From time to time I intend to post perspectives that fall within the purview of my concern with the fact that we Americans do a poor job in understanding other parts of the world as we tend to be bombarded with American media filtered slanted rubbish. Here is the first such presentation for your thoughts.
Europe as a Prototype for a Global Open Society
Europe is in search of its identity. I don’t think one needs to look very far. To my mind, the European Union embodies the principles of an open society and it ought to serve as a model and motive force for a global open society.
Let me explain what I mean.
The concept of open society was first used by the French philosopher Henri Bergson in his book The Two Sources of Morality and Religion published in 1932. One source is tribal and that leads to a closed society whose members feel an affinity for each other and fear or hostility toward the other tribes. By contrast, the other source is universal and leads to an open society which is guided by universal human rights and seeks to protect and promote the freedom of the individual.
This scheme was modified by the Austrian-born British philosopher, Karl Popper in his seminal book The Open Society and Its Enemies published in 1944. He pointed out that open society can be endangered by abstract, universal ideologies like communism and fascism which claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth. Today we would do well to include in that consideration the religious right of this nation.
Popper was a philosopher of science and he argued that the ultimate truth is beyond the reach of the human intellect. Even scientific theories cannot be verified beyond doubt; they can only be falsified and it is only the fact that they can be falsified that qualifies them as scientific. We cannot base our decisions on knowledge alone and our imperfect understanding introduces an element of uncertainty into the world in which we live that is very difficult to cope with.
Ideologies like communism and fascism seek to eliminate uncertainty but they suffer from a fatal flaw: They are bound to be false and misleading exactly because they claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth. These ideologies can be imposed on society only by using various forms of repression. By contrast, an open society accepts the uncertainties inherent in our imperfect understanding (or fallibility), and seeks to establish laws and institutions which allow people with divergent views and interests to live together in peace. The distinguishing feature of these laws and institutions is that they safeguard the freedom of the individual.
Building the European Union
The Second World War resulted in the defeat of the Nazi regime and its ideology. Europe was rebuilt with the generous help of the United States and eventually a process leading to the formation of the European Union was set in motion.
The European Union became a textbook example of the open society. It consists of a number of nations and nationalities, none of which occupies a controlling position and all of which are pledged to maintain democratic institutions and protect individual freedoms and human rights.
Even this may be appropriate to an open society because, as Karl Popper argued, our imperfect understanding does not permit permanent and eternally valid definitions of social arrangements. The arrangements must reflect the will of the participants and they must be open to adjustment and improvement. Accordingly, he refused to provide a definition of open society.
The European Union was brought into existence by a process of piecemeal social engineering, the method Karl Popper considered appropriate to an open society. The process was directed by a far-sighted and purposeful elite which recognized that perfection is unattainable. It proceeded step by step, setting limited objectives with limited timetables knowing full well that each step would prove to be inadequate and require a further step. The process was helped along first by the threat from the Soviet Union and then by the globalization of the economy which tended to favor larger economic units. That is how the European Union was constructed, one step at a time.
The process has now ground to a halt. The European Constitution was defeated by the referenda held in France and the Netherlands.
The Constitution may have been, in any case, an over ambitious step. The Union is now left in an untenable condition with an enlarged membership of twenty-seven and a governing structure that was originally designed for six, although it managed to function for fifteen. The political will to keep the process moving forward has eroded. The memory of past wars has faded and the threat posed by the Soviet Union has disappeared.
The prevailing arrangements are too cumbersome and—unless the forward momentum can be regained—the dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs is liable to generate momentum in the opposite direction.
That is already happening. Nationalist, xenophobic, anti-Muslim sentiments are on the rise almost everywhere, aggravated by the failure to integrate immigrant communities.
The situation is all the more disturbing because the disarray within the European Union is matched by the disarray in the world order.
The United States used to be the dominant power in the world. It used to set the agenda for the world. But after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, President Bush declared war on terror and that was the wrong agenda executed the wrong way.
As a result, the United States has lost power and influence in a precipitous manner and is no longer in a position to set the agenda of the world. Nor is it in a position to project overwhelming military power in any part of the world as it was when President Bush announced the Bush doctrine, and as a result the world order has become much less stable. Indeed, it is threatening to descend into world disorder.
The proper role for the United States would be to lead the world in a cooperative effort to deal with the problems that confront humanity and can be dealt with only by greater international cooperation—such as the threats posed by rogue regimes, the breakdown of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, climate change and the need to maintain stability in the global economic system and reduce poverty.
In the past, the United States fulfilled its role as the leader of the free world. After the Second World War, the United States used its power and influence to establish the United Nations and the Bretton Woods Institutions and to engage in The Marshall Plan. That is what made America great. The Bush doctrine and the war on terror was a sharp break with the American tradition. It left the world leaderless and the world is in disarray.
The EU needs to play a more active role in the world than it has in the past. The EU is used to taking its lead from the United States, reacting to its agenda, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, but it basically accepted the world order as given. That has to change and it cannot be achieved by individual countries acting on their own.
The European Union cannot possibly take the place of the United States as the leader of the world. But it can set an example for the world in international cooperation both within its own borders and beyond. Indeed, it has already done so. Member states have delegated some aspects of their sovereignty in order to create a common market and they have kept the prospect of membership open to others. This has been a powerful tool in turning candidate countries into open societies.
All that is needed now is for the people of Europe to be inspired by the idea of the European Union as the embodiment of the open society ideal and the motive force for a global open society.
What does this mean in practice? I believe the debate about the Constitution should be shelved; that is not what the people are interested in. Whatever the reason, the Constitution was defeated in two referenda.
To try and force it down people’s throats now would undoubtedly arouse renewed resistance. Perhaps it was too big a bite to be swallowed in one piece. It needs to be unbundled and presented piecemeal. That is in keeping with the method of the piecemeal engineering which proved so successful in the past.
The most valuable and most needed piece is a common foreign policy which would guide a common defense policy. That is the baby that was thrown out with the bath water. That should be the priority and it would not require a referendum.
I see the merit of a bill of rights but it does not have the same sense of urgency about it because there are so many declarations already in force. If giving the Charter the force of law requires referenda, it may be better to wait until Europe has regained its momentum.
Simplifying the decision-making process is more urgent, but that is something for the Member States to negotiate with each other in a revision of the Nice Treaty and it is unlikely to interest the general public. What is of general interest is to improve the integration of immigrant communities.
These are the outlines of a practical program for moving the European Union forward again.
In the meantime, the absence of institutional reform should not be allowed to serve as a pretext for inaction.
The European Union already possesses ample resources to make an impact on the world stage:
half of the world’s overseas development assistance;
the biggest single market in the world;
45,000 diplomats;
almost 100,000 peacekeepers serving on every continent;
and the prospect of using trade, aid and the prize of membership as catalysts to encourage neighboring states to become open societies.
Regrettably, the EU has not made full use of its potential. Europe has made little progress in formulating a common energy policy.
As a result it is increasingly dependent on Russia, and Russia has not hesitated to exploit its bargaining position. The EU has failed to give adequate support to Georgia or to impose adequate sanctions on Uzbekistan for the massacre in Andijon. The European Neighborhood Policy never gathered any momentum and the treatment of Turkey is pushing an important ally into the wrong direction.
Needless to say, a common European Union foreign policy should not be anti-American. Such a posture would be self-defeating because it would reinforce the division of the international community that the Bush administration has initiated.
I am speaking about the European Union setting an example in international cooperation that eventually the United States under a different leadership—which is on the way—would emulate.
By the same token, a global open society emphatically does not mean global government. Government inevitably interferes with the freedom of the individual. A global government could not avoid being repressive even if it were built on liberal principles. A global open society could not even be as closely integrated as the European Union because the affinity among the member states would be less pronounced.
What a global open society does stand for is the rule of law on an international scale.
According to the neoconservatives who have exercised such a nefarious influence within the Bush administration, international relations are relations of power, not law. According to them, international law merely ratifies what military power has accomplished.
To some extent that is true today. For instance, the United Nations has ratified the occupation of Iraq which had been brought about by illegitimate means. But it ought not to be true tomorrow.
International relations, including the exercise of military power, ought to be governed by international law more effectively than it is today.
Europe as the Prototype
Europe as the prototype of a global open society is an abstract idea. Whether it is strong enough, persuasive enough, to serve as the unifying force guiding the European Union forward, remains to be seen.
One thing is certain, the process that has carried the European Union so far cannot be revived in the same form as before. It was driven by an elite and the population at large has felt left out.
This cannot continue if for no other reason than on account of the referenda that are used with increasing frequency. A referendum expresses the people’s will in a raw, capricious form without the intermediation of an elite. Therefore, if the European Union is to revive, it has to be by popular demand. One way or another, civil society has to be mobilized. The elite has a role but it is to shape public opinion.
I can only speak for myself. I find that the idea of Europe as a prototype for a global open society is very inspiring indeed. Although I am not a European citizen, I am a believer in the open society.
I have a network of foundations inside and outside the European Union committed to promoting that idea. I am ready to support an Open Society Initiative for Europe that would mobilize civil society behind the idea of Europe as a model and a motive force for a global open society.
The world badly needs a more united Europe committed to the principles of open society and I hope Europe will rise to the challenge.
Just A Couple of Relevant Sources To European Developments
European Policy Centre George Soros
Europe as a Prototype for a Global Open Society
Europe is in search of its identity. I don’t think one needs to look very far. To my mind, the European Union embodies the principles of an open society and it ought to serve as a model and motive force for a global open society.
Let me explain what I mean.
The concept of open society was first used by the French philosopher Henri Bergson in his book The Two Sources of Morality and Religion published in 1932. One source is tribal and that leads to a closed society whose members feel an affinity for each other and fear or hostility toward the other tribes. By contrast, the other source is universal and leads to an open society which is guided by universal human rights and seeks to protect and promote the freedom of the individual.
This scheme was modified by the Austrian-born British philosopher, Karl Popper in his seminal book The Open Society and Its Enemies published in 1944. He pointed out that open society can be endangered by abstract, universal ideologies like communism and fascism which claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth. Today we would do well to include in that consideration the religious right of this nation.
Popper was a philosopher of science and he argued that the ultimate truth is beyond the reach of the human intellect. Even scientific theories cannot be verified beyond doubt; they can only be falsified and it is only the fact that they can be falsified that qualifies them as scientific. We cannot base our decisions on knowledge alone and our imperfect understanding introduces an element of uncertainty into the world in which we live that is very difficult to cope with.
Ideologies like communism and fascism seek to eliminate uncertainty but they suffer from a fatal flaw: They are bound to be false and misleading exactly because they claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth. These ideologies can be imposed on society only by using various forms of repression. By contrast, an open society accepts the uncertainties inherent in our imperfect understanding (or fallibility), and seeks to establish laws and institutions which allow people with divergent views and interests to live together in peace. The distinguishing feature of these laws and institutions is that they safeguard the freedom of the individual.
Building the European Union
The Second World War resulted in the defeat of the Nazi regime and its ideology. Europe was rebuilt with the generous help of the United States and eventually a process leading to the formation of the European Union was set in motion.
The European Union became a textbook example of the open society. It consists of a number of nations and nationalities, none of which occupies a controlling position and all of which are pledged to maintain democratic institutions and protect individual freedoms and human rights.
Even this may be appropriate to an open society because, as Karl Popper argued, our imperfect understanding does not permit permanent and eternally valid definitions of social arrangements. The arrangements must reflect the will of the participants and they must be open to adjustment and improvement. Accordingly, he refused to provide a definition of open society.
The European Union was brought into existence by a process of piecemeal social engineering, the method Karl Popper considered appropriate to an open society. The process was directed by a far-sighted and purposeful elite which recognized that perfection is unattainable. It proceeded step by step, setting limited objectives with limited timetables knowing full well that each step would prove to be inadequate and require a further step. The process was helped along first by the threat from the Soviet Union and then by the globalization of the economy which tended to favor larger economic units. That is how the European Union was constructed, one step at a time.
The process has now ground to a halt. The European Constitution was defeated by the referenda held in France and the Netherlands.
The Constitution may have been, in any case, an over ambitious step. The Union is now left in an untenable condition with an enlarged membership of twenty-seven and a governing structure that was originally designed for six, although it managed to function for fifteen. The political will to keep the process moving forward has eroded. The memory of past wars has faded and the threat posed by the Soviet Union has disappeared.
The prevailing arrangements are too cumbersome and—unless the forward momentum can be regained—the dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs is liable to generate momentum in the opposite direction.
That is already happening. Nationalist, xenophobic, anti-Muslim sentiments are on the rise almost everywhere, aggravated by the failure to integrate immigrant communities.
The situation is all the more disturbing because the disarray within the European Union is matched by the disarray in the world order.
The United States used to be the dominant power in the world. It used to set the agenda for the world. But after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, President Bush declared war on terror and that was the wrong agenda executed the wrong way.
As a result, the United States has lost power and influence in a precipitous manner and is no longer in a position to set the agenda of the world. Nor is it in a position to project overwhelming military power in any part of the world as it was when President Bush announced the Bush doctrine, and as a result the world order has become much less stable. Indeed, it is threatening to descend into world disorder.
The proper role for the United States would be to lead the world in a cooperative effort to deal with the problems that confront humanity and can be dealt with only by greater international cooperation—such as the threats posed by rogue regimes, the breakdown of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, climate change and the need to maintain stability in the global economic system and reduce poverty.
In the past, the United States fulfilled its role as the leader of the free world. After the Second World War, the United States used its power and influence to establish the United Nations and the Bretton Woods Institutions and to engage in The Marshall Plan. That is what made America great. The Bush doctrine and the war on terror was a sharp break with the American tradition. It left the world leaderless and the world is in disarray.
The EU needs to play a more active role in the world than it has in the past. The EU is used to taking its lead from the United States, reacting to its agenda, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, but it basically accepted the world order as given. That has to change and it cannot be achieved by individual countries acting on their own.
The European Union cannot possibly take the place of the United States as the leader of the world. But it can set an example for the world in international cooperation both within its own borders and beyond. Indeed, it has already done so. Member states have delegated some aspects of their sovereignty in order to create a common market and they have kept the prospect of membership open to others. This has been a powerful tool in turning candidate countries into open societies.
All that is needed now is for the people of Europe to be inspired by the idea of the European Union as the embodiment of the open society ideal and the motive force for a global open society.
What does this mean in practice? I believe the debate about the Constitution should be shelved; that is not what the people are interested in. Whatever the reason, the Constitution was defeated in two referenda.
To try and force it down people’s throats now would undoubtedly arouse renewed resistance. Perhaps it was too big a bite to be swallowed in one piece. It needs to be unbundled and presented piecemeal. That is in keeping with the method of the piecemeal engineering which proved so successful in the past.
The most valuable and most needed piece is a common foreign policy which would guide a common defense policy. That is the baby that was thrown out with the bath water. That should be the priority and it would not require a referendum.
I see the merit of a bill of rights but it does not have the same sense of urgency about it because there are so many declarations already in force. If giving the Charter the force of law requires referenda, it may be better to wait until Europe has regained its momentum.
Simplifying the decision-making process is more urgent, but that is something for the Member States to negotiate with each other in a revision of the Nice Treaty and it is unlikely to interest the general public. What is of general interest is to improve the integration of immigrant communities.
These are the outlines of a practical program for moving the European Union forward again.
In the meantime, the absence of institutional reform should not be allowed to serve as a pretext for inaction.
The European Union already possesses ample resources to make an impact on the world stage:
half of the world’s overseas development assistance;
the biggest single market in the world;
45,000 diplomats;
almost 100,000 peacekeepers serving on every continent;
and the prospect of using trade, aid and the prize of membership as catalysts to encourage neighboring states to become open societies.
Regrettably, the EU has not made full use of its potential. Europe has made little progress in formulating a common energy policy.
As a result it is increasingly dependent on Russia, and Russia has not hesitated to exploit its bargaining position. The EU has failed to give adequate support to Georgia or to impose adequate sanctions on Uzbekistan for the massacre in Andijon. The European Neighborhood Policy never gathered any momentum and the treatment of Turkey is pushing an important ally into the wrong direction.
Needless to say, a common European Union foreign policy should not be anti-American. Such a posture would be self-defeating because it would reinforce the division of the international community that the Bush administration has initiated.
I am speaking about the European Union setting an example in international cooperation that eventually the United States under a different leadership—which is on the way—would emulate.
By the same token, a global open society emphatically does not mean global government. Government inevitably interferes with the freedom of the individual. A global government could not avoid being repressive even if it were built on liberal principles. A global open society could not even be as closely integrated as the European Union because the affinity among the member states would be less pronounced.
What a global open society does stand for is the rule of law on an international scale.
According to the neoconservatives who have exercised such a nefarious influence within the Bush administration, international relations are relations of power, not law. According to them, international law merely ratifies what military power has accomplished.
To some extent that is true today. For instance, the United Nations has ratified the occupation of Iraq which had been brought about by illegitimate means. But it ought not to be true tomorrow.
International relations, including the exercise of military power, ought to be governed by international law more effectively than it is today.
Europe as the Prototype
Europe as the prototype of a global open society is an abstract idea. Whether it is strong enough, persuasive enough, to serve as the unifying force guiding the European Union forward, remains to be seen.
One thing is certain, the process that has carried the European Union so far cannot be revived in the same form as before. It was driven by an elite and the population at large has felt left out.
This cannot continue if for no other reason than on account of the referenda that are used with increasing frequency. A referendum expresses the people’s will in a raw, capricious form without the intermediation of an elite. Therefore, if the European Union is to revive, it has to be by popular demand. One way or another, civil society has to be mobilized. The elite has a role but it is to shape public opinion.
I can only speak for myself. I find that the idea of Europe as a prototype for a global open society is very inspiring indeed. Although I am not a European citizen, I am a believer in the open society.
I have a network of foundations inside and outside the European Union committed to promoting that idea. I am ready to support an Open Society Initiative for Europe that would mobilize civil society behind the idea of Europe as a model and a motive force for a global open society.
The world badly needs a more united Europe committed to the principles of open society and I hope Europe will rise to the challenge.
Just A Couple of Relevant Sources To European Developments
European Policy Centre George Soros
No comments:
Post a Comment