Bart Van Vooren on February 20, 2009 - 9:19 am
I am a convinced Europhile and refuse to accept that the EU would only be a temporary experiment, a spat of brief calm in the history of a tumultuous continent. Since I’m no philosopher and only superficially acquinted with the writings of Habermas and the like, this rather emotional connection is based simply on the experiences of my grandfather/godfather. Now 91, he fought through the whole 28 days of the Belgian army’s futile struggle against Germany. Being taken POW he was one of the lucky ones, and he and those who fell beside him care little about postmodernism/soft power/ and the like. All I remember is that in May 2004, he and my grandmother opened a good bottle of wine to celebrate the big-bang enlargement of the EU. Keeping this in mind, I will do all that I can to take further this project in what you rightly call an uphill struggle. Like yourself a student of the European neighbourhood policy, when the EU rhetoric states that it seeks to establish an area of prosperity and stability through its own rationale of economic integration, I do actually believe in that.
#18 by Nicu Popescu on February 20, 2009 - 11:03 am
Kestas, no one makes Russia an example. But they (as well as many others outside the EU) raise a legitimate question about the EU. It is up to the EU to prove they are wrong to believe the EU is a mistake of history.
Rene, fair enough. But I also think that accepting whatever is on offer in Brussels and then having a really bad record of implementation, is as bad as being sceptical about new areas of integration. The UK is a usual scapegoat, but if you look at the Commission’s efforts to push for a better functioning, integrated, and liberalised single energy market – then you will that quite a number of champions of European integration are not than keen. Also see this news where Denmark, not a gung ho euro-integrationist, actually has the best implementation record of single market rules. while many EU states with a much better image of “pro-Europeanness” score pretty bad when it comes to actions, not statements.
Bart, you are right. but I am not sure the new generations of students, politicians, or journalists take for granted what you feel. Just look at attitudes do enlargement.
#19 by Irina S on February 20, 2009 - 1:13 pm
“Post-modernity” is just the most advanced and rather ideal political model, but this model is based on the limited state sovereignty what Russians just can not accept. Pre-condition for post-modern state in Europe is an end of political system based on the balance-of-power and the imperial urge proclaimed after 1989, as Robert Cooper put it. But lately Russia an opposite demonstrates its imperial urge and actively advocates return to the balance-of-power politics in Europe. There is an obvious ideological clash between Europe and Russia. From Russians point of view post-modernity, placing limits on state sovereignty is just a dangerous ideology of a new liberal imperialism, promoted against it by the West.
In fact in order to protect its national state stasis from a new liberal imperialism Russia proclaimed its “sovereign democracy” ideology. But Russia can not be quiet about its status quo as long as post-modern European Union model exists. Because of it existence it is difficult for Russia to apply its “divide and rule” strategy and spread its influence in Europe. In fact the idea “the EU is a mistake of history” is an export version of the Russia’s “sovereign democracy” ideology, which Russia promotes in the EU by all possible means. The less post-modern and united Europe is the bigger is Russian influence in the EU on the national states level.
“The EU is a mistake of history” is a kind of “thought-virus”, used by Russians as an ideological weapon against the EU unity. Usually this thought-virus is used in combination with anti-American and anti-NATO ones, which make part of the Russia’s ideological arsenal in its “psychological war” for Europe too.
The more Europeans doubt their values and Euro-Atlantic ties the more vulnerable and weak they are and the less attractive they are for the Eastern European neighbours, where Russia openly claims its dominance. In the context of clash of ideologies and interests of the EU and Russia ‘the uphill struggle’ is the right wording. The paradox here is lack of awareness from the European side – Russia is consciously fighting for promoting its interests and ideology in Europe (which are in contradiction to Europeans’ values and interests), but Europeans don’t fight as they are not aware of the fight. They just live in the post-modern world… Struggling against deepening of the EU Russia is struggling against its widening.
If Russians win the struggle and Europe will be back to “normal” “Realpolitik” (what is very likely if we have a look at what is happening in the European energy sector) I am sure, Nicu that in 50 or 300 years Europe will be back to post-modernity again.
#20 by Anthony Ratkov on February 21, 2009 - 1:21 am
Yes,the E.U. is a historical mistake. If you want to do some thinking about the E.U.,then think of this: Why wasn’t Canada asked to join the E.U.? They expect Turkey to join the E.U.,but not Canada? I’d rather see Canada as an E.U member,instead of Turkey. The Canadians are closer to being Europeans than the Turks will ever be.
#21 by Detlev Grau on February 21, 2009 - 10:03 pm
@Anthony Ratkov,
Where is Canada on your map, Mr.? Canada is slated to be part of the NAU, not the EU!
#22 by Kestas on February 22, 2009 - 12:28 am
Anthony, have Canada ever showed any interest of joining EU? You see, not EU is asking for someone to join but vice versa
#23 by Florian on February 23, 2009 - 5:46 pm
The author of the article says that the EU clearly achieved [the goal of freedom of movement]. With all due respect for the EUObserver, I will have to kindly disagree. maybe most of the Europeans today can move and relocate freely wherever they wish within the EU, but not the “little dogs” (namely Romanians like me, or Bulgarians). I feel that there are two different Europes within the EU and for this reason the system has already failed.
From my personal experience I can say that, even though I have an MBA degree from EDHEC (one of the top MBA schools in Europe), graduated “cum laude” from one of the top US colleges, and have extensive experience in finance in New York City, I don’t have one chance of getting even an interview for a job in Western Europe. I’ve seen former colleagues of mines from EDHEC with less qualifications get jobs (sometimes in finance without having any prior exposure to finance) at companies that would not even show me the coutesy of sending a reply to my application (that I’ve obviously invested time and effort into).
Europe today is as divided as it’s always been and I have no faith in its ability to ever unite. I gave up on hope for a better life in Europe long time ago when I decided to start a new “better” life in the US.
#24 by Florian on February 23, 2009 - 6:55 pm
@Rene C. Moya
hi Rene,
Could you please apply for Nicu’s job at the EU Observer? Your comment is so much better than the article itself. I would enjoy reading your articles very much.
#25 by Beatrix on February 24, 2009 - 10:00 pm
This year for the seventh time between the 4th and the 7th of July the European parliament will be elected. To many European citizens this seems to be the only way possible to take part in the political process. Still only few know that things have changed with the treaty of Lisbon.
The treaty’s article 11(4) says that every citizen’s group concerning Europe in entirety with a million or more votes has to be taken up in the political decision-making process.
It is important for me to share the knowledge that political participation in Europe is possible beyond political parties, especially since the European parliament will be elected this year. Europe-wide, direct, acitve votes for European citizens’ are possible.
Please notice the Link I found on an Austrian Website: http://www.we-change-europe.eu
#26 by come on guys on February 24, 2009 - 10:01 pm
The EU a “mistake of history”? If you dig deep enough into its origins, you’ll certainly see that it is. Bad enough that it’s thoroughly undemocratic (by design; look at the Council and Commission), but it’s also a springboard for the ambitions of its biggest economies.
And the implications of statements like “ever closer union” have even more dire implications, like the destruction of national identities. (The “social market economy” is written right into the treaties, remember; so it’s got Marxism “gene-spliced” in there.) Commission President Barroso already called the EU an “Empire”, so what does that tell you?
What of stuff like trial in absentia? That’s a de jure abandonment of the writ of habeas corpus, so you can be dragged out of your house or your job to serve a prison sentence in another country for an offence that you never got a chance to defend yourself against. The European Parliament voted yes to that last year. The same EP also killed the “opt-out” of the Working Time Directive (note: “directive” and “decree” are synonyms), so that will make people more state-dependent, i.e. at the federal level.
Wake up, guys. The EU is dead against your freedom and is trying to craft the false “European” identity to re-mould its member states’ population into. What is the source of such dogma, and where is it going to lead?
#27 by Bogdan on March 12, 2009 - 12:27 am
@ Eurojunkie
Very good ideea, well stated!
#28 by Wim Roffel on March 23, 2009 - 12:37 pm
Is the EU way of doing things really so good?
I would like to separate two things: big markets are there to stay for the simple reason that in many industries this is the scale of operation.
But should we really be so proud about Brussel’s backroom way of making policy? Or of its international equivalent (see the negotiations about the TRIPS and ACTA treaties). Rather than post-modern I would call it post-democratic. It is a system where interest groups determine what happens.
#29 by KruGer on March 25, 2009 - 11:21 pm
I see potential in my fellow Erasmus students getting drunk togeather night after night –afterall, it took 2000 years for religion to become obsolete and it’s been 200 years since the French revolution so maybe -in today’s fast paced world- we should wait another 1800 years before we kiss nationalism good bye; it’s soo last century:)
#30 by KruGer on March 25, 2009 - 11:24 pm
oops! “should NOT”…but I guess, you get my point anyways
#31 by Beatrix on March 31, 2009 - 9:44 pm
@ Beatrix
Oh sorry, there’s a mistake in my comment. The European parliament will be elected in June, not in July!
And votes are possible! https://www.we-change-europe.eu/votingtool/frontend.Initiatives/listCurrent.now?hl=en_US There all Europeans should vote yet! Because than Brussels get a overview how many Europeans wants to get involved in political decisions.
#32 by Buy to let mortgage on April 25, 2009 - 11:18 pm
Like you, I don’t believe that the EU will survive for centuries, even one. It is getting more difficult to control as it is now consists of so many different countries. EU countries have very different cultures and often very different economic backgrounds. The representation in the EU parliament which depends on population, doesn’t appeal to everyone and a number of languages spoken makes it quite difficult and expensive to run. It is becoming evident that some member states are more active than the others and contribution to its development is not quite equal. And yes it makes sense to listen to Russians, they can probably teach us a thing or two as they were part of the USSR, and we can probably learn something from their experience to avoid similar mistakes.
#33 by Michel Furst on August 30, 2009 - 7:17 pm
“No Briton who voted in the 1970s referendum to stay in the EC could rightly claim they didn’t know what they were signing up to.” [No15.Rene C Moya]
You are so badly misinformed it’s almost a shame to embarrass you. The British voted on a Common Market NOT a European Union. Even the names of these bodies are self-explanatory, such much so that I truly hope you are bright enough to need no further explanation.
#34 by Nicu Popescu on August 31, 2009 - 11:09 am
The question was: “Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?” Britons voted “Yes” in most of the 68 administrative counties, regions and Northern Ireland. Only Shetland and the Western Isles voted against the EEC.
The Conservatives were also campaigning to stay in the Common Market. Margaret Thatcher, elected Tory leader last February, said the “Yes” vote would not have happened without the Opposition’s support for it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/6/newsid_2499000/2499297.stm