Fortress or kindhearted Europe?

The Italian Island Lampedusa is again in the news around the world. Once again it is because of human tragedies that took place before its coast: several hundreds of African refugees died during the attempt to cross the Mediterranean Sea in vessels. As reported in the press, between 1992 and 2012 17’000 humans already died in such attempts.

In Europe in all sorts of media there are brisk discussions, comments and reports about the topic. Two basic view points and recommendations for the future dominate in discussions: one says that to prevent such tragedies in the future Europe needs to provide the refugees more support for their plans. An example is that potential refugees should have the possibility to make a request for asylum directly in Western embassies in African states. Proponents of this view moreover think that development aid is an important part to solve the issue. They denounce also exogenous reasons for poverty like the narrowly self-interested and exploitative activities of Western (natural resources) corporations in Africa. The second fraction wants to prevent such tragedies, but by taking measures that are aimed to stop influxes of refugees over the Mediterranean Sea. This shall be achieved, for example through strengthening boarder controls on the sea massively and through establishing refugee camps already in Northern Africa. Proponents of this view primarily condemn endogenous reasons for poverty like highly corrupt and kleptocratic elites in the African states.

Overall, proponents of both views present certain constructive suggestions for solving the issue. But one main problem is that it seems like the proponents of both sides do not listen to each other. If they would do so they probably would come to the conclusion that a combination of their suggestions would be the way to come to an effective solution. The suggestions are generally not mutually exclusive (e.g. stronger boarder controls and the possibility to make a request for asylum in embassies directly). In the existing consequent separation of the view-points we possibly also can recognize that one part of Europeans act consistent to one view while the other part does so with the other. The result of quasi two parallel policies are not only uncoordinated, often there are diametrically opposed actions (e.g. Western aid trying to provide access to clean water vs. a Western corporation nearby looting resources and thereby discharging polluted water in the river).

Coordinated and coherent actions among proponents of both views and thus of different stakeholders of the issue would arguably be expedient. It would also prevent from overturning in non-expedient actions from one fraction which the other is likely to see as too extreme. Without more coordination the status quo will be kept.

A second problem is that the root causes of the issue are not really discussed. But European stakeholders should focus more on these root causes. There are, for example potentials to connect activities of corporations looting natural resources and development aid organizations. Although it is at a first glance not easy to connect such different stakeholders it is a necessity: cooperation on root causes would tame both of them and thus lead to less non-reflected or only one-side-reflected activities. In this way real opportunities could be created in Africa.

In sum, cooperation between stakeholders concerning root causes is essential. In a presentation from early 2010 at the University of Zurich an invited Historian of the University of Oxford mentioned that the European activities in North Africa were not considering the full context there. Important realities were ignored and hence a forward-looking engagement was not possible. A year later the Arab spring took place. This brought hope in the beginning, but lastly not positive perspectives for the future of young people. Instead it brought new problems and new refugees.

 

Claude Meier

 

Of American “Libertarians” and European “Common Good Economizers”

Which type of economic (and political) system one favors is largely dependent upon what kind of a notion one has of what it means to be human, more specifically, a ‘successful’ or ‘good’ human being - and by extension also a “successful” and “good” society. Yet if our prevailing economic system ought to reflect our collective values of what it means to be successful or good human beings, then it is striking just how unsatisfied we are with the status quo. According to a study by the Bertelsmann foundation, roughly 90% of all Germans and Austrians pine for a new economic system (this figure is likely to be even more striking in economically weaker countries such as those of southern Europe). While the current economic system still tends to find more champions in America than Europe, also the citizens of this largest of capitalistic nations are ripe with frustration, disillusionment and cynicism. The colloquial expression “Corporate America” has long since become synonymous with some large, deceitful bureaucratic machinery that is not governed by the principles of merit, honesty or creativity, but by its own aloof and singular logic of marketing (products and the self, as in Me, Inc.) and Washington DC lobby power.

Yet while Europeans are inclined to seek reform via a notion of human nature based on caring empathy, collective cooperation and sharing of wealth, Americans tend to look towards human success through the prism of healthy competition, individual freedom and merit-based creativity. Never mind that creativity, freedom and caring mean different things for different people, as also to most Europeans and Americans. The point, and difference, between the predominant American versus European stance to fundamental reform is in where in the hierarchy of daily self-awareness these rather ill-defined notions figure. Permit me a brief, although clearly simplified, analysis.

The American is apt to become emotionally roused by anything that threatens his or her “individual freedom” or obstructs the reaping of “merit based fruits of hard work” (both often linked to property rights). This is why Americans, even if they are among the majority of citizens who are demonstratively increasingly among the losers of the current economic system, still tend to extol laissez-faire “free markets” (note the catch word “free”) while scoffing at European notions of statism and “socialism”, which for many is nothing more than the ante-chamber to full-blown totalitarian communism. Thus, a creative, typically American response to the current problems has been in the form of “libertarianism” (See for example the “Libertarian Party” (https://www.lp.org/, or the partially aligned Tea Party movement (http://www.teaparty.org/).

The European, on the other hand, is prone to get emotionally worked up about anything that threatens his or her sense of fairness and material equity, which is looked upon as the direct result of cooperation, sharing and caring. This is why Europeans, even if they are among the relative winners of the current system, tend to still prefer an economic system that constrains wide income disparities and distributes wealth, despite state-coffers that are neigh bankruptcy, and are suspicious of “markets always know best” and are repelled by the winner-takes-all ethos so prevalent in the USA. Hence, a contemporary innovative, typically European solution to the current malaise has been in the form of an “economy of the common good” (see for example, the GWÖ http://snipurl.com/26rosb9).

While an adequate elucidation of what “libertarianism” and “common wealth economy” designate is beyond the scope of this brief analysis (the reader is encouraged to read more on it!), it is once again telling to simply look at the etymological roots of the involved wording. In as much as all words are reflections of the reality we human beings are conscious of, it is the words – and associated stories – we are personally and culturally exposed to, that create our notions of “good” and “successful”. Hence the cultural narrative of “the land of the free and home of the brave” as per the American anthem can easily be understood as freedom from governmental interference and brave, merit based self-determination, while a common European narrative as in the French motto “liberté, egalité, fraternité”, not just enjoins freedom, but notably stresses equality and brotherhood.

At the end of the day, our political leanings and thus our economic preferences are more of a function of our emotions than any rational analysis. They are formed by our personal histories as much as by the histories and stories of the countries and cultures we are part of. A fundamental question that this raises is where and to what extent an international consensus is required and even possible in creating a global economy that is socially and environmentally sustainable in the long-run. Clear is that the effective stewardship of our world economy simply requires domains where all stakeholders are not only involved but also sign on to. The process must be along the lines of libertarianism in as much as any directives cannot be imposed upon individual countries, but the results need to transcend particular interests and be more along the lines of a common good.

Manuel Dawson