Debate
Free World: The book
Latest
Commentary
Suggested Websites
Timothy Garton Ash
Archived
Responses to Timothy Garton Ash's Guardian columns
| This is an archived website, which offered an opportunity for readers of Timothy Garton Ash's book Free World and his weekly columns to exchange ideas. Updated links and new forums can be found at Timothy Garton Ash's new website, www.timothygartonash.com. |  |
Debate - Page 4/7
Our
new Guernica
10 March 2004
Francisico, Spain
Just perfect, Timothy. I read your article and you reflect what we saw and we heard.
Donal Greco, USA
Dear Sir:
It's quite true that all these things "on the ground" in a country
like Spain go along way toward improving relations, and toward lessening
tensions among fellow-citizens. This is good and necessary. But what insight
do you offer concerning the real and relevant dynamic whereby a bin Laden
or an al Zarqawi send fanatics to DESTROY ANY PEACE OR GOOD-WILL that
exist in established democracies, just because they believe that no one
should live who does not bow to Islamic Law?
Jorge Caneda Schad, Spain and USA
Just a quick thank you for helping undermine
a prejudice I have that "no good news are reported by British press
about Spain".
I am a long time reader of the Economist and the Financial Times, over
24 yeas, and have been quite dismayed at what those papers publish about
Spain, allways painting the country and its citizens in a bad light.
Khalid Roy, UK
Timothy Garton Ash is absolutely right when
he says (ŒOur Guernica‚, March 10) that long term social cohesion
can only be won „if ordinary citizens across Europe are consciously
engaged in ∑millions of commonplace interactions with people of
different colour and faith.‰ Unfortunately, this is simply not happening
in the UK at the moment. People are living in fearful ignorance of one
another with all discourse between presently ghettoized communities mediated
ˆ or even manipulated - through politics and the media.
Initiatives such as the National Issues Forum in the States and ŒDiversity
& Dialogue‚ here are trying to counter this isolation by establishing
forums through which ordinary people can get to know and trust Œthe
other‚ in a civilized way.
In direct contrast to the racists ˆ who say that we are all being
forced to live together through political correctness ˆ our contention
is based on an implicit trust in the British people that if (the big Œif)
only communities could be brought together in dialogue the result will
inevitably be a richer, more profound and more inclusive sense of national
identity.
Eduard von Slawik, Madrid, Spain
About Condoleezza Rice's name origins....
I believe someone might have mispelled or else "interpreted"
the italian translation of Condoleezza...in fact...the article Mr Garton
Ash wrote...about his parents having a penchant for italian romance..suggest
a possible misreading of the term.
So,opposite to the theory that her parents might have meant to call her
Con dolianze...which would have turned her into Condelence Rice....my
theory goes that they might have asked someone a suggestion or performed
their own research...and..."transformed" the outcome...in fact..if
you were to hand write con dolcezza in italian...after the letter L you
might mistake an E for what in truth is a C!
Sorry darling!
The
birth of Europe
17 March 2004
bobby, USA
"... never again ..." Chamberlain went to Munich; Blair went to Camp David. Yes, again, it has started already.
Tim Worstall, Portugal
Re your question to Eurosceptics:
In the Grauniad Tim Garton Ash asks a question:
The difference is this: we new, sceptically pro-EU Europeans have a great
story to tell - a story that is about the past but also about the future.
Our challenge to these old, doggedly anti-EU Europeans is: we hear your
story about the past, but where's your story about the future?
OK, here‚s my desired future. A world where power and decision making
are devolved to the minimum effective level. That means, in all but a
very few things that are better done collectively, decisions made by the
individual concerned. In those few things that are done collectively,
decision making must again be at the maximally devolved level possible.
How to collect and dispose of the rubbish is something for local authorities,
how to run the legal system for national authorities. What supra national
organisations exist are only there because of the current imperfections
in the devolution of power. The WTO, for example, exists to police the
trade agreements that nations have signed up to. But nations should not
have trade agreements. What to buy at what price and from whom is a decision
that should be devolved to the individual consumer, with no interference
by any other level of power.
The European Union exists to impose a specific ideal of the perfect society,
a social democratic one, and as social democracy is a negation of exactly
the freedoms and liberties that my ideal world would contain, there is
no place for it in my ideal world. Nor the UN and many other such bodies.
In essence, free Europeans in a free Europe, calmly going about their
daily business with the least amount of interference in the decisions
of individuals possible. In terms of the impact of the State, something
like the world of the 1870‚s, 1880‚s (while at our current
levels of wealth, of course) where we had free movement of goods, people
and capital around the world, yet the average Englishman lived almost
his entire life without meeting the State except at the Post Office. Which
we should privatise, of course.
http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2005/03/tim_garton_ashs.html
Stephen Renico, United States
Mr. Ash,
You wrote "Le Goff's book ends with Europe beginning to take over
from China as the avant garde of technological modernity, and setting
out to conquer the world, starting with America. Now America is the world's
leading power, while China is coming back up again with the force of a
rising piston. This relative decline of Europe is another reason for hanging
together rather than hanging separately."
I was wondering if you were familiar with Machiavelli's essay on the concept
of "virtu", found in his book _The Art of War_. As a historian,
you may appreciate that Machiavelli wrote this back when Europe had even
less relative power and influence than it does today.
To understand the passage, however, we must first understand what Machiavelli
calls "virtu". According to Dr. Neal Wood- Professor of Political
Science at York University in Toronto, it is a difficult concept to translate.
Dr. Wood describes "virtu" thusly:
"Virtu is a necessary quality of of effective military and political
leadership, and it is essential to the survival and well-being of a people
in this alien and hostile world....."
"Virtu in the special sense is basically a military quality. There
is no synonym for this use of virtu. Machiavelli employs it to characterize
masculine and aggressive conduct that is exhibited in a dangerous and
uncertain situation of tension, stess, and conflict. The concept entails
the idea of tremendous force of will and inner strength that will enable
one to overcome the most recalcitrant opposition and to endure the most
perilous adversity. Among the attributes included in virtu are boldness,
bravery, resolution, and decisiveness."
The passage in question is below:
____________________________
"Cosimo: I should be very happy to learn if you have ever considered
how it comes to pass that we are so degenerate, and that not only these
exercises, but all manner of military discipline, have now fallen into
such neglect and disuse among us.
Fabrizio: I shall give you my opinon on hte mater very freely sir. You
know, then, that there have been many renowned warriors in Europe- but
few in Africa, and fewer still in Asia; the reason for this is that the
last two mentioned parts of the world have had but one or two monarchies
and only a few republics om tje,. amd that Europe, on the contrary, has
had several kindoms, but more republics in it. Now men become excellent
and and show their virtu according to how they are employed and encouraged
by their sovereigns, whether these happen to be kings, princes, or heads
of republics; so where there are many states, there will be many great
men; but where there are few states, there will not be many great men.
In Asia, there were Ninus, Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Mithridates, and a few others
like them; in Africa (without mentioning the ancient Egyptians), we read
of Masinissa, Jugurtha, and some Carthaginian commanders of eminent note.
The number of these men, however, is very small in comparison with those
Europe has produced; for in this part of the world, there have indeed
been numbers of excellent men whom we know about, and doubtless many more
whose memories are now extinguished by the malevolence of time; because
every state is obliged to cherish and encourage men of virtu, either out
of necesity or for other reasons- where there are more states, ther must
of course be more men of virtu.
Asia, on the contrary, has not produced many men of virtu because, to
a great extent, that part of the globe is subject to one monarchy alone-
to so great an extent that most parts of it languish in indolence and
cannot form any considerable number of men for great and glorious enterprises.
The same may be said of Africa, although there have indeed been more commanders
of virtu in that region than in Asia, thanks to the republic of Carthage.
There will always be a greater number of excellent men in republics than
in monarchies because virtu is generally honored in the former, but feared
in the latter; hence, it comes to pass that men of virtu are and encouraged
in one, but discountenanced and suppressed in the other.
If we consider Europe next, we shall find that it was always full of principalities,
kingdoms, and republics which lived in perpetual jealousy of each other
and were obliged to maintain good discipline in their armies and to honor
and encourage military merit. In Greece, besides the Macedonian monarchy,
there were several republics, and every one produced many excellent men.
In Italy there were the Romans, the Samnites, the Etruscans, and the Cisalpine
Gauls. France, Germany, and Spain abounded with republics and principalities;
and if we do not rread of as many excellent men in any of them as among
the Romans, that results from the partiality of historians, who generally
follow the stream of fortuna, and content themselves with praising the
conqueror. It is only reasonable to suppose, however, that there were
a great many illustrious men among the Samnites and Etruscans since they
defended themselves against the Romans for 150 years. The same may be
supposed of France and Spain; but the virtu which most historians fail
to celebrate in particular men, they are forward enough to praise in whole
nations, when they tell us with what bravery and resolution these nations
exerted themselves in defense of their liberties.
Since it is obvious, then, that where there are many states there will
always be many men of virtu, it is certain that when the number of those
states is diminished, the number of such men will likewise decrease by
degrees- just as the effect must cease when the cause is taken away. Thus,
when the Roman Empire had swallowed up all the kingdoms and republics
in Europe and Africa, and most of those in Asia, virtu met with no countenance
anywhere but in Rome; so that men of virtu began to grow more scarce in
Europe, as well as in Asia, until at last there were hardly any to be
found. Just as all virtu was extinguished, except among the Romans, so
when they became corrupt, the whole world was similarly corrupted, and
the Scythians poured by swarms into an Empire that, having extinguished
the virtu of most other nations, was not able to preserve its own."
___________________________
I think Machiavelli was a bit too dismissive of Asia, especially when
one looks at places like China and Turkey at the time. However, I think
he was on to something when trying to explain why Europe's star was rising.
It leads me to believe that Machiavelli would have been a Eurosceptic.
Francis Turner, France
WRT to you challenge to "Anti-Europeans" in your latest column here is my response http://www.di2.nu/blog.htm?20050317
Andy, UK
I think your article shows complete lack of
understanding of European history over the last 2000 years and fails in
it's arguements, both historically and politcally.
Througout European history many people have dreamt of uniting the continent,
only to lead into war, mass murder and genocide. I doubt the current leftist
EU elite will be able to succeed in this by force of bureaucracy while
the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon failed by the use of arms.
You cannot overwrite thousends of years of culture and distinctive nationality
just because some faceless EU bureaucrat issued some Soviet-style diktat
to abandon the concept of national identity. This is goes completely against
the human nature, which happens to be tribal.
As British European, I celebrate and cherish the great variety of cultures
this continent has to offer - and I strongly believe we should co-operate
with our European friends to increase the trade and travel between the
nations. But I believe abolishing our very own national identities in
favour of some kind of politically correct Thousend Year Reich, we would
make our continent that much poorer.
Jack Weixel, USA
As an American, I "have no dog in this
hunt", and far be it for me to cast judgement on Europeans' (or anyone's)
right of self determination. But considering a great deal of my business
is done in Europe, and the fact that Europeans are never shy about instructing
me on how Americans should live their lives, I humbly weigh in with a
few thoughts for consideration.
Our nation was built through the infusion of millions of (largely) European
immigrants, traveling to America for reasons ranging from escape from
political or religious tyranny to nothing more than pure attempts at survival.
Regardless of their reasonings, they were escaping nations ruled by elites
- political, familial, intellectual, religious or military.
It is not possible to properly address of all the many factors or characteristics
of migration patterns or national cultures, but it can be clearly seen
that all of Europe's history includes domination by elite classes, almost
always to the great detriment of the general population.
The EU is the absolute manifestation of the ultimate Elitist viewpoint.
What would be my vision of the future? European nations understanding
that pride in national identity and hostility towards a foreign national
identity are not mutual requirements. That an individual identity revolves
around who and what you are and not who and what you are not. That agreements
to advance trade and international cooperation are not necessarily followed
by multinational elitist attempts to obliterate independent sovereignty
in order to create an entity powerful enough to impose its own will upon
other nations. Power for the sake of greater power.
This is the underlying history of Europe, and this is what the EU is all
about. Timothy Garton Ash acknowledges this, whether he likes it or not,
when he speaks of the "relative decline of Europe". The literal
meaning of those words are that Europe's "decline" is only relative,
as Europe has held still while others have grown. And this would be largely
true. Unfortunately, the destruction of national identity for the sake
of greater power is, invariably, a sign of further decline rather than
advance. We saw this as recently as the late 1930s and early 1940s.
And if anyone should recoil at the thought of comparing the EU movement
with the Nazi movement, please let me tell you-
The only thing greater than a European's capacity to revise history is
his propensity to repeat it.
What would my vision of the future be? A future whereby Europe finally
casts off the rule of elitists, such as the EU and Garton Ash, and finally
understands that your best interests lie in your own hearts, your own
deeds and your own dreams - not in the gilded halls of your scheming rulers.
Ellis, USA
The "Birth of Europe" most closely
resembles the closing chapter of Europe: "Our native-born populations
are declining, and we are bad at making migrants, especially Muslim migrants,
feel at home." Talk about a one-two punch.
Contemporary "me first" lifestyle, driven by an ideology which
is the antithesis of Western Civilization and Christianity promotes childlessness
and abortion. Meanwhile the Mullahs school their subjects in all manner
of death (applied to both their perceived enemies and, even more astonishingly,
themselves). It seems as if both nationals and immigrants should fairly
easily find common ground.
How far down will the bar be lowered? Pray for Europe.
Philip Neal, London
Surely the UK Independence Party has a perfectly
clear story about the future:
neo-liberalism. A Google search on UKIP comes up with "Neo-liberal,
non-racist party
seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union." Two clicks
on that link take
us to the first section of the UKIP manifesto, headed "The Economy
- Free Trade and
Globalisation". The party was originally called the Anti-Federalist
League by analogy
with the Anti-Corn Law League. It draws much of its support from Thatcherite
former
Conservatives who turned against the EU because they could find no allies
on the
continental right against irreversible EU social and employment legislation.
On the rare occasions when supporters of the EU trouble to take issue
with this point
of view, rather than changing the subject to 'xenophobia', they generally
have two
answers. One is to make out that the EU is secretly a force for capitalism
like the
WTO and the IMF, valiantly imposing free market policies on a backsliding
public. The
other is to claim that a Britain outside the EU would find itself blocked
from a
return to Thatcherism by the might and malice of Brussels. These stories
cannot both
be true: EU membership cannot be desirable for one reason and withdrawal
undesirable
for the opposite reason.
I do not think it greatly matters whether European obstructiveness towards
global
capitalism is to be blamed on the political classes or public opinion
as a whole.
Whoever it is, the British free market right is not going to achieve its
aims by
staying in the EU. The less power the EU has over us the better: the UK
should
withdraw from it at once.
Emilio Fernández Castro, Albacete, Spain
I agree with you, Mr. Garthon Ash but...
what about the UK? Why the English people don't share that reasonings?
I've always been surprised of the deep repulse that the EU inspires in
wide sectors of the English society, because:
1) Since, at least, William the Conqueror crossed the English Channel
and won the Hastings Battle, the European history and the British history
have been interlaced, so interlaced that I can't remember any major European
historic event, from the Eleventh Century till today, where a Briton didn't
take part, directly or indirectly, leading or inspiring it.
2) One of the main purposes for creating the EU was to prevent the big
mistake that was the Versalles Treaty and its consequence -obvioulsy-
the Second World War. The Europeans are now ready for living in peace,
and this achievement would never has been possible without the sacrifice
of thousands and thousands of English lives. That's a fact that really
confuses me. Britons have fought for peace and democracy in Europe and,
when we, all the Europeans, are picking the fruits of their sacrifice,
of their bloody sacrifice, they don't want to participate (¿?).
You've made the effort, so why don´t you want the profit?
Could you explain this contradiction to me, please?
F.Gamberini, UK/EU
I see no alternative to a continuing process
of European integration, and this would be true regardless of whether
Britain (or Italy) were part of it. So the only real debate concerns the
form it should take.
There is still much to be done concerning harmonization in many specific
areas of European life -welfare provision and other forms of assistance,
for example. Not everyone is on the same level and people could try to
learn from each other. Rolling back authoritarianism and buraucratization
in our own countries is another issue whose work is never done. Whoever's
ahead, speak up.
To Mr Fernadez Castro:
historically, Britain has always been part of Europe while standing outside
it; it has always both participated in it and been in opposition to it.
It has strong ties to the US. That is its particularity. One imagines
that there may be (or may have been) similarities with Spain.
Emilio Fernández Castro, Albacete, Spain
To Mr. Gamberini:
Thanks for your answer. You're quite right when you see similarities with
Spain. But let me ask you one more question. If I've understood your message,
maybe Brits don't refuse being members of a united Europe, but they have
problems to admit, or to share, a specific way of building Europe, I mean,
the political structure we call "European Union". Maybe the
problem is that we have chosen a way for constructing our common future
that implies an election between one or other side of the Atlantic. An
election that I don't share. Do you agree with me, or not?
F Gamberini, UK/EU
(In reply to E. Fernandez Castro)
I was trying, very briefly, to explain how Britain has related to Europe
over the last few centuries, and how traces of this have survived into
the present.
Today attitudes remain ambivalent and probably, as you say, also on account
of the structure of the Union. I guess many in Britain would have been
happier with just a free trade area, and you can see how the British public
discourse continually talks of "our kind of Europe".
Your next two points are weighty ones, and I can only reply in by means
of generalities. I do not really know what a different European Union
would look like, unless it were indeed simply a free trade area or a loose
and probably ineffectual association -which is why, incidentally, I do
not much like to hear the word "club" used in this context;
one would like to think that the EU involves rather more than that. We
can do without a European anthem, but if you are serious about integration
you need coordinating structures and there may be issues of sovereignty
involved.
As for maintaining links across the Atlantic, this is a vast technical
area. There is no reason why personal, cultural, diplomatic and communication
links should not always remain, but in any other regard one can, as ever,
only proceed by means of specific proposals. Only then can one begin to
consider how something would work in practice.
Chasing
the Dragon
24 March 2004
DL, England
I fully support China's NPC passing the anti-secession
law.
China had always determined not to let Taiwan split from it by all means
available and yes, including non-peaceful ones. Over 90% of the mainland
Chinese supports Taiwan's reunification and aginist its separation. By
passing this law, China has put its will in a legal framework.
Regarding the EU lifting its arms embargo, it makes zero difference to
China stopping Taiwan's separation when it has to, arms sales or not.
Jim Turner, UK
Hello, the Americans will face their own missile
technology in any defence of Taiwan as it gives aid and military technology
to Israel who then sells it on to China. Frankly as as our technology
sharing arrangements with the US have for some time been one-way it is
quite likely that some of that technology came from Europe in the first
place.
However this is all somewhat speculative, it is most unlikely that the
US will actually defend Taiwan. If China invade what exactly is anyone
going to do? Yell trick or treat?
James M.maher, Guam USA
Dear Mr. Ash, good analysis. In fact a brave
analysis. Indeed the Han culture is following Doc. Kissinger's methods.
In the short-term, is not
the immediate problem for us (Europe, excluding France, and America)France?
Can there be any doubt? In the not too distant future, Europe (America
has made its decision) will have to publicly and essentially choose between
America's policies and France's. Like the slow child in the classroom,
we're all taught to not talk about France. Not sure this is really productive.
Thank you.
abdi, UK
Your arguments for not selling arms to China are not very honest mainly because those who are putting pressure for this their own record on human rights is far worse than the China. The only difference is that they are rich and powerful (incidently white) and call themseleves 'free world' i.e. free to do what ever they like.
Elizabeth Mapazire, Human Rights for all
mr ash i have just read your article in the gaurdian on the 24/03/05 about the arms imbargo on china. i gree with your critisism of europe's decision to lift yhe imbargo. i aslo agree that america is right to disagree. however i am very cynical about the american position. taiwan is a worrying issue i agree but i do not believe that is the motivation behind america's position. i dont know much about politics but america is a country that has always looked after its own interets and no one else . bush has admitted this a few times when being questioned about his govenment's polices abroad. to believe that america is against the weapons imbargo on moral grounds is laughable. this year it become clear to all that china is on its way to becoming a great economic power.i'm sure america will want to continue benefiting as thay have been doing already. but i suspect that they will only want to do this under their own control. this is a possible reason to their protest on the weapons imbargo. there is also a lot of talk about reforming the united nations and i'm sure china wants to increase it s influence in the process of change if it takes place. this could be another reason for america's position to influence who has power in the un. dont get me wrong i do not support china their human rights record still leaves a lot to be desired. i am from zimbabwe and i can wholly sympathise with people in china who want to freedon to speak their mind. if america is going to critise governments that violate people's rights then they should not selective and for this reason a lot people in the rest of the world do not trust the american government
Cary Fraser, USA
According to Timothy Garton Ash:
"But our response should be to work out, in conversations both among
ourselves and with the Americans, what are the basic liberal conditions
on which we will engage with the emerging giant dragon of the east."
Is it possible to engage in conversation on "basic liberal conditions"
when one of the parties is profoundly and atavistically anti-libearl,i.e,
the party of Know-Nothings who now control the major agencies of the American
state?
Toby Lincoln, UK
The overall picture that the EU's wish to
lift the arms trade ban with China for trade reasons is essentially correct,
however there are two assumptions which have gone almost entirely unchallanged
in much media coverage of this and related issues on China. The first
is that the anti-secession law is an act of belligerence, an assessment
that fails to consider the internal context in which the law was formulated.
An article published in international political journal China Brief provides
such context.(http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=408&issue_id=3184&article_id=2369042)
The authors argue that the law merely puts into statute what has been
the position of China for many years, namely that any declaration of independence
will result in force, and that this is the result of a debate with hardliners
in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) who wanted a really belligerent law
of national reunification. Furthermore, the law represents an attempt
to set out Beijing's policy towards Taiwan in such a way as to make such
a policy applicable beyond the life of the current government. The establishment
of structures and norms that do not depend on the whims of the faction
of the CCP that happens to be in power is in fact a step towards stability
and the rule of law in China, and should be welcomed. It should not be
forgotten that events in 1989 occured partly as a result of a power struggle
within the upper echelons of the CCP. This law makes war wih Taiwan as
a result of political infighting less likely, and for this reason should
be welcomed. Of course, as the article points out, to the Taiwanese this
law appears provocative, but the blunt acceptance of this perspective
in the international media, without adequate consideration of the internal
Chinese context is symptomatic of a lack of perceptive analysis of China,
and worrying in that it promotes misinterpretation of a country and a
system that does not exactly lend itself to easy examination in the first
place.
The second issue that needs addressing is the seeming assumption that
human rights is a closed defined concept. The conclusion to Prof. Garton-Ash's
article aruges for a debate as to what the minimum standards of engagement
with China should be. This must include an understanding of and debate
about the Chinese conception of the thorny concept of human rights, as
well as those of democracy, freedom, development etc... It is true that
the EU and the Western world in general should not cease its criticisms
of China's legal system, death penalty, activities in Tibet and the like.
In each case there needs to be closer examination of the internal context
in which these problems were created, as well as an appreciation that
systems of governance work differently, and often not terribly effectively,
in China. There should also be an admission that current international
definitions of human rights, democracy and the like are the result of
the Western and largely European historical process, and that their claim
to universality is one that can legitimately be questioned, a fact attested
to by the vibrancy of postcolonial studies in academic circles, a vibrancy
that should be transmitted to the political arena.
While this is not the place to examine in the detail the different conceptions
of democracy and human rights that result from several thousand years
of Chinese historical development, conceptions that in some ways, although
not through a lack of basic humanity, work very differently from those
that guide our debates in the West, an example is pertinent. Michael Dutton
in Streetlife China, a collection of essays examining Chinese life in
the 1990s from an anthropological perspective notes that for the Chinese,
poverty alleviation out of a wish to create general stability is a matter
of human rights. Indeed, Chinese criticisms of US human rights abuses
reflect this, while the UN's praise of the country for lifting 300 million
people out of absolute poverty in the last twenty years attest to its
success. It, in part, explains recent moves to develop the Western countryside,
murmurings of sustainable development policy, with the announcement last
year of a green GDP that attempts to factor in the environmental impact
of economic growth, a commitment to increased renewable energy use etc.
While China can be criticised on many fronts, the fact that its developmental
path and political culture are not necessarily the same as the West must
be taken into account for its place on the international stage to be seriously
examined.
It would be intriguing to still be around in 100 years to see if, environmental
challenges permitting, the shift in economic and political power to Asia
will result in a new conceptualisation of many of the cultural norms that
we currently consider universal. Perhaps, as the balance of economic and
political power changes, a style of neo-Confucian collectivism will become
the standard by which human relationships are judged. It may even be that
from such a perspective it is the current modes of thinking that become
a discourse in need of civilisation.
kung hoi, usa
As an ethnic Chinese, I do remember our history and how Brits had forced opium down the chinese throats, killing tens of millions over 100+ years before you were kicked out. I also learned that your country, Britain, was the only state sponsored drug trafficker in the history of mankind and civilizaton, with unprecedented large scale military force escorting shiploads of opiums to China. I don't see how britishers can talk about human rights when you can't come to term with your own shameful history.
The
First World Leader
4 April 2005
Tony, Africa, Caribbean, Europe, Pacific, Asia
Let us leave the religion emotion out for
a moment. Mandela versus the Pope as an international icon?
I was an unabused acoloyte some 40+ years ago but Mandlea is the man in
my lifetime.
Sarah Wright-Smith, Australia
Dear Timothy
Your article on PJP2 was great. I commend you and agree we now need to
find the new man/woman for our times. I am not religious!
The
Choice is Not Here
7 April 2005
For
a pax Europeae
14 April 2005
Michel Bastian, France
TGA´s proposition of a "Pax Europeana"
in the Balkans, notably, is tempting. However, in my opinion there are
major drawbacks to systematically rewarding good behaviour by eastern,
balkan or north-african states with a clear perspective of EU membership:
economical problems, cultural dissent and problems with political structure.
Why do all these states want to join the EU so much? Because it´s
seen as a major benefit to their economies. We (as well as the potential
new EU members) tend to forget that a. membership in the current EU is
not an instant guaranty of a superior lifestyle for everybody, that b.
we´re already having trouble convincing our population that cultural
integration of the new states is going to work and c. that the current
political structure of the EU is not adequate and new members will probably
destabilize the situation even further.
a. Economically, we need to ask ourselves whether the EU is going to be
able to support all those new states, because that, in essence, is going
to be what it will have to do, at least for the first few decades. Simply
put, the question is: are we in a position to finance large parts of the
joining new economies and is the european population as a whole ready
to lay the money on the table for that? Fortunately, at the moment there
isn´t quite as much of an economical gradient within the EU as we
feared there might be, but still: the "central european states"
(i.e. Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy mainly) are doing much of
the paying while the other states (especially Spain, Ireland and Portugal)
are mostly on the receiving end. This is not to critizise those states,
because mostly the money has been well spent and these economies are making
marked progress. However, we´ve just taken in a lot of new member
states, whose economies will have to adjust, which again will take some
time and investment. Also, we still have to iron out a lot of mischief
wrought in the early years of the EEG (like the completely overblown agrarian
subsidies, for example, or the ongoing row over the UK rebate). We have
a lot to digest. Taking in new members at the current rate is going to
strain the central european economies even more.
b. Concerning cultural integration: the question of Turkey´s membership
is going to be a central theme during France´s referendum on the
EU constitution. Why is that? Because the french population (as well as
the german population) has a certain amount of xenophobia towards the
turks: we´re indeed talking about Ottoman heartland here, which
means cultural difference in a major way. Personally, I think integrating
the turks into european society will work because there is a common democratic
denominator, albeit that there is still a lot of work left on the question
of human rights and religious fundamentalism. However, this is not the
view of public opinion in central europe. Taking in new, culturally very
different states is going to generate an enormous amount of resentment
on the part of the population of the older EU member states. Turkey has
only shown us the tip of the iceberg in that respect.
So if there is going to be a pax europeana, an enormous amount of educating
will have to be done, not only in the potential new member states, but
also in our own population.
c. Political structures. We might as well admit it: the current political
structures of the EU are inadequate, even if the new constitution should
pass against all odds. Do not misunderstand me, I´m all for the
new constitution, but as it stands now, it´s just a drop in the
ocean. The EU institutions have to be democratically legitimized, and
their powers have to be clearly defined, especially in relation to the
member states. Currently, the EU is a bureaucracy in the scientific sense
of the word: it´s a state-like construct run by a scarcely checked
administration. There has to be a clear democratic mandate. This should
be done through massively strengthening the european parliament, which
has to have much more control over the executive, i.e. the european council
and especially the european commission. De facto, both of those have much
too much unchecked legislative power. The european court is just a judiciary
and can only judicate after legislation has already been passed. There
has to be an independent, democratically legitimized european legislative
power worthy of the name.
Furthermore, there has to be a clear division of powers between the EU
"federal" government and the member states. The EU wields the
same power as a federal state in many respects, therefore powers should
be defined and checks and balances should be applied just as in any federal
state. Before this has been cleared up, any new member state (regardless
of economical or cultural status) will only increase the potential controversy
and dissent over who should wield how much of the EU´s power. "Guarded
sovereignty" or not, the member states will have to admit that they
have already transferred a lot of their sovereignty on the EU and they
will have act accordingly, i.e. institute democratic checks on it.
To sum things up: Pax Europeana is nice, but let´s clean up our
own act internally before we start thinking about further expansion.
Esin Ay, Turkey
It seems like the new winds of racism that
is being claimed and cherish by European intellectuals against Muslims
and/or Turks is more one again in this article. Providing statements like
„one in six would be Muslim‰ as boogie word to readers, this
writer actually promoting anti-Islam to his readers. Of course, in 21st
Century, it is normal for any European to practice and promote racism.
However, this kind of statements, from a prominent intellectual in a one
of the most so-called Liberal papers in the world, is astonishing.
Besides, the situation of Turkish Republic and where it stands today in
comparison to its previous Imperial form the ottoman Sate, is no more
different than today‚s Britain to British Empire of the past. Therefore,
it very is futile, hostile, and racist to blame today‚s problems
in Balkans. It was not the Turks that butchered 300,000 Bosnian Muslims
in Bosnia just 13 years ago while the rest of the Europe was watching
the events like „merkats‰. Until the US stepped in and took
action, Muslims of Europe went through genocide in front of our beloved
EU politicians.
I would highly suggest to Ash to look at the EU and its Turkish perspective
(and vice versa) and analyze it with a more rational, logical, and less
racist point of view.
AB, France
Strange that you blame poor Suleiman for his
lifestyle. He must not have
realized that several centuries later a guy named Napoleon broke up the
empires of Venice and Germany ("Holy Roman Empire"), which triggered
the spread of a very strong doctrine, called nationalism, eastwards. This
doctrine contributed to unite Italy and Germany, but crashed into the
Empire arrangements in Central/Eastern Europe, with great effect on the
Austria-Hungary empire, the Ottoman empire, and the Russian Empire. In
the geographical areas covered by those empires, people of different cultures
(kinship wise, language wise or religion wise) live(d) inextrically mixed
together in the same territory.
Unlike the slow building of the State-Nation in Western Europe (State
was first, Nation came later in e.g. France), the non-dominant people
in e.g. the Ottoman Empire had little time to build up their own strong
state, since rival claims about the same territory seemed inevitable.
Witness the Greek "Megali Idea", and its fate, or Greater Bulgaria,
Serbia, Albania, and so on, leading to two Balkan wars, igniting WW-I,
suffering through WW-II, and the wars in former Yougoslavia in the 1990's.
The stronger states ("Powers") did their best to meddle into
this mess, without much understanding. Most of the conflicts were/are
settled by fragmentation and ethnic homogeneisation (whether "voluntary"
such as the population exchange between Greece and Turkey in 1923, or
forced as in the recent Yougoslavia wars).
It is easy to see why governments in SE Europe are jittery about modifying
boundaries, which may well happen if Kosovo Albanians become independent,
and will want to join up with their fellowmen in Albania proper, and in
the process claim the area around Tetovo. The EU, with its (too ?) strong
emphasis on economic development, might shift the agenda in the Balkans
from extreme nationalism to European peace, but current debates about
its "Constitution" do not leave much room for optimism. Yet
it is clear that the "black hole" of the western Balkans has
to be addressed soon by the EU, and perhaps better before addressing the
problems set by Turkey.
Finally, maybe YOU think that the Balkans are Europe's backyard, and not
a place the USA cares much about, but the USA does care a lot about it,
since it is next to the Eastern Mediterranean where the USA and the UK
keep their strategic options open, e.g. on Cyprus (another Ottoman legacy
hotspot). Witness the "name issue" concerning the
Former Yougoslav Republic of Macedonia, where the mediator is an American,
not a European. And aren't they building (NATO) bases in the Eastern Balkans,
just so as to be close to the Caspian oil countries ?
William Duffy, USA
Your cart is before the horse. Where does the Constitution stand? What happens if the French vote NO! I guess you add another 2/300 more pages. I suggest one dilemma at a time or do you suggest we settle 2017 first? Good Luck.
Tom Beament, UK
On the subject of future EU enlargement, you
said: "Nor does it include any of the successor states of the Ottoman
empire in the Near East or north Africa, although Morocco has in the past
asked if it could apply. For them, the EU will have to develop a neighbourhood
policy which does not depend on the promise of eventual membership."
Is there any reason why such "non-European" states could not
join the EU? In fact, is there any reason why the EU has to be "European"?
Like you, I'm very much in favour of Turkey's memebership, and of the
idea of the EU, not as a privileged memebers club, but as an organisation
that premotes democratic and economic stability AND effects it, by steadily
encorporating new members as each puts in place the necessary reforms
in order to gain the benfits of memebrship. In fact, we can see this process
as a wave moving out from its origin in the original member states. Now,
is there any reason why this should be limited to some geographical, or
cultural, notion of what "Europe" is? Don't the economic and
political reasons for this movement transcend any such boundaries? I can
see no reason why there couldn't come a time when the EU outgrows the
origin which made it right to call it "European".
Christian
Europe RIP
21 April 2005
Michel Bastian, France
Excellent article. I watched a debate on the
pope on german TV just yesterday, where roman catholic and lutheran protestant
theologians were having a go at eachother. One of the "laymen"
on the panel was Norbert Blüm, the minister for social affairs under
the Kohl administration. He made a very good point: how does all this
bickering between christians about whether or not to ordain women, whether
or not to celebrate eucharist together etc. look to non-christians? Is
this going to make them want to join the church? The answer is obvious:
no, it isn´t. Worse: not only will it frighten off non-christians,
it will also radicalize those christians that stay within the churches.
With the new pope, chances are that this development will continue. Benedict
XVI is going to back off from secularism towards traditional catholic
doctrine even more.
A commentator on the spiegel website very aptly described this development:
Nietzsche´s dead, God lives ;-).
Pierrick Moreaux, London Metropolitan University
Bring on a secular, de-christianised Europe
Peter Hughes, Canada
In Christian Europe RIP you mention that with modern medicine the Pope could well survive another 10 years. With stem cell research pointing favourably to the possibility of regenerating organs and other human tissue, this Pope may have the potential to reach the age of Methusalah. The irony, of course, is that Catholics are currently opposed to stem cell research becuase it involves harvesting cells from foetuses. Hmmm! Keep watching this space.
Jim LaPeer, USA
I don't know that I agree with Mr Ash's assesment
that the new Pope is going to hasten the demise of Christianity in Europe.
The Pope is the lineal descendant of Peter, who walked with Jesus; (incidentally,
I am christian, but not Catholic) His message is going to be the true
one that Jesus brought. And, this message has never been subject to the
currently popular values of a given point in time.
I think Europe will reject, or re-embrace, the message for reasons of
their own determination, not because of a new Pope that gets the obligatory
bad press from the media.
As an American of European ancestry (many EU countries), I hope that Europe
'gets religion' again; There's far more to life than just the days we
are given. Good luck to them.
Cormac Sheridan, Ireland
I very much liked the 'Christian Europe RIP'
piece. In one way, I am that atheist who will enjoy the pathetic spectacle
of Ratzinger attempting, Canute-like, to hold back the tide of relativism
and secularism in Europe; but I also regret that we won't have a credible
moral leader who will stand up for the world's poor. Despite my overall
antipathy towards him, I genuinely respected John Paul II's stance aginst
consumerism and unbridled capitalism and thought he represented an independent
political voice in an increasingly unipolar world. I would have liked
to have seen this tendency further developed in the current pontificate.
I just don't see it happening.
But maybe we're attaching too much significance to the papacy - after
all, as one critical Irish priest commented this week, the pope is nothing
more than the bishop of Rome. John Paul II built the position up into
much more than that by becoming a global media celebrity. Ratzinger may
well take a different tack. On one level, I'm actually surprised at myself
that I care about any of this - but I think it has perhaps uncovered a
hunger I didn't know I had for moral leadership that seems to be so absent
from the world.
Tom Dudley, London
i find your article "Christian Europe
RIP" to be a most objectionable piece of writing. What pessimistic
and very generalised comments you disgorge!I should be most interested
to see how a Pope whom you have described as having "nothing in the
personality, biography, principles or strategy to suggest that he can
reverse these trends." copes with said trends. The job of the Holy
Father is to steer and guide through times of trouble for the Holy Mother
Church. I suggest that you visit the many churches of France, and see
for your own eyes the "decline of the church". Perhaps you would
be more willing to attend Mass at St Bartholomew the Great in London.
Here you will find living proof that the church endures. Indeed a trip
to Poland will indicate the vivality of the Roman Church, whatever an
"American Baptist Ministry website" might say. Perhaps you have
lost your way during the arduous research for your article, but the Roman
Church was a separate denomination the last time i checked.
However, my major bone of contention is that you have the cvheek to judge
this Pope before he is a week into his Magisterium! Many a man has changed
radically upon ascent to the Papal Throne; Benedict XVI is a conservative,
yes, but it does not mean he will alienate the youth who, from the numerous
photos, appear to revere him. As for German television coverage, I suggest
you recall the demographics of Germany and realise that is a Lutheran,
or evangaelische kirche and the majority of northern germany is strongly
Lutheran, one must be wary of judging before one knows the facts.
Finally, your expectation that Islam will be the dominant religion is
misguided, and foolish in the extreme; if anything, the rise of Islam
and particularly its fundamentalists is far mroe lilely to create a backlash
against Islam and consequently a resurgence in the Church's numbers
antti vainio, finland
I don't want to sound like a whiny bastard but could you ask the gentlemen at the Guardian to hire some of your eastern European friends to make this website a bit more snappier and practical. the Checks and Poles are cheap and much better than the English. the content is brilliant, don't let them touch it, though
Rich Holt, UK
Very much enjoyed your Guardian piece on the
new Pope last week. Please have a look at my latest blog on the subject:
http://www.benefitofhindsight.blogspot.com/
All the best, keep up the good work.
antti vainio, finland
To mr Dudley
I'm a non-believer from a secular protestantic country so you probably
just ignore my opinion. I thought "Christian Europe RIP" made
a lot of sense. I don't like muslim fundamentalists either, nobody likes
them, but the muslims are not one singleminded mass (Christians are neither).
the new pope was wrong when he stressed that Europe is Christian, actually
the muslims did a good job in Spain while the catholic church was the
menace. also, we good Europeans should have sided with the moderate muslims
like kurds and people in Sarajevo. oh no, we were on the side of the good
Christian Milosevich and (this is so weird) Saddam Hussein. the catholic
church is such a dubious institution, why didn't you choose a South American
pope? that would have been nice, somebody who could be called, for instance,
people's pope
margaret kearney, australia
As shown by all the media coverage and the crowds in Rome the role of the Pope whether you agree with him or not is important. However your Europe RIP is correct. For far too long Rome has taken attitudes towards a range of issues which make it disconnected to the modern society.Attacks on gays are offensive, promots bigotry and violence. It is anti all the lessons learnt from WW11 and the fact that gays were sent to the gas chambers as were Jews.Opposition to contraceptives and even abortion is denying women access to health care and medical services that they think are essential for their health and well being. From Europe to South America contraceptives provide safe family planning options for women and couples within marriage and prevent unwanted pregnancies outside marriage. Abortion is an moral issue which needs to include the reasons why women need acces to it. They include rape and violence, physical and mental health of the women, social stigma and economic issues (lost job, poverty). The militant campaign is about denying women access to these health services rather than dealing with the causes and reasons. It is whyso many have walked away from the church.And the opposition to the use of condoms could best be described as medical negligence. False claims that they do not protect people against hiv/aids or other disease should result in the church being sued. All of this takes away from what the churh does which can be good. Or if it it had supported liberation theology would have found many people returning to the church.
Howard's
false move
28 April 2005
Geoff James, USA
The concern with anti-semitism is interesting in that it is the column itself that refers to Howard's "Romanian Jewish father" (and "enterprising" father, no less). While the point about the chap with immigrant roots who peddles anti-foreigner hysteria is valid, what, exactly, does the fact that Howard's father was Jewish have to do with it? Wouldn't it have sufficed to say that Howard's father came to Britain from Romania? Millions of Poles and Italians migrated to the U.S. a century ago; we don't refer to them as "Polish Catholic" or "Italian Catholic" immigrants.
BP, UK
Regarding your article in today's Guardian
(28/04/05) about Michael Howard and immigration and Europe's need for
immigration in the next decade and the battle the responsible mainstream
is having with the far-right: a colleague pointed out that the "Are
you thinking what we are thinking" slogan is very similar to that
used by the Belgian National Front, Vlaams Blok five years ago who used
"YOU know why!" - As he pointed out, "The message is exactly
the same. Vote for us. You don't need to put the reasons why into words,
and nor do we. We all have exactly the same 'unspoken' views in our heads,
and let's keep them there, just in case others show them to be 'unspeakable'."
No-one in the British press has commented on this - presumably because
unfamiliar with what is going on in Belgium.
I wonder if Michael Howard didn't make a sort of Faustian pact when he
became Tory party leader - he got the leadership on condition he denied
his forefathers three times before the cock crowed...
Paddy Briggs, UK
I thought that your article in The Guardian "Howard's false move" the best that I have read on the elction. I would only add that as well as the ghastly Lynton Crosby the Conservatives have also had Maurice Saatchi spinning away!
Make
it happen
5 May 2005
matt mcauley, labour voter, australia
thanks for today's column (5th may). i would dearly love to see blair beaten but labour returned. however, it is more important that howard and lynton "queasy" crosby are given a very clear message and that crosby is sent back to australia with his tail between his legs. crosby won "our" howard 2 successive elections by lying shamelessly about the threat from immigrants. they kept a straight face when their lies were exposed
Joseph Nailer, United Kingdom
Your column in the Guardian today (5/5/05) argues that Britain has a "liberal" majority because more people vote Labour or LibDem than Conservative. If this is so, why are a majority of British adults in favour of the death penalty? And why do so many of Muslim males who support Labour believe firmly in the subjugation of women and the violent suppression of homosexuality? And in vote-rigging? Or is vote-rigging a liberal value too? You don't seem to realize that many people vote Labour or LibDem out of self-interest, not because they agree with "liberalism". That this glaringly obvious fact has escaped you says all that needs saying about your grasp of political reality.
Joe Patterson, UK
1. It is gratifying to see yet another Guardian
correspondent coming out openly for PR. I hope the momentum for electoral
refom will be maintained after the election; and that Guardian correspondents
will play their part in supporting the campaign being led by "Make
Votes Count". (In this regard I hope that everybody who reads this
will visit the MVC website (http://www.makemyvotecount.org.uk) and sign
the petition they are organising)
2. "Even proportional representation would not - and obviously should
not - secure a Lib-Lab majority for ever."
It seems almost certain that if/when we get PR there will be a complete
party re-alignment. In particular the Labour Party is in fact two parties:
"New" Labour and "true" Labour. They are shackled
together by first-past-the-post because to split would further divide
the left-of-centre to the advantage of the Tories. PR would eliminate
this inhibition.
Indeed, if we had the Electoral Reform Society's preferred system - STV
- these two wings could put up their respective candidates and be represented
even without a split; and could speak up and vote in Parliament without
having to "keep on message" as at present.
Thus we could hope for the discarding of at least some of the Tory clothes
which were donned by "New" Labour in order to be more sure of
gaining power after two decades of Thatcherism.
Forward
to VE Day
12 May 2005
Joe Deane, USA
TGA wants a democratic Russia just as George Bush does. The independence and equality of Russia and of Europe, not to mention UK, are under assualt by the Bush regime in the USA. For Putin to allow privatization of the resources of Russia and the sale or control of them to US energy corporations, esp Bush Inc. would be a betryal of his country far greater than denial of "democacy". TGA understands this perfectly well. That is why he wants Putin to act the fool and wants to fool his readers. Gartin and Bush are on the same page and use the same word "democracy", in vain. They defile it!
Exchange
of Empires
17 May 2005
Erion, Albania
BIG EVENT!
Tirana Festival of Activism
Pora, Kmara, Mjaft, Zubr, Otpor. All together on the 3rd of June in Albania.
A government that abuses with its country holding the power illegitimately?
Elections being manipulated and peoples‚ will being infringed? Corruptive
affairs among high officials, which bring to collapse the economy of ordinary
people, every single day? A dictator who isolates his country in misery
and enmity with its neighbors?
You might have heard repeatedly and very often, these words appearing
in the articles of correspondents from Ukraine, Belarus, Serbia, Albania
or Georgia. In addition, many names of those who have been organizing
for quite some time society‚s resistance in these countries against
the evil that has captured them, became widely recognized. From OTPOR
of Serbia, which buried the Milosevic regime, to ZUBR of Belarus, which
is still struggling against the last European dictatorship, that of Lukashenko,
from KMARA of Georgia, to MJAFT of Albania, from PORA of the Ukrainian
orange revolution, to the youth of KAN in Kosovo, student movements are
the foundation of these activities, and the youth is the commune raw material
of this Eastern European civil resistance power of post-communist countries.
This time, the rendezvous is Tirana. The Festival of Activism will take
place in the capital of Albania, starting from June 3rd, and lasting three
days. Representatives from all the organizations that fight or did fight
against autocratic regimes or power abuse, will get together to demonstrate
that they share the same vision, and, regardless of their names or the
countries where they operate, everyone has a unique goal: democracy.
The participating organizations will engage during the days of the Festival,
in a number of activities in Tirana ˆ where the local organization,
MJAFT Movement carries a huge support of youth as the upcoming general
elections in this post-communist country. The Albanian Elections will
be held a month later and are expected to be quite intense, while the
actors of civic society, including MJAFT, have called for the support
of the international community in order to not permit the aggravation
of the situation following elections, regardless of the results.
The Festival of Activism will comprise a massive conference, with the
participation of thousands of young people from Tirana, the showing of
documentaries in different movie theaters, concerning the efforts made
by the participant organizations in the festival, of TV debates, public
audiences with famous representatives of past movements, such as Solidarnosc
etc, or with distinguished writers and publicists from all over Europe
and USA. During the festival, an opening of several exhibitions with pictures
and posters of the organizations in diverse locations of Tirana is planned,
therefore turning the capital of Albania for three days into a capital
of activism.
The organizers of the first Activism Festival, which this time will be
held in Tirana, aim at transforming it into a yearly tradition which will
amble from capital to capital, all over Europe. They are thinking of signing
a „Solidarity Document‰. Its purpose will be to set up a network
for all activist movements, which will support one another in a Pan- European
civil resistance against dictatorships, power abuses and the breaking
of democracy principles by the power, wherever they may be.
Representatives from the most distinguished local and international media
have already confirmed their participation in the Festival of Activism
in Tirana 3-5 June 2005. In order to receive the program of the Festival,
for further information, or to make your accreditation, or special requests
for your correspondents or TV crew who will cover the Festival of Activism,
you are kindly required to contact the people assigned to coordinate the
media, through these email addresses: shameti@mjaft.org and endrifuga@mjaft.org.
As well you can require further information searching our website www.mjaft.org
or also by phone/fax +355 4223661.
Looking forward meeting you in Tirana, on June 3rd.
Susan Starke, USA
In "Exchange of Empires" you mention as one of your three scenarios for the former Soviet-ruled countries the prospect of the USA's filling the imperial void. That will never happen, because American voters aren't interested in funding, administering and sustaining far-flung empires. The historian Niall Ferguson has made a similar point in relation to American ambitions in Iraq. So really, you're left with your first and third scenarios. Let's hope that number three comes to pass: supportive cooperation between the EU and the USA to aid these countries.
Votez
oui malgré tout
26 May 2005
Deirdre Toomey, Ireland
Dear Mr Garton Ash,
Your assumption (implicit in your latest Guardian column) that democracy
is excellent as long as the little people vote the right way (Oui) is
surprising for a specialist in Eastern European affairs. I am reminded
of the old joke about dissolving the people and electing another people.
The more voters are hectored and finger-wagged, the more likely they are
to resist being told what is good for them. A Dutch friend of mine has
referred to widespread dislike of being lectured from the pulpit by the
Regenten (sp?)
This was markedly the case in Denmark's referendum on the Euro. The Danish
media and the major political parties told the electorate to vote for
the Euro. But voters had minds of their own and refused to do as they
were told. I agree that French voters might vote 'Non' for the wrong reasons,
but those who vote 'Oui' might also have mistaken assumptions.
Paul Morgan, Paso Robles, CA, USA
Dear Mr. Ash,
In your article suggesting that it good for a yes vote on the so called
constitution, your logic was irratic. You accutally sounded like the wacko
leftist that we have in the USA. Snobish, elitest, reason based on emotion.
That is how I would describe this article.
The EU was doomed from the start. Why? Simple, socialism does not work.
Has not worked, will never work and Europe is already stuck in the mud
with socialism. Real pain will be needed to be felt by the people before
real change can occur. Unfortunately, that historically means a war. Believe
me, after Iraq, the real America (Not Hollywood or Washington DC or New
York) does not like or care a whit about Europe. The last thing that we
want to do is to come in and save you from yourselves AGAIN!
The UK has always been a friend and a good friend. You have been wise
to embrase the EU with caution. We wish you the best and the close ties
that are governments have is good for everybody concerned.
As for the French, who cares. They are an enemy. Physical enemy, no. They
couldn't cause our guys in green even to break a sweat. But in a real
sense they are an enemy. If Chirac (Who thinks he is a king.) falls because
of this, it will be good for Europe. Schoeder is gone also, so maybe some
sense will break out.
Your closing concern that Europe will look like clowns is already real.
"Old" Europe does look like clowns now and have been for a while.
I am very glad that the UK is not Europe and historically, Europe has
been the enemy of England. Keep your distance and thank God for the Channel.
Daniel Gordon, UK
I sympathise with many of the concerns of
the 'No' camp in France. The last thing Europe needs is more privatisation
and deregulation - and its far from clear that even the British people,
as distinct from the British political class, actually want that either.
Here, it has produced an unhappy society of overworked, exploited, indebted
and deeply alienated individuals.
Nevertheless, it has to be said that the chances of the French 'non de
gauche' camp getting what they want out of a scrapping of the constitution
are slight. Last week I was in Marseille and spotted around the city centre,
amidst the left 'no' posters, some by an obscure monarchist group saying
'Les jeunes royalistes disent NON a cette Europe-la'. This brought to
mind the unkind thought that the chances of the current 25 governments
all agreeing to a revised constitution that would be acceptable to the
French far left are about as high as a restoration of the monarchy in
France! [Not to mention the far right. To be truly representative of the
diversity of the various no campaigns, a renegotiating team would have
to include Laurent Fabius (the nearest France has to a Blairite, engaged
in some extraordinary opportunism here), the Trotskyist postman Olivier
Besancenot, and Jean-Marie Le Pen. The mind boggles...]
I worry that a scrapping of the constitution could actually lead to a
more, not less, neo-liberal direction for the EU, at least in the short
term. As one yes slogan has put it, 'Le capitalisme n'a pas besoin de
constitution, nous les citoyens, OUI!'
Deirdre Toomey, Ireland
I must admit to being reluctant to crow over the 'Non' vote, but your comment on the debacle in today's 'Guardian' (the heart rejecting the body) indicates how emotionally (rather than logically) you are wedded to relentless progress towards closer EU integration---whether EU citizens like it or not. The remote,anti-democratic, top-down, dirigiste governance of the EU is not a pleasant phenomenon to contemplate. Again I am surprised that an expert on the former Eastern European Soviet Block should be so uncritical of the negative aspects of the EU as it now exists.
Michel Bastian, France
I agree with most of what is said in this
article. I do not agree with the view that the constitution will or should
just be "watered down" so that it´s acceptable to everybody,
as it happened for the European Defence Union. Hopefully, european governments
will not try this. With the french no, the constitution project is effectively
dead. As TGA pointed out, when France says no, why should the Netherlands,
Poland, Denmark and Britain say yes? Even the Germans are grumbling and
starting to call for a referendum (eventhough such a referendum would
legally be impossible because of the german constitution). New drafts,
a second referendum in France etc. won´t change the underlying problem:
public opinion needs a scapegoat for a general feeling of social insecurity
in Europe (indeed, the fear factor TGA is talking about, except that it´s
not limited to France), and (besides the national governments) the EU
is the obvious target. To try and continue the ratification process now
would effectively only deepen this groundswell of distrust against Brussels.
Worse, it would be seen as a decision by governments against the people´s
declared will.
The french no, whatever the reasons for it, is a major setback for Europe,
there is no doubt about that. So what to do now? Should we just sit back
and see Europe balkanise? Undoubtedly, that would suit the american administration
well, but would it be in each european state´s best interest? Factionalism,
nationalism, political, economical and military competition between the
member states? The consequence would be that each and every european member
state would dissappear into global irrelevance, even if there wouldn´t
necessarily be war in Europe again (well, not in the immediate future,
anyway). No, this would not be a good idea for Europe. What is needed
now is perseverance. Pick up the pieces and build the whole thing up again.
Start by tackling the basics: somehow the european population has to be
made to understand that Europe is the only way out for every single member
state. None of them can make it alone on a global scale, not even Germany,
France or Britain. If this doesn´t get through to everybody, there´s
no point in even thinking about a european constitution. That´s
because constitutions don´t stand on their own. They´re driven
by the will of the people. That´s the way democracy works. If however
the population of some or all member states does not understand Europe
is necessary to their continued survival and want to pull out (France,
Britain and Denmark are drifting in that direction), then every single
state in Europe is dead (including those states that want to pull out
of it) and all of them will gradually fade into oblivion over the next
few decades. From now on, it´s basically an enormous exercise in
marketing the union, really. Fail and in the long run, we´re all
done for. We´ll just dissapear into the mists of history one by
one, like so many nations, empires and cultures before us.
What
is to be done?
2 June 2005
Elizabeth Pallister, Newcastle University, UK
Dear Timothy, I found your colum today (June 2nd) very intersting and I have a question. I would be most grateful if you could explain to me what Blairism is, i.e. what policies exactly can be considered to make up the body of Blairism.
Deidre Tommey, Ireland
Michel Bastian might be interested in a recent and very acute article by Larry Elliott (the Guardian's economics editor) about the fallacy of trying to 'sell' the EU. He compares this to Coca Cola's doomed attempt to force New Coke down the throats of buyers. However his point is that Coca Cola had to respond to rejection by changing the product, not by endless rebranding. The EU, he argues, cannot understand this and tries to bully its citizens into agreeing that everything is just fine. That the eurozone works perfectly (it doesn't) and so on.
Pierrick Moreaux, London Metropolitan University
Elizabeth Pallister
I would advise (and I think Timothy will agree) that you start by reading
The third way : the renewal of social democracy / Anthony Giddens.Malden,
Mass : Polity Press, 1999
Tim Weaver, UK (based in US)
You may be interested in an article I have
just written on the French "non".
Foreign Policy Research Institute
50 Years of Ideas in Service to Our Nation
1955-2005
www.fpri.org
WATCH ON THE WEST
Volume 6, Number 3
June 2005
OH NON!
WHAT'S BEHIND THE FRENCH VOTE, AND WHAT'S AHEAD?
