babelblogs

hosted by cafebabel.com

European elections 2009

MUST CAPITALISM BE RESTRUCTURE ?

While reading the newspapers, listening to the radio or watching television, we notice the abundance of opinions on the crisis we are facing as well as the numerous experts ready to explain the downfalls of our market economy. It seems to me that there are two pitfalls which should be avoided in this reasoning:

- the first being the belief that we will emerge from this crisis in one or two years as it is only a cyclical period of adjustment; - the second being the idea of a “reformed economy,” which would give us the possibility to radically change the economy and carry on to a new, radiant tomorrow.

The first point of view is no longer widely spread, I’m afraid that the second, on the other hand, is in full bloom. It would be seriously dangerous to tell the many victims of this crisis that all of their problems can be solved by quickly applying radical new rules in hopes of achieving a new, more “humane,” economy.

If we are truly interested in finding a solution, we must direct our attention to the definition of capitalism itself. We should be told less about the end of this system and more about its reformation. Since the 1980’s, finance has taken the reins of the economy and virtualized operations (i.e. derivative markets). The true economy though is not virtual, it is real, and it is the value of labor. I produce and I sell a good that exists: this is the moral sense of capitalism.

It is not the vocation of the financier to run the system on his own, it is on the activities of entrepreneurs that everything depends. Banks should return to their founding objectives: to serve industry! That is the only reform we can expect from our economy. One cannot expect capitalism to erase social inequality or reform the health system, that is not its role and never will be. That duty belongs to the state and to politicians.

This does not mean that we should not think about adaptations that could be made to the system, to future stakes, and to the modern world. I believe that there is a necessity for the return of the state/or states as regulators under certain circumstances that remain to be defined. May be the establishment of “New Ideals” in Europe, as in the United States could be an answer. What is sure, is the absolute necessity, current and future, to manage the consequences of the crisis. In effect, the failure of reflationary policies will serve as arguments to policies that promote rapid solutions which are always disastrous. From protectionism to nationalism they will drive us towards a result which we must now avoid. For example, if Europe fails in its reflationary policies, as Europe can only face this challenge as a whole as no state can do it alone for lack of means, we can only imagine the kind of arguments that would be provided for promoters of certain radical ideas. The result could be the end of the European Union. On the other hand, this may be a chance for the European Union, if it succeeds in protecting our societies through its decisions, to rise as a new important actor, primarily for its citizens but also for the rest of the world. The sum of the tools needed to face future issues and problems could only be put together by nations and/or groups of nations. May be through this unexpected consequence of the crisis we will see the emergence of a true international community.

After the necessary return of the state and politicians in the economy, we must now analyze what the structural possibilities are for our economies to better understand the changes. These begin with the requirement to increase investments in the research sector to benefit researchers. Primarily, a company needs a product to sell which is the result of a process of research and development. There can be no innovative, solid, and lucrative companies without high quality research. Tomorrows products are in our laboratories (which is favorable) or in the laboratories of our competitors (which is less favorable). There lie our future profits and thus our future employment. That is what will also oblige us to invest in new technology. The transformation of the automobile industry, which will undergo a crisis similar to that of the steel industry in the 70’s and 80’s, will only advance through the application of the following: clean cars, with lower consumption rates and /or built entirely from recycled materials, as well as being crammed with innovative navigation technology.

Efforts in the renewable energy domain also create wealth and employment. The use of new forms of energy (solar, biomass, geothermic…) in real-estate development, require new types of industry and thus provide employment. Environmental issues are already forcing us to change our lifestyles which will require us to create companies in the near future to satisfy the demand for new materials, new energies, and for new forms of consumption.

Another issue must be considered so as to adapt ourselves to the new situation: the role of new actors as possible sources of ideas, complimentary to the functions of the state. Through instruments such as the internet, which has indeed lead to the globalization of information, democracy as we know it is in metamorphosis. Citizens or groups of citizens, through associations as well as NGO’s and foundations, must and will participate in the resolution of this crisis, especially when it enters its social phase. To our societies, this may prove to be a formidable democratic renewal and the debates that will follow will bring about change in the way states themselves govern. Here, with the sum of these new actors and with the state, there will be a great debate of ideas where the appropriate place of morality and ethics in the economy and in capitalism will be able to be approached.

This crisis can be an opportunity for Europe. In effect, if this occurs, through a visible cohesion of its member states, Europe will find the echo of its citizens more than favorable. The EU will begin a new chapter in its history where, united and interdependent, strengthened by a large democratic area with a renewed economy, it will be able to face future challenges and crises and in a multi-polar world, make its voice and propositions heard.

Olivier VEDRINE

Monday, January 26 2009 By Olivier Védrine

CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE: THE CASE OF THE "UNIVERSITIES FOR PEACE OF LOURDES".

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet Union announced the end of a bipolar world in which two ideologies opposed each other: Soviet communism versus capitalism. As in nature, voids in geopolitics are soon filled; as a result, new divisions appeared and others reappeared. They are no longer simply ideological, as in the past, but also self-defining and in the worst cases, ethnic, nationalistic, and religious.

In this modern world, we can see the worrying rise of these different actors. The driving factors involved are varied and numerous. To begin with, we must underline the ignorance, preconceptions, arbitrary simplifications, and misleading lies. These destructive attitudes are not particular to any country, but they affect nations on every continent. The examples of the different crises in the Balkans have shown us that even Europe must guard itself against these issues.

To break through the barriers and obstacles presented by ignorance, it is essential to establish respectful dialogue focused on true and sincere mutual understanding.

Before going any further, I would like to come back to the Huntington theory, to better demonstrate the necessity for dialogue and / or dialogues. He describes, in his conceptual model, a new international relations mechanism which became apparent after the fall of the Soviet block at the end of the 1980’s. He demonstrated that antagonism exists within civilizations in which culture and religion occupy a central place. They are no longer single nations which oppose each other, as in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but civilizations or “civilizational areas”.

There are limits to such an analysis: the sectioning of the world into different civilizations is arbitrary and the author himself recognizes, in some cases, the weakness of certain choices of “civilizational areas”. Islamic civilization, for example, masks the extreme complexity of different regional tendencies and eventual internal conflicts. Utilizing knowledge about each other acquired through open dialogue, we could avoid these dualistic views and analyses.

As human history has shown us, civilizations are not mutually impermeable. They have always built themselves based on their ability to integrate outside contributions and to exchange, to give and receive, without it leading to automatic and implacable conflicts. Miscegenation is another phenomenon of these intercultural exchanges which is a bearer of hope. An excessively dualistic interpretation, like that of Huntington, of our post Cold War world can legitimize policies which would have a tendency to confer a certain reality: it is the result of self realizing prophecies.

One notices that everywhere in the world, individuals and groups have developed aspirations which are pacifistic, democratic and respectful of individual differences, thereby favoring open mindedness towards the outside. Defenders of pacifistic diversity, both constructive and harmonious, offer ideas, debates, and participate in the construction and enrichment of a humanistic vision of the world.

In multiethnic countries, dialogue and cultural cooperation is developed between different groups originating from the local communities. They are the true actors in the prevention policies against future conflicts.

As in this case, for example, of the “Universities for Peace” of Lourdes.

Since 2000, in the Pyrenean city of Lourdes, an event has been taking place with a theme centered on Peace. Previously, all we could find in the event program was a large concert in August. The assistant to the Mayor of Lourdes, Michel Azot, decided to enrich the program of two or three days by including dialogue and debate between different cultures and religions. This leads us to present the “Charter of Lourdes for peace” which was signed this year by delegates from Palestine, Israel, Tibet, and others. In this charter, we find the founding principles and actions to be taken, I cite:

- respect for human beings and life;

- learning about others : their roots, history, culture, and convictions;

- organization of meetings, and the search for dialogue.

It is on the basis of these three principles that today’s “Universities for peace” were born. The next session is planned to take place in Lourdes from the 15th to the 17th of May 2009.

To continue the work which will lead us to Lourdes, we can present the visit of a Najaf government representative, Ahmed al-Fatwi. This visit underlined the historic importance, international reputation, and multi-religious spirituality of the city of Lourdes. During the exchanges which followed the presentation, a decision was made to tie the knot between our two municipalities. It is the first time that a city, whose principle religion is Islam, shows such a clear will for rapprochement. It is a perspective which could allow a determined approach towards dialogue between our two religions. In 2012, Najaf will be the capital of Islamic culture. This could be an occasion for meetings and exchanges between our two countries. Look at how two cities are already working together for peace.

Prior to this, from the 13th to the 15th of September, the city of Lourdes welcomed the Pope before 180,000 pilgrims who followed him from Paris or who had travelled to see the “new” Pope and hear his words. Words of love, hope, and peace formed the main message of Pope Benedict the 16th. “The power of love is stronger than the evil which threatens us…”. This is what the Pope stated in the mass held to mark the 150th anniversary of the visions of Lourdes on Sunday the 14th of September.

I would like to underline some other facts which carry hope in the dialogue between Christianity and Islam like the letter sent to Pope Benedict 16th by 138 Muslims scholars, or the visit of King Abdellah of Saudi Arabia to the Holy See.

There are numerous other initiatives similar to that of the city of Lourdes. Many believers and non-believers desire dialogue in order to build a more peaceful world. The reason I chose this example is due to the fact that I participated and I believe that one can only speak of what one knows. It is essential that we all work together to give our children and future generations a more beautiful world.

Olivier VEDRINE

PS: I wish to thank the city of Lourdes and the Italian communications company, MAB.q (Paris, Milan, and Rome) for sending to me the first issue of the “Universities for Peace of Lourdes” newsletter. Its articles allowed me to present to you this passage.

Wednesday, January 21 2009 By Olivier Védrine

PEACE IN DIVERSITY

The creation of the European Union was initiated by France and Germany as a result of the two World Wars. Essential to its growth was the addition of other ancient nations who had themselves been in conflict, mostly with each other, in the past. The primary objective was to achieve mutual cultural respect as well as integrate their differences so as to avoid further crises and numb painful memories in order to achieve reconciliation. One must never forget this element which is essential to understanding the European Union’s message of hope: unite to live together in peace.

The European continent and its peoples were influenced, in antiquity, by two great cultures and civilizations: the Greek civilization to begin with and later on the Roman civilization. The Roman Empire has remained in our history as an example of power and unity, of prestige and splendor.

From its early creation, the European Union integrated different cultures: Latin, Germanic, and Anglo-Saxon. By opening to the East we have integrated the Slavic cultures.

Now, the question of Turkeys membership has arisen and, with this, the possibility of the European Union becoming a truly universal model. By integrating this large Muslim country, we would send a potent message of tolerance to the rest of the world. By doing so, we would effectively put an end to the dangerous theory of the “clash of civilizations.”

The established coexistence of our 27 member states is already an exceptional feat, never before achieved on our continent except under the rule of an authoritarian empire. Now, it is the nations and their peoples who choose to unite to build a common ground upon which we may live in peace, prosperity, and where we may pursue our happiness.

Now, we must ask ourselves, especially in this time of severe global crisis, about the direction of this political action to better understand this process and to continue it. This union of nations, peoples, and different cultures is currently of great geopolitical importance as there is much talk of multiculturalism worldwide. At the time when Western Europe encountered Eastern Europe and now as the question of going towards the Orient is ever more present.

At a time when big decisions that will involve all of humanity must be taken, on a global scale, Europe has an important message to propose, void of messianic imperialism and conquest, a message of respect and tolerance toward other civilizations.

During my lectures, I always tell my students that Europe is not only the European Union and I defend the idea that it is the Council of Europe and its 47 states that represent our grand and beautiful Europe: from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountain range! Europe is as large geographically as the beauty of its humanistic ideals. Is it not in the interest of the European Council to favor a democratic area with common law, organized around the European Convention for Human Rights? Is it not its goal to promote the cultural identity of Europe and its diversity?

We cannot hope for a better institution to begin work on a veritable democratic European area and on the construction of a grand European Union!

The clash of civilizations can be avoided as it is a concept, which is way too partial and biased, based on history. The political direction of the European Union must be thought out and organized as a model of universality to which one adheres liberally without exterior constraints.

Let us avoid idealism and technocratic diversions; we must begin by integrating the citizens in projects, not necessarily ostentatious, but foremost aiming to unify collective energies and to share competencies and know-how.

In political action, the question “why?” must regularly be repeated as it provides direction; with no political direction any construction, whichever it may be, is condemned to failure. The direction unites energies and channels the actions of the citizens and the states towards a well defined objective.

The message of “living together” established by the founding fathers of Europe must always be put forward to underline and remember the foundations of the European construction and to better understand the role it plays in the integration of different cultures.

These differences, essentially our differences are an extraordinary wealth and a great challenge for the future. Humanity is one and must imperatively see itself as just that; this is the big project for our still young century.

That is the true message of Europe. No other model has been organized to incorporate so many different cultures. If the European model were to fail, the resulting message to the rest of the world would be catastrophic. Thus, we have the duty, toward our children and the generations to come, to bring to fruition this beautiful and noble construction.

Olivier VEDRINE

Tuesday, January 20 2009 By Olivier Védrine

Entries feed