1. What Europe means (to us)
„Ach Europa!“ (Europe, Europe: Forays into a Continent) is the title of a book by Hans Magnus Enzensberger, which he wrote about half a century after the end of the last huge catastrophe of European civilisation. His diagnosis of the "paradox Europe" reads: "It is the irregularity, the confusion that makes Europe strong. The unity of the continent, as it is understood in the logic of the corporations, the political parties, the bureaucracies, namely as a project of homogenisation, proves to be a chimera. Europe is unthinkable as a ‘bloc’."
This was his indulgent insight into the inner life of Europeans. In a fictional interview with the equally fictional US ambassador in Bonn, whom he calls just Murphy, he has the first-person narrator, in the role of an American ex-GI and journalist, projected 19 years into the future, paint a less friendly picture from the outside perspective: "The European Community? Forget it, Murphy! You act as if we were dealing with a world empire. You know as well as I do that the European Community is a henhouse, a tangle of ever-shrinking states - if what the Europeans have set up for themselves can be called states at all."
Oh, you pitiful Europe! one might exclaim, if only a little of it were true. But what is Europe really? And, what should it be like?
Europe (Greek Εὐρώπη), is geographically only a subcontinent, of the continent of Eurasia. This peninsula, which occupies about one-fifth of the Eurasian landmass, is generally agreed to stretch from Norway's Kinnarodden in the north to Spain's Punta de Tarifa in the south, from Portugal's Cabo da Roca in the west to the Urals in the east. Europe is not clearly demarcated from its neighbour Asia and was thus open to all kinds of migrations.
According to a well-known quote of Bernard-Henri Lévy, Europe is "not a place, but an idea". in this essay we will also be guided by this idea - by the historical, cultural, political and idealistic aspects.
But I do not intend to recount history here, nor to give an overview of the cultural currents or the political movements during the troubled centuries that Europe's peoples have lived through ever since. It is important for us to highlight what makes Europe unique, a feature that distinguishes us fundamentally from the rest of the world, that we can be proud of, that we should be prepared to defend if necessary.
We will be talking about the European values that are so often referred to, used and abused. But what are these ideas and values?
Europe is often equated with the "Christian Occident" - in clear distinction to the (Muslim) Orient. So, is Christianity this particular, distinguishing characteristic? My answer is a clear "no". It is true that Christianity only became a world religion in the wake of the rise of European states as world powers. However, as is well known, it has its roots and its early spread in a completely different cultural environment in the Middle East.
From a minority originally persecuted for its faith, Christianity, after displacing the then dominant Indo-European Mithras cult and eradicating it completely, itself developed into an intolerant power factor. The sad highlights of this are the burning of witches (heretics) and the extermination of the Cathars in southern France by Pope Innocent III.
After the catastrophe of the Black Plague in the 14th century had reduced the population of the time by about a third and, as a result, temporarily weakened the central authorities, city states flourished between northern Italy and Flanders, trade and the arts prospered, and a free space for all kinds of new ideas was created. This eventually led to a period that was generally perceived as a Renaissance (rebirth).
At that time, the educational movement of humanism first emerged in elite academic circles, which propagated a revival of ancient scholarship according to the principle ad fontes ("to the sources"). This was the tender beginning of a development that would eventually lead to the Enlightenment movement, with which we also commonly equate the emergence of modern Europe.
But before that - yes, that much history must be told - Central Europe had to survive another catastrophe, which this time cost the lives of about half its population.
The humanists out of their study of ancient authors and their generally freer thinking developed a critical attitude towards the present and especially towards the power of the church. These philosophical currents, with thinkers such as Erasmus of Rotterdam and Ulrich von Hutten, ultimately led to Martin Luther and the Reformation. Their resounding success was made possible by the simultaneous emergence of printing as a medium for the dissemination of information.
The counter-reactions were not long in coming. They finally culminated in the Thirty Years' War. In those fateful 30 years between the Defenestration of Prague and the Peace of Westphalia, Central Europe was largely devastated. The Peace of Westphalia only was made possible by the total exhaustion of resources of both parties and general war weariness. The “Westphalian order,” established by this compromise between all parties involved, though by no means consistently peaceful, lasted about 200 years until the Napoleonic Wars. Its basic principles still have an impact today in the Charter of the United Nations.
Immanuel Kant once characterized this philosophical trend as the " Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage." - well, obviously not yet for all mankind. For us however, it is the root of modern Europe. What else distinguishes Europe - positively - from the rest of humanity? While elsewhere philosophy and religion cannot be kept apart or people hope for a "benevolent king" (can there be a greater contradiction?), here, more than 300 years ago, courageous people already demanded the separation of church and state, civil liberties and freedom of thought in the first place. Even though they were permanently threatened by a kind of lethal “fatwa“, instead of believing in authorities, they preferred to "have the courage to use their own understanding" according to a quote by Kant.
Politically, the reception of these principles was articulated in the broad current of liberalism.
Inseparably linked to the ideas of the Enlightenment, these original liberals took it for granted that the moral foundations of human coexistence should also be rationally derived from the requirements of a functioning polity. This placed them in stark contrast to the conservative traditionalists. For those, this morality could only have been religiously motivated and directly transferred from their respective gods to us earthworms.
The genie was out of the bottle. The new ideas spread through Europe like wildfire. "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" was one of the most famous slogans of the French Revolution of 1789. Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" is still the motto of the Fifth French Republic today.
Which catapults us right to the present.
Human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights are the values on which the European Union is founded. They are enshrined in the Treaty on European Union and have been strengthened by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Countries wishing to join the EU must respect human rights.
Article #1 of the German Basic Law starts with the beautiful sentence: "Human dignity is inviolable. It is the duty of all state authorities to respect and protect it”.
These ideas have long since gained a foothold beyond Europe. The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, for example, states that "All men are created equal", although millions of slaves were deliberately left out.
Today, then, these European values on which our everyday civil liberties are based have become so self-evident to us that it is boring to hear about them. Actually, it would be a good sign if politics became boring - if this Europe of civil liberties were not threatened.
Threats, from within and without, have always existed. The more serious ones are to be found within ourselves: political apathy, historical ignorance, tolerance of the intolerant, lack of appreciation of the "self-evident" civil liberties that make Europe our Europe.
Preserving and further developing this unique core of European philosophy should be worth our resolute commitment.
2. Why we need Europe
It obviously took the last great catastrophe of European civilisation, mentioned at the beginning of this article, to provide the impetus for the founding of a community that we know today as the "European Union". The Second World War, which on careful analysis can also be understood as simply a continuation of the First World War, not only left the defeated Germans feeling insecure. A willingness to rethink spread throughout Europe, the perceived threat from the communist bloc of the Warsaw Pact and also the hidden desire to effectively shackle a possibly resurgent Germany through tight organisational integration had briefly opened the window for the founding of the Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community and finally the European Union.
However, since the last joint feat, the introduction of the euro in January 1999 for electronic bookings and three years later - on January 1, 2002 as cash, the momentum has noticeably slackened. The introduction of the euro in particular has revealed structural weaknesses that could still lead to an ultimate test of the whole community. With Brexit, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom) on January 31, 2020, the UK became the first country to formally leave the EU after 47 years. In general, a sense of gloom is spreading. Long articulated by retro politicians on the right of the political spectrum, more and more disappointed citizens of today's EU countries see this same European "Union" as a failed political experiment.
Yet there would be sufficient tasks for a strong Europe, whose path should not be an egomaniacal one, but a self-confident one, as Egon Bahr, the architect of the German policy of détente, once formulated - albeit with Germany in mind.
At the moment, we Europeans are mainly preoccupied with the effects of the CoVid 19 pandemic. However, during this forced navel-gazing, we are dimly aware that something is changing out there. We already suspect that when the fog lifts and we open our eyes again, we will find ourselves in a significantly changed world.
There shall be talk of mass extinction, climate change, resource consumption, environmental devastation, overpopulation, the growing economic inequality, growing military tensions in the course of the reordering of the world, with a high probability of a new "cold war" or even real hot war.
Since there is meanwhile sufficient evidence that the party will eventually come to an end, I am arbitrarily limiting myself here to just these seven indicators of impending disaster. A more intensive examination of each of these major challenges is of course necessary and shall follow. But here is only the space for a brief characterisation of just the seven of them.
The 6th mass extinction
Palaeontologists have found evidence that there have been (at least) five mass extinctions in the course of Earth's history, each of which wiped out large parts of all life on this planet. At the end of each geological age, a large part of all species was lost.
Here are the numbers:
- In the Ordovician, 444 million years ago, 86%,
- In the Devonian, 375 million years ago, 75%,
- In the Permian, 251 million years ago, 96%,
- In the Triassic, 200 million years ago, 80%, and
- In the Cretaceous period, 66 million years ago, 76% - the dinosaurs included.
The sixth major species extinction, but this time caused by humans, is already in full swing. According to the UN's Global Environment Outlook 6, the population of vertebrates has declined by about 60% since 1970. Currently, between 25 and 42 % of invertebrates, such as insects, are threatened with extinction. The disappearance of insects poses a particular threat to food production. However, this is not the only threat directly affecting the human food supply: one third of the planet's land area now falls into the category of "degraded soils" in the last 50 years, 40% of the world's wetlands have disappeared. Warming and overfishing threaten the livelihoods of over three billion people who depend on fish as their main source of food.
Presumably, then, even the rather unpleasant prospect of a planet whose biomass consists mainly of humans living on a gigantic rubbish dump on a largely devastated planet is not pessimistic enough. Rather, we ourselves could be severely affected if we continue ignoring the fact that we humans, too, can only survive as part of a functioning ecosystem.
Climate change
Much has already been written on this main threat to humanity. It remains at the top of our list of major concerns. It will therefore only be briefly dealt with here. Instead, we would like to refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change.
Even paleo-politicians like Donald Trump had finally been unable to deny - albeit without consequences - that climate change is happening right before our eyes. This does not mean, however, that this fairly recent realisation has spurred any meaningful action against its inexorable advance. On the contrary, its authorities championed outdated traditional energy-generating technologies while denouncing renewable energy production as ineffective and even dangerous.
It is true that the current administration of Joe Biden is showing a change in its public statements. But it remains to be seen whether this is perhaps just another example of the double standards that have been typical of US policy so far. In any case, it remains to be feared that the growing rivalry between the world powers USA and China will prevent serious corrections to our influence on the global climate.
Resource consumption
The consumption of resources is increasing in parallel to population growth and exponentially with the much-vaunted prosperity. It is not only the often-mentioned "rare earths" that could become scarce. Agricultural land cannot be increased at will either. A "green revolution" can probably only be repeated once or twice. Soils are degrading, exhausted. Water for agriculture and human consumption is becoming a scarce commodity. This is true even for something as common as sand for making concrete. People don't like to admit it. But many of these resources are finite. They cannot be reproduced. Technical progress can still push the limits a little, as can be seen in the example of the "peak oil" theory. But that does not change the fundamental problem of the finite nature of resources.
Yet it seems that we have never been further away from global management of scarce resources as a prerequisite for our common survival. Rather, resource scarcity seems to be becoming a major source of geopolitical risk and resulting conflict.
A good illustration is provided by the so-called "Earth Overshoot Day." It marks the day when humanity has consumed as many resources as can be used sustainably per year. This day tends to come earlier each year as the world population grows and we tend to consume more resources per capita each year.
Only in 2020 did it appear later than in the previous year, namely on 2020-08-22. It is easy to see that the restrictions in the course of the measures to combat the COVID 19 pandemic are responsible for this extraordinary effect. This means that we can by no means give the all-clear signal. On the contrary, if you look at a graphic representation of the annual positioning of Earth Overshoot Day over the last 50 years, you could easily confuse it with a burn-down diagram as used in modern agile project management.
The crucial difference is that we are not processing a product backlog here, but burning the entire planet down to zero. In order not to allow this to happen, it seems necessary now more than ever to take a globally coordinated action. After all, the very survival of humanity, along with all higher life on this planet, is at stake.
Indeed, if the entire world population consumed at the level of the average US citizen, Sustainable Resource Consumption Day would already be in February. But the rest of the world, and especially the developing part, is aiming in just that direction. And you can't even blame them for that! Why and with what right should one want to deprive them of what others have been able to enjoy for years? In China alone, two billion stamping feet had already set out before the turn of the third millennium to take the step towards a better life with diligence, energy and determination. They have every right to do so.
And yet, there will not be enough for all of us.
Growth economics
It is a non-contested dogma among members of the ruling classes in all countries that the economy must grow - the more the better. How long can this go on? Indefinitely? Perhaps we should remind the leading schools of economists that we ultimately live on a finite planet. If we combine this realisation with the prospect of population growth eventually coming to a halt, only an increase in productivity should remain to drive economic growth. Having grown up in an era when infinitely progressive "progress" was our basic assumption for all further considerations, few academics so far consider a zero-growth economy desirable or even possible. However, the prospect of a steady-state economy seems only a logical consequence if we only were serious about the goal of sustainable human life on Earth.
I think it is time to demand new sustainable economic models from science.
Overpopulation
The world population had just passed the 7.9 billion mark in April 2021. Until the time of Napoleon, there were less than one billion people on earth at any one time. Since the Second World War, the world's population has grown by one billion people every 12-15 years. Our population today is more than double what it was in 1970, and the world's population is currently growing by more than 80 million per year.With a birth rate more than double the death rate, it will most likely continue to increase for the rest of this century unless we do something. The growth rate is expected to level off within a few generations, leading to a saturation of the total global population at around 10 billion people by 2050.
Considering the current state of technology, our demands for a decent standard of living and even just our physical needs, it seems doubtful that humanity can maintain a long-term sustainable existence at this figure.
There are probably already too many of us on this planet.
Economic inequality
Globally, the economic inequality of humanity is growing. If it is not limited - at least to some degree - it will eventually destroy any social order. Historical observation teaches us that only catastrophic events such as wars, epidemics or revolutions have had the capacity to reduce inequality again. In "quiet" times like the current century of US world hegemony, the wealth of economically acting individuals drifts apart again. In fact, the common-folk wisdom that "the rich keep getting richer" finds its confirmation in the latest wealth statistics of the American "Studies,“atrend that has proved vital even in the midst of the Corona crisis. According to these statistics, the world's 2,365 billionaires increased their fortunes by 54 per cent, or about four trillion dollars, between 18 March 2020 and 18 March 2021.
According to the World Economic Forum's "Global Risks Report 2021", the growing digital divide and the varying degrees of technology use are increasingly a cause for concern. According to this report, the current COVID-19 pandemic has indeed accelerated the fourth industrial revolution and driven the digitalisation of human interaction, e-commerce, online education and teleworking. These changes promise enormous benefits. The possibility of teleworking and the rapid development of vaccines are often cited as examples. But they also carry the risk of exacerbating inequalities and creating them in the first place. Digital inequality" is seen as a critical short-term threat. This is because a growing digital divide can exacerbate already existing social fissures.
In the US, several "tribes" already live side-by-side without much contact. Occasionally, they fight each other. This trend is more likely to increase. It leads to isolationist tendencies. The globalisation of the 1990s is collapsing before our eyes. It was never to be confused with fair world trade. Rather, it was used as an instrument of domination to enforce hegemonic aspirations.
Nevertheless, the global exchange of goods, services and ideas has led to interdependence and thus created bonds. Currently, what should be a world community, is disintegrating into increasingly authoritarian power blocs and spheres of interest at a time when collective action might still avert regional and global catastrophes.
That hope is now gone.
Potential for conflict
As was to be expected, evidence is mounting that resource scarcity, like overpopulation, leads to competition and the potential for conflict. According to the World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report 2019, geopolitical risks are on the rise. In its foreword, it asks explicitly and rhetorically: "Is the world sleepwalking into a crisis? Global risks are intensifying, but the collective will to address them seems to be lacking. Instead, the fronts are hardening. The world's transition into a new phase of highly state-centric politics, noted in last year's Global Risks Report, continued in 2018. The idea of ‘taking back control’ - whether domestically from political rivals or externally from multilateral or supranational organisations - resonates in many countries and on many issues. The energy now spent on consolidating or regaining national control risks weakening collective responses to new global challenges. We are drifting deeper and deeper into global problems that will be difficult to wriggle out of."
The military tensions that have grown since then in the course of the shifting world powers are now accompanied by a high probability of a new "cold war." Even if we seem to have settled in with the "nuclear threat," since Hiroshima and Nagasaki it has remained unabashedly real. It can lead, not unexpectedly but abruptly, to a catastrophe that need by no means remain localised.
But even below the threshold of military conflict, the economic damage of, for example, a decoupling of the USA from China will be considerable for the EU and here, especially for Germany.
The NATO-Russia crisis of 2014 had already inflicted heavy losses on the European economy. Should European states join the sanctions against strategically important Chinese companies, Europe would be hit much harder. Should we really allow ourselves, as European states, to execute US hegemonic policies?
Where does that leave Europe's interests? Well, we can safely consider the fragmented European political landscape, which consists to a large extent of dwarf states, as vassals of the US. Decisions made in the US are usually implemented in Europe with a bashful delay in order to maintain the appearance of autonomous decision-making.
We should be aware that the China-bashing, "made in USA," is rooted in a renewed great-power competition that has been developing for several years. This US policy is increasingly dividing the world into two opposing camps. What is just beginning in Europe seems to be already in full swing in other regions that tend to follow every US impulse. Australia's relations with China, for example, have been strained since 2018, as Bloomberg reports, when Canberra barred Huawei Technologies Co from building a 5G network on "national security grounds". They are truly frosty in early 2021, at the time this post is being written, after Prime Minister Scott Morrison's government called for an international enquiry into the origins of the coronavirus. As Mohamed A. El-Erian points out in a Bloomberg commentary: The cost of Australia's 2-option model will continue to rise. He also takes this as a warning to countries that are also trying it, including Canada and Singapore.
We Europeans usually tend to blindly follow every US policy. In cases where we do not, as in the case of the Nord Stream pipeline (whether its construction was a wise decision or not), we get a pedagogical slap in the face from our "older brother" to bring us back to our senses. In this increasingly polarised world order, we are not even asked to choose sides. We are only expected to follow.
The more the US flexes its muscles and China responds accordingly, the greater the risk that dual-option countries will be forced to choose sides, especially on certain technologies.
As with the last Cold War, there could be a clear winner in the long run. However, as with all predictions, we cannot be sure which side to back today. We can however, already safely name a clear loser - it will be the planet we live on, which means all of us.
There is a reason why we have so far met these challenges only timidly, indecisively or even without a plan. We lack the mental, philosophical equipment for this. From the "be fruitful and multiply" of the Bible to the "the sky is the limit" of neo-liberal theorists, we have always been driven by the belief in unlimited growth. However, this expectation of "everything is getting better and better", condensed in the word "progress," is now clearly reaching its limits. Not that we could not have known. It is just that we find it infinitely difficult to accept that we are facing a turning point in a time that demands aradical rethink from us.
Unfortunately, our respective political leaderships are collectively heading in the wrong direction. It is time to mobilise countervailing forces.
We need a Europe that is taken seriously as a player on the world stage, that, primarily, works effectively to preserve living conditions and, secondly, represents its interests in a sustained manner in the concert of world powers and, in doing so, preserves the typically European liberal civil liberties - a major challenge that today's EU is, in no way, up to.
3. Why do we need to rethink Europe
The European Union as it is implemented here and now is a misconstruction. It is not capable of effective action. One gets the impression that, according to the will of the actors, it is not supposed to be.
Europe needs democratic legitimacy
Many complain about the lack of democratic legitimacy of the Brussels administration, which is scolded as a Eurocracy. Ten years ago, Jürgen Habermas, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main, gave his thoughts and wrote them down in "Zur Verfassung Europas - ein Essay" (On the Constitution of Europe - an Essay). According to this brief publication, the European Union is "facing a choice between transnational democracy and post-democratic executive federalism".
Like Habermas, I derive from the "uncontrolled political complexity growth of the world community, which systematically limits the scope of action of nation states more and more" the demand to "expand political capacities for action beyond national borders."
The result would be a European state - outwardly unified and inwardly federally structured. By the way, this would not be a new idea at all, just as in this entire article, only well-known statements are combined in order to draw what we consider to be the right conclusions. Stephen Green pointed out in his booklet "The European Identity- Historical and Cultural Realities We Cannot Deny, "that in 1946, still in the midst of the ruins of WWII, even Winston Churchill had proposed the foundation of the United States of Europe. But, he too had predecessors, such as Aurel Popovici, who had previously postulated the "United States of Greater Austria" in 1906.
Currently, according to Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union, the institutional framework comprises 7 institutions:
- the European Parliament;
- the European Council;
- the Council of the European Union (simply called ‘the Council’);
- the European Commission;
- the Court of Justice of the European Union;
- the European Central Bank;
- the Court of Auditors.
First and foremost is the European Parliament. That is a good thing, of course. It suggests the sovereignty of the European peoples over their decisions. However, the de facto power lies with the Council of Ministers, i.e., the representatives of the member states. These decision-makers with exclusively national mandates, ultimately make the decisions. Each of them wants to get the most out of the big pot for "his country". Analogous to the well-known ‘Tragedy of the Commons,’ the common good, i.e., Europe, suffers as a result.
The European Parliament also reflects this strictly member-state-based order. It starts with the lack of genuine European parties. Members of the so-called European parties cannot be European citizens, but just national parties of the European member states.
Opponents of deeper European integration repeatedly point out with relish that the European peoples are too different to be happy in one state. They should be reminded, that it is a matter of the survival of a European identity and sheer existence in the intensifying competition between the world powers, USA and China, and not about the "pursuit of happiness" per se!
In the middle of Europe, we even have an example of a state in which quite different European ethnic groups have come together, albeit in a much smaller format. Here, since 1291, the year of the founding of the Swiss Confederation, exactly what we expect from and for Europe has been practiced. In some respects, Switzerland could well serve as a blueprint for Europe.
So, the state in which we should manifest our will to shape policy does not necessarily have to be a nation-state. In any case, there is a growing sense among economists, political scientists and even national governments that the nation-state is not necessarily the best yardstick on which to conduct our affairs. We should better remember that the nation state is a recent phenomenon.
Before the late 18th century, there were no real nation-states, says John Breuilly of the London School of Economics. When you travelled across Europe, no one asked for your passport at the borders. There were neither passports nor borders as we know them. People had ethnic and cultural identities, but these did not really define the political entity in which they lived.
So, since the nation-state is a comparatively young concept, perhaps its time is over anyway? Perhaps - that is not to say that it took its rise purely by chance. The nation-state can rather be understood as the inevitable consequence of some fundamental developments, first and foremost the improved means of communication through print, audio and video transmission, such as newspapers, telegraph, radio, television, etc and more. Another driving force was the need to cope with the increasing complexity caused by rapid industrialisation in the 19th century.
On the one hand, many local tasks can be better dealt with at - yes - local level, suggesting a more medieval model of interacting sovereign city-states. On the other hand, the growing problems we face can only be dealt with at a much higher level. The whole world would be called upon. The European level has to be seen as the minimal to be able to participate in shaping a multipolar political world.
As with its creation, it will probably again be a combination of new technology and external influencing factors that will also cause the abolition of the nation-state, which obviously was only temporarily helpful.
Digital transformation is more than a buzzword and has the potential to change not only the economy, but entire societies and ultimately the way we will govern ourselves. (Read more here: "Let algorithms rule - not politicians!").
Whatever way political opinion is formed, whatever procedures we want to use to govern, Europe as a state needs direct democratic legitimacy. Europe's citizens must be able to elect their government directly and control its work through the means of parliamentary democracy.
Europe needs more weight
I have already mentioned it several times: if we do not want to be the plaything of foreign powers, not the victim of global developments, not ground down between rival power blocs, then we have to reinvent ourselves. If we want to be taken seriously as a respected player on the world stage, if we want to take ourselves seriously, then we have to create Europe. Yes, we have to create it first. Because the Europe we need for this goal does not yet exist, it has not even been consistently conceived.
In order to be able to enter the international ring with the necessary weight class, this Europe must have certain characteristics: It must be large, unified and independent.
Size is first measured, of course, by the number of individuals represented by the European state. More important for the international role, however, is the combined economic power. Thirdly, in the event of conflict, military assertiveness is, unfortunately, still a decisive argument.
All three size-metrics depend directly on the number of participating states of origin. It must be clear that by no means all European states will be prepared to enter into this utopia. On the contrary, a retro-trend can currently be observed: back to the familiar confines of the domestic circle, to the old tradition, to the more ironclad certainties. This promises security and safety - but unfortunately it is a hollow promise.
Nor can it be ruled out that this "United States of Europe", the "European Confederation" or whatever the name for this target construct will be, would be attractive to states that do not qualify for participation in the sense of the discussion of values at the beginning of this consideration. For example, to take up an old debate, Turkey's participation in its current state is absolutely unthinkable.
Unity is required regarding the foreign affairs. Only a unified position of an organisation that appears monolithic to the outside world and could not be divided into individual interest groups has a chance to act successfully. For this to happen, the state departments relevant for external political relationships, such as at least Foreign Affairs, Defence, Finance and, optionally, Economy & Energy, as well as some potential ministry for common infrastructures, must be represented at the European level and equipped with the necessary decision-making powers.
Internally, however, a different picture should emerge. Here, the colourful diversity of European cultural traditions should be able to unfold freely. Here, the maxim for the balance between centralised and decentralised should apply: as much centralism as necessary, and as much regionalism as tolerable. Competition between the regions would then be perfectly permissible, and perhaps even desirable in the sense of increasing overall performance. It is even possible that in this multinational state a certain "civilised" nationalism of the peoples could have its place, for instance, in the way the German “tribe” of the Bavarians today distinguishes itself from that of the Hanseatics and vice versa.
Independent: The demand for an independent European policy is a natural consequence of what has been said so far. If European politics were not independent, Europe would neither be taken seriously internationally nor be able to act in the interests of Europe.
Independence does not mean not being allowed to enter into alliances. However, these must be in Europe's interest and not serve the hegemony of other great powers. Under no circumstances should we, without considerable reflection "fight a little bit" in the wars with which the USA has overrun vast areas of the world in the course of its existence. Our freedom is by no means safe or even to be taken for granted. However, it has never had to be defended in the Hindu Kush, and as 20 years of senseless bloodshed have shown, it never could.
However, we Europeans do suffer from the direct and indirect consequences of these actions. Not only that our traditional good trading partners are failing due to unilateral boycotts, but also the trade routes are disrupted by conflicts. The refugee catastrophe triggered by this fatal interventionism still has the potential to radicalise entire societies and blow up the current European community. Our hypocritical and inconsistent actions play into the hands of unscrupulous autocrats and stand in stark contrast to the values and human rights that we so readily demand from other states when the opportunity arises (but prefer not to when it does not).
The triad of size, unity and independence alone would provide a certain weight. The more pronounced these three elements are embodied, the greater Europe's international room for manoeuvre!
Europe has to maintain its own position
What political position should Europe adopt? I have already touched on the indispensability of independence of European politics.
The returning emphasis on "Self-Reliance", be it in China or the US, could be an opportunity for Europe to play an independent role, an opportunity it should seize. From an independent position, a united Europe could even play a role in mediating between the two adversaries. This would avoid a potentially disastrous miscalculations by either or both parties. Rooted in the Western tradition like the US, actually even its origin, but co-located with China on the same "world island," to use Victorian geographer Halford John Mackinder's more than 100-year-old term, Europe could play the role of mediator between the two competitors. In any case, the world would no longer be bipolar - if only Europe would wake up!
Another element of Europe's political positioning results from the European values listed at the beginning. Of course, Europe may and should take a clear position here. Everyone is entitled to know the specifically European view on world affairs. The question of style, however, does arise. By no means must our political leaders shake the bloody hand of every dictator and look the other way at every atrocity. We should, however, refrain from missionary zeal, which in the end only exhausts itself in formulaic moral sermons to continue "business as usual." Experience has shown that the instrumentalization of human rights in global politics has only done them great harm.
Europe need to assign itself a clear mission
"Europe thus finds itself suspended between a past it seeks to overcome and a future it has not yet defined."
Using these strong words Henry Kissinger concludes Chapter 2 "The European Balance of Power System and its End" of his 2014 book “World Order”.
These are true words, clearly and unambiguously formulated, sufficiently provocative to serve as a call to action.
But so far, these words have fallen on deaf ears and are likely to continue to do so.
With all its deliberate restraint, non-interference and renunciation of the role of deputy sheriff at the side of the world policeman, does Europe perhaps have a mission after all, a task that Europe should try to fulfil in this world?
I think the answer is yes. As mentioned before, we as humanity are facing some challenges that are bigger than Germany, even bigger than Europe. We can only hope that they are not too big for humanity yet.
"Long-term preservation of our livelihoods on this planet", that must be the top priority we should follow. In any case, there can be no alternatives, unless we were inclined to consider collective suicide as an alternative in the medium term.
Following this imperative means acting more as a community, more pronounced than we have done so far, much more than the average U.S. citizen is accustomed to, but hopefully in a different social style than e.g. China is wont to do.
This results in an important, typically European secondary objective: the preservation and defence of civil liberties. It is to be feared that in coping with the tasks that lie ahead of us as humanity, it will not be possible to maintain them to the extent to which we are accustomed and take them for granted. For this reason, it will be all the more important to bring them to the fore.
"Nothing in the world is as powerful as an idea whose time has come", the French writer Victor Hugo is fondly quoted.
Has the time for the multinational state "Europe" already come? I think so - and not just since today. That is why we need to rethink Europe.
4. How can we create Europe?
In their confusion, Europe's elected leaders do not know exactly where they stand, and even less where they should go. Or might be in the end exactly that they don't want that at all? Do they really want to live for the moment only and ignore the future - as long as it appears on the horizon as a distant rumble of thunder? In any case, they allow themselves to be driven rather than leading themselves, and they let a 16-year-old girl in the UN General Assembly read them the riot act in concise but clear words.
In terms of content, therefore, I propose significant changes. What I have not said so far is how we intend to achieve it. The suspicion is justified that we will not succeed by applying the existing procedures, and even more so with the current political actors.
Less human - more programme
"He doesn't bite. He just wants to play", dog handlers like to say about their charges.
The basic attitude of today's professional politicians can be characterised with a slightly modified statement:
"They shirk from doing politics. They just want to advance their careers.
Political content is bent according to expediency. Professional success is the only criterion. So don't worry, everything is half as bad. Those who don't bite can't be dangerous.
One caveat is in order, however: What has been said applies only to organizations in which a career is also worthwhile - and where the political program is in any case determined more by opinion polls than by inner conviction. How else could it be explained that in Germany, in the spring of 2021, shortly before an election, all parties suddenly "turn green"?
While only a short time ago they were raging against the "green nutters", suddenly, driven by election forecasts, they have adopted the same programme points without hesitation in an abrupt about-turn.
On the right and left fringes of the political spectrum, the situation is usually different. Here, there are still people who, at least initially, follow their political convictions, however inappropriate they may be.
Is this how we get the political elite we think we need? Probably not!
Let us postpone for a moment the question of whether we do need a "political elite" at all. But why do we not get them in this way?
Well, the instinctive, quick-reacting jungle fighter is not the far-sighted leader on his lonely commander's mound. Being able to assess every suspicious rustle with lightning speed, to recognise a shadow as a threat in the twilight of the undergrowth where one begins one's career, but at the same time to forge the right alliances - usually for a limited period of time - are skills essential for survival on the way up. Otherwise, the ambitious newcomer will not survive the first days in the backrooms of committee meetings.
But do they also qualify to run a large authority, a state?
Of course, there is a selection of the most able going on here. These are no fools who prevail in this game - well, usually not. But it is a very special selection that you will get as a result. Now, the traditional political career in this, our country, like any other career, goes through various stages, the "long march through the institutions" from a common foot soldier to a powerful party secretary.
It should be clear that the requirements for candidates differ at the individual career levels. The selection would therefore have to start anew at each stage, with the result that perhaps once no suitable candidate would be available. Snakes and other reptiles, like insects, shed their skin when they grow. So do careerists in corporate hierarchies. And so do party career climbers too. They simply reincarnate into a new role, sometimes a new identity, change their habits, sometimes their pretended beliefs and convictions, their environment and swap their social contacts. They "acquire" the required optimal "skillset" for their new role.
It's all a question of engineering, of management. Hmmm, is it that simple? Oh, I had forgotten to mention one tiny detail. At some level, you also have to think about the effect on the public. For all your qualifications, you have to “come across as an authentic person”. To do that, you have to be able to show some cleverly designed “rough edges”, maybe even a certain folksiness. After all, it is the people who will later be the electorate to elevate you to the top.
And that's what it's all about, the way up, which many equate with the way to power: power over others.
This well-rehearsed mechanism has been working this way for a long time now. It has already produced entire generations of politicians, including those whose lack of foresight we so deplore, whose party bickering gets on our nerves, whom we do not trust to lead us safely through the perils that lie in the uncertain path to the future. So, if we want a new, a very different political elite, it will probably have to be produced through other mechanisms, perhaps forgoing a classic career.
But is this political elite really necessary? Is the professional politician still appropriate in the digital age?
My answer here is a clear no.
Politics is too important to be left to politicians who - see above - don't want to "bite" at all. We obviously need a completely different system to reach political decisions, to regulate, to govern.
We do not have this system today. I think there is a consensus on that.
I don't know of any settled and accepted theories of what it should look like. So, we have to think for ourselves, tackle it - preferably deductively, from the top down.
My thesis is: Less human - more programme, in the spirit of the well-known graffito "No power to anyone."
Party programs or platforms have been around for a long time. Every party has one. Few voters have ever read one or even based their voting decisions on it. Most of the time, they are deliberately vague and general so as not to unnecessarily limit the political scope of the actors involved. Accordingly, they rarely offer concrete help in making decisions in specific individual cases.
The word "program" has at least two meanings in our common understanding: One is the vague party program already mentioned. In the context of computers of all kinds, however, it is equated with a deterministic calculation rule.
What would it actually be like if we were to merge the two variants? I have already thought about this elsewhere. We should not repeat these thoughts here. Let me just say this: Ultimately and in the long run, I think algorithms are the better politicians.
Will politicians then become jobless? No, they will become programmers - party programmers. Maybe then we won't need professional politicians anymore, or at least not that many. Politicians who work part-time or after work can also participate in drafting, voting and extensive testing of rules and principles. This scenario could contribute to less self-promotion or reckless ambition!
The way to more direct democracy, which works rather poorly via citizens' petitions and similar actions - except perhaps in Switzerland - is thus paved via regulated participation in the rules and regulations with the help of modern electronic communication.
A permanent party conference in the style of a Facebook chat? Yes, why not?
The long march through the institutions
We might already have suspected it. The end of the "politician" as a profession will not happen overnight. Even if rule-based and AI-supported better government decisions can be expected, we must first create this policy oracle, this great information machine. Such a big goal can probably only be achieved in small steps.
At the beginning, there must still be a firm will to reshape Europe. This will should manifest itself visibly, ideally through a grassroots movement. Politics must not be limited to a "fire and forget" on election day. It must rather once again become a task for everyone. Our elected representatives should limit themselves to representing us. They should not govern us as they please, but be our representatives who are accountable to us, their principals. Some of them may need to be told this. We are not their "subjects," but their customers.
However, it is also clear that the day-to-day political business cannot be done collectively from the comfort of our sofa at home. Rather, this rallying movement must agree on the essential principles that address the pressing issues facing us as a whole, as mentioned at the beginning. To be successful, the commitments and demands should retain a certain generality. Differing views on details and implementation options can all too easily lead to major controversies, with the risk of infighting or even fragmentation. This would serve no one.
As the example of the "greening" of the German party landscape impressively shows, a large and determined group, without formal mechanisms to articulate its political will but with firm conviction, can certainly influence politicians or even entire parties in its favour who have hitherto been indifferent or hostile to these issues.
This does not primarily refer to the German Greens as a party. Their predicted success in the upcoming federal elections this year is indeed causing a stir in the German party landscape (with the exception of the right-wing AFD).
I am thinking of another grassroots movement that is loosely organised, as can be seen from the outside, but united by a strong common drive and so skilfully orchestrated that it is the envy of political professionals. The ‘Fridays for Future’ movement has managed to make an impact where a host of other organisations have failed. It has made almost the entire political scene do a 180° turn with lightning speed, high flexibility and without long retreats. Since then, they pretend to have "always" given priority to environmental concerns.
Giving voice to the zeitgeist and their sheer numbers have been sufficient to cause a political tremor. The sincerity of this sudden change of mind need hardly be doubted, but it can be confidently denied. Thus, the sustainability and consistency of the measures that must inevitably result from this commitment are also rather questionable. Obviously, more than just "soft power" is needed, but rather "organised resistance". Perhaps it is even unavoidable here in Germany, as in every other European state, to take the arduous path of founding a quite conventional national political party. At least this would give the mission as formulated here a legally constituted home. However, this would be the beginning of a long march through the institutions.
5. Europe - and what comes after
Today, we are still struggling with the realisation that, in the face of the gigantic challenges facing humanity as a whole, we Europeans should put our commonalities above what separates us.
Achieving this and thus creating a Europe capable of action will take all our strength for some years to come. But we already suspect that this cannot be the end of history.
We must create Europe not least so that we can have a say in our own destiny in the world, so that we can assert our interests, so that we are not pulverised in the great struggle between the world powers.
In the long run, however, this will not be enough. In order to overcome the challenges, we face as the whole of humanity, it is necessary to act as a community. A Westphalian world order, of mutual balance, will not do justice to this necessity. It will not be enough to feel European and fight for Europe. We will have to see ourselves as a world community, united in a confederation of world citizens who behave like world citizens.
For compared to the challenges outlined at the beginning, the emerging new great power competition, however universal and timeless its rules may seem, looks like a game from the 19th century. The time we have left to act is already running out. There is simply no more room for a renewal of the Great Game, a new Cold War, say between the US and China, or any other great power competition.
The scarcity of our planet's resources will give us no respite. If all other developments remain unchecked, the scarcity of resources alone will eventually bring the machine to a halt. By then, in a few decades, we will feel the devastating effects of man-made climate change. Not to mention the immediate short-term threats such as social inequality or the danger of the use of weapons of mass destruction.
What they all have in common is that they can only be overcome if we global citizens begin to see ourselves as such, as global citizens, and act as a community with a common mission. More than ever, we need a resurrection of reason from its postmodern grave. But if we choose to continue to follow the traditional, well-trodden paths, the earth will end up helping itself - with grim consequences for us all.
So, let's start at our own doorstep.
Finally, I would like to let Henry Kissinger have his say here once again: "When we talk about the EU now, the question is whether we are talking about a political entity with an active strategy and clearly defined goals.
Or is it becoming an institution focused on the welfare of its people and on promoting certain areas of science, but with no ambition for involvement in global issues?
Europe has achieved tremendous things economically and politically, but in terms of its historical and strategic role, it seems to me that Europe is still at the very beginning of its development. That, in my view, will be the central challenge for the years to come."
That is the challenge we should take up. Let's start by creating this Europe.
Horst Walther, Hamburg, 2021-09-18
A German version of this contribution can be found also here.
