Joschka, Save Us! (5)

Published: 20.07.2011 10:43

Joschka Fischer ( Photo: Scanpix )

See Also

Tallinn University researcher Jeroen Bult gives consideration to Lennart Meri’s warnings about the gray zone and combatting pessimism in post-modern Europe.

The speeches of and interviews with President Lennart Meri (1992-2006) are still worth reading. Not only because they render creative, slightly provocative opinions and contain wise lessons for the reluctant, post-modern Western Europeans, but also because they are most illustrative of Meri’s great ideal: Estonia’s return to (an integrated) Europe, after five decades of suffocating totalitarian foreign occupation. 

One of Meri’s favorite expressions was “the gray zone” (halli tsooni); if Estonia would not quickly join the European Union and NATO and would be left to its own fate, Russia, the Eternal Evil Empire, would not hesitate to drag the small, vulnerable country into its sphere of influence again. Westbindung was the only remedy to avert this potential doom scenario. One could indeed argue that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania managed to slip through the window of opportunity just in the nick of time. It is highly doubtful that Germany and France would have agreed to Baltic NATO accession if Russia would have displayed the same strength and machismo as it did in 2008.  

Nowadays, Estonia is a proud member of the EU and NATO. It has, not unusual for a smaller member state, even focused on its own niches: assistance to Georgia and Moldova, and cyber warfare. Does that mean that Meri’s warnings about a gray zone looming up are merely fodder for historians? Unfortunately, it is still too early to draw such a reassuring conclusion. Estonia has indeed managed to anchor itself in the West, yet the soil on which it let down the anchor has become quite porous. 

First of all, it is totally unclear what the future holds for the euro. The finance ministers might reach a compromise on the involvement of (private) banks in solving the Greek debt crisis soon, but in the longer term, the ever-growing hostile sentiments among the public in the northern half of the Eurozone could pose a far more serious problem. Visionary, inspiring leaders, who are able to explain the necessity of a single currency and of European integration in a calm and convincing manner, are a rare species these days. Where is a Joschka Fischer when you need one? Right-wing populists will gleefully make use of the accumulating discontent and “mingle” it with their well-known tirades against “money-wasting Brussels,” “the europhile political and cultural elites,” and immigration. This will make it even more difficult to rectify the mistake of Maastricht (1991): creating an economic-monetary union without first creating a political union in which the EMU should have been embedded. In case the euro collapses, a “neuro,” a currency centred around Germany/the Bundesbank could rise out of its ruins, but such a breakdown will mean a massive blow to the credibility of the EU. China and other emerging global players might offer Greece and its partners in misfortune a helping hand, thus enhancing their influence in (southern) Europe.

Secondly, that other “pillar” of the Maastricht Treaty, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), remains a source of anxiety. In spite of the fact that some progress has been booked (various peace-keeping operations, the policy vis-à-vis Belarus), the EU has hardly been visible during the “Arab Spring,” the chain of revolts in northern Africa and the Middle East. Member states are deciding for themselves whether they will recognize the Benghazi rebels as the legitimate government of Libya. As was the case with the recognition of the independence of Kosovo in 2008, there has been a remarkable lack of coordination. Lady Ashton, the EU’s High Representative, has often been blamed for this painful absence, yet she can only operate within the margins granted to her by the European Council and Council of (Foreign) Ministers. Maybe it is no coincidence that, back in 2009, no heavyweight - that same Joschka Fischer - was appointed to this post? 

The Russia and energy dimensions of the CFSP are critically important to Estonia and most other “new” EU member states. Although it must have come as a pleasant surprise to Tallinn that the European institutions offered unequivocal support during the Bronze Soldier eruption in 2007, and that the European Commission has launched several initiatives, providing for a (vigorous) common energy policy, the overall tendency is that the greater players on the European stage are still inclined to conduct business with Moscow on a bilateral scale, both politically and economically. 

The latest example is the memorandum of understanding concluded by German electricity and gas supplier RWE and Russian gas giant Gazprom, aimed at the construction of power plants in Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Belgium. Like E.ON and Wintershall, who are currently participating in the Nord Stream project, the gas pipeline across the bed of the Baltic Sea, RWE is a private legal person, but German authorities will never dissuade companies from embarking on such tempting, lucrative deals - on the contrary.

For the same reason, Berlin, Paris and Rome will be reticent to criticize Moscow, as could clearly be seen during the Russo-Georgian War and its aftermath in 2008, and will be reluctant to make one of Estonia’s greatest wishes come true: Ukrainian and Georgian membership of the EU (and NATO).

When Estonia was nominated for EU accession, the world seemed to be heading for Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace. Anno 2011, that optimistic mood - in which the euro was born, as well - has evaporated. The Union has no clear answer to the speedy rise of the new great powers (the so-called BRICs), who are feeling more inspired by Thomas Hobbes’ cynicism than by Kant’s idealism. It is paralyzed by a lack of economic and political cohesion and thriving euroskepticism. Combating this pessimistic mood will not be an easy task, maybe it will even be utterly hopeless, yet there is no other option – otherwise the whole of Europe will become a “gray zone.” Joschka, save us!

Comments

For adding comments,enter the ERR website with your user name and password , or use the form below to comment without logging in.


Guidelines for commenting can be found here.

Comments (5)

  • avatar

    knut_albers

    28.07.2011 13:14

    If combaqting the "pessimistic mood" is considered as the only solution to save the EU and EURO, then a "gray zone" is certain to come. The reasons why the mood is so bad are clear - The EU has done many things wrong and some right. In addition often without the consent of the peoples of Europe. Profits are privatized and losses socialized - all requirements of the EU Commission. It's the right of every EU citizen to not like it, to have to pay for the errors of others. And then, the EU would also have the nerve to propose an EU tax for driving Europe to financial ruin at cost of taxpayers. These fundamental errors have to be corrected, or else a Joschka Fischer neither god helps.

  • avatar

    Karu87

    28.07.2011 15:28

    The reason why the mood is bad is because half of europe is still in a economic downturn. The EU takes only ~1% of europes gdp and most of it, it give back to the states. Even if EU f's up everything the damage is minimum because of its budgets size. People are pissed at the EU because they don't understand how it works and the local politicians are eager to exploit that. The reason why the euro does not have crisis management fund or euro-bonds, is not a mistake made by Brussels. It's the members who didn't want it. If there had been such measures, Greece would not needed any help because it's interest rates would have stayed on a sustainable level.

  • avatar

    knut_albers

    29.07.2011 13:59

    The states are primarily committed to their tax payers and not the Greek - A Transfer Union as we now have to the current extent is not legitimated. And that's what makes the EU weak - it lacks legitimation on many locations. Beyond that, a Union where some countries net pay and others let pay dividends on its products from that may not go well in thew long term.

  • avatar

    knut_albers

    01.08.2011 14:45

    "Even if EU f's up everything the damage is minimum because of its budgets size." I am afraid but this is not true. But even if this would be true, the fact that 2/3 of all laws are 'recommended' by the EU Commission and decided by the EU Parlament that is to be implemented on national levels through 'directives', does not make it less valid that taxpayers assets from member states are hostaged through the EU for bailouts, subsidies and like. And the legitimation is often questionable at best. The only bright spot: Schäuble currently advertises for direct election of a European president. That would be a real step toward European integration if one would do the same thing with the EU Commission and its various unelected consultants. In a democracy at least the people have a right been asked for whom they wish to entrust their money. The EU is currently trying in a very loving way to denounce so called 'EURO sceptics' with their EURO patriotism. But for the majority it does not go againt the euro. At the end of the day it is of no interest in what currency the food comes to the plate. Well it's all about who should pay for what and in what amount. At the moment, you may call the profiteers of the bailouts best as institutionalized social parasites as it is always said about private individuals that claim their rights for social assistance for whom they often paid for years, and that not too tight in compare to investors that nowadays do not have to worry any liability for their actions anymore since they always can count on to get their input back. People do not trust in such a system in the long run and it fuels social turmoil, which have resulted not only since the Third Reich to Dictatorships in a worst case scenario. Therefore, it is well advised to take a hair cut now in which the speculators are involved to take their risks they took for high profit outlooks by themselves in particular. Most of them are not getting poorer than someone who has lost their job because of the recession caused by them. They are finally wealthy and even remain so if they scatter the money around the globe. Sounds fairly after all. It certainly should not all be our problem, if someone is so stupid and deposit their assets in a risky scheme, because it generates maybe higher interest if it goes OK. What money addicts actually need is a bed in a hospital in intensive care. You don't provide a drug addict either free drugs until he goes because of it, don't you?

  • avatar

    knut_albers

    01.08.2011 15:37

    What I forgot to note in my last post: Despite rapidly rising debt, the value of the asset growth accross the EU exceeds by far the debts in all EU States - even in Greece. Theoretically, the debt of all EU countries could be repaid immediately through a tax on assets. For this you would need no longer to use day-taler and pauperists (yes they pay taxes too) to repay debt, whom by nature had no ability to contribute to the level of debt as we speak. An attractive possibility, which the United States are deprived from. There, indeed, the private assets shrunk by 28% since 2005 and 32.755 EUR public debt per capita is accompanied by just 49.700 EUR per household. Compared to Greece: There are 30,000 EUR per capita public debt accompanied by 56.937 EUR per capita. Bear in mind per capita and not per household only as in the United States. The private fortune has increased in Greece since 2000 by 72.25%, by the way. It's just always a question of who has the money and who spends too much of it. So why should Estonia send money to the Greeks, which on average are private wealthy very well (not the case in Estonia with almost 100% private debt on current GDP). The Greeks would be better off to sell their silverware. It is well known that there operate two family clans for decades to serve their fellows with socialist grants, also known as the Greek corruption boom. Only the olive pickers who are not part of these clans have nothing from it, so to speak. Much less Estonian taxpayers or does anyone really believe that you could make profit out of it through interest during a life time?