Democracy in Europe vs the EU Aristocracy

The moder day nations of Europe are all about democracy, right? The large Western European nations push for democracy from their eastern neighbors before they admit them to the ultra-club, the European Union. Sometimes, though, it doesn’t seem that way. Thursday, Ireland’s voters struck down the much famed Lisbon Treaty. Naturally, the next step the EU leaders took was to say, look, we’re going to find a way to go ahead with the reforms, whether you Irish voters like it or not. This might be, perhaps, the most undemocratic reaction possible, especially coming after the French and Dutch rejection of the EU Constitution a few years ago.

The government of Ireland has been fervently pro-Europe and pro-Lisbon. So have the political establishments in most nations, including heavyweights France and Germany. Except it seems that, like in Ireland, the popular reception to the Lisbon Treaty in Western Europe has been less than enthusiastic. If there is even the slightest doubt that the people of Europe don’t want the Lisbon Treaty governing them for the rest of their lives, the treaty should be put to popular referendum. Except, all EU nations except for Ireland had the treaty ratified in their parliament, or will do so in the future. All of this begs the question, why are the political establishments all across Europe snuffing out the voice of the people?

Not that I’m a populist; not by a long shot. Sometimes the people simply don’t know what is best. Maybe this is the case with the Lisbon Treaty, where many of the Irish rejected the treaty simply because they didn’t understand the treaty. However, the reason for having a democracy is to at least for the people to elect representatives who will take their views into account when governing a nation. The fact of the matter is, it seems that a lot of the EU politicians stand to gain from the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. The more the EU starts behaving like a single country, the more the central European bureaucracy, and executive, legislative, and judicial branches stand to benefit. What I don’t understand is why the leaders of the European countries, like Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy feel so secure that the European nations won’t lose their independence to the fast growing EU behemoth.

So should the EU become more like a single country rather than a bloc of nations dedicated to getting along? I don’t know. Maybe it should. The major risks to that is the treatment of the smaller countries, at first, and then the treatment of the people in general. Having Western European voters as a majority means that Eastern European countries would be outvoted on important issues. And besides, I don’t actually the EU is ready for the integration that the Lisbon Treaty proposed. Perhaps it will never be. Or perhaps the Lisbon treaty will eventually be forced down the throats of the people by the emerging EU aristocracy.

Macedonia’s name and the issue of cultural heritage

The articles and press reports covering the name dispute between Macedonia and Greece have largely died out nowadays, when the anti-climactic NATO summit in Bucharest came and went without an invitation being extended to Macedonia. That doesn’t mean the dispute has ended, however, nor have its roots been thoroughly examined. The key issue at stake here is cultural heritage, and what ownership of cultural heritage means for the people of the Balkans. Recognition by the world (including Greece) as the Republic of Macedonia, implicates that the people of Macedonia, Macedonians, own a right to the cultural heritage bequeathed to the region by the ancient Macedonians (Philip, Alexander, etc). In the Balkans, this right to cultural heritage translates into other kinds of entitlement, such as entitlement to territory once ruled by the ancient Macedonians. It is this local belief, combined with the fact that the Greeks see themselves as the cultural and ethnic descendants of Alexander the Great and his people, that has caused the matter of self-determination to become an inflamed dispute involving the entire NATO alliance.

The first question that needs to be answered is why the Macedonians want to call themselves Macedonians. Ethnically and linguistically, modern Macedonians are southern Slavs with close ties to the Bulgarians. The term, Macedonia, though, acquired a geographic meaning rather than an ethnic meaning during the Roman era, with the establishment of the Roman province of Macedonia. Thus, after the Slavs migrated into the geographic lands called Macedonia and absorbed the local populace, they adopted the name Macedonians in part because they indeed were Macedonians (people living in an area often delineate themselves as a member of that community, New Yorker, for example). In the wake of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the Balkan wars (which were fought over Macedonia), the people living in the region used the name to rebuff claims that they were Bulgarian, Greek, or Serbian, thus entrenching the name Macedonia into the region’s communal identity.

In effect, the people were forging a distinct national identity out of the simple fact that they lived near each other. That’s not a horrible reason to form a nation, and it certainly has its merits. By the time that the Ottoman Empire was on the decline, most of her Slavic subjects had been under her control for at least the greater part of five centuries. Most of what survived was the Slavic dialect (though heavily influenced by Turkish; the local languages were ‘purified’ after liberation), the local religion (usually Orthodox Christianity), and the knowledge that they were second class citizens in the empire. During the waning years of the Ottoman Empire, a national consciousness began to form each of the separate groups living in the region. These groups identified with previous kingdoms or empires on the peninsula, and thus was the continuity between the Middle Ages and the 19th century born. Macedonia’s case, thus, isn’t all that different from the other countries on the peninsula. It just got to the game a little later and wasn’t able to legitimize itself before its neighboring countries were able to ‘prove’ their ties to history.

What does all of this have to do with the name? The battle over the name signifies a battle over the cultural heritage left by the ancient Macedonians. Also, the Balkan states were all founded on the principle of one people, one history, one nation. The national consciousnesses that were formed were extremely strong; and each nation sought to incorporate into their modern state everything that was seen as historically theirs. For Serbians that meant Kosovo, for Bulgarians that meant Thrace and Macedonia, for Greeks that meant the whole of the territory once owned by the Byzantine Empire (there was talk of a coup from within in the Ottoman Empire to place the Greeks in command and create a successor of the Byzantine Empire). Finally, for Macedonians, that means the region of Macedonia, part of which is in Bulgaria and Greece. Notwithstanding the fact that there have been Macedonian agitators for a ‘Macedonia with a port on the Aegean’, the Greek people themselves have been through this process of nation building themselves, and know the feelings that it can generate.

The solution isn’t as simple as a simply giving Macedonia a new name. The fact of the matter is, many, most, probably, Macedonians feel like genuine Macedonians, descended from the noble tribe of Alexander the Great. But then, the Greeks feel that they are the true descendants of Alexander and his kin. So it’s not a conflict over a name, it’s a name for a conflict. This conflict can only be resolved through the realization that, in fact, the cultural heritage of Alexander the Great belongs to all peoples of the region. The concept of one people, one history, is ridiculous. A regions history may belong to more than one people, especially when the region is small as the Balkans and as populated as it is by different ethnic groups.

What needs to happen is a concerted effort to stamp out the nascent cultural nationalism present in every Balkan country. It’s not needed. The countries are all neighbors, and they all stand to profit from eased relations. Economically, socially, and politically, the more the people of the Balkans realize that they have much more in common than they thought, and that they have many common goals to pursue, the better off the region will be.

And the world can finally stop using the Balkans as a negative stereotype.

New Cold War? I don’t think so.

Lately there’s been a lot of news covering what the media calls ‘The New Cold War.’ Frankly, it’s not so. Russia is becoming increasingly integrated into Western markets, no matter how much the Kremlin tries to keep Russia’s assets under government control. With increasing economic interdependence, the risk of war, even if it might just be a ‘Cold War’, is drastically reduced. Furthermore, today Russia isn’t leading a worldwide communist revolution. Russia is focused on Russia’s own national interests, it’s not challenging anyone’s way of life anymore.

A lot of the negative news focuses on Kosovo, with Russia and Serbia staunchly refusing to go along with Western recognition of the new state. This position by Russia clearly shows that it has rediscovered its confidence when it comes to international diplomacy. Another issue that illustrates the so called ‘New Cold War’ is Russia’s insistence that US not deploy its proposed missile shield in Central and Eastern Europe. This shows that Russia once again (or maybe it never stopped) views the West with suspicion and distrust. The third major news item that comes to mind when describing Russia’s new confrontations with the West is its energy dominance in the European energy market. There are fears that Russia has no qualms about using its energy supplies as a political weapon, and that the Nord Stream and South Stream pipelines (from Russia to Germany, and from Russia to Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Italy, and Austria, respectively) will increase Russia’s dominant grip on the European energy market.

The third reason for expecting a ‘New Cold War’, however, seems to be misinterpreted. Does a businessman declare war on his client? Usually no! Outside of reasserting its independence from the West, Russia doesn’t want to horribly ruin its relations with the West. The European (and American) market is a huge client for Russia’s energy. And, of course, money makes the world go round. It’s not just energy that’s keeping Russia and the West interlinked. It’s also foreign direct investment (FDI) into Russia. Just today’s edition of the Wall Street Journal reported that the French auto maker Renault had purchased a minority stake of 25% worth $1 billion in the Russian auto maker Avtovaz. That was a headline story. Another story buried within the paper was that Pepsico. and its chief bottler purchased a majority stake (75% or something similar) in a Russian soft drink company worth $1.4 billion. That’s a lot of money for a country where the GDP (PPP) is around $14,600.

Even under the USSR, the GDP (PPP) per capita in 1990 was $9,211. This means that Russians today are roughly %150 wealthier than they were 18 years ago. Now, I realize that this is on average, and the the large amount of billionaires (second only to the US in this regard) and thousands of millionaires are a huge offset, but Russia’s economy is still growing at dizzying speeds. For the past six years Russia’s GDP has been growing by over 6.5% each year (sometimes reaching as high as 7.3% as in 2003). Combined with a trillion dollar economy, it is a huge growth rate. This can be seen by the construction of the new Moscow International Business Center, a $12 billion complex in the heart of Moscow. The Russians of tomorrow will be considerably richer than the Russians of yesterday.

Wealth, though, doesn’t necessarily mean that Russia is a stable country. One of Medvedev’s (Russia’s president-elect) chief policy goals will be to “increase the role of civil society.” There’s a lot of things wrong with Russia. The life expectancy for men is alarmingly short: 59 years. Russia is also facing a population implosion; it has lost about 7 million people over the past 15 years because the population is not regenerating itself. Russia’s central government is powerless in many areas of the vast country, with mafia groups or others wielding the real power. Roughly speaking, now that Russia has restored its international image as a serious player in world politics (Putin’s accomplishment), what Medvedev hopes to do is to improve civil order, health institutions, and education institutions.

Medvedev will have nothing to gain by starting a prolonged conflict with the West. That, however, does not mean that the West can ignore Russia on issues that concern it, as the West did for a decade and a half after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

All of which makes me cautiously optimistic. I don’t want a new Cold War and I want Russia to become a modern civil society, with a responsible government.

The Russian gamble for a European sphere of influence

One of the things that has been bugging me lately is Russia’s vehement opposition to America’s plan to set up a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Their argument seems convincing at first; they claim that the shield is meant to contain Russia, and not rogue states like Iran. They even went as far as offering a radar system in Azerbaijan to prove how the Americans are lying about the intent of the missile defense system. Incidentally, the Azerbaijani base is inadequate geographically. First, it is too close to Iran to effectively shoot down any Iranian missile. Second, Iran is not the sole possible threat. What if Syria, or Gaddafi’s Libya, suddenly follows Iran’s model? How could a base in Azerbaijan counter a strike from Libya?

So are the Americans lying about the true intent behind these military installations? First, I think we should take a look at what the military purpose of these installations is. They would be installed, first and foremost, to defend America’s allies (and NATO member countries) in Eastern Europe from missile attack. Now really, does it matter who the attack is from? Both Poland and the Czech Republic, not to mention other Eastern European nations like Slovakia, Hungary, and the three Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), willingly joined the NATO alliance. All are allies of the United States right now, and as such, the United States is seeking to protect it’s allies. Does it really matter who America would be protecting them from if an attack ever came?

But what of Moscow’s complaints that the execution of this plan tips the balance of power in Europe? I’m sorry to remind Russia that it lost the Cold War, with two decades of post-Communism fast approaching Eastern Europe. The balance of power has already been tipped, and tipped so far that even former Soviet states like the Baltic nations are now NATO members, and others, such as Georgia and Ukraine, aspire to join the alliance. Russia also claims that the USA is seeking to become dominant in this region of the world. Perhaps it is so, but it is only with the willing cooperation of Eastern European states. The few thousand men who are to be stationed in Romania and Bulgaria, combined with the radar bases in the Czech Republic and Poland pose no threat to the national sovereignty of any of the nations.

No, what seems to be really happening right now is that Russia is once again trying to carve out a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, with strength found from Putin’s vigorous rule and vast petroleum reserves. Moscow seems intent on keeping Eastern Europe a ‘buffer zone’ between Russia and the West. Eastern European states are to be effectively neutered if Moscow has its way. The purpose, according to Russia’s current pravda, of former Soviet states like the Ukraine and Georgia is to be vehemently pro-Russian and to never ever even hint that they might have some semblance of independence in foreign affairs. Why? What does Russia have to fear? Is the European Union so terrifying? Is the United States still an archenemy?

The sad part of the whole charade, though, is that Russia has successfully painted itself as the victim in this scenario. After all, America is the arrogant nation, placing radar systems and a handful of mid-range missiles in countries close to Russia, right? Wrong! For starters, neither Poland nor the Czech Republic even border the vast Russian federation (the three Baltic nations, on the other hand do, and theoretically, are more vulnerable to Russian attack; yet the Russians seem to forget that in their claims that the Americans are lying). Second, it is Russia who is seeking to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries at the moment, forcing its own national interests to the front, while virtually ignoring the national interests of its smaller neighbors. And, worst of all, Russia has promised to point its nuclear arsenal at Europe and threatened to use conventional military force to defend its national interests. Talk about fighting back with a sword when tickled with a feather!

One thing is certain, if America’s plan to install a missile shield goes through, and it can only do so with the backing of the host states, Eastern Europe will show, quite definitively, that they have stepped out of the long shadow of Russian dominance. A precedent will be set, the correct precedent that will later allow Eastern European countries more freedom when conducting their foreign affairs. I’m not against Russia or Russians, what I’m against is one nation muscling another into accepting its demands. One of Russia’s top generals, Yuri Baluyevsky, claims that if Russia does not receive a response to its offer of an Azerbaijani radar, it would mean that the actual target of the system would be Russia. Such twisted logic seems to be caused by the Russian predisposition to believe that the US is necessarily an enemy. Perhaps it’s time that the Russians stopped being afraid of specters from the past.