Krispy's Blog

Elke mening telt, maar telt elke mening…

Standplaats de Wereld

Onder het motto hoe groot is jou wereld, of eigenlijk hoe kijkt het buitenland naar Europa (en de EU)? Hebben de VPRO & NRC Handelsblad een discussie georganiseerd tussen de buitenlandcorrespondenten van NRC Handelsblad over beeld van Europa in andere landen. Niet altijd meningen om blij van te worden, volgens Marc Chavannes bestaat Europa simpelweg niet voor de Amerikanen of heeft het niet meer de wil om te bestaan. Een soortgelijke mening als die deze week in De Groene geventileerd wordt door H.J.A. Hofland en in de NRC al eerder stond verwoord in een artikel ‘ We moeten ons voorbereiden op een Koude Oorlog tegen China’ van Robert Kagan in NRC/Handelsblad van 21 mei 2005.

Het is wel apart om te horen hoezeer de mate van Eurosclerose verschilt per land van de EU. Ik vraag me af in hoeverre dat samenhangt met duur van lidmaatschap, maar ook met de stand van de economie in de verschillende lidstaten. Hoge werkloosheid en economische teruggang leiden vaak tot grote problemen voor zittende regeringen.

Bron: NRC VPRO Holland Doc

Krispijn Beek

, ,
  1. heinsen Avatar
    heinsen

    De aarde is zo mooi en groot ware er echter geen zwaartekracht zaten we op de maan

    Like

    Beantwoorden
  2. joe Avatar
    joe

    What can we learn from Europe’s history?

    Why did the Europeans kill each other for 2000 years?
    If we observe the history of Europe and of the world in general, I think we always observe two recurring elements which explain most of the reasons of wars, conquests, creation of empires and so on.

    History of Europe: Rule of the strongest
    The first recurring element is that whenever a man, a group of men, or a nation felt stronger than others, it tried to submit the weaker ones.

    We can observe this phenomenon in early civilizations, where the “leader” was the strongest and bravest that had fought successfully against the enemies and therefore was given the power to rule or defend the group, village, city, or nation.
    In fact if we look at Europe, the strongest group has always tried to submit the others in order to enjoy the privileges that this submission would have brought.
    The Romans have been the most successful group in this respect, because they are the only ones who submitted most of the European Continent for 3-4 centuries. This has happened because of their technological, organizational, and militar superiority compared to the unorganized isolated tribes who populated most of the continent at that time.

    After the collapse of the Roman Empire, in 476, it was only after more than 3 centuries that most of Europe was again under one ruler. Charlemagne, building on the strength of part of the Kingdom of the Franks, which he inherited, through many wars and by usurping the succession of his brother, was crowned by the Pope in the year 800 “Emperor of the Romans”, reviving the concept of the collapsed empire. At his death in 814 he was reigning on most of what today is the Benelux, France, Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Italy, Switzerland and Catalonia.

    After Charlemagne, his territories fragmented again, and it was only under the combined power of Spain and the Hasburgs, that Charles V, heir of both thrones, became again ruler of much of Europe because he was able to fight against the only other sizeable power of the time: France. He ruled Burgundy, today’s Benelux, Spain, Milan, Southern Italy, much of Austria, Bohemia, Moravia and today’s Hungary and Slovenia and Croatia. In 1530 he became Holy Roman Emperor, lasting until 1556.

    Despite endless wars in the following centuries it was only until Napoleon’s France, that the most of Europe was again under one ruler, but his power only lasted 10 years, from 1804 until 1814, again ruling France, the Benelux, much of Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Croatia and Spain.

    The following “ruler of Europe” has been Hitler, but his power lasted even less, not even 6 years over most of Europe.

    We can consider Stalin as in fact the last of these European rulers, but his power did not extend to Western Europe.

    Some could argue that when Britain became the most powerful state in Europe, in the second half of the 19th century, it did resist the temptation of submitting the rest of Europe. This would contradict my theory, but it is also possible to observe how the British used their strength to gain privilegies over overseas territories where they were militarily and economically even stronger than compared to other European powers. In this way they managed to enjoy those privilegies for quite a long time, while in Europe they only acted in order to prevent the creation of a dominant power, following the principle “divide and rule”.

    This enormous simplification of European history confirms however the principle that whenever somebody in Europe managed to get power over a powerful group of people (a large and popolous kingdom, for example), almost inevitably he tried to expand his power over other territories and peoples. Why is that? Because it was possible to convinces millions of people, soldiers, officers, that they would have had to gain material, social and political advantages by submitting weaker groups: land, palaces, money, power, works of art would have been distributed to the most successful fighters in these ventures. The result has been millions of deaths and the creation of reigns which did not last more than a few dozens of years.

    Hobbes theory: war of all against all
    Thomas Hobbes describes this human insticts in this way: “In the state of nature, then, each of us has a right, or license, to everything in the world. Due to the scarcity of things in the world, there is a constant, and rights-based, “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes).” The history of Europe seems to be the perfect demonstration of this theory.

    Instinct towards keeping privileges
    A second basic principle always recurrent is that, once a person or a group is enjoying certain privileges, it will make everything possible to maintain them. That’s why the action of the strongest is never so easy and generally its results do not last that long.

    If man is led by those instincts, how can we live peacefully?
    I think these two principles are so entrenched in human nature (and among animals as well) that they will never change. In fact to avoid perpetual killings among different groups of people who are trying to achieve priviligies or to maintain their existing ones, the only solution is to channel these instincts in a way which is not so murderous. In fact nobody can change man’s nature, but it is possible to modify its behavour. How?

    Only institutions grow wiser, man doesn’t.
    The Swiss philosopher Henri Frédéric Amiel, often cited by Jean Monnet, said: “Each man’s experience starts again from the beginning. Only institutions grow wiser: they accumulate collective experience and owing to this experience and this wisdom, men subject to the same rules will not see their own nature changing, but their behavior gradually transformed”.

    On the basis of this theory, 50 years ago in Europe happened a revolutionary break with the past: after the incredible destructions of two wars in the first part of the 20th century, for the first time in European history and in the history of mankind, groups of people (in this case nation-states) have channeled their instincts of domination through a set of commonly agreed rules. With the creation of ECSC (European Steel and Coal Community) in 1952 and with the treaty of Rome in 1957, different groups could envisage to achieve some priviligies or to keep existing ones: industrialists (and industrial workers) could extend their wealth by exporting in a huge market, without the danger of having their goods blocked by powerful lobbies of other countries, farmers could do the same and have their purchasing power protected from unfavourable terms of trade which would have been typical in a rapidly industrializing area, and workers with no future at home could achieve a better life by moving freely to areas where better chances were available. And in order to reduce the unbalances between a strong center and a weak periphery, a small proportion of the common wealth has been used to improve infrastructures in the periphery, in order to favour its catching-up process.

    In this way, what is today the European Union has managed without violence to achieve what Charlemagne, Charles V, Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin did achieve for a very short time and at the cost of immense destructions and deaths. The most ambitious men or groups manage to achieve their goals by acting in big market regulated by common rules. At the same time a welfare system prevents the weakest groups to fall in total desperation, submission or poverty. This system has made of Europe an almost unrivalled place on the world in terms of the quality of life of its citizens, and this has been achieved without any submission of other Europeans or non-Europeans.

    I believe that this system, since it does channel in the most efficient way mankind’s instincts, is going to be much more successful then the previous attempts based on force. If the same framework could be applied for example in the Middle East, the endless hate and revenge between for examples Palestinians and Israelis could vanish as it happened with the apparently endless hate and revenge between France and Germany of the last centuries.

    We are under permanent threat but we are forgetting about it.
    If my theory is accepted, then I think it is of enormous importance that everybody in Europe understands that the institutions created by the European Union are permanently threatened by groups who would see an opportunity to reach or keep some privilegies by reverting to a system where the strongest imposes its power through force. In this respect, the “No” vote in France and the Netherlands in the referenda in 2005 to a treaty which would have made those institutions simpler, more efficient, more transparent and more democratic is a big danger. It could be the first step to the dissolution of a system which regulates the life on this continent through rules instead of violence, which is the very natural behaviour of mankind.

    PS: for the ones who don’t find my arguments very convincing, I have a few open questions and I would be delighted to hear counter-arguments:

    – if men are inherently “friendly”, why even among neighbours (in a flat block, or in a village) of similar background there are almost always rivalries or frictions? And what about rivalries inside families?

    – if humans are not inherently violent or power-hungry, what would would happen in a society where police does not exists? Would even in the most balanced and equitable society everybody respect each other’s rights and properties? Does it exist anywhere such a society? Or has it ever existed?

    – what would happen in the world today if no minimal rules about trade had been established worldwide and there would be no interest from the part of some countries/groups of people to gain from the resulting free flow of goods? Would strong resource-hungry nations not try to submit resource-rich weaker ones?

    – if mankind has gone through a sort of “genetic evolution”, which means it is better today than in the past, how can we explain Auschwitz (barely 60 years ago), or what happened in Srebrenica, Vukovar or in Kosovo (in the last 15 years), only to look at Europe, and therefore forgetting what happened in Cambodja in the 70’s or in Rwanda in a very recent time?

    – why are, even in today’s Europe, many people still nostalgic of colonial times, especially if they are descendants of those who profited from that situation?

    – what would happen in Europe if, after a disastrous economic crisis most people would become unemployed and some credible and charming politicians would start pointing at some minority groups as the cause of that disaster?

    Like

    Beantwoorden
  3. krispijn Avatar
    krispijn

    Joe,

    Interesting theory. In my hummble opinion your reaction deserves a better place than hidden in the reactions of an old post. So I’ve been so rude as to give your theory it’s own place on my blog. As you did not leave a trail (webadres or email) I could’t ask your permission. I hope you don’t mind.

    I suggest we start the discussion on the new place:

    [PM]

    Like

    Beantwoorden

Geef een reactie op joe Reactie annuleren

Deze site gebruikt Akismet om spam te bestrijden. Ontdek hoe de data van je reactie verwerkt wordt.