Identity and the EU

Could there be a “national identity” of Europe? Would this help the ongoing project of the European Union, and in what way? What would be the components of such an identity?

While the EU is not sufficiently hated in its member countries for there to be major popular movements to opt out, the central government is an elite organisation that Europe's population does not identify with. This is an element holding the EU back from acting more positively in global affairs. As the international legitimacy of the US declines and the emerging economies grow in influence, the rules for international negotiation/cooperation/conflict are being rewritten. There is an opportunity for the EU to establish a reference frame for international interaction based on principles of peaceful cooperation and common interest. It will only take this opportunity, though, if it has a sufficient mandate to act more boldly. For this to happen, Europe's people will have to start feeling "European" - but right now noone knows what that is. I've been putting together a few thoughts though.

It was at around the time of the big “no” votes on the EU constitution last May that I first thought seriously about this topic, and it’s come back to me again recently because of some stuff going on at work which unfortunately remains, for the moment, under wraps. It’s a fascinating topic, for a few reasons:

* Nationalism: Europe gave the world nationalism, and it was one of the major political influences of the past couple of centuries. However Europe is arguably doing the most to override nationalist sentiment in the present day, as it is unique in the world in the extent to which national governments have externalised powers to a supranational body.
* The EU as an experiment: The extent of voluntary cooperation between sovereign states in the EU is unprecedented. This makes much of its development something of a leap in the dark, meaning there’s plenty of scope for different ideas, for things to go drastically wrong, but also drastically right.
* The post-superpower world [an expression I got off my boss]: Everybody knows that the world’s geopolitical landscape is going to be reshaped over the coming decades by the emerging economies of China, India and possibly others. But the way that international action, cooperation, negotiation and conflict is going to be conducted in the new world remains unclear. With the diminishing legitimacy of the US as a world policeman, who’s going to move ahead with a way of doing business that remains palatable to everyone? The EU offers a model of peaceful cooperation that has a lot of promise, and people around the world see it as a positive influence. But if it’s going to play a role in shaping the post-superpower world it has to start acting with more confidence and more coherence. Where will that come from?


The notion that political organisations were best arranged around a homogeneous ethnic group with a shared culture, values, traditions, etc., gained credence in Europe sometime upward of 150 years ago. This notion has been important in a number of political changes in the past couple of centuries, including the World Wars and decolonisation. It was always problematic though, because governments run countries or cities or regions or other entities defined by area, while any substantial area has never been likely only to contain a single type of people. Sometimes different groups have lain claim to the same bit of land; sometimes unavoidable movements of people have resulted in several groups occupying the same bit of land more or less peacefully. Governments will thus necessarily rule over mixtures of people, an issue that has been dealt with in many different ways over time, from genocide to power sharing to nation building.

Nation building is an intriguing notion. There are cases in the past of nations having been discovered dormant and reformed, like Frantisek Palacky did with the Czechs. He researched their history, culture, myths and legends, and gave the Czech nation a reason to believe it should rule itself. Such people get to be called fathers of nations. I don’t know a great deal about Palacky and the Czechs, but one wonders whether they were there to be discovered or in fact it was all a big illusion. At any rate, if it was an illusion then it’s certainly not now, as the existence of a country called the Czech Republic goes to show.

Something of a digression, but it doubles neatly back to where Europe is right now. It’s not a popular project, with “popular” standing both for “of the people” and “liked by the people,” definitions that are somewhat interdependent. People don’t buy into the EU emotionally because they don’t see why Europe needs a central government. If they somehow came to believe that certain things bound the people of Europe (be they immigrants or not) together, this would conceivably give the government in Brussels greater legitimacy. A further optimistic step is that this would give it the confidence to act more positively on global affairs. As alluded to earlier, this might be beneficial to the world. The EU has spare foreign policy capacity, and it could use it for good.

Ignoring for the moment the many debatable things brought up above, the question I’d like to address is: if a “national” identity were to be developed for Europe, what would its parameters be? I have a few ideas…

Values: It’s essential for any country joining the EU to be a democracy, and this is a fairly good political value to start with. Tolerance of others is an important, positive principle to have with so many different people getting along together, and with substantial ongoing immigration (which is the only thing stopping the population declining after all) it's essential.

Culture: That’s what the Americans come over for right? There are strings of fabulous museums, architecture, theatres and opera houses across the continent. Every country has contributed some of the artists, writers and composers who fill them all up, and everyone should be grateful to share in the legacy of all of them. Perhaps a few stand out – Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Mozart, Beethoven, J.S. Bach, Van Gogh, Cervantes, Picasso, Monet… While individual nations might want to claim their own for themselves, we shouldn’t forget that most of them were great because they learnt from each other, especially in the case of painters who travelled across Europe to study under the masters of the day.

Food and drink: We all love it. No doubt, one of the greatest pleasures of travelling throughout Europe is the quality of the local cuisine and the pride people take in it. It’s a mutual enthusiasm, and although it’s different stuff everywhere, everyone’s passionate about it. Apart from the British, who import all their food. British people love drinking though, and they make a hell of a lot of great beers and wines on the continent, which we quaff without complaint.

Sport: Europe gave the world football, rugby, golf, tennis and cricket. As for events: the Olympic Games, the World Cup, Wimbledon and Roland Garros, the Tour de France, etc. The most popular football leagues worldwide are all here, as well as the world’s highest quality club competition, the Champions’ League. European sport is uniquely popular at the world level; Europeans should know this.

History and language… probably best not to go there. Europeans spent centuries perfecting the art of killing each other, started the two World Wars, oppressed other cultures and civilizations throughout the world through colonialism, and all speak different languages. Each country thinks its language is best too, especially Britain and France. Perhaps just Britain and France, actually. But there you go.

Read more!

Iran - The Window of Opportunity

“The window of opportunity is now,” stated a diplomat in reference to the Iranian nuclear situation. ( Hersh) The window is closing rapidly.

Given the aims of In the World, it may already be too late to tackle such a convoluted, intricate issue. On the other hand, the time for open and informed discussion on the subject has never been so critical. The possible outcome of the current diplomatic stand-off is potentially the greatest threat to international stability for decades to come.

We should remember not to let the good be the enemy of the ideal. Compromise necessarily means a less than perfect outcome for all parties.

Where is the ‘window’ and what does it look like?
What type of confidence-building measures can be envisioned?
Is it possible that both the U.S. Administration and the Iranian Government want a conflict (for vastly different reasons)?

more . . .

Nationalists in Iran - Patriots in the U.S.A.

The key players in this deadly game have not had official diplomatic relations since the 1980s. The current situation cannot be separated from the 1953 coup in Iran, the 1979 Iranian Revolution and Hostage Crisis, the 1986 Iran-Contra scandal, the 2002 “Axis of Evil” speech, or the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The distrust between the U.S Administration and Iranian Government is equally deep and mutual.

The two parties and the international community looked to the EU3 (Britain, France, Germany) to broker a deal on the nuclear issue in October 2003. These talks were suspended indefinitely in early 2006 as Iran ended its voluntary moratorium on nuclear enrichment research – enrichment for civilian purposes is permitted by the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of which Iran is a signatory. Most recently, President Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had been successful in uranium enrichment. It should be noted that this enrichment is only 3.5%, which remains largely insufficient for weapons grade material (90% enrichment). (see International Crisis Group)

On the one hand, Iran claims to be developing a purely civilian nuclear energy programme. On the other hand, Europeans and, especially, the U.S.A. claim that Iran lacks credibility given its previously undisclosed nuclear research. They fear that Iran is in fact developing a parallel military nuclear programme. Yet in August 2005, “the Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons.” (WW4) While the significance of such a religious edict is largely underplayed, this Fatwa alone cannot quiet the concerns of secular Western governments.

The problem for those suspicious of Iran’s intentions is the lack of objectively convincing evidence supporting the ‘clandestine nuclear programme thesis.’

The problem for those supportive of the Iranian position is the lack of objectively convincing evidence supporting the ‘no nuclear weapon thesis.’


Iraq

The Iraqi quagmire is far from resolved, yet the 2003 invasion has already established a legacy. The botched Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) argument has fundamentally increased the burden of proof necessary for future multilateral interventions. The war itself has sent a clear message to the Iranian leadership. One of the three original members of the “Axis of Evil”, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) is suspected to possess nuclear weapons and a second member, Iraq, was invaded. The third member, Iran, remains in limbo. Furthermore, the Iranian Government knows that the U.S. efforts at rebuilding Iraq require many resources (economic, military, and political) rendering direct intervention in Iran difficult and costly at best - thus nearly impossible. The U.S. also depends on the Iranian Government’s influence with Shia’a groups to bring peace and consensus to Iraq.


Existential Threats - Internal Legitimisation - Geopolitics

Nonetheless, the U.S. military remains strategically placed in areas surrounding Iran. ( see map in Oxford Research Group)

Recent Iranian military exercises have received coverage in Western media. Less documented are the U.S. “Naval tactical aircraft…flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions…within range of Iranian costal radars.” ( Hersh)

In order to prevent factional divisions over domestic issues, governments often use an external threat to preserve general unity and to legitimize their policies and their power. This is the case with both Iran and the U.S.A. today. Sanctions could not only serve as an external basis for legitimization of the Iranian Government but they could also be a pretext for a regional re-grouping of extremist elements hostile to the West. Recently Iran’s Foreign Minister reminded the great powers to remember the past. “Political pressure on the Islamic Republic will have the reverse effect.” ( Kerala)

To the U.S. Administration, a nuclear Iran is a geopolitical challenge to their Middle East Policy and their control of the global oil supply. The weight of oil in the U.S. position should not be undermined.

To Iran, the U.S. Administration represents a potential existential threat and a genuine impediment to the Iranian regional hegemony of ages past.

Israel, the biggest recipient of U.S. aid, is thought to have 200 nuclear warheads but has never signed the NPT. When this is digested by Iranian nationalism, it only results in further resentment for Israel and greater animosity for the U.S.A., the country which currently underpins both Israel and the larger international order as a result of its economic and military might. Furthermore, the recent deal the U.S.A. signed with India, can easily be perceived as a double standard discriminating against Islam or Iran.


The Failure of Military Intervention (see Oxford Research Group)

While a full invasion of Iran is unlikely given the existing burdens weighing on the U.S. military, current talk mainly concerns strategic air strikes. It is well documented that such strikes would have to be numerous given the quantity of sites involved in the Iranian nuclear programme. The air strikes would also have to target many military sites, some of which are embedded in civilian areas, to eliminate the risk of retaliation. Whether the risk of retaliation can be fully eliminated is doubtful given Iranian nationalism, ties to Shia’as in Iraq, ties to Syria, ties to the Islamic Jihad in Israel and ties to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

As has been the case with Iraq, any kind of intervention in Iran is likely to embolden terrorist organisations and anti-Americanism in the region. The notion that such strikes would cause an implosion of the Iranian Government is extremely unlikely. Arguments that such an attack would enflame the region are quite compelling.

An attack by an external power is likely to bring unprecedented legitimacy to the Iranian Government. If there is currently no military nuclear programme in Iran, air strikes would bring strong support for the Iranian Government to begin one. This would ultimately require further strikes at a later date.


Deal-Breakers

To Iran, abandoning enrichment is unacceptable, especially given how much the President has made it an issue of national pride and, therefore, legitimacy. To the U.S. enrichment is unacceptable. Meanwhile Europeans, Russians, and the Chinese remain more ambiguous. Nonetheless, the two major parties are at an impasse.

Now that the issue has been transferred to the U.N. Security Council there is an additional problem of saving face. The Security Council would lose what authority it has by tolerating enrichment. Iran cannot freeze enrichment in the face of external pressure if the leadership is to retain legitimacy domestically.

Read more!

Founding principles

Welcome In the World...

Founding principles of the blog:

• It is assumed that all posts and comments will mainly elaborate potential 'solutions' to various issues. It always helps if these are derived from sources as well as opinions.

• Criticism is good; character assassination is bad. If criticising, also provide an alternative.

• What I say need not be what I believe.

• There should be a peaceful solution to every conflict.

• The founding principles are subject to future amendments!

NOTE: though posts and comments do not need references, any information relating to or elaborating on topics being discussed will be much appreciated, especially if linked rather than posted.

Read more!