The
unflinching support for the EU and its institutions is not about
preventing European countries from becoming “Afghanistan.” Not
about preventing collapse. Not about the inconvenience of long lines
at passport control. It is about promoting an ideology, a specific
worldview, a vision for the way the world should work.
by
Michael Nevradakis
Part
7 - International cooperation and repairing what’s broken
A lack of
willingness to question the aforementioned political and economic
order may help explain why even those individuals who expressed
“solidarity” with Greece—at least up until Greece and its
crisis were largely forgotten following the July 2015
referendum—nevertheless refused to question the very core issues of
the EU, its policies in Greece and other crisis-stricken countries,
and continued membership in the EU and the Eurozone. Even during the
“#ThisIsACoup” phase of “solidarity” towards Greece, the
“bad” Europeans who were said to be blackmailing the Greek
government were apparently never considered quite bad enough to
necessitate “Grexit”—or to later support Brexit. At worst, the
Greek situation could be said to be viewed by these elements as
merely a momentary hiccup on the path towards a borderless
European—or global—utopia.
It seems to
be the case that questioning the project in purported European
“unity” that is the EU is enough for ordinary individuals to be
branded “racists” and “xenophobes,” “isolationists” and
“reactionaries.” I suppose then that Tariq Ali, who also
questioned SYRIZA when it was not yet fashionable to do so, is a
racist and a regressive force—as are Glenn Greenwald, Julian
Assange, and George Galloway, who also adopted positions in favor of
Brexit.
So why not
simply fix the EU if it is broken? That’s what the likes of Yanis
Varoufakis have repeatedly argued. But if Grexit is unreasonable and
unrealistic, is it more reasonable and more realistic to presume that
entrenched institutional structures — such as a non-elected
European Commission, an unaccountable European justice system, and
thousands upon thousands of regulations and directives dictating many
aspects of life and economic activity in Europe, right down to the
shape of bananas sold for human consumption (regulations which do in
fact exist despite insistence to the contrary by the EU’s
supporters) — can simply be changed or eliminated? Or that the
issue of surplus labor and downward pressures on wages can be solved
within such an institutional and regulatory context? I have not heard
a satisfactory answer to these questions, not even from Varoufakis
himself. Can an institution that is rotten and undemocratic to the
core be salvaged?
Having
mentioned Varoufakis, it bears noting that he has, on several
occasions, openly praised Mrs. TINA herself, Margaret Thatcher (see
also here, here, here, and here). This should come as no surprise, as
it is Varoufakis who told us that There Is No Alternative to the euro
for Greece, refused to even bring the Grexit option to the
negotiating table as Greece’s finance minister, and accepted all of
the EU’s austerity demands in the name of keeping Greece in the
Eurozone at all costs.
It’s quite
ironic that “anti-establishment” leftists and anarchists find
themselves precisely on the same side as much of the establishment
itself when it comes to the existence of institutions such as the EU,
in the name of “open borders”—or no borders whatsoever. The
very same establishment that praises one of the harshest prescribers
of austerity, Angela Merkel, as a bastion of liberal democracy and as
the newly anointed leader of the “free” world.
Those who do
not conform to this orthodoxy often do not go unpunished. In various
ways, three other purportedly “leftist” or “progressive”
publications made it clear that this author’s contributions were no
longer welcome. Ditto a radio station and Voice of America affiliate
in Thessaloniki, Greece’s second-largest city, which once carried
my radio program. So much for tolerance.
Yet, in the
name of journalistic integrity — and in the face of injustice,
hypocrisy and intolerance — there are things that must be said, if
we are to engage in the type of healthy, robust and open democratic
dialogue that we’d like to believe we stand for. For this, and as I
prepare to begin a professional career in my chosen field, shall I
expect to be confronted with a dressing-down akin to that seen in the
classic 1976 film Network, where journalist Howard Beale was kindly
informed that he had meddled with the primal forces of nature and
that he will atone? Perhaps!
The lecture
to which Beale was subjected in Network, whether intentionally or
not, was accurate: by and large there is no left or right. There are
no Democrats or Republicans. There is a prevailing globalist,
neoliberal worldview, and there is a smattering of various elements
from a wide range of sharply different and often incongruent belief
systems that, each for its own reasons, oppose this prevailing trend.
And because of the actions of fringe groups that truly are racist and
violent, anyone who even so much as simply questions the orthodox
worldview is lumped together with such genuinely reactionary
elements.
There is
true beauty in diversity and cultural difference. But what is
diversity and what is cultural difference? I don’t wish to see the
same Starbucks in Los Angeles, Lisbon, Lima, and Lesotho. I don’t
desire to see one global “lingua franca” prevail while
“unimportant” languages (like Greek) die out. I would not like to
see the same corporations and the same lifestyle imposed worldwide
via the process of globalization. When I am privileged enough to
travel, I’d like to enjoy the local food and music and culture, to
hear the local language and learn a few words (or more), to
appreciate a way of life and a worldview different from my own.
That’s diversity, and it is endangered by the homogenizing process
of globalization, which is itself brought further along by the
elimination of national sovereignty.
If I am a
Greek voter, I want my elected prime minister, whether it is Alexis
Tsipras or anyone else, to talk about the country that they were
elected to govern and to represent me, my children and my family, not
to discuss some abstract entity known as “Europe” which he or she
was not elected to represent. Democracy works at a local level, while
imperialism and empire are what prevail at the global, supranational
level. And if the price of that democracy is waiting in a queue to
exchange currency (which preferably would be in physical form) then
so be it.
The idea of
unity is often treated as a zero-sum game with the idea of the
nation, that only one or the other is possible. But is this truly the
case? International cooperation and understanding can and does exist
across nations and peoples in an astounding myriad of ways. These
could include trade agreements that are not parasitic or based on
exploitation, visa-free travel regimes across countries, and academic
exchange programs that help foster cultural mixing and collaboration.
Those academics who are also EU backers and are worried about losing,
say, the Erasmus+ exchange program, may wish to consider that it is
open to non-EU citizens, just as the United States’ Fulbright
exchange program is open to participants from all around the world.
Those are concrete examples of international cooperation and cultural
bridging in action which can exist, should exist, and oftentimes do
exist without the necessity of a bloated supranational behemoth
micromanaging every aspect of life and serving the interests of a
select few.
Nation-states
and borders do not necessarily mean isolationism. They don’t
necessarily mean hatred, nor do they mean a lack of cooperation.
Indeed these elements can and do exist even absent of borders, such
as within societies or within supranational entities. We are told
that the EU has served as a force for peace and that the nation-state
as an institution promotes war. But the EU and EU member-states
allied with NATO have participated in countless conflicts, both on
the European continent and elsewhere, and have no problem allying
themselves with oppressive, violent, authoritarian and genocidal
regimes for reasons of economic or geopolitical expediency. War
itself has existed since prehistoric times, long before the advent of
the nation-state. It has also indeed contributed to the breakup of
larger supranational entities. And as demonstrated earlier, whether
due to conspiracy or coincidence, the idea of European economic and
political unity is not necessarily incompatible with fascist and
extremist ideology.
So what of
the EU and Eurozone? A commonly heard retort is that no one has
suggested any practical alternatives or a course of action that would
allow a country such as, say, Greece, to depart from these
institutions without a catastrophic meltdown taking place. This
therefore raises the question: should a country like Greece depart
and, if so, how can it accomplish this? What are the alternatives,
and are they viable? Will Greece be transformed into Afghanistan, as
Tsipras suggests? The next installment of this series will address
these questions—and more—in detail. Stay tuned.
***
Source,
links:
Comments
Post a Comment