babelblogs

hosted by cafebabel.com

atlantic ural college

THE ORIENTAL PARTNERSHIP, THE GEOPOLITICAL STAKES AND AZERBAIJAN

On May 7th and 8th , the Czech presidency of the European Union was able to reunite  the key players of Eastern Europe in the hopes of reestablishing ties between the EU and its ex-Soviet Union neighbors (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldavia and Ukraine) to help reinforce their independence and assure new sources of energy supplies.  The EU is trying, on a basis of pragmatic cooperation, to maintain European presence in these countries, which has lead to speculation that it is about to encroach on the sphere of Russian strategical interests.  But appearances are deceiving.

To begin, Europe does not have a strategic global vision, and it would be wrong to view the whole new oriental partnership as an attempt to diminish Russian influence.  Two factors support this point of view:

 

-         Firstly, the EU is not yet a powerful political/military force and prefers to cooperate with Russia in the handling of crises;

-         Secondly, the economic ties between Russia and its immediate neighbors are sufficiently strong, and the latter doesn’t want to risk such a market, which absorbs their industrial and agricultural products as well as millions of migrant workers, for a project whose future is still uncertain.

 

Although certain elements of the partnership remain promising, it is a long way off from making a useful contribution to the emergence of an economic pole in geopolitical pluralism within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). It is more likely destined to promote relations between the EU and its partners and reinforce their integration in different means of cooperation but at the same level of interaction as with Russia. It is more a matter of complementarity of cooperation than of competition and more about reinforced integration than membership. It is for this reason that the affected States of the ex-USSR adopt a more reasonable approach even if Ukraine still hopes for full membership pure and simple.  The greatest weakness of this partnership is in fact the lack of means for its goals and above all, its incentives in terms of membership. 

Also, the new international context, which is linked to the multilateral approach and to the more pragmatic international policy of the new Obama Administration, tends to put Russia at ease. The new president is fixed on two priorities – Iran and Afghanistan – and is looking, in contrast to his predecessor, to avoid unnecessary provocations by notably abandoning the pursuit of the new version of the containment policy. This policy is aimed at reducing Russian sway by promoting “revolutions of colors”in the ex-Soviet sphere of influence, which were considered to be “natural steps” in the strategic vision of the Kremlin. This approach seems to suit Moscow, as it would be more advantageous for it to adopt a cooperative approach under the condition that it maintains its dominant position in its old guarded domain.  Behind this point of view, one can find a point of equilibrium in the relations between Russia and the United States. For example Washington renounced its unilateral initiative of antimissile shields in favor of a common project with Moscow, in which they engage in problematic affairs, such as those found in Iran and Afghanistan. This could allow for a reconfiguration of the power struggle, and it would assure Russia that it remains the major force in that region, allowing everyone a piece of the pie. Indeed, the help that Russia could bring the Iranian question would be enormous and fundamental for regional and international security. Iran seeks to become a regional power, putting itself in competition with NATO member and EU candidate Turkey, in order to, among other things, contain the influence of the UnitedState. The first trip of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after his reelection took him as invitee to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit in Yekaterinburg in the Ural. This organization was created in 1996 by Russia and China to be an alternative to NATO and in response to US influence in central Asia. Four central Asian countries are members, all the former Soviet republics: Kazakhstan, Kirghistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Iran holds an observer status. It is important to note, that in October 2007, the Caspian Summit in Teheran, held during the peak of the nuclear crisis, has been a success for Iran as well as for Russia.

            This agreeable arrangement with Russia could also contribute to the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Indeed, one goal of the Obama Administration is to improve the American image in the Muslim world. In this context, Turkey is an ally not to be ignored in connecting American interests of becoming a regional player in the Middle East and also in the South Caucasus. Hence the American incentives to normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia, that have been broken off in 1993 following the occupation of 20% of the territory of Azerbaijan by Armenian military forces. But this issue pre-requires diplomatic progress in finding a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which demands a more active role of the United States and Russia. However, the Russian motivations are different: first, by excluding such a possibility for the resolution of the Ossetian and Abkhazian conflict, Moscow continues its efforts to bring the Saakhashvili regime to its knees, again to ensure direct access to Armenia, its stronghold in the South Caucasus; then in the setting of a potential rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia, the Kremlin thinks about balancing its relations with Azerbaijan, while encouraging them to sell the bulk of its natural gas to the Russian gas giant "Gazprom", which aims to challenge the European gas pipeline "Nabucco".

            Contrary to what one might think, Azerbaijan has not attempted to use its energy weapon as a means of diplomatic pressure in the process of normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. But it suggested to lead the two negotiations in a single process and to push the progress in resolving the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh towards the rapprochement between the two countries. The historical and cultural ties that bind the Turkish people to those of Azerbaijan and the popular reaction that Ankara's policy has sparked in both countries, has made the Turkish government aware that without eliminating the causes that led to the closing of the borders, no action can be taken to remedy the effects. This position has relieved Baku and “dispelled all suspicions" as declared by the President Ilham Aliyev, following the visit of the Turkish Prime Minister on May 13, 2009. Azerbaijan considers its demand legitimate due to the fact that 20% of its territories are still under Armenian occupation. It has called on Turkey and the international community as a whole to adopt a common position and to stand firm in this situation, rather than to consolidate the Armenian position at the round table negotiations demanding open borders between Turkey and Armenia.

Azerbaijan has yet to give in to Russian requests to purchase all of its gas as they are looking to ensure the security of their resource routes by diversifying the pipelines in multiple directions. This is the reason for which, in the past, they postponed the exploitation of the second phase of the Shah Deniz well, expected to produce over 16 billion cubic meters of natural gas per annum. Under the circumstances, Azerbaijan, which already exports gas to Turkey and Greece, was favorable towards the “Nabucco” pipeline project to transport the majority of its gas, although they can no longer infinitely await the Europeans. Furthermore, with its increased gas production, it is in need of markets and competitive prices which only Russia is taking the initiative to offer. During President Medvedev’s visit to Baku on the 29th of June 2009, Gazprom proceeded to sign an agreement of purchase with the Azerbaijanis state petrol company (SOCAR) concerning 500 million cubic meters of gas as of the 1st of January 2010. For Baku, this contract is based on commercial considerations with prices as high as 350 dollars per 1000 cubic meters of gas. For the moment though, the volume in question is too insignificant to be a fatal blow by depriving “Nabucco” of a reliable and vital source. In any case, the danger is not far off if the Europeans do not soon decide the fate of their projects and do not rapidly offer purchasing contracts to Azerbaijan. Wasting time could, in effect, put an end to this project. Even more so as the key actor in the region, which is Azerbaijan, constitutes a strategic transit zone for Central Asia which is among the top suppliers of “Nabucco”. Azerbaijan’s eventual change of course could incite the Central Asian countries, such as Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, to turn to Asia instead.  Let us be reminded that after the recent explosion on the pipeline between Turkmenistan and Russia, Turkmenistan has been made more aware than even of the vulnerability of their dependence on their large neighbor to the north. It is no coincidence that Turkmenistan’s authorities have recently proposed new opportunities to western companies in the exploitation of hydro-carbons. In this colossal game, the realization of “Nabucco” does not depend on Russian opposition with their competing projects such as “South Stream”, but largely on the engagement of European partners. In this relationship, the European Union has two strategic imperatives, the first being an improved level of cooperation with Russia, which is part of Eastern Europe, and the second being the continuation of the adhesion process for Turkey. It is in the strategic, balanced position that the right path can be found to its policies and the defense of its energy interests.

 

 

Olivier VEDRINE

President of the Atlantic-Ural College

Paris, FRANCE

Lecturer of the European Commission

(TEAM EUROPE France)

 

Fazil Zeynalov                                                         

Political scientist                                             

Baku, Azerbaijan

 

This text is also available at: http://blog.multipol.org/post/2009/08/01/ANALYSE-%3A-The-Oriental-Partnership-the-Geopolitical-Stakes-and-Azerbaijan

                                                      
Monday, August 3 2009 By Olivier Védrine

TECHNICAL PATHWAYS FOR A POWERFUL EUROPE:

The only way that we “the Europeans” could participate in the World Geopolitical Game would be through a re-organization of our institutions.Two goals present themselves to us: A redefinition of the functions of the European Commission and a search for a new decision making process in the Council of Ministers (The European Union Council).

The European Commissioners have an ill defined status and a poor perception from the European public (State representatives or a Supranational Government body?). All this explains the difficulties encountered in the decision making process and the competitive race between countries to install their own Commissioners on the Council. We should bear in mind that in legislative matters, the council has no autonomy from its member states.

It is imperative that the European Union Council reviews its voting methods and abolishes the principle of unanimity.

The European Commission:

The improvement of this organization would send a strong political message to all citizens of the Union. The European Commission is often considered by the citizens to be all powerful and totally disconnected from the real problems that they are meant to deal with.

The first problem is a legal one : according to article 213 of the treaty “the members of the Commission shall carry out their duties in a fully independent manner” and “each member state undertakes to respect this principle and not seek to influence members in carrying out their duties”. The fact that we are far from these grandiose expressions, is demonstrated by the race for Commissioners seats.

The second problem is institutional: article 219 of the treaty stipulates that voting should be collegial but it is taken by a simple majority. Consequently, any increase in the number of members does not create any obstacles in the decision making process. The real obstacle is the cumbersome decision making process which must be improved.

The third problem is administrative: the enlargement of the European Union to include the countries of Central and Eastern Europe begs the question of how to increase efficiency without revising the whole administrative set-up. One could propose the streamlining of the European Commission to make it work eventually as a federal Government. With a President, a Vice President and several Commissioner Ministers responsible for different portfolios. This is the ultimate goal which requires us to agree urgently on a European Constitution, despite the disastrous results in the 2005 referendum.

The Lisbon Treaty permits us to revive the idea and to provide solutions to the problems discussed above, resulting in a bigger and better Europe.

The Council of the European Union:

A major reorganization of the European Union Council with the abolition of unanimity in the voting of the 27 member states seems an obvious necessity in order to facilitate decision making.

Even if voting is often avoided, by the efforts of the Presidency of the Council, to find compromises between participants. It is extremely difficult to find an agreement between two member states who are completely opposed to each others ideas. Without the introduction of a qualified majority voting system, the situation will worsen with the arrival of each new member state into the Union. The Treaty of Lisbon allows for these “operational challenges”. The problem is clear: how can member states pass from a decision making process based on unanimity to a system of qualified majority voting where influence would be eroded and decisions taken without the approval of some states?

In the case of a simple majority vote, each state has one voice. In the case of unanimous voting, the decision is passed if there is agreement by all member states. One may ask the question about re-determining the weight allocated to member states if a qualified majority voting system were introduced. The big question would be about how many voices to allocate each member state. We can highlight the demographic criteria (already present in the current calculation) which help small states like Luxembourg, Belgium etc... In order that small states do not become second class members by the reduction of their voting weight, we should return to the principle of Democracy, that is to say : one State = one voice.

We must not lose sight of the fact that reform, with regard to qualified majority voting, should not be limited to revising the current rules of implementation but should seek to broaden the scope for change. The Europe of 27 and its recent expansion would be easier to manage.

Already, with reference to four important subjects, the question of qualified majority voting was discussed by the European Council in Féria in June 2000.

Initially with reference to a group of subjects relating to the internal organization of the European Union ( appointment of members to the court of auditors, appointment of the General Secretary of the European Union Council).

Secondly, to those areas concerning the ESDP, the drawing up of International agreements and the problem of Intellectual property rights.

The third group, concerns measures which touch upon the functioning of the internal market. (Market access and unpaid activities, taxation and social problems, problems of discrimination, double taxation and tax evasion).

Finally, there is a group of problems concerning the “Internal space“ of the European Union (The rights of citizens to circulate freely and to live in any member state, the allocation of visas, asylum and refugee rules, immigration problems and legal co-operation between member states on civil issues).

We see the difficulties that the 27 have in taking decisions on so many subjects (some of which are sensitive). Once again, should we not adopt, just as we have proposed to the Commission, a logical re-organization? The Lisbon Treaty provides us with the elements to improve the efficiency of the European Union.

To go further than the Treaty, one should go back to the equation: One State = one voice. This is a simple and democratic proposal. Why not suggest a Chamber of Nations representing the States, with each member state having an equal number of representatives, irrespective of the size of the State (Similar to the Senate in the USA). The Council of Ministers would become the Chamber of Nations. This transformation would call for the creation of a European Constitution.

We should prepare the transition of the Commission to a real European Government with a President, Vice President and Ministers. The President would be elected by direct Universal Suffrage and would be head of the executive with the power to dissolve the first Chamber. The Parliament would require two Chambers, one to represent the citizens and the other, the States. The first “The Chamber of Citizens” similar to the current Assembly in Strasbourg. The second, representing the States and called “The Chamber of Nations” having an equal number of representatives irrespective of the size of the State.

This ground breaking work and the formidable challenges involved in creating a European Constitution would force Europe into the Twenty First Century with the participation of all its citizens, thanks to modern communication systems such as the Internet. This collective participation could launch the beginnings of a veritable European Society.

Olivier VEDRINE

Tuesday, July 28 2009 By Olivier Védrine

NOTES FROM THE TRIPS TO AZERBAIJAN

To address my trips to Azerbaijan, I must begin with a small prologue. The summer had already begun in Paris, as I walked along; bathed in the brilliant sunshine of one of those rare days our capital occasionally offers us, suddenly I receive a phone call.

- Hello Olivier! It is Jean-Yves Chevalier. How are you? What are your plans for this summer? Would you like to come to Baku in Azerbaijan?

Classes were over, the business school and university students were all on holiday, so I was free. Baku, Azerbaijan, the Caucus, and the Caspian Sea: the destination seemed full of adventure to me. My answer was simple.

- I am coming!

 Joyfully, I went off to inform my friends of my future destination, most of them, knowing little or nothing about the country and out of ignorance, warned me of all the dangers of the far off, mystical land! Nothing could be more motivating. Faced with all the comments full of apprehensions, my enthusiasm grew stronger!

My first trip:

It is the end of August, it is morning and the sun has risen. I am at Charles de Gaulle airport, impatient to get on the airplane to Baku.

After a few hours of flight, it is evening when we arrive at Heydar Aliyev airport, a taxi awaits us. The powerful German sedan transports us to the Hyatt hotel along the motorway bordered by fields of derricks.

For the first part of this foremost trip, my colleague Jean-Yves Chevalier and I were asked to express consecutive opinions to the answers of the “Work group for the implementation of international standards in matters concerning Human rights in Azerbaijan,” concerning the opinions and propositions of the OSCE-ODHIR and the Commission of Venice of the Council of Europe relative to the additions and amendments to the electoral code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The working document, the report upon which we reflected, was of great quality and the ensemble of NGO’s and Foundations of Azerbaijan, through their ideas, demonstrated and proved to us that a process of democratization was already in place.

This country, oh so interesting on a cultural and historic level, is situated on the ancient silk road. One imagines, while crossing the old city of Baku, the arrival of the caravans and their halts in the caravan saraïs and the history of Marco Polo returns to us from a distant place in our memory.

Today, the situation of Azerbaijan is strategic and leads us to understand the political vision of this country which falls under continuity by integration in European institutions and a diplomacy which successfully reconciles a pro-Western orientation and good relationships with Russia. This policy allowed stability, economic progress thanks to the oil incomes injected, which caused the increase in the industrial production and thus an improvement in the living standards of the inhabitants.

The second part of this trip was marked by an expedition to the south of the country, towards the city of Lankaran which borders the Caspian Sea. The journey was extraordinary and allowed me to whiteness the extreme diversity of the landscapes and climate. The hot, dry climate of the flat deserts, where we crossed a sea of salt, left way to forests carpeting high mountains full of thick magnificent vegetation and comfortable temperatures, further up the mountains the vegetation thinned leading us to imagine the harsh climate that prevails in the heights.

Throughout this first trip, I was met with grand hospitality, both by the officials and the citizens. I witnessed the welcoming attitudes of the population as a whole and their pacifistic nature in their willingness to interact with the traveler that I was. They are a people proud of their past and their extensive history as I was able to witness in their numerous museums, one of which was situated in a small village on the Iranian border. They are a friendly people who accompany the beauty of their landscapes with dignity.

My excursion to the south lasted but a few days and was followed by my return to Baku and then Paris.

My second trip:

On my second trip to Azerbaijan, I was an international observer for the October 2008 presidential elections, and as always I was accompanied by my dear colleague, Jean-Yves Chevalier. My role was to go to the voting stations and ensure that the voting processes were followed correctly. At the hotel, the observers are divided by geographic zones and/or by cities. I was assigned to Guba, a city located in the north of the country near the border with Russia.

The morning envelopes Baku, the road to Guba is under construction, so I am given a four wheel drive Toyota. The team accompanying me is young and dynamic. The trip is long and hard but the beauty of the landscapes here too is breathtaking.

After a few visits to voting stations within the city, we decided to head for the mountains, the high Caucus which we read about in adventure novels. Our objective was the highest village in all of Azerbaijan at an altitude of about 3000 meters. The path is reputed to be all but smooth. In effect, we would travel on tar roads for a small distance before continuing on half-gravel, half-mud tracks. These tracks wound through the mountains, along cliffs, over summits, and finally plunging down into the deep, magnificent valleys. The mountain sides are dotted with a few habitations which, one can imagine, are well organized to face the rugged, unforgiving mountain climate. One of my companions tells me that this is wolf territory. Car trouble seems quit undesirable right now…

First we traverse a thickly forested area. Then, we emerge from the trees to a landscape which appears to have been pealed by the icy winds, we see a few sheep, some homes built into the mountain sides, and finally, the highest village in Azerbaijan appears before us at the end of the track. The locals are farmers and breeders. Russia is only a few kilometers away. They are happy and proud to welcome us. Their smiles light up their faces, in their eyes we can see the hardships of mountain life. Their hospitality, as in the rest of the country, is a way of life. We are the first Observers to sign the books in the voting stations. One of the villagers makes a telephone call to signal our presence. Democracy and its voting slips have arrived in the mountains of the high Caucus. We take a few pictures with the director of the local school in which the voting station has been set up. It is time to leave, as it seems the trip back down the treacherous track is safer during the day…

We return to Baku and take part in the debriefing along with the other observers. The meetings, press conferences and interviews follow. There are always the walks through the beautiful old city of Baku and the hospitality of our Azeri friends to end this trip in the most agreeable way.

My third trip:

My third trip was the shortest. Jean-Yves and I participated in an international press conference on the referendum of March 2009. On this trip I was able to establish collaboration between IPAG Paris and the Khazar University in Baku so as to offer a double diploma in the new academic year: an MBA on energy.

Following these different trips, I invite my friends in France to adopt a different view of Azerbaijan. I always insist on this when I discuss the beauty of the landscapes, the hospitality, the pride and the kindness of this pacifistic people.

Olivier VEDRINE

PS: The program of the MBA Energy for which I am responsible is on the IPAG website: http://www.ipag.fr/en/home/programmes/mba/energy-sustainable-development-management-mba.html

NB: Mr. Jean-Yves CHEVALIER, International Consultant, Honorary President of the ACEDS http://aceds.fr/

Tuesday, May 26 2009 By Olivier Védrine

A "SOLID CORE" TO BUILD A POLITICAL EUROPEAN UNION

Thanks to the summit of Nice, the Union began its enlargement in 2003 towards countries that satisfied the adhesion requirements. With the negotiations concerning the adhesion of Turkey and of several Balkan countries, the EU opened the doors to many other States.

But we must question ourselves about the limits of the EU and launch a debate with our neighbors on our eastern borders. We have already established agreements for partnership, cooperation, and association leading to membership.

If we do not consider the development of a solid core, as an “avant-garde” for the political Union and a locomotive to integration, we will have to deplore the dilution of the European Union into a simple enlarged Union.

Our failure to ratify the Constitutional Treaty and the difficulties of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, combined with the pressure on the enlargement, must encourage make a qualitative jump which will enable the Union to integrate all the new waves of adhesions within an institutional framework enhanced by a reinforcement of common policies. This “avant-garde” must be the first step of a process bringing the EU to build a better Union for the Mediterranean and a better integration of new candidate states.

Through a deep institutional restoration brought by the development of a Constitution and by the formation of a solid core, we would avoid the blockages accumulated since the signature of the Treaty of Maastricht and we would cease condemning Europe to impotence. We would give each other the means of escaping a possible crisis which, if our weaknesses were revealed, could lead to a regression and maybe even to a dislocation of the construction achieved since 1957.

It would finally be necessary to prepare the passage of the current Commission to a European government with a president, a vice-president and ministers. The president elected by universal direct suffrage would be the true executive chief, with the capacity to dissolve the Parliament.

For the Parliament, two houses are necessary; one must represent the citizens, the other the States.

The first “the House of citizens” would approach the current Strasbourg Parliament.

The second is a “House of nations” which would represent the States at a rate of some representatives per Member States with an equal number of representatives whatever the size of the state. In the case of a simple majority vote, one state = one vote. In the case of a unanimous vote, the decision is taken when all participants agree on it. One can ask the question of the balancing of the decision making weight of the states in the majority voting process by determining the number of votes that each will obtain in the future. One can propose demographic criteria, (already present in current calculation) which does not fit small states like Luxembourg, Belgium, etc… To avoid making “small states” become second class actors by reducing their decisional weight, it is necessary to return to the basic principles of international relations, namely: one State = one vote. Through this simple equation we are merely respecting the elementary laws of democracy. This constitution, as the Constitutional Treaty, must be formatted by an independent “Council of the Wise” which, thanks to the Internet, would make it possible for all citizens to take part in the discussions. This fundamental work and this formidable challenge, the elaboration of a constitution, would bring Europe into daily life. The participation of everyone could result in the beginnings of European civism. This goal supposes difficult reforms on the level of the European Union and on the level of Member States. The consequences for member states would be the consideration of engaging themselves in a new territorial distribution of power. As for Europeans citizens, the means to count in the global geopolitical game can be achieved primarily by the reorganization of our institutions. There are two possible objectives: the redefinition of the functioning of the European Commission and the search for a new decision making process at the Council of Ministers or the Council of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty is moving in that direction.

This renewal of the Union’s political framework will not be an easy task. Within the circle of Europe’s 27, as was made clear by the failure of the Constitutional Treaty and underlined by the difficulties faced by the Lisbon Treaty, there is no lack of adversaries to that goal. Furthermore, the elaboration of a solid core will not be well received by candidate countries; they will, in effect, feel faced with an added obstacle. Parallel to this, certain Central and Eastern European countries will show reluctance to join an excessively federal Union after living under the dominance of the USSR. Due to this they might show a legitimate need to keep their new-gained independence.

Thus we must, in this case, initiate a true political debate around the Union, a debate that must aim to inform and include all the States as well as the majority of their citizens. We could propose, due to the principles presented here in the ideas of a Constitution, an associate member chair in the Chamber of Nations, to candidate states. We could thus, thanks to a constitution, set up institutions which could deal with different conventions varying from associate member states to permanent members.

Faced with the strategic issues of the 21st century, a political construction of Europe is necessary; the new challenges cannot be simply managed by isolated States or by a system of intergovernmental co-operation.

In the center the “solid core”, governed by a Constitution of which the members belong to the European Union and who take part in the common internal security policies (Schengen space) and external (Defense policy) as well as the Euro area. The first periphery, the European Union Member States which do not wish to adhere to the Political Union. Finally, a last group would correspond to the applicant countries and/or to associated members.

This “solid core” would be the engine of the Union. This integration with variable geometry has the advantage to propose a pragmatic construction of the European Union. Each State can thus adapt its rhythm to the admission requirements of the political organization or decide not to adhere to it. By the development of these three “families”, one goes from total integration to continuous influence.

Olivier VEDRINE

This text is also available at: http://blog.multipol.org/

Thursday, April 30 2009 By Olivier Védrine

THE RETURN OF OLD REACTIONS?

Will the results of the European elections be characterized by the great victory of the extremes? Will the economic crisis push European citizens to turn towards simplistic solutions from the past? Within its member states, the EU can see the return of nationalistic fallback movements. The flourishing economy of growth did not erase these old derivatives, making the political Union appear more than desirable.

Europe was paralyzed for fifty years by both the Cold War and the occupation of Eastern Europe by the USSR. After the fall of the Soviet model, came the explosion of Yugoslavia, this conflict threw the south-east of the Balkans into a fratricidal war for more than ten years. NATO and the international community had to intervene to put an end to this tragedy. This war was sparked by the use of religious and ethnic differences by politicians who sought to reach their own personal goals.

Within the EU, the return of nationalism on a political level can often be explained by the fear for the loss of national identity due to the expansion of Europe as well as globalization. The lack of politicization of the European debate over the last few years helped fuel these fears. Thus the proposal of a political vision for Europe is urging, a grand and noble social project.

The phenomenon of the return of nationalism has nothing to do with the extremism of the 1930’s. To begin with, these movements did not appear in the industrial cities hit by unemployment but rather in the prosperous region, home to the bourgeoisie. There we could find low level executives and employees of dynamic SME’s (Small and Medium sized Enterprises) or employees of the tourism sector, which represents a lucrative economic activity. Already, this “neo poujadism” saw only waste and exploitation of its labor in the redistribution on a state or European level. At the time, “the extreme right exploited the egoism of a wealthy electorate which sought only to defend its privileges and which was not at all concerned with solidarity.” (Vincent de Coorebyter, director of the centre for research and sociopolitical information.)

These movements were born during an economically prosperous age. What would happen to us if the crisis we are currently undergoing was to endure? What if the EU did not meet the expectations of its member states? An outburst?

To begin with we must respond in a collective, European way to this crisis with a very pedagogic explanation of the decisions taken on behalf of the citizens and parallel to this, create a desire for Europe: Europe must make us dream!

How to make people dream in order to make them join?

“An important psychological factor also contributed to the imperial power: no assertion of identity could compete with the civis romanus sum (“I am a Roman citizen”), source of pride and of aspiration for many. Finally conceded to the subjects of non-Roman birth, the coveted status of “citizen” expressed a cultural superiority which made expansion of the empire a true mission. Wherever it was imposed, the law of Rome found its legitimacy and encouraged those who lived by it to wish for assimilation in the imperial structures. The cultural superiority, obvious to the eyes of the Masters and acknowledged by the subjects, reinforced the established order.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski: le Grand Echiquier, l’Amérique et le reste du Monde).

This Empire, one of the historical cradles of Europe, proposed to the world a federative civilization project. The European Union must, for the sake of its member state citizens, elaborate a new society so as to federate, without reviving an imperial vision. A social humanistic project could fuel the creation and development of a constitution. It is an opportunity to seize for our continent in a world that is becoming multi-polar. There are multiple development and social models and the primary objective is to co-exist comfortably. The European Union could propose a project that would combat instability (essential in times of crisis!), that would respect the environment and that would allow each citizen to indulge in their own search for happiness. We must admit, in a pragmatic way, that the market economy is the only model that works, even though, as the current crisis has shown us, we must rethink it so that the economy serves man and not the other way round.

Let us hope that the destiny of the EU will differ from that of an ancient Greek League which, once the Persian peril gone, collapsed.

We have all the means necessary to become a great power, able to influence in the future of the world and thus our own future. We are still missing the political will; the crisis can be a chance to impose this political will. The Lisbon Treaty is necessary to advance in this success story which is the European construction. Furthermore, a constitution would be the zenith of this long road, it would have the same strength and would symbolize the same as the constitutions proposed in France in 1791 and the United States in 1787.

"If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God." – George Washington. Comments at the First Continental Congress on May 14, 1787 at Philadelphia .

This desire for Europe must be one of the major objectives of the political debates concerning the European elections; it will create the necessary tools for the construction of a fully-fledged European Union, and effectively oppose all types of extremism.

Olivier VEDRINE

Monday, March 30 2009 By Olivier Védrine

“GOVERNANCE” A THOUGHT FOR EUROPEANS ?

To begin this new article, I would like to come back on a few points from the article on capitalism. The crisis that some already qualify as being a "recession" will require us – if we want to come out on top - to reconsider and integrate the role of new actors as forces of suggestion , complementary to the functions of the State. Democracy in its governance is indeed changing, as a result of the enormous advances that have been taking place in the domain of communications, especially with the Internet, which itself is one of the main causes of the globalization of information.

Citizens and civil society, particularly those represented by associations but also by NGOs and foundations, can and should contribute to resolving this crisis that is looming on the horizon, mainly by taking its social aspects into consideration. There are not only inconveniences to this, as it can be a tremendous democratic restitution for our companies, which will lead to discussions that can conduct to changes in the governance of States themselves. With all these new actors and the state, we are confronted by a large debate, in which the role of morality and ethics, in the domain of politics and economics, would have to be discussed thoughtfully and responsibly.

The purpose of governance is to get closer to achieving political equilibrium and thereby guaranteeing an efficient and effective government. This means accepting a global approach of government power, that embodies more dialogue, consensus and taking into account multiple interests. In times of crisis, this integrated approach appears therefore to be a contemporary topic of great importance.

The concept is not only for domestic implementation but also for use on an international level. The inclusion of multiple interests, and the search for consensus could actually be the new guidelines for a modern form of diplomacy as part of a multi-polar world. Following this logic, it seems necessary, for instance, to restructure international organizations such as the United Nations, the IMF or the World Bank. All these organizations were introduced shortly after the Second World War, and the world has changed a lot since then, especially with the end of colonial empires, the end of the USSR and the emergence of new powers.

Taking into account the new face, or should we say multiple new faces, of the world, as an incentive to consider a major democratic reform of international institutions. A Security Council integrating an African country but also India and Brazil, as well as the creation of a seat for the European Union or even the chairmanship of major financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, held by representatives of non-European countries, or from representatives not coming from the United States of America, are important elements to take into consideration if we want to mobilize the entire world in solving this global crisis.

The mobilization of a large number of countries and their citizens, to revive the global economy today, is an imperative that is binding everyone if we want to solve this crisis, that has become social and that we have been experiencing for several months, in the quickest and most evenhanded way possible. It is all the more urgent, as this crisis is not the only one we will have to face in upcoming years because the climate and energy crises also already constitute major challenges to face. The threat posed by the climate crisis can evidently only be faced on an international level as pollution and natural catastrophes know no state boundaries.

As far as energy is concerned, primarily oil, even if oil prices per barrel are currently low, a decrease of demand from industrialized and emerging countries seems unlikely nowadays, especially if we want to revive the economy through policies of large scale change. This is why we should prepare ourselves at present for a sudden rise in oil prices! The geopolitical consequences will be important in this race for energy. They will only be correctable through cooperation as the reserves of oil cannot be extended to meet the exceptional growth rate of our economical needs.

Governance is not only applicable at the international level but also locally. Indeed, consensus-building by taking into account the greater number of partners in policy making makes sense at the local level, in municipalities and at regional level, in the departments. This is a chance to see a direct and sustained involvement of citizens in the life of the city and / or region. This will make the populations feel like a part of the political decision making process, which can, in times of crisis, defuse many social conflicts.

We can also associate the business world with the practice of local governance. Indeed, decisions that are concerted and explained to an entire workshop, a division, or a plant would reduce the potential for conflict. This reduction of the distance between hierarchical floors makes it possible to mobilize all employees in a movement where everyone feels, by consensus, useful and essential for the proper functioning of the group as a whole.

This local governance is an important part of European civil society which is connected first in national governance at state level and, secondly, at a European level in Brussels. The involvement of a greater number of citizens in public decisions is ensured through the proximity to the fact, when the decision is taken closer to the citizen and also when it is explained on a national and European level. It is most probably through this form of participatory involvement, that we can establish a European citizenship that integrates both the local and national feeling of belonging.

The establishment of modern governance techniques appears easy to realize today using modern means of communication, especially the resources offered by the internet, which amply demonstrated its capacity to mobilize nations in the latest American Presidential elections. A great number of European citizens know and use social networks on the Internet, the transition to a form of governance incorporating this logic would be simple to implement for many citizens. Our politicians are already using websites like “facebook” or “viadeo” and their constituents have begun to incorporate the possibilities, for consultation and proposals, of these new platforms that bring politics within reach of the voters. For the European Union, this could be an extraordinary building site for a modernization of democracy which could become, once the work is completed, the real contribution of Europe to global democratic debate, one of the components of this "European way of life !" we have yet to find. We are in the European election year and we possess, through governance, a subject conducive to beautiful and noble political debates, which most probably interest voters, through the prospects they offer and the new dynamic process that they could engage in the European Union.

Olivier VEDRINE

Monday, March 16 2009 By Olivier Védrine

Entries feed