[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: 'We Will Not Get By in the World with Western Ideas Alone' 'We(EU) Will Not Get By in the World with Western Ideas Alone' V. Great empires of the past, for example the British Empire, managed very well in their dependencies or colonies by not trying to achieve legal adjustments in every question, to 'standardize' everything from the top to the bottom, but rather by determining centrally the goals to be achieved and leaving the details to be decided on the ground. Even today the European Community treaties intend something like this through the institution of the directive. According to the treaties, this is supposed to define the goal to be achieved; the method of implementation is left to the individual member states. A truly wise provision! But today's reality looks quite different. Just consider the sheer volume of standardizations in the EU. It is high time the bodies of the EU returned to that model devised by the EU itself and not only in its legislative capacity but in its entire political scope as well. But, even so, reducing today's volume of standardizations by a third would be an enormous step forward. While making this demand, one nonetheless has to bear in mind bad experiences from the past. In implementing EU directives some member states, including Germany, have at times been very lax, and the contractual sanctions provided have proved very blunt weapons in these cases. This kind of conduct ought not be disregarded or brushed off as meaningless. Nor should it remain unchanged. If the directives were again to be what was originally intended, the member states would only have to meet the Brussels bodies halfway in matters of implementation, perhaps by conceding an automatic implementation clause after a given period of time. The EU itself could then initiate the necessary enforcement for those member states which refuse to process a directive. VI. That the budget crisis or, more precisely, the debt crisis of particular EU member states should give rise to calls for control by the bodies of the community is quite obvious, not least because the budgets of other member states will be seriously affected. What is baffling about such demands is the thoughtlessness with which new and misleading vocabulary is churned out. "EU Finance Minister," "Economic Government" and similar -- and worse. Their inventors skip highhandedly past ancient (one might even say holy) constitutional principles. Let us not forget that what is at stake are principles which, above all in England, stand at the cradle of parliamentary democracy and, beyond that, the sovereignty of all member states. For in a modern (and comprehensive) economy, he who decides the money automatically decides the politics, which cannot be financed without it. With questions of budgetary control there is indeed considerable danger that their answers can lead to direct conflicts with the core of democratic constitutional life; conflicts which the law deems that parliament and ultimately the constitutional courts are responsible for preventing. I do not believe that the crisis in which we find ourselves makes it necessary to transfer the right to determine a budget to the European level. According to current experience, only two things matter. These few indexes have to be made binding for all member states. They include upper and also lower limits of the so-called public expenditure quota, the upper limit of state debt, the upper limit of staffing budgets, and the minimum limit of state investment, among others -- all this of course connected with a strict mechanism of control and sanction, which, above all, must function automatically and not depend on decisions by the European Council, the powerful body representing the leaders of the EU member states. It is evident that we have a whole series of constitutional issues. The opinion held here includes directions towards solutions -- assuming that the EU bodies, as well as all member states, act with sense and fairness. In the German constitutional system this is called federal allegiance, and both sides, the Union and the states, are bound by it. VII. There is another area where a strengthening of the EU powers and responsibilities is unavoidable. That is in European foreign policy, which no member state to date has wished to relinquish, but which is becoming an increasingly important part of the EU's global profile and increasingly important for our elusive "European public." The formulation is deliberately reticent here. When there is reference to increasing foreign policy challenges for the EU, this is not meant to refer to everyday diplomacy, but only to the interests and values all EU members share collectively. There is an increasing need for the representation of such interests. It will come from two directions. Firstly, the European bodies of the past half-century will continue to have growing responsibilities for securing international peace. That they are equipped for this is open to doubt. One of Europe's big achievements is that over the past half-century there have been no armed struggles on union soil. Yet, the attempt to ensure peace in the European neighborhood has not been so successful and on the world stage, Europe plays a role which bears no relation to its portion of global GNP. Europe will have to do more in the long term. Secondly, the states which have come together in the EU share -- despite many differences in detail -- the basic foundations of Western political thinking. There is no neat formula from which the rest might flow, and so one generally resorts to individual concepts which together must add up to the essential: basic human rights, freedom and equality, social responsibility, the rule of law, democracy, the separation of powers, et cetera. At its core is the idea of man or, more precisely, the place of the individual in given, or even freely chosen, collectives, as well as the dignity of man. The short, admittedly inexact formula for this requires that the state be there for the people, and not the other way round. It is clear these ideas are no longer understood in all parts of the world, indeed, that the majority of people live, and wish to live, according to other ideas. The dispute over the universality (or non-universality) of the rights of man is just one example here. States and blocks of states are growing up around us that are shaped by quite different ideals from those of us Europeans. Naming just the two most obvious, we might look at Islamic states based upon a religion, and China, where side by side with a derivative of state communism the ancient worldview of Confucianism is increasingly emerging. The lessons from this development have not yet been understood. What is clear is that with only our Western ideas to guide us, we will not get by in the world forming around us. We will struggle even to establish their central points in the world in general; the battle for the principle of universal human rights -- or at least a limited number of human rights -- gives us an idea of how difficult that will be. During these discussions it will be a question of Europe holding on to its own convictions -- convictions, which after all, shape our mental landscape and which have been involved in the gestation of our great scientific, technical and economic successes. This is an extremely sore point, which is most noticeable in the religious sphere. Europe's greatest problem in relation to Islam lies in the fact the great majority of Muslims are attached to their religion with a passionate devotion, while religion in Europe was initially undermined by the Enlightenment and then moved into a phase of plurality in which the borderlines between tolerance and indifference tend to become indistinct. That is not necessarily a mistake. But it is food for thought that in Europe today there is no longer any devotion to even the secular substitutes of human dignity, freedom, rule of law and democracy comparable to the Muslim state and its religion. It is an unresolved question as to whether the Western combination of democracy and the free market really is the ultimate wisdom or whether perhaps the Chinese model with outward freedom, but inner lack of freedom, is not the better one. To make a third point: It is worth remembering that European prosperity, whose scientific and technical conditions once spread far and wide under the colonial banner, is threatened by the fact that methods have been adopted by the peoples in developing nations and are now applied against their creators. VIII. Much of this was quite different in the 1950s when the European Communities came into being: at the time it was more a question of simple synergies and the removal of potential grounds for war such as competition over coal and steel.The communities and their successors have themselves, to be fair, altered a substantial portion of their tasks. Partly by solving them, and partly by taking on -- and often only partly taking on -- new ones. Other tasks generally demand organic changes, or at least adjustments, which are usually harder to achieve than mere enlargements. Such changes of purpose have often occurred in history and were always fraught with considerable insecurity and upheaval. In that sense we are not experiencing anything really new. But what is new are several particularly prominent aspects: 1. The evolution of a multipolar world with superpowers and larger blocks of states rather than the traditional states that play key roles, 2. The need to give European values such as the value of the individual resonance in the world insofar as is possible, and to secure their continuance in Europe against threats from within and without, 3. To stabilize the influence of Europe in the world to the extent that Europe can sit at the negotiating table with equal rights and equal weight when the Americans and Chinese discuss the future world order, 4. Increasing, and mostly cheaper, economic competition from developing countries. These challenges can no longer be met by the governments of the member states alone. Without a European remit they cannot be grasped in a European sense. But here, again, we return to the problem of budgetary controls: an unwieldy foreign policy and diplomatic service in the conventional sense would go way beyond the useful. It would be absurd to imagine the EU keeping its own embassies with the usual functions in the capitals of 200-odd existing states. An EU foreign policy would have to be practiced in the fashion of traveling and conference diplomacy, as has already been initiated in the sphere of international crisis management. Fixed pillars might be sensible in the form of task forces in those regions where conflicts require swift pacifying, and perhaps also in regions where the common European interest is particularly prominent. So joint responsibility, again, only where it is most suitable. IX. Most halfway-engaged citizens of the EU appreciate these tasks, or at least can guess at them. At the same time, they see the sizeable deficits that still remain, and are disquieted by their persistence. They accept that the task is a big one and can't be surmounted overnight. But there is disappointment that very little of what is possible has been tackled, and that where repeated attempts have been made, they have ended up defeated in the crossfire of national interests and petty jealousies. The zeal of civil servants for bagatelles and incidentals does not really improve the mood. All this may not be an issue of constitutional law, but it is the constitutional question of our time because the opportunity for integration is being gambled away, when it could bind the EU citizen to the EU itself and endow the Union with political power. The idea of nationhood, which for generations has led European nations to astonishing achievements as well as to abhorrent crimes, will not play a role in the EU for a very long time -- Europe doesn't have a nation, not even a "European public," both of which might form the basis of a true democracy. And the welcome strengthening of the European Parliament of recent years has, when closely observed, served parliamentarianism more than it has served democracy. The parliament is still relatively weak in the face of the European Council and the European Commission; above all, it has not developed the power necessary for setting aside the peripherals and for moving the real problems into focus for the EU bodies. And it is no closer to the citizens than the Council or the Commission. Winning the trust of the citizenry we spoke of above has to be the business of all three leading bodies. DPA Roman Herzog, 80, is a member of the conservative Christian Democratic Union party. He served as president of Germany from 1987 to 1999. His latest book, "Reinventing Europe: Transforming the Super State into a Citizen's Democracy," was published in German in March. Poster Comment: 1. EU yes, but the Euro and open borders no! Inglenda2 The Weimar Republic collapsed because so-called democratic parties proved themselves to be totally incapable and tried to force the people, ( sometimes with troops on the streets) to accept ideas that were not practical. The EU is going in the same direction, it is a good idea gone wrong. Nobody apart from political idealists would have come to the conclusion, that a common currency could function, without the simultaneous introduction of common taxes and social conditions. Most citizens of Europe are not against the EU itself, but rather against its structure, the Euro under present conditions and the lack of controls against Criminals and illegal immigrants at state borders. 2. EU faults complex but munchenboar A clear flaw in this article is that it does not mention the TTIP, a vicious piece of US-EU legislation that will make much of its arguments redundant. It is true that there are many faults with the EU, that it was initially set up for the rich of West Europe and that much has changed. However, the comment on faking statistics: 1. Countries that failed were West European - Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Portugal. So the expansion argument fails for most of these. 2. Those figures were checked and often compiled by the likes of GoldmanSachs, PwC and other finance organizations, that they knew what was happening is beyond dispute, why they have not been prosecuted is questionable. 3. The EU needs reform, it needs to be made more accountable to the electorate, it needs to have one not two sites, it needs cuts to its burgeoning bureaucracy. The EU is part of the development of Europe, a political and economic union that keeps the continent united, gives it a global voice, helps keep it away from another major and fractions war. In short, the EU is needed, it is flawed, needs much more work and a radical overhaul is needed but it must not be dismantled. 3. Eu johnhall500 Like most Brits I would rather be poor and free outside the EU eating bread and cheese, than stay rich in the EU and eat s#@%e every day. 4. Hell on Earth. sylvesterthecat I read the venerable gentleman's essay with mounting horror and wondered just why any European hates his country to the degree that he wishes to be subsumed into a dysfunctional organisation that cannot even get the mechanics of statehood working properly. The author has named his essay "we ought to be EU-sceptic" I would like to say to the esteemed gentleman, 'we already are' some of us irreconcilably so. Let my people go! 5. Article is mandatory reading for every German awareadams Of course, the writer is correct. Outside of Russia, Europe is divided into "tres parted". Germany and those natually allied with Germany,ie. the Ballkans, Croatia, Hungary, Finland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Rumania, and the Czechs(although they won't admit it). Next you have the loudmouth French and English who have busted economies, not real military capability, but lots of loud propaganda. Finally you have the Mediterranian group, Iberia and Italy. Germany and German strength must be the unifying force that leads its partners, and accepts Iberian and Italian support. Germans are too reluctant to take charge: but there is no substitute for it. Otherwise, Russia and the US get reckless and succeed, and Europe fails to grow economically and effective pretextat86 So much stupidity and historical falsehoods in this one article. I honestly expected better. Just one example, that progress and economic development were brought to the colonies by European powers. Is this what you call what the Germans did to the Hereros? Mass extermination and genocide, for which your government apologized in 2004. Let's not forget wars in Malaya, Algeria, Vietnam... Or that the Chinese empire was brought low by the British desire to establish the largest drug cartel ever (opium wars). Another example: that Muslims are fanatically attached to their religions. In France, for example, every poll done on that topic shows that Muslims identify as French first, Muslims second. There is a distinct lack of analysis there. In the Arab world, previous independence movements were panarab, secular and had an ideology closer to marxism. With the end of the Cold War, the failure of the panarabs (Baath), violent and unprovoked attacks (Iraq), the only ideology left standing is that of Islam. I'd hope a former German president would know that. Identifying Europe's crisis as a budget one. Neither Spain nor Ireland had a budget problem before, they respected budgetary constraints much better than Germany. Current budgetary problems in those countries are a consequence of a major crisis born in the US (subprimes anyone?). But let's solve the budget issue and let 50% of young people without a job. Let's not forget the major crisis facing European countries: how to maintain their economic models or survive in the coming world with dismal demographics. Germany, Spain, Italy and most of the new recruits have very low fertility rates. It's far from certain economic growth will be the same. Long term, about half of growth comes from demography, the other half frominnovation. I don't see anything done to make the EU twice as innovative. Nothing at all. But I do see why I should be an eurosceptic. 9. pretextat86 Let's not forget the hypocrisy of quoting England (not the UK), as the country most attached to democratic principles. Scotland and Northern Ireland might leave the union, that is true. Declaration of Human Rights is a purely English principle, as well as the separation of powers theorized by Monstesquieu. Any analysis on the future of the EU that doesn't even mention France (second economy, second largest country, founding member, permanent member of the security council and by and large the only country with a military) is worth very little. The end of the EU might come just as soon as 2017, when the National Front wins the presidential elections in France. 10. respectable, but not outspoken enough Moshe Weintraub MDPhD, Dr. Herzog's comment is worthwile reading, in a arena of 24h non-stop propaganda or absolut 0.000 brainlessness: Statements, repeated robotically, that 'if the Euro fails, Europe fails!'. They are not only complete nonsense, because Europe exists since 2 Bn years, after Pangaea broke apart; worse, they cement a prohibition to even analyse the structural and system fallacies of this EU-wannabe-empire. Dr. Herzog's position should be discussed in a broader public, because the basic assumptions of nowadays EU policy in a multipolar world are a wishful thinking. First, the buerocrats and aparatchiks in Brussel might believe, that they can sit a the dining-table at US-China diners. But both, US & China are not interested to share their dinner with the EU. Second, Brussels 'forgot', that the world order is changing tectonically, and this does not even imply the ascension of the BRICS and more. EU matters in Asia and America are just the eurocrisis, and that is it. In Asia, Europe is Germany. Third: the lack of inner cohesion and coherence cannot be compensated by producing 70k pages of regulations. A considerable part of the middle classes at least in W-Europe has become very disillusioned and even disinterested in the EU, not Europe, despite a 24/7 drumfire propaganda of the politiancs and the mainstream media in EU, that the EU is our redemption, EU-criticism leads to hell and war. 4.Esp. Europe does not understand the value-system, for the better or worse, of non-european continents. Have the courage,Dr. Herzog, to go out to give lectures to the people(s)....before you will be exiled. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
Then either they are crazy, or pretextat86 is crazy First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Blacks, and I did not speak out because I was not a Black. Then they came for the Latinos, and I did not speak out because I was not a Latino. Then they came to my door and told me taxes were down, the streets were secure and ninety percent of conflict in society was over.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||