NOVEMBER 28, 2008 3:47PM
The continent is with Europe, but Europe is not with the continent. Europe is a thing.
Shakespeare's Hamlet outlines, to me, the playwright's idea of a strong nation-state. Hamlet's realization that strong institutions, not strong men, will hold a strong state together takes place in Act IV, Scene II:
“The body is with the king, but the king is not with the body. The king is a thing."
In discussing Putin's good intentions, I explained that Russia would be best served if Putin were to step aside so that the state's fortunes would not rise and fall with Putin's mortality. Hamlet's declaration that the state is an idea applies equally to the European project.
In response to an anonymous comment directing me to the Free Europe Constitution, I'd like to voice my vehement opposition to the first (and, implicitly, most important) item on the Constitution upon which the rest of it depends.
--
http://www.freeeurope.info/
Item 1:
"Europe is a geographical concept, and European is as such not necessarily good or bad."
--
Europe is not a geographical concept, and neither is 'European' a description of those who live in Europe. The argument that Europe is a geographical concept is used again and again to oppose Turkish membership; it is a nativist argument.
But the nativist argument is rubbish. Nativists will be the first to say that immigrants to Europe are not European -- they aren't 'one of us', nativists cry. Well and good, but what is 'one of us'? Nativists would likely reply that a European is someone who has a shared cultural experience with those on the continent.
The Nativist argument is itself contradictory. On the one hand, the geographical argument says that Europeans are people who live on the Continent. On the other, the cultural argument says that Europeans are those of shared culture. Which one is it? Are the immigrants who live in France European or aren't they? Because you can be sure that Turkey -- the old Byzantium Empire -- is intrinsically part of the European shared culture although it is geographically off. Without Byzantine control of Turkey, the West would long since be speaking Arabic; without Byzantine wealth and institutions, every pre-medieval text, work of art, and thought would likely be lost; without Turkey, the Crusades would never have came close to Jerusalem.
So I voted no to the Free Europe constitution: nativism is a remnant of the nation-states system that refuses to consider that cooperation will best serve self-interest.
The EU should not be limited to the European continent. The continent is with Europe, but Europe is not with the continent. Europe is a thing -- Europe is an idea. Europe stands for the values of democracy, human rights, humanism; the idea of Europe is the idea of liberal values -- freedom from tyranny, freedom of thought, and individualism.
Indeed, the Constitution should read: Europe is a concept. The EU ought to embrace (when feasible) and consider for membership those who share in the idea of Europe. Obviously, the EU must consider how well the economic cycles of the EU and the new member will integrate. The EU has so far used the benefits of membership to encourage countries to liberalize politically, socially, and economically. Witness the eastern European countries, as well as the progress in Greece. EU membership should be used to entice others to share in the European vision, European values.
The Free Europe project is promising, and the name itself is indicative that Europe is an idea: "Free" Europe. Yes, Europe does stand for freedom. The place to begin realizing that freedom is to recognize that Europe is indeed a concept -- a philosophical one, not a geographical one.
“The body is with the king, but the king is not with the body. The king is a thing."
In discussing Putin's good intentions, I explained that Russia would be best served if Putin were to step aside so that the state's fortunes would not rise and fall with Putin's mortality. Hamlet's declaration that the state is an idea applies equally to the European project.
In response to an anonymous comment directing me to the Free Europe Constitution, I'd like to voice my vehement opposition to the first (and, implicitly, most important) item on the Constitution upon which the rest of it depends.
--
http://www.freeeurope.info/
Item 1:
"Europe is a geographical concept, and European is as such not necessarily good or bad."
--
Europe is not a geographical concept, and neither is 'European' a description of those who live in Europe. The argument that Europe is a geographical concept is used again and again to oppose Turkish membership; it is a nativist argument.
But the nativist argument is rubbish. Nativists will be the first to say that immigrants to Europe are not European -- they aren't 'one of us', nativists cry. Well and good, but what is 'one of us'? Nativists would likely reply that a European is someone who has a shared cultural experience with those on the continent.
The Nativist argument is itself contradictory. On the one hand, the geographical argument says that Europeans are people who live on the Continent. On the other, the cultural argument says that Europeans are those of shared culture. Which one is it? Are the immigrants who live in France European or aren't they? Because you can be sure that Turkey -- the old Byzantium Empire -- is intrinsically part of the European shared culture although it is geographically off. Without Byzantine control of Turkey, the West would long since be speaking Arabic; without Byzantine wealth and institutions, every pre-medieval text, work of art, and thought would likely be lost; without Turkey, the Crusades would never have came close to Jerusalem.
So I voted no to the Free Europe constitution: nativism is a remnant of the nation-states system that refuses to consider that cooperation will best serve self-interest.
The EU should not be limited to the European continent. The continent is with Europe, but Europe is not with the continent. Europe is a thing -- Europe is an idea. Europe stands for the values of democracy, human rights, humanism; the idea of Europe is the idea of liberal values -- freedom from tyranny, freedom of thought, and individualism.
Indeed, the Constitution should read: Europe is a concept. The EU ought to embrace (when feasible) and consider for membership those who share in the idea of Europe. Obviously, the EU must consider how well the economic cycles of the EU and the new member will integrate. The EU has so far used the benefits of membership to encourage countries to liberalize politically, socially, and economically. Witness the eastern European countries, as well as the progress in Greece. EU membership should be used to entice others to share in the European vision, European values.
The Free Europe project is promising, and the name itself is indicative that Europe is an idea: "Free" Europe. Yes, Europe does stand for freedom. The place to begin realizing that freedom is to recognize that Europe is indeed a concept -- a philosophical one, not a geographical one.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
skewz
Chris MacDonald
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
The question of Turkey is a vexed one. I would hesitate to equate Turkey with the Byzantine Empire--it is neither the inheritor nor the cultural offspring of Byzantine culture, which was Christian and Orthodox. Modern Turkey is the result of opposition to the old Roman Empire--for that is what we mean by 'Byzantine', a term itself constructed by European historians in the 18th and 19th centuries. That, however, doesn't say much about Turkey's role in European history--it has undeniably played a major role in the geopolitics of the region since, well, Europe was Europe.
But I'm very wary on your thesis: that Europe is not a geographical concept, but a philosophical one. That thesis has definite appeal--it appeals to the better sentiments of all Europeans across the continent.
But if we are taking about the ongoing process of European integration--and we are--then extricating 'Europe' from its geography risks rendering the project useless. The European communities were the result of a shared memory--the memory of the War, the lessons of that war, and the reasons for it. Jacques Delors made a recent statement to that effect, that Europe today suffers from an alienation with that history. That history IS geographical, and that history was the primary justification for integration in the first place. The Eastern European expansion was an extension of that history. To put it crudely, the West owed it to the East--the former had undergone 30 years of expansion with nary a thought for the latter. The fall of communism in the East was the last chapter of the history that originally gave the European Project its initial impetus--the postwar history that is now receding from the collective memory of Western Europe.
It is no accident, I think, that Germany and France in particular have been very wary of expanding the club further. They have argued--quite persuasively, in my view--that Europe cannot expand without a round of institutional deepening. (Hence Lisbon.) I think Merkel and Sarkozy are right on that one. British politicians, of course, are less keen on the 'deepening' bit; they'd rather expand the club until it became a politically ineffective vehicle. (Americans long opposed deep political integration, on perhaps the ground that a stronger Europe wouldn't really need a strong American presence. Is it any wonder that they dropped their objections only recently, as the talk of Turkish accession gathered pace in the last decade? Is it that difficult to link this American shift in opinion with a British one? Britain always worried about keeping the Americans 'in', so to speak--Turkey is a good bargaining chip here...)
If 'Europe' is a philosophical concept alone, then it is neither connected to its history and--yes--the geography that gave rise to it in the first place. That may not matter from a strictly universalist point of view, but it does matter to the political legitimacy of the project--and to the acceptance of 'Europe' in the daily lives of Europeans on the street. 'Europe' WAS about Auschwitz, about Alsace and the Rhineland, and its expansion eastward WAS about the division of Europe. The arguments for Turkish accession do not, I'm afraid, hold that same sobering history to buttress them.