insight into zuzka's life

EU eurocentrism

currently working on my thesis, i came across quite a few interesting readings. One of them being a book called Europe's Next Frontiers from Olli Rehn, the current Commissioner for Enlargement. Quite an interesting piece, if you are into EU issues, especially about its current challenges. Besides other information, it reveals that the author is a huge football fan :) But that's not what I got most concerned about - I am used to that as for example Sami is at the moment sitting in front of the TV screen and watching Bayern vs. Milano.

Anyways, back to business.

There is one big idea re-appearing all the time: European Union is based on common values, such as democracy, human rights, rule of law.
That's fine with me. Values I feel comfortable with, no problem.
These, together with functional market economy as well as institutional capacity to take up all the obligations and benefits EU membership brings are known as Copenhagen criteria. Each country with European ambitions is measured against them to be allowed to join the club.
Logical. EU needs some kind of objective criteria. And everyone needs to live up to them.

And then it comes: EU is very proud that through perspective of being accepted to "Europe" it managed to push reforms in CEE countries and now it is working on Western Balkans. It showcases how much have the countries changed to become as the EU wants them to be - Westernised. All the adjustments they've made to be "European" and "according to the EU standards".

This raises two big concerns in my eyes:

is it correct/ethical trying to Westernise everyone?
Well, the countries underwent the expected reforms out of their free will. They chose to be part of the EU, they chose the "European way". Fair enough.
But I wonder...

... why is Europe so "eurocentrist"?
The whole world has already been through a similar period. During the colonisation of the world, when European powers were building their empires imposing their values and norms on everybody. Being white meant to be considered more worthier than the others. Also the way how the society was supposed to be organised needed to be according to European standards.
Result - many civilisations lost, some loosing their order and not being able to adapt to new conditions (e.g. native Americans or Aborigines); culture, customs and traditional knowledge lost because it was not modern enough hence not good enough; so much diversity lost in order to comply to the rules and standards...
Who gave the European Union the right to say what is good and bad? Is it aware of the consequences of its actions? Can we learn from the past?

... what else could Europe be doing?
Certain common basis is crucial if the European Union wants to continue functioning. Setting the respect for commonly defined values and the ability to live up to them is definitely a big step that should ensure higher homogeneity of the Union and less controversy in taking decisions. Everybody would have the same bottom line, knew what is being expected of him/her. But still, why do the EU members feel the urge to create their own clones? Is it good to be all the same?

On the other hand, the EU can't be redefining itself with every newcomer joining. It would be too unstable and it would threaten continuity as well as integrity of the EU. It wouldn't be a trustworthy partner any more, as other states/entities wouldn't want to rely on the EU because one doesn't know exactly when the new info/circumstances come out.

... what is the EU finally going to do?
honestly, I don't know. Finding the right balance between harmonisation and individuality is not an easy question. For sure, the EU needs to become more flexible and learn how to master this process. Some of the member countries already do have experience with running a multi-cultural and multi-religious community. Let's see this time.


Secondly, are countries joining for the right reasons?
The EU expects them to join because they have the same values as the EU defined to itself in 1993. They are being tested on them and they do pass.
But, is this the real reason why they've decided to undergo all the whole procedure of applying for membership and the whole negotiation process? Are they really interested in joining the club of alike to share the values and the worldview?
Or are the reasons more "prosaic", such as hoping to reach the same level of prosperity, living standards and opportunities?
And what happens when the values are imposed on them? Will we respect and live up to them on long-term or did we just do our best to get in and then we come back to our "true" nature?
... I would like to know.



I don't want to be Westernised so much. Western values bring a lot of individualism into my society. It is not so natural over here. Belonging to your family, having certain expectations on you is strongly valued over here. It is a tax for having the security and home in your family. Western life style that comes with the Western values erodes the traditional society. It creates chaos and mismatch in expectations between generations if not managed carefully.

To be fair, it brings a lot of advantages to everyone's life - the quality of life has undoubtedly risen, more opportunities are available, etc.

I want to respect the EU for what it is but I also want the EU to respect me and my values that were shaped in partially different context. None of us has in my opinion the "patent for truth", both sides have something to learn and gain.

Maybe that's why the EU suffers from the "democratic deficit" and lack of "feeling European" among its population. It is supposed to be an organisation for everyone, with the values that everyone respects. Based on consensus and unanimous decisions. Did it end up being nobody's?
The future will show.
How will we act?

posted by zuzka @ 10:28 PM