Post – Westphalian Europe

INTRODUCTION

For more than 300 years the Europe has been dominated by the nation - state. Europe is known as a starting place, and until lately, the bastion of the so called Westphalian order. The principles of the treaty of the Westphalia 1648 have established a model of a state based on exclusive and bordered territoriality, functioning above all as a unit of survival and defense against the external world.[1] The traditional form of the Westphalian order has changed at some point during the time. The modern Westphalian system was able to preserve the European variety only by defining exclusive national identities and dividing it into sovereign states.[2]

This essay will aim to explain the post – Westphalian Europe, in sense of post – national Europe, and new trends of development. After that, it will show a very interesting fact: the decline of the nation – state is happening in the place where it was born, in the middle of the Europe. This, for sure, can be considered as a course toward a new Europe – a cosmopolitan Europe. The decline of the nation – state is really a decline of the national content of the state and opportunity to create a cosmopolitan state system, which is better able to deal with the problems that all nations are facing in the world today.[3] Nevertheless, for Habermas, at its best, the present is a transition between the Westphalian system of nation – state and a future decentered cosmopolitan legal order characterized by the broad acceptance of human rights and a transnational commitment to social justice.[4]

EUROPE AND EUROPEAN UNION

Europe is a geographical expression, and as such, a contested concept that must appear in the plural. Modern geographers even dispute its physical status as a continent.[5] When the ancient Greeks talked about Europe, it is unclear from where and from what language they derived the term; one theory is that the origin is Semitic and that it meant the land in the sunset.[6] Since then the frontiers of Europe have shifted and there have been many and various discourses on the concept. Europe was not, and is not, an easily definable term with essential proportions, but has since Antiquity been discursively shaped through constant negotiation of whom to in- and exclude.[7]

Europe of present days does not correspond to the European Union. There are a lot of parts of Europe, and European Union is absolutely the most powerful part. Some of the countries on the European continent are not members of the European Union (the Balkan countries); some do not want to be members of the EU (Norway). And finally, there is a country who is a member of European Union, since last year, but after humiliations of its people by the other countries, members of EU, the citizens of this country do not want to be a part of European Union any more (Poland).

These controversial circumstances characterize Europe today. At the outset, the European Union is the most developed set of transnational political institutions anywhere in the world; and, as a result can be considered as a logical place to search for signs of transnational democratization.[8] In contrast to this, there are some countries of European continent (Balkan countries), who are fighting for their national – states, although there is no dilemma that historical process is against them; like always, Balkans is late. They are fighting with each other for their national – states in the time when the other European countries are preparing themselves for new epoch, cosmopolitan epoch. Hundreds of divided villages and towns in the countries of Balkans are symbols of this nationalist absurdity; the people of these regions are ready to die for their ‘great national causes’. What is more, these countries insist that they are ‘ready’ to join the European Union, but unfortunately they are facing unwillingness, or even ignorance, of European Union’s countries to accept them as equal members. Even though, the countries of Balkans are not ready to be a part of European Union, on the other side, European Union is not opened for this part of Europe; European Union remains a fortress for these countries, at least, until now.

In this context, Balkan countries can be considered as a part of Europe and, on the other, these countries can not be considered as a part of Europe. Balkan countries are a part of Europe, although Balkan it was considered as an exterior space of Europe;[9] for the past several centuries, Balkans is treated as a provincial part of the Europe. On the other hand, all crises in Balkans have had negative reflections in Europe’s stability, and consequently, from time to time, Balkans was considered as a part of Europe. For the period of the Kosovo’s intervention, Balkans found themselves fully inscribed within the borders of Europe; the idea was that Europe could not accept genocidal population deportation on its own soil, not only for moral reasons, but above all to preserve its political future.[10] The Balkan countries are not a part of Europe since they think in national terms, Westphalian era; they are fighting for their nation – states, which is something that belongs to the history. And, as a result, these countries fail to identify themselves with the reality and the future of the Europe, cosmopolitan Europe as a starting point of cosmopolitan order.


EUROPEAN UNION AS A SUI GENERIS ENTITY

European continent is the place where the Westphalian system of nation – states has started; but, this continent has given the most deadly fist to this system also. By creating the European Union, the foundations of the nation – state system are shaken. This is the start of the finish for the nation – state. The nation – state system, at last, belongs to the past; the future fits in only with the cosmopolitan system.

The European Union, until now, is the most hopeful example of a post – national powerful organization.[11] The EU, however, is not an ordinary international organization, nor is it a state. It is a sui generis entity, a unique type of creature. Nevertheless, European Union can be considered as a most excellent regional economic and political institution in both breadth and depth. This entity has started as the European Coal and Steel Community in the 1950s. The Iron and Steel Community widened to become the European Economic Community (EEC), gradually expanding its membership and scope.[12] Its task remained economic: to liberalize trade and permit more integrated industrial production. On the other hand, the economic unification of the European Union has contributed to a denationalizing of a national territory, and decline of the nation – state’s relevance. This was the starting point of weakening of the nation – state; it was the beginning of the process: from national states to a supranational political community.

Until the 1980s, the EC was almost entirely compatible with the nation – state. It was merely an extreme example of the peaceful geopolitical negotiations that have characterized the capitalist world order after 1945.[13] Under such arrangements, the representatives of constituent governments sit in committees and work out agreements which are taken back to be ratified or rejected by the sovereign national governments. Until lately, for most economic policy, sovereignty was divided between the EC and the nation-states, though not according to clear, “federal” or “confederal” constitutional principles.[14] In fact, EC history has been something of a two-Power initiative. Bilateral agreements between Germany and France essentially provided all its forward surges.[15]

The Treaty of Maastricht, signed in December 1991, gives a simple answer: it declares EC control over virtually all policy areas;[16] it was a way of going beyond economic integration. The European Union, since then, is trying to transform itself into a political union with a common foreign, security and defense policy, even though, there is too much work to do.

After the war in Iraq, the European Union is in front of a lot of problems. The War made EU countries conscious of the failure of their common foreign policy,[17] if they ever had it. EU political scene is divided more than ever, since the end of World War Two. The gap has grown deeper between continental and Anglo – American countries on the one side, and ‘Old Europe’ and the Central and Eastern European candidates for entry into the European Union on the other.[18]

The crisis in Iraq, on the other hand, has clarified a lot of things in Brussels. At the moment, there is a visible contrast between countries who really want a stronger European Union, and those who are for modifying of the existing form of intergovernmental governance.[19] A decision on this issue is essential for the future of the European Union, and paradoxically, when the leaders of these countries discuss about this topic, they agree only in one thing: they disagree on everything.

Habermas and Derrida think that for the moment, only the ‘core European nations’ (France and Germany) are ready to provide the European Union with certain qualities of the state.[20] Consequently, it is on their responsibility to take a first step toward a common foreign policy, a common security policy, and a common defense policy. According to Habermas and Derrida, taking a leading role (for these countries), does not mean excluding (the other countries).[21] Of course, this is incorrect; taking a leading role does mean excluding. More to the point, this is unacceptable, since every country, member of EU, has the right to be engaged on shaping of cosmopolitan Europe, which, in the predictable future will serve as a starting point of the new world – cosmopolitan world.

Perhaps the biggest problem that European Union is facing with is the fortification of the borders; Europe is becoming a stronghold for ‘the others’. Boundary drawing automatically involves processes of inclusion and exclusion, thus the building of in and out groups.[22] EU should have an understandable and rational political plan toward ‘the others’. First of all, the countries who are a part of European continent, but not members of EU should be treated with a dignity from EU; the countries who are not member of EU should be regarded from the countries, member of EU, as ‘one of them’. Secondly, European Union must have a proper policy about the crossing of borders. EU might begin to carve out a universal right of circulation and residency, including reciprocity of cultural contributions and contacts between civilizations.[23]

Another problem that EU is facing with is the lack of creating and confirming a sense of belonging or identity; EU has a crisis of identity. The best way to solve the contradictions of EU identity is supporting of “Constitutional Patriotism”,[24] as the only valuable basis for a collective identity. This is the so-called “constitutional patriotism” or loyalty to European values and institutions where the demos prevails over the ethnos and membership is related to a political community not a territory.[25] Patriotic loyalty to the principles of the constitution, which have a universalistic content, is the best way of promoting the values of the cosmopolitanism, as a coming period of human kind.


CONCLUSION

To conclude, at the present, Europe is passing throughout radical changes; one part of Europe, seeks to create national – states (Balkan countries) and, the other part of Europe has a tendency for further unification. The Balkans is dealing with ‘values’ of the past; they are thinking about national categories. By thinking in this way, these countries deny the most excellent value of the present and the future – diversity. Human history is a purposive natural process,[26] the disappearance of the nation – state is an imperative of the time. Sooner Balkans recognizes this reality, better for them.

On the other hand, a part of Europe, European Union is dealing with a historical obligation: to realize an old ideal of European intellectuals, to make their continent the successful laboratory of a world order, substitute to other failed model, nation – state. EU countries have accepted the task that history has given to them: to establish a cosmopolitan Europe as a starting point of a cosmopolitan system, the model of the future.


NOTES:
[1] Jason Farr, “Point: The Westphalian Legacy and the Modern Nation-State”, in journal: International Social Science Review, Vol. 80. No. 4/2005
[2] Petr Drulak, “Rethinking Europe”, in journal: History Today, Vol. 48, No. 10/2001
[3] Ulrich Beck, “Understanding the Real Europe: A Cosmopolitan Perspective”, in journal: Stanford Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 7/2005
[4] Jurgen Habermas, “Kant’s Idea of Perpetual Peace: At Two Hundred Years’ Historical Remove” in book: Jurgen Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1998, p. 183.
[5] Heidi Armbruster and Craig Rollo, “Imagining Europe: Everyday Narratives in European Borders”, in journal: Journal of Ethics and Migration Studies, Vol. 29, No. 5/2003
[6] Mikael Af Malmorg, The Meaning of Europe: Variety and Contention within and among Nations, Berg, New York, 2002, p. 15.
[7] Ibid. p. 16.
[8] Joe Painter, “Multi-level Citizenship, Identity and Regions in Contemporary Europe”, in book: James Anderson, ed., Transnational Democracy, Routledge, London, 2002, p.93.
[9] Etienne Balibar, “At the Borders of Europe”, in book: Etienne Balibar, We the People of Europe, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2004, p. 4.
[10] Ibid. pp. 4-7.
[11] Michael Mann, “Nation – States in Europe and Other Continents: Diversifying, Developing, not Dying”, in journal: Daedalus, Vol. 122, No. 3/1993
[12] Ibid.
[13] Simon Chesterman, “Alternative Communities, Alternatives to Community”, in journal: Melbourne Journal of Politics, Vol. 24, No. 7/1997
[14] Michael Mann, “Nation – States in Europe and Other Continents: Diversifying, Developing, not Dying”, in journal: Daedalus, Vol. 122, No. 3/1993
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Jurgen Habermas and Jasques Derrida, “February 15, or , what Binds Europeans Together”, in book: Daniel Levy, Max Pensky and John Torpey, eds., Old Europe, New Europe, Core Europe, Verso Press, London, 2005, p. 4.
[18] Ibid. p. 5.
[19] Jurgen Habermas and Jasques Derrida, “February 15, or , what Binds Europeans Together”, in book: Daniel Levy, Max Pensky and John Torpey, eds., Old Europe, New Europe, Core Europe, Verso Press, London, 2005, pp. 5-6.
[20] Ibid. pp. 6-7.
[21] Ibid. p. 5.
[22] Heidi Armbruster and Craig Rollo, “Imagining Europe: Everyday Narratives in European Borders”, in journal: Journal of Ethics and Migration Studies, Vol. 29, No. 5/2003
[23] Etienne Balibar, “Difficult Europe: Democracy under Construction”, in book: Etienne Balibar, We the People of Europe, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2004, pp. 177-179.
[24] In contrast to the conventional national sense of identity, Habermas proposes “constitutional patriotism”, as the only beneficial basis for a collective identity. The most extensive treatment of the topic appears in his book: The Inclusion of the Other, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1998.
[25] Omid A. Pavrow Shabani, “Who’s Afraid of Constitutional Patriotism? The Binding Source of Citizenship in Constitutional States”, in journal: Social Theory and Practice, Vol. 28, No. 3/2002
[26] Allen W. Wood, “Kant’s Project for Perpetual Peace”, in book: Pheng Cheah and Bruce Robbins, eds., Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, London, 1988, pp. 69-70.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jason Farr, “Point: The Westphalian Legacy and the Modern Nation-State”, in journal: International Social Science Review, Vol. 80. No. 4/2005
Petr Drulak, “Rethinking Europe”, in journal: History Today, Vol. 48, No. 10/2001
Ulrich Beck, “Understanding the Real Europe: A Cosmopolitan Perspective”, in journal: Stanford Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 7/2005
Jurgen Habermas, “Kant’s Idea of Perpetual Peace: At Two Hundred Years’ Historical Remove” in book: Jurgen Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1998.
Heidi Armbruster and Craig Rollo, “Imagining Europe: Everyday Narratives in European Borders”, in journal: Journal of Ethics and Migration Studies, Vol. 29, No. 5/2003
Mikael Af Malmorg, The Meaning of Europe: Variety and Contention within and among Nations, Berg, New York, 2002.
Joe Painter, “Multi-level Citizenship, Identity and Regions in Contemporary Europe”, in book: James Anderson, ed., Transnational Democracy, Routledge, London, 2002.
Etienne Balibar, “At the Borders of Europe”, in book: Etienne Balibar, We the People of Europe, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2004.
Michael Mann, “Nation – States in Europe and Other Continents: Diversifying, Developing, not Dying”, in journal: Daedalus, Vol. 122, No. 3/1993
Simon Chesterman, “Alternative Communities, Alternatives to Community”, in journal: Melbourne Journal of Politics, Vol. 24, No. 7/1997
Jurgen Habermas and Jasques Derrida, “February 15, or , what Binds Europeans Together”, in book: Daniel Levy, Max Pensky and John Torpey, eds., Old Europe, New Europe, Core Europe, Verso Press, London, 2005.
Etienne Balibar, “Difficult Europe: Democracy under Construction”, in book: Etienne Balibar, We the People of Europe, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2004.
Omid A. Pavrow Shabani, “Who’s Afraid of Constitutional Patriotism? The Binding Source of Citizenship in Constitutional States”, in journal: Social Theory and Practice, Vol. 28, No. 3/2002
Allen W. Wood, “Kant’s Project for Perpetual Peace”, in book: Pheng Cheah and Bruce Robbins, eds., Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, London, 1988.