The Idea of Europe

Over last couple of months, I had an opportunity to meet two leaders – one a right wing former Presidential candidate in Poland (right wing in the true sense that he supports free trade, lower taxes, reduced role of Government to the extent that you do not know who your President is, along with conservative views on social and religious issues) and another a left-of-center Member of European Parliament who has an important position on its Foreign Affairs Committee. Since these were ‘closed to Press’ private gatherings, I would not identify them, but I thought it was worth mentioning some eye-opening perspectives on the ‘idea of Europe’

The first challenge is deciding whether Europe is a geographical, political or a cultural concept. If it is a geographical entity then what are its boundaries? If Ural Mountains and Ural River define its eastern boundaries, then would the political Europe (EU) accept Kazakhstan as part of Europe? If Caucasus defines its southern boundary between Caspian Sea and Black Sea, the why is Mount Elbrus (5,621 m) not the highest mountain but the Mont Blanc (4,810 m) as most books say? (It took me 15 precious years to figure out why Kanchenjunga was called the highest Indian mountain peak, when on all maps K2 was shown to be higher – so disputed political boundaries have cost many a student precious marks in Geography examinations for decades!). So both eastern and southern geographical boundaries are disputed, and hence geography does not provide an answer.

Then is Europe a political entity? Or should it be a political entity? Conservative politicians in many European countries would prefer Europe to be a free trade bloc, with their nation states being sovereign entities with no decision making devolved to Brussels. This in essence means Europe should not envision being a political entity - with no desire of a common domestic policy (abortion allowed in liberal France and Netherlands, but abhorred in Poland; welfare state bordering socialism in France but a different structure in post-Thatcher Britain; strong stand of Czech President against stiff European targets regarding climate change etc.) or a common foreign policy (pro-America/pro-Iraq war policy of Britain and anti-war stance of France and Germany). But why should a free trade bloc be restricted to contiguous geographies? It may as well include any other country in Africa or Asia or Latin America whose participation in this trade bloc makes economic sense. But then this will defeat the whole idea of Europe. Thus, Europe just as free trade bloc without a common political character, however low the denominator might be, would not be considered a power along the lines of US, Russia and China, or emerging powers like India.

But even if Europe were to have some political identity, would this identity survive without a military might to defend it? An issue that came up during the discussions was that in case of a threat will anyone in Europe be as willing to die for ‘Europe’ as they would be for Germany or France or Britain or Poland or Italy? This is well articulated rhetorical question by opponents of political Europe, as everyone finds the idea of ‘dying for Europe’ almost laughable! It is argued that NATO will defend Europe, but what if Finland, which is not a member of NATO, is attacked?

And then the most debated issue of all – Turkey! A very pertinent point made was that desire for Turkey not being in EU is Europe’s acknowledgement of Turkey being a secular progressive state. With the status quo, EU has boundaries with a state which shares some of the western ideas (secularism, democracy), in spite of being different (Muslim-majority). If Turkey were to be a part of EU, then EU will have boundaries with Iran, Iraq and Syria – a foreign policy and security challenge that no European policy maker even comprehends. So many European liberals who consider Turkey to be more like them (Europeans), and conservatives who consider Turkey to be an alien culture – both see benefits in Turkey not being a part of EU.

So many perspectives, but no prescriptions for what Europe is or ought to be!