 |
| It means nothing to me. |
I was offended there that some European Union (EU) people weren't better at answering the complaints of some US politicians or administration workers about Europe not having been willing to help with an extra-legal assault on Iran, and then also by some arguments I heard on both sides of an otherwise generally impressive and important conversation I heard between representatives of the EU and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
Not to be too reductionist, but there's only one "value" that the EU needs to base everything else on, and that is the rule of law. Without the rule of law, the EU is nothing. It's just a bunch of small states; OK, a couple moderately sized. If we want to maintain our power in a world growing more equatable (at least, between-nation inequality is dropping even if within-nation is increasing) then we had better be willing to allow the law to be a living, mutable thing informed by the concerns of all, and not wrapped up too much in historic identities. Though of course history is also essential to identity and therefore power, even sufficient power to enforce the rule of law. History also matters just being able to discriminate who is being honest with you and who is lying.
History matters! As a course for students at school so they can understand their obligations and others' grievances, as humanities at university so we have some sense of what might work and what doesn't tend to, as museums where you can verify through material facts what really happened when and where. But the real "Brussels Effect" – the supposed magic power of the EU to alter the world – is that when you harmonise the regulations of a region sufficiently that trade partners only have to understand and comply with a single set of laws to access an enormous market, then you can legislate in a way that really allows you to secure value for your citizens and other residents, value including security and a right to choose their own governance style.
I was astonished by a photo of a group of badly beaten men turning up day after day to the streets of Cairo back during the Arab Spring. But then I read an interview where one said (roughly – this was a while ago) "the last time Egyptians tried to improve our government, people were tracked down and disappeared even a decade after the event. So we have always known, once we will have started, we cannot stop." Ukraine seems similar to me, though there the first move wasn't their own choice. I can't believe how well and bravely Ukraine fights, but now too, what choice do they have? They either fight against Russia with NATO assistance and weapons, or for Russia like the rest of the Russian Federation (except for actual Russians), being used as cannon fodder thrown into battle with shovels for weapons, presently against Ukrainians.
That's how it is for Europe. As soon as we start saying the ICC is irrelevant or failing to call out all violations of international law, then Putin, Netanyahu, Trump and any other leader evil enough to think mayhem and expansionism are costs worth others paying to prop up their own wealth and power, then those guys win and Europe is just another fragmented continent.
The old international order is disrupted, but it's not over. Or maybe that order is over, to the extent it was arranged by elites horrified by what wars had become. Maybe previously it hadn't really ever been global and grass-roots, maybe it's becoming that.
I may be thinking about this wrong, but as far as I can see, given the GDP of the world – particularly in terms of Purchasing Power Parity – gets ever more evenly distributed through technology diffusion and trade, then violating the laws set up to provide equity and facilitate trade favours an ever smaller elite. It's in everyone's interest (with the possible exception of those who might be jailed) to have stability and transnational problem solving mechanisms. And why I say "possible exception?" I guess opinions may vary, but I think perhaps Milošević died better than Ceaușescu.
Comments