The celebrations to mark the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome this month come at an opportune moment, for now is the time for the EU to call an end to its self-imposed "reflection period" following the rejection of the European constitution by the French and the Dutch and to restart the unification process that began in Rome 50 years ago.
The reflection period has been utterly devoid of actual reflection and Europe's leaders have failed to offer Europe's citizens any new, fundamental vision. So how should a neubegundung, or refounding of Europe -- as called for by German Chancellor Angela Merkel in her first parliamentary statement on European policy -- be accomplished?
In theory, there are three competing, fundamentally different visions of the EU's future.
The first of these visions calls for a "state of nation states." Backers of this vision -- often imprecisely called "Federalists" -- refer to the constitution as a necessary step towards a European federation.
Such a federation can be justified by claiming that the moral substance of a nation state has been deeply compromised by past belligerence, or as a practical preventive measure to keep any potential eagerness for new conflict in check. Moreover, British political scientist Glyn Morgan has argued that a robust concept of pan-European security also requires a pan-European state, and that it is irresponsible on the part of Europe's elites to maintain a permanent position of strategic dependency on the UN. Related to this is the idea that only a strong EU can save the "European social model."
But the last few years have made clear the absence of majority support for a European federation by the states that make up Europe, a point underscored by the debate surrounding the failed constitutional treaty. In fact, many of the "federalist" arguments look dubious because there is no single European social model.
The differences, for instance, between the Scandinavian countries, the Mediterranean countries and the "liberal Atlantic countries" such as Ireland and the UK are sometimes more pronounced than those between Europe as a whole and the US.
In recent years, a second vision -- an alternative view of the EU that can be described as "supra-national multiculturalism" -- has taken root. This view entails a union whose main function is to allow -- and to maintain -- diversity and difference.
Instead of traditional homogeneous states, this Europe seeks to be a community of diversity, a kind of "People of Others," to borrow a phrase from jurist Joseph Weiler.
Tolerance becomes the cardinal European virtue in this vision and the EU's character as an entity with federal law but without federal statehood is viewed as a strength, not a weakness.
The prophets of supra-national multiculturalism thus reject a federal democracy. What is feasible is, they believe, at best a so-called "demoi-cracy" -- that is, the rule not of one people or "demos," but of many peoples or "demoi" who deliberately assure and seek to maintain their diversity.
Elements of this vision sound attractive. It is questionable, though, how credible European heads of government are who promote such pan-European multiculturalism and at the same time emphatically denounce alleged "multiculturalist" illusions at home -- as has by now become standard political rhetoric in almost all countries.
The third vision is essentially no vision at all, but a justification of the Brussels bureaucracy as it currently exists. From this technocratic perspective, Brussels today maintains functions that even within nation states are often delegated to institutions that are not democratically elected. Central banks are the classic example. Those policy areas that citizens consider the most significant -- in particular social policy and education -- remain under the direction of member states.
Consequently, Brussels is no government to be, but a regulatory authority -- and this often to the benefit of European consumers. This authority, the technocrats claim, in turn is part of a system of national and supra-national checks and balances which, while not resembling a national democracy, would reliably prevent despotism from taking root in Brussels.
None of these three visions entirely misses the EU's current reality or its future possibilities. The federation has become a distant prospect, but still receives homage in politicians' speeches, as if a different end result was inconceivable.
The demoi-crats win support because their vision tends to reinforce the status quo and leaves nearly all options open. The technocrats in turn see their position confirmed with every passing day that the alleged crisis of legitimacy fails to appear.
But is there a pan-European political understanding for which consensus could be reached, or which would command a majority? If the answer is no, adhering to a pragmatic approach to the union as a kind of commonwealth is the most honest alternative to any high-minded visions.
The classic argument that the EU, like a bicycle, must always keep moving forward to avoid falling over, is simply not true: the reflection period may be frustrating for federalists, but it also proves that, even at a standstill, the EU continues.
The Brussels elites are not likely to admit this fact without further ado: their rhetoric still oscillates between doom-and-gloom pessimism and a kind of pro-European PR that is concerned only with how best to "sell" the union to Europe's citizens. But that will be impossible in the absence of a vision that sells itself.
Jan-Werner Muller is a professor of political theory and the history of ideas at Princeton University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s