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!
Facebook Comments Box

Tabloid-itis

tabloiditis_akkuza

Inevitably, the shift of the “Citizenship for Sale” controversy to the European Parliament has brought along with it a severe case of tabloid-itis to the Maltese discussion fora and social media. The British tabloid press is hugely responsible for a variety of EU myths and thrives on stoking anti-EU sentimentalism among the lesser informed throngs of the population. Malta, with its passionate partisan electorate, was never going to manage to avoid the pull of the fantastical baseless controversy.

As the European Parliament debate could have (might have) proven, the question of the value of European citizenship cannot remain confined to mentioning one or two countries that have initiated a rush on the gold standard worthy of Klondike in the 1890’s. The European Union still has to take the proverbial bull by the horns and (probably, hopefully) redefine the notion of citizenship- a crucial point in the definition of a demos that has hitherto only been loosely attempted at the various steps of Maastricht and Amsterdam. Nationalism being what it is, council meetings (or failed constitutional conventions) tend to treat the matter of nationality with gloves – and this also thanks to the huge backlashes in the tabloids that would occur should the Holy Grail of nationalistic sentiment be touched in some way.

On Citizenship, Traitors and Europeanism

Back to the tabloids though. We were treated in some papers to the idea of “traitors” – those dastardly nationalists doing the unthinkable in Europe. This should have nothing to do with “betraying one’s country” and much more to do with a concern for the future of the European Union and the benefits that it brings to every single member of its rather exclusive club. Concern that the values of the European Union are being diluted are not anti-nationalistic concerns if you are a Europeanist. A Europeanist wants a stronger Europe because he wants a stronger nation. A Europeanist sees a stronger Europe as a solution for his nation.

The other perspective on citizenship involves seeing the whole sale of passports business as some form of competition between individual states. In one fell swoop this perspective ignores the very package of rights and gains for citizens that have been obtained since the 50’s. Admittedly in fits and starts, admittedly not without huge margins for improvement but being an EU citizen in 2014 has much more value and rights and benefits than being, say, a BENELUX citizen in 1957. Seeing the issue solely as a market where every team plays ‘away’ and solely for its own interests is missing the point. Worse is the perspective that looks at Europe as an “us vs them” game.

On Myths

Malta was not the only nation that was “hanging its linen in public” so to speak. We did witness a vociferous exchange among two Portuguese MEP’s. These national rivalries are the collateral effect and should not be the focus at a European level. The focus should be on strengthening the EU citizenship – not, as some mistakenly supposed, via some Commission masterminded plan to overrun national sovereignty, but by the Member States themselves agreeing to redefine the concept of EU citizenship for their own benefit. Why? In order not to lose what they have achieved until now.

I received an email yesterday. Funny how some “myths” go viral just at the right time. This one was supposedly about the European Parliament and the laggards that work there. The title was simple “MUST SEE!”. Then it opened with a very typical Maltese English-ism: “Following are some of the reasons why you will vote next May  !”. Next we had these phrases: “European Parliament in session …..according to the time sheets all members are present….The reality is they all clocked-in in the morning and then went about their personal affairs !” followed by a series of pics that I will put into two sets for the sake of presentation.

First there was this pic of an empty EU Parliament.

European Parliament in session. These photos must be circulated… time and again and again.. ... PRODUCTIVITY AT THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT… THEIR SALARIES ARE 12,000 EUROS A MONTH !

European Parliament in session. These photos must be circulated… time and again and again.. …
PRODUCTIVITY AT THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT… THEIR SALARIES ARE 12,000 EUROS A MONTH !

Then there was series of pics under each of which was written simply €12,000. I put these pics together as a collage to make them easier to post. You’ll get the gist.

€12,000

€12,000

The email ended this way:

AND YOU, YOU HAVE TO WORK UNTIL YOU DROP
..
OF STRESS… UP TO THE AGE OF 60-65 OR OLDER !
THIS EMAIL MUST BE CIRCULATED once,
a hundred times,
a thousand times,
a million times !
These people above give directives,
to fill their pockets!
.
AND WE ARE FORCED TO VOTE FOR THEM
They’re not the dummies !
WE ARE!
DON’T HESITATE TO CIRCULATE THIS

Shocking isn’t it? There is only one problem. Apart from the first photo that could very well be a photo of the parliament building before a session starts or right after it ends, all the other photos are not of the European Parliament. My guess is that it is the German parliament but I could be wrong. In the eagerness to badmouth the European Parliament (especially because it is currently debating a motion that puts Malta in a bad light) some geniuses somewhere (and I have a good idea where) came up with this hopeless email.

Now I am not going to imagine that all Europarliamentarians are saints and that they attend each and every session. The EP is as afflicted as national parliaments with lesser dedicated parliamentarians – in a parliament that is just as full of the kind of Eurosceptic politician who would encourage the above email incidentally. What is pathetic is how easily such an email gets picked up and forwarded while we are on the cusp of a wave of anti-EU enthusiasm.

The EU institutional machinery works along defined lines. They are not being invented now because Malta has come up with this Golden Passport plan. They have always been there. Besides, the EU has EU-wide matters that need tackling (the question of redefining EU citizenship being one of them). Looking at the goings on through the eyes of the tabloids and their copycats will only make fools of ourselves.

There is a cure. Get informed (and don’t be so damn gullible).

Facebook Comments Box

Getting selfies right

DogSelfie_akkuzaIn an article entitled “Sharing explicit selfies without consent may be made illegal“, the Times reports that Social Dialogue Minister Helena Dalli has reacted to the current furore on selfies. Minister Dalli is quoted as saying that “the sharing of explicit material without a person’s consent is a clear breach of data protection”.

It is important to be clear about two aspects here. First of all “selfie” has snapped its way into the dictionary and has a very specific meaning. A “selfie” as the name implies (btw… it’s a “stessu” in Maltese – and that’s semi-official) is a snapshot taken of oneself by oneself. The crucial element in all this is the “self” – it is not a selfie if the person pressing the button of the camera is not the same as the person depicted in the picture. Why is that important? Well, simple really, it stops being a selfie if someone other than the person who took it (and is depicted in it) publishes it. It may sound like pedantic playing with words but in actual fact the point is that you don’t need consent to publish a selfie because technically the only person who publishes a selfie is the same person who took it.

When someone other than the selfie-taker publishes what was originally a selfie then what they are doing is publishing a photo – this falls under a wider category and not necessarily a selfie – of someone else. Who cares? The law might. You see if you are in possession of lewd photos of another person and publish them without his or her consent then chances are high (let’s say close to 100%) that what you are doing is illegal on a number of counts. It is ALREADY illegal.

Which brings me to the second point. I am sure that Minister Dalli’s intention is legitimate and I am also convinced that there might be lacunae that may need to be filled insofar as the Data Protection Commissioner is concerned. There is definitely a need for an educational campaign with regards to the use of private date and publishing thereof. Magistrate Depasquale was reported in the Independent to have referred to the fact that anyone uploading images of oneself that will be available publicly is exposing himself to “fair comment”.

“Magistrate Francesco Depasquale said in his judgement, the accusations were with regard to posts and photos which were openly accessible online. While it is a person’s right to make photos and material public, they should be conscious that this can be subject to people’s comments and ridicule.”

That is a positive development in the sense that our jurisprudence goes on record to remind the citizen the dos and donts at law. Back to selfies though. What the law does not need is complication. It must also be kept simple – Occam’s razor and all. There is already sufficient protection against other people uploading pictures of yourself without consent. It would be crazy to include/add a trend-driven definition such as “selfie” into the equation: it just does not add any value.

Facebook Comments Box

Private Liaisons, Public Affairs

trianghollande_akkuza

Valérie Trierweiler has been hospitalised following revelations in the press that her companion – French President François Hollande – had been having an affair with actress Julie Gayet. This latest sex scandal in France involves an actress who had taken part in a promo video for Hollande during his 2012 campaign. A bit reminiscent of the “billboard favourites” in Malta, only this time, the video promoter found herself on the lap of the French President – incidentally another son of the famous ’68 ‘student rebel’ generation.

The French media is split controversially in two factions between those who see these revelations as a violation of privacy and others who went ahead and published the videos and pics that seem to confirm this liaison. What can or cannot be said in public about such affairs will remain a moot point for years to come – even certain corners of our own blogosphere seem to put much reserve in the “pinker” points of information that might please their readers.

It’s the moment when you drawn the line between what is merely ‘pink’ info worthy of your Paris Match and, on the other hand information about the private activity of a leader that might impinge on his public performance. To take the grotesque example, Italy’s Berlusconi met his downfall precisely due to his not too private activity that was deemed to have jeopardised his way of thinking. Closer to home we are beginning to be less shocked whenever that elephant in the room is mentioned – liaisons, trysts, betrayals. For some time you’d be forgiven to believe that much of what goes on in Maltese politics is the result of jealousies, rivalries and revenge processes worthy of cheap paperback novels.

Wives, lovers and boyfriends seem to hit the headlines more and more and have become part of the intricately woven web of power politics. Learning to deal with such reporting in the press is a delicate but important process. The word “nepotism” implies a familial link with the favoured and Malta’s current government will soon be able to display family trees in lieu of organisational charts. Reporting such appointments is paramount. Extra-marital affairs however? Well, the principle of “Caesar’s wife” can always be quoted as a measure. Voters might rightfully want to know whether fidelity forms part of the repertoire of their favoured candidate.

Given voter’s trends and shifts don’t blame them when the unfaithful politician becomes even more popular. Sic transit gloria politici.

 

Facebook Comments Box

The Leader’s Ship

Joseph Muscat has reiterated his wish that Malta becomes a ‘leader’ in Europe. Muscat’s record of bravado and not too cleverly disguised machismo might still have some appeal with the sheep in his fold but the contradictions and cracks in the ably constructed mask  do not cease to multiply. The Labour party and its acolytes continue to speak as though there is no world outside the cave, as though its interpretations of the shadows on the wall are the only ones that count. Meanwhile the myths of nationalism, faith in the Maltese people and meritocracy continue to crumble visibly for anyone interested in noticing them.

If Joseph Muscat is hoping to “lead” Europe with his citizenship programme then he has either lost the plot or never had one. The latest voice to criticise Labour’s scheme comes from Labour’s very own European family. Socialist leader Swoboda stated that the citizenship undermines European values. Quite a heavy statement that. All Muscat sees of course is 1 billion something euros rushing state into Malta’s coffers. The weak tweaking of the scheme was sold to no one other than the “social partners” that had already been bought to the Labour side before the election. In substance it remains the same. There is no element of leadership or creativeness in this scheme. It is an outright sale of a European visa – technically Malta is selling something that is not even entirely its own to give away.

Does Muscat expect other countries to take Malta’s ‘leadership’ cue? What would happen if all 28 countries put the same citizenship for sale at the same price and the same conditions. Aesop’s goose that lays golden eggs comes to mind. In Malta the voter still gets sold with the promise of money shooting into the nation’s coffers – supposedly used to mitigate the infamous ‘cost of living’. It’s a half-baked plan though and worse still it has been entrusted in the hands of “foreigners’ who will be cashing in on Malta’s moment of foreign policy folly. And to think that all that fuss was made on a Maltese clock a while back.

What leadership from a government that is “learning as we go” with petrol procurement? Yes, you can already hear the broken record of “better than the corruption under the nationalist” – sure it is, meanwhile petrol and diesel are more expensive than under the corrupt blues and nobody is batting an eyelid. This same government expects to lead while it commits gaffe after gaffe in sectors such as health care reneging on promise after promise sold cheaply to an electorate whose only motivation was that it was fed up with being screwed over by the same people. A solution to Mater Dei? Pull the other one.

Even the transport shift away from the infamous Arriva is turning out to be a not too veiled ploy to simply give the reins in the hand of a Labour papabile without too much of real reform. No sooner that the incumbent was mobbed out of its contract we have the roadmap government selling the idea of higher subsidies. More bills for the taxpayer to foot eventually thanks to a reluctance to take a real holistic approach to the problem. Add to those bills the probable high bill of the National Bank settlement and you  can see government’s sudden urgency to find some easy money.

No wonder Muscat is insisting on the hairbrained citizenship scheme. He might believe that he looks like a determined nationalistic leader – calling foul on those dastardly nationalists who are working against “national interest” but to the more intelligent among us it is evident that the only one operating against national interest is Muscat himself.

We also had George Vella replying to worries echoed in this blog about the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons off the Maltese coast. “No chemicals will be dumped in the Mediterranean” – well, George, that was not the question was it? What really worried anybody who cared was the evidence that this ‘destroying chemicals at sea’ business sounds like something that is happening for the first time. Was Malta – loud, foot stamping Malta, Malta the leader – given a place at the table of nations monitoring the activity? Are our authorities being kept informed of the steps being taken and have they been given any form of reassurance?

We do not really have a leadership or any aspiration to lead other countries. We are in the hands of a bunch of politicians working on knee-jerk policies that are the result of issuing many cheques before the election that now threaten to bounce.

And the nationalist party? Well, they are intent on still sticking the middle finger up at a large swathe of the electorate. Their latest solution: Norman Vella. Now isn’t that grand?

leadership_akkuza

Facebook Comments Box

Toxic

Malta might soon have to worry about a more real danger than Syrian refugees. Not that Syrian (or any other) refugees are dangerous. The boat carrying Syrian chemical weapons that left Latakia port on Tuesday carries a much more lethal threat than any amount of refugees could ever (even potentially) be. BBC News reported that a Danish vessel, escorted by Russian and Chinese warships, left the Syrian port loaded with the confiscated chemical weapons. So far so good.

What they will do with the weapons is the real problem. The UN has confirmed that the Danish boat is carrying what are termed as “priority one chemical materials” – not your average bleach or dettol. In fact the BBC report continues “the “most critical” chemicals include about 20 tonnes of the blister agent sulphur mustard”. Sulphur mustard eh. It’s a good thing that they have been removed from the hands of evil warlords prepared to use them on innocents. But where will all the sulphur mustard be taken? Here is the BBC again, explaining the steps:

1. The Syrian authorities are responsible for packing and safely transporting the chemical weapons from 12 sites across the country to the port of Latakia. Russia has supplied large-capacity and armoured lorries, while the US has sent container drums and GPS locators.

2. Russia will provide security for loading operations at Latakia, for which the US has supplied loading, transportation and decontamination equipment. China has sent 10 ambulances and surveillance cameras, and Finland an emergency response team in case of accidents.

3. Denmark and Norway are providing cargo ships and military escorts to take the chemicals to an as yet unnamed port in Italy. Russian and China will also provide naval escorts.

4. In Italy, the “most critical” chemical agents will be loaded onto the US Maritime Administration cargo ship, MV Cape Ray, to be destroyed by hydrolysis in international waters. Less-toxic chemicals will be shipped by Norwegian and Danish vessels for disposal at commercial facilities.

Do not be deceived by the MV in the US vessel’s name. It stands for “motor vessel” and does not mean that Malta is involved in any way. Now I confess to absolute ignorance as to the process of “hydrolisis” and what it does to “priority one chemicals” such as “sulphur mustard”. What I do find of considerable concern is the location where the destruction of the chemical weapons is to take place. Here is the BBC “approximative” map:

_72043169_syrian_chemical_weapons_disposal_624

See what I am getting at? That number 4, approximate as it is, could not be any closer to Malta. Given that the Mediterranean is not exactly huge once you remove territorial and national waters, it should be of some concern – at least to those who are entrusted with the government and welfare of our nation – that this internationally concerted plan involves the destruction of very dangerous chemicals so close to the waters of our island nation.

The least we could have is more information. If our political establishment took a break from the navel gazing they might even find out what is happening in our back yard.

Further Info

An ABC News report on the MV Cape Ray. It includes this very reassuring paragraph: “It’s currently being outfitted with two Field-Deployable Hydrolysis Systems (FDHS), which the Pentagon began procuring in February 2013, knowing it might need a way to destroy Syrian chemical-weapons components in the field. It did not expect to do so at sea, and the equipment had to be tested for vibrations, the sloshing of liquids, and other potential problems.”

Have you ever destroyed chemical weapons at sea before?
Erm no. But we’re outfitting our vessel and we will do our best to contain “sloshing liquids”. There’s always a first time you know.

Facebook Comments Box