EUROPE'S
DIRECTION?
A VOICE FROM IRELAND
by Declan Ganley
March 11, 2003
Declan Ganley is an Irish
entrepreneur and founder of wireless broadband and cable TV businesses in western,
central and eastern Europe. He began his career in the early 1990s, building
what became the largest private forestry company in the Former Soviet Union,
which he sold in 1997 in order to focus on other European interests. He is a
member of Ireland's largest political party and serves on the Futures Group
of the Irish Government's Information Society Commission.
EUROPE'S DIRECTION?
A VOICE FROM IRELAND
by Declan Ganley
It has been interesting
to observe from the sidelines the heated arguments and accusations being aired
across the
world with regard to the matter of Iraq. It has been particularly interesting
to observe the stances and maneuverings of Europe vis a vis the United States.
As a passionate Irish and European citizen, I am, unfortunately, not amazed
to listen to some of my fellow Europeans attempt to lecture the United States
from some theoretical high moral ground, to pre-suppose that we Europeans have
a "better way." We do not, at least not yet.
What we are observing is
a post-20th century (laterally shaped by WWII and its cold war sequel) reshaping
of the global dynamic, a reshaping that will possibly define the approximate
direction that history will take us for the next century or so, in the same
way that the events up to and including 1914-1918 did for the last century.
The opportunity for Europe is profound, perhaps more profound than at any time
in our previous history, and at least as important as Europe's role in classical
times in charting the fundamental notions of democracy and the principles of
Republic. It was of course Europeans inspired by these
ideals that established the United States in an environment that was free of
some of Europe's old constraints.
What is Europe's great opportunity? What does it take to unite Europeans to a common cause? One answer is the betterment of the human condition, to strive for and believe that something better can be achieved. Very unfortunately, Europe is devoid of the type and quality of leadership that can convincingly lead the embrace of such a challenge. Over recent years, Europe has thrown up a political elite that is tainted with a distinctively grey hue. There are sections of Europe's leadership that appear to be without permanent principles, that seek the lowest common denominator and for whom the vision of Europe is defined in a contradistinction to the United States rather than any compelling or definitive vision for our future.
There are also traits displaying
themselves in the governance of Europe, which should give all Europeans pause
for thought. Our political elites are driven, to some degree, by a certain interest
in self preservation, in the continuation of bureaucracies which after all provide
"jobs for the boys." Many a senior cabinet member in any given European
government can aspire to a nice job in Brussels, Strasbourg or Luxembourg once
their term is up at home. The wonderful thing about these extra pensionable
European jobs is that they do not have to deal with the rabble any longer to
seek mandate through the ballot box. This elite now seeks to monopolize more
executive power through the creation of possibly two positions, a President
of the European Council and a President of the Commission.
The role of one or other of the Presidents is not quite clear yet, but certainly that of spokesperson and "point man" for a common European Foreign Policy is one. This should make us European citizens sit up and think about at least a couple of things. First of all, a short few years ago, we lost the ability to have any say over policy affecting the value of the money in our pockets. In the old days, if we did not like interest rates, the exchange rate, or the color of the new fiver, we could cast a vote to fire the people that made the decision. Not anymore. Unlike Alan Greenspan, the Head of the US Federal Reserve, who can be fired by the US President, Mr Wim Duisenberg, at the ECB, could not care less what we think because he does not have to subject himself directly or indirectly to seeking our approval. He has far more important things to worry about than the masses.
Now we are staring another
vista in the face. That of a "leader" of the Union of European Nations,
from the shores of Achill Island to the frozen Northern Baltic to the Black
Sea, this leader will presuppose to speak for all of us on matters of Foreign
Policy so that Europe "has one voice." To quote Giscard D'Estaing's
draft treaty on the Future of Europe "Member States shall actively and
unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit
of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They shall refrain from action contrary to
the Union's interests or likely to undermine its effectiveness." Like Mr
Duisenberg, the
glorious leader will not need to bother with us, the lowly masses. The leader
will be appointed at the sole behest of
the elite, those that suppose to know better than the rest of us. If this happens,
Europe is heading down a dark and
dangerous path and we know where those journeys have ended up in the past. Observe
three European leaders, Schroeder,
Chirac and Blair. Now envisage anyone of the three being appointed (not popularly
elected) as President of the European Council to speak for us all. Whatever
your opinion on any one or more of them, at least one possibility probably horrifies
you and you would not have even had the chance to say you voted against them.
There is a better way. Aside from reasons of romantic nostalgia that most Europeans (including me) feel about their national sovereignty, it is hard to disagree that a larger more unified Europe should provide for better services and quality of life for the time we Europeans spend on this earth. There is something that should be, and probably is, more precious to each and everyone of us than the sovereignty of the nation state. That most precious thing is the sanctity and sovereignty of the individual, wherever he or she may live. That during the course of our adult lives, every person should have the freedom to attempt to fulfil his dreams and the right to a democratic choice over who sets the policy that affects his life and ability to strive for those dreams. To borrow a line from the American Declaration of Independence, "these things we hold to be self evident" (at least they should be).
So when Schroeder or Chirac ally themselves with Putin, then rail against the US Government over US policy towards Iraq, or (in the case of Chirac) threaten the aspirations of Eastern European countries to achieve EU accession because they are too "pro American." What great principles drive their thinking? Is it their concerns for the sovereignty of the Iraqi Ba'athist state (Saddam's private domain) or the sovereignty and freedom of the Iraqi people? Is it rank populism playing to his left wing base for Schroeder, or perhaps the backroom influences of such well-funded bodies as TotalFinaElf, the French National oil company that has signed up contracts for massive oil concessions in Iraq that become effective on the lifting of sanctions (something Mr. Chirac was campaigning for just a few years ago)? Or is it their concern for the civilian casualties that may result in any military action against the Iraqi regime?
This new-found concern for civilian casualties, though comforting, is very surprising, given the fact that some of the same people who are so worried now were pulling their security forces out of Rwanda in 1994 when even a small European presence could have prevented the massacre of over one million innocent men, women and children. If the laudable goal of preventing human tragedy is their focus, then Messers Schroeder and Chirac would do well to carry out an inspection of one of the biggest weapons of mass destruction being detonated in these times, our very own European Common Agricultural Policy, which, because of its trade barriers and subsidization, will result in thousands of deaths around the world in 2003.
Personally, I do not know
what the Americans, Brits, Spanish, Aussies and others will do to the Iraqis,
but I would bet that the average citizen in Iraq will be a hell of a lot better
off in three years time than they are today, or than they would be if some of
Europe's leaders had their way by sending off a few thousand UN blue helmets
backing up gangs of inspectors on Saddam's home turf. One would think they would
have recent memory of European "blue helmets" being tied to trees
in the Balkans, disempowered and standing by as the fathers and sons of Sebrenica
were murdered under their very noses. They should also add further thought to
how inspectors who are not given total cooperation could ever find anything
hidden in the vastness
of Iraq. As an Irishman, I would point out that the combined might of the military,
intelligence and police
forces of Ireland and Britain have been woefully unsuccessful at finding the
IRA's arms dumps in little old
Ireland for over thirty years. Inspectors in Iraq should expect a similar lack
of success.
As for the human shields that are so kindly lending help to Saddam's regime, where were Michael D. Higgins and his protesting friends when Milosevic's henchmen were carving their way through Bosnia and Kosovo, for that matter, where was Europe? Left wanting for a backbone, which only came into being when provided in the form of US determination and resolve. This resolve, a resolve to defend the rights of the common man is something that sits very comfortably with the people of Europe and around it we can build a new and better future, most likely in a strong partnership with a similarly motivated America. We are cut from the same cloth after all. They just finished stitching their quilt before we have.
Europe and the world can
gain much from the sovereign citizens of a United Europe with a leadership that
is accountable directly to the people and not a political elite with an inbuilt
predication to self-preservation, political elites lacking any mandate to do
so from us, the people, should not suppose to speak for Europe. Only leaders
with a democratic mandate can govern and if they seek to govern all of Europe,
then all of her citizens must have their say. If and when they do, Europe will
be poised once again for greatness, and will be in a position to lead the world
in partnership with our fellow libertarian democracies across
this now small globe. Europe will be in a position to promote the values of
the sovereign individual and tear down the injustices that so many millions
are still subjected to. There
are several areas that need to be addressed to ensure that every sovereign individual
has a fair and equal chance. One of the most pressing areas is that of free
trade, in spite of the progress made with the establishment of the WTO (one
of its visionary architects being Ireland's own Peter Sutherland). The current
European structures still impose ridiculous and amoral barriers to free trade.
We do this, ultimately at enormous cost to ourselves. Disincentivizing those
engaged in farming across Europe by operating a highly inefficient structure
that does not provide for any future prospects of a better standard of living
or higher incomes. By mindlessly spending over half of the EU's EUR89bn budget
on a common agricultural policy, when a fraction of that capital invested more
wisely into those same communities would provide for greater incomes, higher
living standards and zero dependence on farm subsidies. Think of the improvements
in Europe's social, economic and security infrastructure with an extra EUR40bn
available and managed efficiently and accountably.
Europe's trade barriers and current lack of enthusiasm or ability to export and, if necessary, as a last resort, enforce respect for human rights are the primary reason for Europe's "illegal immigrant challenge." Our elite denies these individuals the right to sell the fruits of their labours to our markets. This in turn works into a downward economic and social spiral that actually collapses the viability of nations from within: without sufficient trade, tax revenue cannot be generated; without revenue, education programs cannot be built; without education, the best a workforce can aspire to is an agrarian economy. An agrarian economy needs export markets to generate currency and revenue. Without access to free markets, without proper education, these people are much more vulnerable to exploitation by their own very often undemocratic elites, or even more sinister organizations, creating a veritable petridish for the Osama Bin Laden's of this world. The result: impoverished individuals in often economically and socially repressive societies, who live only one life.
What would you do? I know I would at least be throwing stones or taking the first raft out. Indeed, I once took it in a manner of speaking as an economic emigrant from the West of Ireland in the 1980's and prospects are far bleaker for those in much of the so-called "developing world" than they were for me in the 1980's County Galway. Many Iraqis brave enormous danger to escape to Europe from Saddam's shackles. We have an obligation to these people. Iraq should and could be one of the most wealthy and prosperous countries on earth.
It is time for Europe to end its procrastination and to help lead the definition of a new and fairer world. A world devoid of totalitarian regimes and threats to democratic society. It is also time for us, by whatever means necessary to endeavour to protect and extend fundamental rights to all of humanity, to recognize and protect the sovereignty of the individual. Perhaps then an accountable leadership in Europe can lead the world to a place worth going to.
----------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Policy Research Institute
A Catalyst for Ideas
www.fpri.org
E-Notes
Distributed Exclusively via Fax & Email
FPRI, 1528 Walnut Street, Suite 610, Philadelphia, PA 19102-3684. For information, contact Alan Luxenberg at 215-732-3774, ext. 105 or email fpri@fpri.org or visit us at www.fpri.org