EUROPE
Why nobody loves Europe (2)
Autumn 2008
EU-level policymaking has lost its way and needs an abrupt change of course, believes Jorgo Chatzimarkakis who sits on the European Parliament’s Industry Committee. He argues that discredited and inadequate national loyalties must give way to a new European patriotism
Is Europe in crisis? Public opinion seems to think so; Europe is not good at selling itself and the media are keen exploiters of crisis and drama. Some might argue that any crisis catches people's interest, so that Europe will at last be noticed and taken seriously. Even "pro-European" politicians fall into that trap and talk in similar vein about the Union's situation.
No way! People are sick and tired of crises; what they want are solutions. Yet solutions will only be found once we are able to describe the aims we want to achieve. Europe is actually not in crisis, but it definitely has a problem. It lacks the clear course it so badly needs. We in the EU set ourselves far too many goals, without having the leading figures we need who are willing and able to fight for them.
If things go on like this, Europe will indeed walk headlong into crisis, and possibly the most significant and existential crisis the continent will have known since the European integration process began after World War II. So it is time to raise the alarm. Enough whining, now it’s time for action and time to look at what we stand for and to assess our strengths. It is also time to examine our partnerships so as to get the best out of them. It is time to think strategically and act on that. In short, the time has come for European patriotism.
The challenges of our globalised world have been known for some time. And although much is said in Europe about globalisation, the necessary reforms have not been implemented. The Lisbon strategy is symptomatic of our problem at EU level; grandiloquent resolutions are adopted, but are not then transposed. The multiple challenges we face are − economic, social, cultural and security-related. These and their consequences are what citizens mostly fear, and the rejection of the constitutional treaty in France and in the Netherlands was evidence of Europeans’ growing fear of the Modern.
Yet we have the right cards in our hands to do well in global competition. But if we are to be successful, we must clearly define our place on the global stage and the role we want to play. I think that Europe's aim should be to become the world's "bio zone" – Bios being Greek for life and zone meaning a region of the world where life in all its forms is respected, cherished and protected. In the past, Europe has been a model for democracy, the rule of law and human rights and for societal issues, and that’s something we must maintain. But Europe should also be home to the healthiest people and have the healthiest living environment. In other words, it should be the region of the world all others look up to.
That means we have to regain our leading position in research, advanced technologies and industry. Life sciences, information and communication technologies and pharmaceuticals are just a few of the sectors in which we must lead if we are to be a "bio zone". Yet the reality is that we are in serious danger of losing our knowledge advantages and our technical edge. Despite all our good intentions and political commitments like the EU’s Lisbon strategy, we have not progressed much on R&D and innovation when compared to the United States. Even China could soon catch-up and maybe overtake us in some key sectors.
In the battle for knowledge, Europe must fight harder and learn to protect its intellectual property better. We must also put innovation back at the top of our priorities, because that is the only way to produce advanced goods and services that can guarantee our high living standards. We also have very high ethical, social, democratic and ecological standards to maintain.
In some parts of the world – notably the US – we are thought to attach too much importance to environmental protection. That makes it even more vital that we should convince as many other countries as possible that they should follow our example. Countries that have wrested from us various manufacturing activities should certainly be following our lead. By the same token, we Europeans can only be globally competitive if we make our production methods more ecological, and convince our trading partners to do likewise.
Meanwhile, Europe is suffering from an astonishingly fast dilution of values, with many of the most alarming warning signs being ignored. Instead of modernising education, we have been content to watch Asian countries achieve what we have been failing to do: South Korea, for instance, has a workforce in which four-fifths of the people have at least a good secondary education. It’s an example of Asia’s success in transforming its workers into highly qualified managers, engineers and researchers. Europe, by contrast, seems to rely on its dwindling birth rate in the hopes that a society that is becoming smaller will need fewer jobs. Of course the reverse is true, an ageing society is much more expensive than a young and dynamic one.
We have to set course now for a new, active and successful Europe. Our first step must be to reach a general understanding that Europe’s national frameworks have become too small to resolve the big questions that now confront us. Small successful economies like Ireland, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands have showed us the right path, but they have also clearly benefited from membership of the EU. In every market sector “Europeanisation” has been an almost natural process. Only politics is lagging behind. My plea for European patriotism aims at shaking off the dust of nationalism and banishing the political lethargy that is rooted in it.
Becoming the world's "bio zone" is not just about technology and innovation; it’s also about politics and ethics. Democracy is a crucial component, and the question is whether we can achieve our strategic bio zone objectives with the form of democracy practised today in the EU? Perhaps we should instead be calling it not democracy but a “mediocre mediacracy”, because of the unhealthy relationship that increasingly exists between democratically elected politicians and the media. Both depend on one another, but both are also committed to success rather than to truth, and success means sales for the media and votes for the politicians. In a society, where the media are omnipresent, we should have no illusions about the quality of its political coverage. We “unobserved" Euro-politicians, themselves of the European Parliament, probably have it a little bit easier because we are not under constant fire from the media. The same cannot be said of the representations of the EU’s member states; they are caught in the democratic trap and their decisions too often have to be shaped to suit public opinion. The European media, even in pursuit of a good story, has scant regard for truth, but is instead concerned with the hesitations and the incapacities of politicians. Journalists rely on clichés and stereotypes because they are so well known by every reader, and they persist and are accepted as truth even when false and misleading.
In this vicious circle, long-term goals are too often sacrificed for short-term effect. "Pan metron Ariston" said the ancient Greeks: find the right balance between criticism and discourse. If we fail to do so, we won’t keep up with Asia or America. It’s time for Europe to think strategically. We will only have a say on the global stage and co-decide with the US and China if we play to our strengths. We must be more self-confident, and that's why a new style of European patriotism is so badly needed. Europe must focus on the implications of a decreasing population and on becoming the bio-zone of the world. Only then will the future be ours.