From SMS-language (or txtese or txtspk amongst others) to blogging to online communities to gaming… information technology forms an integral part of young people’s lives. Name the technology and it probably no longer holds any secrets for the average teenager. To the generation that never knew a world without internet, this is simply the way things have always been. Interacting with these different technologies comes completely naturally to them… to the frustration of older generations who struggle to keep up with the latest developments in technology. This ease of interaction with ICT in general comes from having been exposed to it from an early age, an intuitive realisation of its value and a genuine interest combined with a certain notion of the basics on which most ICT usage is based.

Those who master these new technologies have unprecedented access to a near-limitless wealth of information. Theoretically the new generation is better informed than any other generation that came before them. Furthermore technology provides tools for everyone who chooses to contribute to the endless stream of digital media. ICT is increasingly user-friendly, cheap and accessible, thus allowing amateurs to dabble in various previously inaccessible arts with digital cameras turning everyone into a photographer or filmmaker and blogs allowing any person to express him- or herself on a variety of more or less esoteric topics. Make your own music, become a writer or photographer, design your own interior… it’s all within easy reach for anyone.

Whereas on the face of it these developments appear positively positive, there’s a flipside to the medal. There is no limit to the amount of user-generated content. When combined with countless media sources, academic journals and online libraries catering for every interest, those IT-savvy people surfing the World Wide Web are at risk of drowning in a sea of information. With an exponential increase in available information, sifting through all of it becomes very important. How to find what you’re looking for, how to identify and contrast reliable sources and how to be selective in your search for information are all critical skills in a world overloaded with information.

Media literacy is the key to navigating this digital brave new world. It first and foremost denotes the ability to discerningly sift through all the available information but in a digital world implies much more than that. The all-pervasive use of ICT has given rise to an array of issues jointly encompassing a more complete picture of media literacy for the digital age. When operating in a digital interconnected world it is of vital importance, for instance, to realise that privacy does not obey the same rules and limitations that you are used to. ICT users need to be aware of the implications of an online life.

A media literate ICT user, who avoids these obvious pitfalls to the best of his or her ability, will be free to benefit from the empowerment granted by ICT in terms of access to information, digital citizenship and ICT-enabled change. The user will forge new identities online based on new cultural notions and shared interests and be able to address social challenges through the use of the tools made available.

Media Literacy requires more than a sound knowledge of IT. The older generation, though less tech-savvy, can play an important role by continuing to put their life-experience, knowledge and wisdom to good use and guide the younger generations in their navigation through this ITC landscape, tackling the overload of information, the privacy and safety issues and social challenges that constitute it.

Besides the importance of developing a sense of discrimination and selectiveness adapted to the abundance of information, it’s increasingly important for users to not simply use but actually understand the tools that enable them to contribute to the continuous flow of media creations and products. The advent of user-friendly, inexpensive technology is turning the next generation from passive recipients of culture to empowered contributors. It’s therefore of utmost that they understand the tools and skills that lead or mislead the intended audience. Whereas to a certain extent the empowerment of the next generation is a reality, this progress is at risk of being undone by the simple fact that the sheer volume of media content leaves both audience and author with the impossible task of separating quality from mediocrity or inferiority.

One thing is for everyone to have the opportunity to contribute to and engage in public discourse but the reality remains that most of it is doomed to get lost in the deafening noise of millions of keyboards and cameras around the world…

There is no ready-made solution to this problem but it is obvious that Media Literacy requires more than a sound knowledge of IT. The older generation, though less tech-savvy, can play an important role by continuing to put their life-experience, knowledge and wisdom to good use and guide the younger generations in their navigation through this ITC landscape, tackling the overload of information, the privacy and safety issues and social challenges that constitute it.

A life-time of experience and acquired knowledge ensures that the opinion and advice from older generations is respected and sought by the younger generations. ICT, to a certain extent, has changed this. Since ICT is the playing field of the young, a certain disdain towards older generations has taken hold. It is time for the older generations to reclaim their position as advisers so that the next generation can safely navigate the obstacles of an interconnected world and reap the benefits of the information age.

In October 2010 Angela Merkel told a gathering of younger members of her conservative Christian Democratic Union party that “the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other… has failed, utterly failed”, thereby encouraging the likes of Sarkozy and Cameron to give free rein to their own bigoted ideas.

Worries that Europe is losing its traditional identity have been fuelling anti-immigrant sentiments across Europe. In difficult economic times it is a time-honoured tradition for politicians to exploit such feelings and whip up popular support by targeting easy scapegoats.

Rather than idly sitting by while politicians quietly bring the idea of a multicultural society to an end, the organisers of Unity Express have plans to embark on a journey to illustrate the merits of a multicultural European society.

In 2012, the Unity Express will depart from Amsterdam on the 7th of July on a journey across Europe to return 4 weeks later on the 4th of August. At any given time, there will be more than 400 people on board of a train who will call at 22 cities and go through 24 European countries. Passengers from all kinds of different backgrounds will eat, sleep, party and engage in a range of learning activities on board.

By creating a miniature society on board of the Unity Express, the organisers aim to show how a multicultural society can flourish and how a greater understanding and respect of each other’s cultures can come about.

“Just as unity has no respect for borders, neither does the Unity Express.”

For more information, visit: http://unityexpress.eu/

Mohammad Bu Azizi’s self-immolation on December 17 2010 was the spark that ignited the Arab powder keg, firing up crowds across the entire Arab world. Who could have foreseen that the tragic death of a single civilian would bring down well-established regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and cause a full-blown revolution aimed at toppling Kaddafi’s regime in Libya as well as numerous other revolts across the Arab world? So how did the suicide of a fruit vendor in Tunis bring about the chain of events of the last three months?

A lot has been made by the international media of the enabling role of social media such as Twitter and Facebook in connecting people and spreading the revolutionary word. However, whereas these tools definitely facilitated communication, can it really be said that these revolutions would not have taken place or would not have been as successful were it not for Twitter?

The success factor and rapid spread of revolutions is notoriously difficult to explain. Why do some revolts acquire unstoppable momentum bringing about dramatic changes where others are snipped in the bud? An important factor is obviously the determination of the protesters to achieve change. A cause that finds widespread support will automatically spread across the civilian population with or without the aid of social media.

Another important factor is the involvement of youth, whose future is at stake and who, in general, have less to lose. Throughout modern history, youth and students have often played an important role as instigators, catalysts or supporters of revolutions and uprisings. Think of the student revolts at the beginning of the 19th century in Germany, the student uprisings in 1968, the rebellions in Soweto, South Africa in 1976, the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, the Czech Velvet Revolution in the same year and the Iranian student protests at the turn of last century, amongst many others. These revolutions have had a lasting impact on the political spectrum in their respective countries and beyond.

Young people being young can be relied upon to make themselves heard when in disagreement with this, that or the other. Consequently it is fairly common to hear vehement criticism by upstanding members of society wondering why in the world anyone should listen to these youngsters who, in any case, have no idea of how the world functions, have never held a job for longer than a couple of months and don’t have a family to feed. To many people, “revolutionary” students appear smug, conceited and self-congratulatory, as if they were the only ones to feel indignant about inequality in the world. Others level criticism at the fact that most student protests are self-interested, dealing with issues that concern only them.

As the wave of revolutions started spreading across Northern Africa and the Middle East to loud acclaim by the entire world, they were hailed as student revolutions. These revolutions are no exception in that they are student-led but differ in that they enjoy a large degree of popular and political support across the globe and enjoy near-unanimous backing from the UN. (A little “push in the back” from other “interested parties” can also go a long way in motivating those who hope to change their futures.) In any case, the usual critics appear silent. Perhaps these revolts will be judged more mildly since there’s much more at stake this time around than slightly expensive student fees. And Twitter? Well, revolutionaries will always use the tools at their disposal…

At the end of last year, Generation Europe Foundation and the FutureWork Forum (FWF) published the second report in the ‘Employing the NEXT Generation’ series, based on data gathered from more than 7,000 young people. The results were presented at the Employment Week Forum in November. Youth unemployment cannot simply be explained by the financial crisis. What are the real causes of the problem? Why are young people so vulnerable? GEF and the FWF put these questions directly to young people and also asked them to identify potential solutions. What we found is that the reasons are manifold and interrelated, yet can roughly be summarised as: ‘No experience = No job. No job = No experience’.

The next generation knows it is in trouble – and they are unmistakable in their message to employers, educators,
decision-makers and stakeholders that the current status quo just won’t cut it. A fundamental mindshift is called for. Educators and policy-makers in the field of education are criticised for their inability to anticipate and adapt to changes in job requirements and requisite skills. As a result of this failure, a lot of highly educated young people enter the job market, equipped with an array of diplomas but utterly unprepared for the jobs they are hoping to land.

Another criticism levelled at educators is their failure to provide useful career advice. As many young people leave the school or university benches, they join others in the difficult – and often fruitless – struggle for a desired career. As it turns out, they were never properly informed of the nature of jobs out there… The lack of communication between the private sector and the public education systems results in universities being increasingly out-of-touch with the latest employment trends.

In short, the next generation calls for an urgent and fundamental reassessment of career counselling, a realisation from the private sector that it would benefit employers and employees alike to hire inexperienced graduates, and a thorough revision of educational curricula. Last but not least, better support and training should be available for those young people who choose to become entrepreneurs as a serious alternative to traditional employment.

Whether it be the iPad or the freshly redesigned iPhone, Apple fans around the world are eagerly anticipating the arrival of the latest gadgets, all fed by the iTunes platform. Music, movies, books, games, applications… you name it, you can find it on iTunes. That is, if Apple agrees with your tastes.

For many years now, it has been argued that the rise of new media is eroding government censorship and improving press freedom around the world. Witness the role Twitter played in the protests following the presidential elections in Iran last spring. At the same time, however, government censorship is adapting to the digital age, as evidenced by the so-called ‘Great Firewall’ of China which filters all internet traffic into that country.

While government suppression of the media garners outrage, might there be another face of censorship which has largely escaped our attention? To wit, the trend toward self-censorship in the media. More and more examples are surfacing of restrictions placed on content in order to avoid upsetting certain interest groups as well as the values of the media owners and advertisers.

Just about anybody can publish their thoughts on the internet with the simple click of a button, but consumers are increasingly turning to a limited number of online content platforms, which concentrates editorial control in the hands of a few companies.

Apple, for example, describes the App Store, part of iTunes, as a ‘curated platform’. This choice of words conjures up an image of art curators carefully selecting and arranging the pieces on display in a museum. But is this policy so benign? From banning pornographic material to removing an English dictionary app because it provides definitions of curse words, Apple has ventured onto the slippery slope of censorship, imposing its own decency standards. The company has already been forced to backtrack on a few of its decisions.

Alternatives, such as Google’s Android platform, exist, but Apple has reached a critical mass, leaving content providers little choice but to distribute their stuff through iTunes. Whereas the internet promises freedom of choice, Apple has become a middleman, an arbiter between the media and consumers. Is this the new face of censorship?

Everyone’s seen it. It’s not like we are given a choice: when we finally sit down to watch a DVD in the comfort of our own home, we are invariably reminded that downloading a movie is really the same as stealing an old lady’s television… and you wouldn’t steal an old lady’s television, now would you?

Copyright law exists to maintain a balance between the rights of creative professionals and the rights of consumers. Artists have the right to be fairly compensated for their work, while the public has the right to access culture and knowledge. Over the past ten years, intellectual property rights (IPR) – copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc. – have become the subject of a fierce debate.

At the heart of the debate is the question of whether IPR encourages or stifles research and creativity. In essence, how does an economy best promote innovation? The internet has fuelled the debate by blurring the traditional distinction between creators and consumers. Nowadays, it is just as easy to download content as it is to publish online.

The question of whether IPR hampers innovation is not limited to the creative industries, however. In fact, the divergent views are best illustrated by a case study such as the AIDS pandemic. Because they are prohibitively expensive, treatments that could save millions of lives are not readily available in developing countries. Generic versions could theoretically be made available at a fraction of the cost, except the chemical formulas are protected by patents belonging to the pharmaceutical companies that developed the drugs.

But, or so the argument goes, simply abolishing patents on life-saving drugs would exacerbate the problem at hand because if it wasn’t for patents, the drugs would never have been developed in the first place. Why would any individual or company spend the time, money and energy on the development of a new drug, if there’s no guaranteed return on investment? Without IPR, anyone would be free to reproduce an invention at hardly any cost once it has been initially developed. Following this train of thought, logically companies would lose all incentive to invest in research and development.

Critics argue that IPR is actually a form of ‘intellectual monopoly’ with all the side effects that entails. What’s more, several creative industries, such as the food and fashion industries, are thriving without the protection of IPR. It’s entirely possible to sell a product regardless of whether someone is copying it…

So, where does that leave us? If competition and knowledge transfer are both essential to innovation, what form should IPR take? We need to strike the right balance. As important as this debate is for our society and economy, it seems unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. In the meantime, sit back, relax and enjoy the movie. Just leave the television set where you found it.

If rumours are anything to go by, the culmination of a long, outdrawn and rather undemocratic process that is shaping the future of Europe is nigh.

Following a preliminary round of consultations with the European heads of state, the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt decided to convene an informal summit on the 19^th of November during which he intends to put forward one candidate for each of the two European top posts. ‘It could be that a lengthy dinner at the European Council actually delivers someone else’ he announced, suggesting that the candidates that have been mentioned in the European media so far are not the only ones vying for the positions of President of the European Council and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy respectively.

The image it evokes is that of a bunch of statesmen enjoying a meal whilst calling out the names of the candidates they are backing. Not exactly an example of democracy in action… but arguably a fitting continuation to the ratification.

On the 2^nd October, 17 months after the first referendum, Irish voters were invited to rethink their original position and ended up voting in favour of Lisbon. For the EU institutions not taking ’no’ for an answer back in 2008 eventually paid off as the last remaining obstacle was thus removed (save for the minor detail of allowing the Czech Republic to opt out of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights in return for Václav Klaus’ signature on the treaty) and European leaders could turn their attention to the real business at hand: the distribution of posts.

Whereas names of potential candidates had been circulating for a while, guessing who would come out on top suddenly became the prime occupation across Europe. Rarely has an EU issue enjoyed such media attention. The latest ‘conventional wisdom’ circulating in the European media, however, is that those who announced their candidacy early-on made a tactical mistake. Apparently external observers should be paying heed to the dark horses in the herd.

While no final decision-making power is vested in either position, both will wield considerable influence in European affairs and on the global stage. Yet both posts will be appointed by the heads of state. The election of the President relies on a qualified majority among the members of the European Council and does not require the approval from the European Parliament. The High Representative on the other hand will be appointed by the heads of states and governments whose choice will need the approval of the Commission President.

In the past there have been calls for direct elections to take place to give the President a clear mandate, but to no avail…  After all, why suddenly change our habits and deprive the dining kingmakers from announcing their choice on the 19^th of November?

Everybody’s heard of the Kyoto Protocol… It was adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 2005, committing the 183 countries that ratified the environmental treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In short, the signatories agreed to reduce their collective green house gas emissions by 5.2% from the level in 1990 by 2012.

It has not been without criticism… On the one hand, many experts believe the Kyoto Protocol to be inadequate and thus incapable of delivering a reduction in emissions. On the other hand, critics argue that the costs attached to its implementation by far outweigh the benefits… On both accounts, it merely represents a drop in the ocean.

So far it has proved, at best, partially successful… Initially, emissions declined in the early 1990s, but soon they started rising again. Since 1994, emissions from developing countries (not committed to reduction targets) have been on the rise…

So, in December of this year stakeholders are getting together again in order to address these and other issues, as well as continue the work started in Kyoto. The aim – reducing greenhouse gases – remains the same; the challenge is to expand the scope of the reduction targets to include developing countries. It remains to be seen what can be achieved in Denmark. Europe for one is stepping up to the challenge with its own 20-20-20 campaign, with the EU Member States committing themselves to reducing their overall emissions to at least 20% below 1990 levels by 2020. As an incentive for others, the EU is willing to increase its commitment up to a 30% reduction, should an agreement be reached in Copenhagen.

The United Nations Climate Change Conference will be taking place from December 7 to December 18 2009 in Copenhagen, charged with the mission to hammer out a successor treaty to Kyoto. Instead of spending money on gadgets for the 15,000 attendants, the Danish government decided to invest in scholarships instead and allow students from around the world to apply for a chance to study climate change at a Danish university. To find out more, please visit “Study in Denmark” and the “COP15 website” (see links below)… Or better still: get involved on the Guardian website dedicated to the Climate Change Conference!

•    Study in Denmark – http://www.studyindenmark.dk/climate
•    COP15 Official Website – http://en.cop15.dk/
•    The Guardian Countdown to Copenhagen – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/copenhagen

It will be years before the extent of the damage inflicted by the financial crisis becomes apparent, yet nearly all the financial centres of the world appear virtually unscathed and unchanged, as if nothing happened. Actually, there seems to be an increasing discrepancy between the political rhetoric of change and financial regulation and the economic reality on the ground… that nothing has really changed.

Nothing really changed in Europe either, where Angela Merkel and Jose Socrates were re-elected to office in Germany and Portugal respectively. Nor were they the only ones to be re-elected this month… José Manuel Barroso is returning to his office in Brussels where he will continue to work as President of the European Commission.

Nearly a year ago Obama took the world by storm with his promises of change… Yet we are somehow left with an empty feeling. So, if he can’t deliver… If he can’t push an agenda for change in the middle of a global financial crisis… where do change and improvement have to come from?

If it is change you’re interested in – and not just change for the sake of change, but change for the better – you may want to keep abreast with developments leading up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference at the end of the year. All eyes will be on Copenhagen in December, in the hope that the world leaders will muster the courage to choose for change. It is with wary interest that the GE Vibes team will monitor this event.

On a slightly more positive note, others are already doing their part in advocating change. In its response to the issue of global warming, the nuclear industry has re-opened what promises to be a heated debate on the pros and cons of nuclear energy and the search for viable alternatives.

Find out for yourself who is doing what for change– or isn’t doing- what for change… Also find out why it may be time for you to stop selling your items on EBay and how some entrepreneurs from Belgium are giving you the chance to help out and go for change instead!

Firts published in the GE Vibes – Issue 016 in September 2009

Ready for an EU-wide smoking ban in public places?

The smoking debate is more complex than expected …With tobacco being the single largest cause of avoidable death in the European Union, representing roughly 15% of all deaths, it comes as no surprise that Brussels is calling for an EU-wide ban on smoking in public places. Currently legislation dealing with tobacco and smoking is different in all Member States, ranging from an outright ban in some countries, to a ban at work in others … Others still, have implemented highly inventive tobacco regulations where, for instance, smoking is allowed in public spaces as long as food represents less than 30% of sales. Other complex variations on the theme exist… As of 2012, possibly more out of a desire for tidiness and efficiency rather than a concern for public health per se, the European Commission aims to simplify the situation and have all 27 Member States agree on an outright smoking ban. This proposal, according to EU Health Commissioner Ms Vassiliou, enjoys wide “support from the general public”.

Faced on a daily basis with a barrage of anti-smoking propaganda, most people (65% according to some sources)  have been brainwashed and blindly support a complete smoking ban. Only rarely do people stand still and contemplate the implications of such a ban… Whereas there are important and undeniable arguments in favour of a ban – such as the damage caused by passive smoking (although this is often exaggerated) and the cost to the taxpayer in terms of health contributions – there is no denying that to introduce a complete ban is to deprive 32% of their individual liberty. With each law that is passed, curbing individual freedom and reinforcing the nanny state, individuals hand over responsibility to the state and become less independent.

On the other hand, a study  published a year after the introduction of the smoking ban in the UK predicts that over the next 10 years 40,000 lives will be saved thanks to a decline in smoking. The ban is also said to have achieved a 75% reduction in exposure to smoke for bar-workers and other employees working in smoky conditions. These positive effects are, however, slightly mitigated by the fact that there are important economic costs attached to a ban that to some extent cancel out the financial benefits to society at large.  Perhaps the issue is not as straightforward as it is made out to be…

(First appeared on Libertarian.be on 11/07/09 under the title “The headscarf: human rights or individual freedom?”)

Since France banned the Islamic headscarf and other symbols from all French state schools in 2004, the debate it sparked has resurfaced time and again over the last few years. It did so recently, at the end of June, when public schools in Antwerp decided to ban the headscarf from the first of September 2009.

Astonishingly public opinion is divided between two simplistic and inadequate positions to which adherents of either camp have pledged their unquestioning allegiance. On the one hand champions of cultural diversity and freedom of expression (and obviously Muslims in general) are aghast and want the ban lifted immediately. As an ardent advocate of freedom in any shape or form, this author has had to repress a natural tendency to join this side of the debate. On the other hand, nationalist preservationists have entered into an uneasy alliance with women’s rights defenders and proponents of the separation of state and church, in defence of the ban.

On the face of it, it is much easier to sympathise with those who want the ban lifted in favour of freedom of expression; especially since the vast majority of those supporting the ban are blatantly motivated by racist convictions. It is frankly disturbing to witness the desperation with which people cling to their imagined identity and the fear they display towards anyone that does not fit in their narrow-minded conception of the world. However, these observations aside, the human rights aspect of the debate looms large and should not be ignored.

It is a very sorry state of affairs indeed when the powers-that-be start meddling in strictly private affairs such as their citizens’ wardrobes. Imagine waking up to the following newspaper headline:

“Under a new law designed to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and in schools, women and girls will longer be allowed to wear mini-skirts or otherwise revealing clothing at work or in schools. Guidelines as to what clothing is deemed acceptable have been published.”

This fictional, but not so far-fetched paragraph would provoke waves of indignation across the “western” world. The vast majority of people would balk at the very idea and fiercely resist this outright infringement on their freedom. And rightly so… Democratic societies are, to a lesser or greater extent (that’s an altogether different argument that will not be addressed here), built on freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Many are prepared to defend this hard-earned freedom with tooth and nail. One only has to recall the Danish cartoons controversy back in 2005, when the publishing of a series of unflattering cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed led to the violent uprising of radical Muslims across the world. In its response to these events, Europe stood (more or less) united in defending the rights of the cartoonist and the publisher to express their views, regardless of religious sensitivities or not. It is, in the humble opinion of this author, of vital importance that no amount of religious clamouring and whining should ever be allowed to result in the adoption of censorship and a limitation of individual freedom.

However, many would argue that the issue of the cartoons and the fictional scenario where a government restricts women’s freedom to wear mini-skirts are principally different from the headscarf ban debate. In one crucial aspect – and one only – they are right.

Many girls, born into a family of Islamic faith, are simply not given the choice to wear a headscarf or not. Whether they privately renounce their faith (for, in many instances, it can be hazardous to do so openly) or whether they simply choose not to adopt the headscarf, their family will oblige or force them to wear it against their will. This, in itself, constitutes a violation of women’s rights and goes against the “western” conception of freedom. An extremely dehumanising example of imposed clothing is the now well-known burqa, covering the women from head to toe, so no part of their bodies are visible to the outside world. More often than not, those who tend towards the individual freedom argument in the headscarf debate, will promptly change allegiance when the burqa is brought into the discussion.

But what if the women in question actively, and without interference, choose to wear the headscarf or even the burqa, be their motivation religious or other? Should these women, simply by virtue of the freedom of expression of other women, not be allowed to do so? It is exceedingly hypocritical to employ the freedom angle in order to defend the cartoonist and in defence of the girls who do not want to wear headscarfs, but to consequently abandon these principals when they are no longer suited to one’s argument and when it turns out that some women actually want (or are religiously motivated) to wear these items.

The cultural diversity card trumps all when it comes to defending, or tolerating, the indefensible. Criticism and condemnation of abhorrent practices and traditions such as genital mutilation, lapidation and forced marriages (to name but a few), are too often met with an indignant rebuke by the defenders, or perpetrators, of these practices, pointing out that these are matters of cultural sovereignty and not to be meddled with by outsiders. The argument from cultural diversity is devoid of meaning and merely serves the self-interest of certain factions in certain societies as well as that of those who want to perpetuate the cultural zoo of humanity for their entertainment.

In the case of the headscarf or the burqa such arguments should equally be dismissed as irrelevant and of no significance in western society where adherence to human rights, the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression should at all times take precedence.

This said, both options on the table – 1. an outright ban of headscarfs and 2. a tolerance for headscarfs based on individual freedom – present us with innate difficulties. On the one hand, a ban sets the precedence for more government involvement and the continued restriction of individual liberties, creating more problems than it is actually addressing: Where should government involvement stop? Should the burqa be banned but the headscarf allowed? Should girls wear mini-skirts? Are crucifix pendants acceptable? And who decides what is acceptable or not?

On the other hand, what about all these girls that are forced to wear a headscarf or a burqa by their families? What about their individual rights? The government might not be encroaching on their freedom, but their fathers and brothers certainly are… Should society not be protecting them?

Thus, it seems, mutual incompatibility between individual freedom and human rights considerations eliminates the possibility of a satisfying solution to the headscarf debate. Protecting the right of women not to wear certain clothing necessarily comes at the expense of individual liberty, whereas upholding western values of freedom leaves women at the mercy of vengeful and women-hating patriarchs. Are we to conclude that we are forced to choose between “handing over even more freedom to Big Brother” and “allowing women to be treated as second-rate citizens by deluded men who fear emancipated women”?

Thankfully, as it turns out, it is not a choice society has to make. There is another way of approaching the issue at hand. Whereas the choices outlined so far have been between action (a ban) and inaction (no ban), those on the side of individual liberty can drastically alter the argument by proposing a course of action that would go a long way in addressing all the issues at hand as well as an issue that has not been raised yet. It is important to realise that in the long run even a ban will fail to protect those girls who do not want to wear the headscarf, as Muslim families will simply send their children to private, or even Muslim, schools. Besides, outside of school hours they remain firmly under the control of their families.

Perhaps the answer lies, not in a compromise, but in a much more fundamental compliance with, and protection of, individual freedom… Rather than inaction and merely rejecting the headscarf ban, proponents of individual liberty should propose a proactive solution of their own. Instead of restricting individuals in their freedom by meddling with their choice of clothing, real help should be available for people who feel they are being thwarted in the pursuit of their own individual liberty. A channel should be provided enabling them to voice their concerns and have them taken seriously. Perhaps a loud and clear message should be sent out that any restriction by any person of any other person’s individual liberty will be harshly dealt with and that the powers-that-be will take a determined stand in defence of those who find themselves in need of protection… in the name of freedom.

(A slightly different version first appeared on Libertarian.be on 17/12/07. The version below was later published on www.generation-europe.eu.com.)

The summer holidays are coming to an end, politicians are coming back from the beach and Belgium’s Prime Minister, Yves Leterme, has returned from his bout as sports columnist in Beijing. Once more all Belgians can look forward to months of futile, and rather absurd (Belgian surrealism at its best) discussions between Walloon and Flemish politicians on a senseless constitutional reform.

For nearly one and a half century Belgium constituted a nation state with a centralised government based in Brussels. It was only in the seventies, under Flemish nationalist pressure, that the country embarked on the slippery slope of de-facto federalism. It is common knowledge that federalism as a result of antagonism (rather than consensus) should be approached with caution… but five state reforms later and all caution is out of the window! The last forty years saw the end of most vital national institutions such as political parties and the national television and radio stations, having all regrouped on linguistic basis. As a result of five successive state reforms aimed at pleasing everyone, the Belgian political scene has become an unintelligible mess for politicians, citizens and visitors alike.

Since 1993 Belgium is officially a federal state – with remnants of a federal government – consisting of three language communities, with roughly six million Dutch speakers in the North of the country and a minority in Brussels, 4 million French speakers in the South and a majority in Brussels, as well as a German-speaking community, which has about 70.000 inhabitants. Each language community has its own parliament and government, responsible for the control of culture, education and some aspects of public health care. Besides that, to make matters more complicated, Belgium has three non-congruent (regions and communities overlap but do not coincide) regions with their own competences such as economic development, infrastructure/transport, environment, housing, agriculture, some aspects of employment, energy and water distribution, etc… Belgium would thus have seven governments and seven parliaments, were it not for the propitious merger of the institutions of the Dutch-speaking community and the Flemish region, leaving it with only six!

With no federal political parties to speak of and the impossibility for the voter to vote for candidates from another linguistic community, political agendas on a federal level are increasingly influenced by regional interests and petty Flemish nationalism. As if five futile reforms were not enough, the majority of the Flemish electorate and the overwhelming majority of the Flemish mandarins would like to see a sixth one, just for good measure…

As it stands today, negotiations on a federal level have reached an impasse over two issues. On the one hand the Dutch-speaking parties are calling for a new state reform granting even more autonomy and powers to the regions/communities, as well as reducing the economic “solidarity” from Flanders to Wallonia, which the French-speaking community is loath to concede. On the other hand the Flemish are seeking to split the electoral district of “Brussels – Halle – Vilvoorde (BHV)”. Currently people living in Brussels or the surrounding communes (part of Flanders and not of Brussels) can vote for French and Dutch speaking parties alike… since many of those communes have a majority of French-speaking inhabitants. However, in
order to protect the “Flemish culture and language “, Flemish parties are asking for the electoral district to be split and allow only Flemish parties to be represented in the communes around Brussels. This is another demand from the Flemish that the French-speaking community is not willing to give into without something in return. (Such as, for instance, the expansion of Brussels to include some surrounding communes…).

Whereas the constitutional reform and BHV may be the high-profile issues that currently divide the country, they are merely symptoms of a much deeper malaise. Carefully exploited Flemish nationalism as a result of a generalised inferiority complex, in combination with the Flemish economic ascendancy of the last decades, have convinced the Dutch-speaking population that they should protect themselves from francophones and immigrants, whilst safeguarding their “hard-earned” wealth instead of watching it disappear in a big black hole. To be fair, the sheer incompetence of the political elite in Wallonia should carry half of the blame… but one thing is sure, solidarity has left the house!

Today Belgium stands with its back against the wall and the situation calls for drastic measures. Half-baked solutions will only increase current frustrations, as the country slowly grinds to a halt. The disposition of Belgium is such that it either exists or it doesn’t, and nothing in between. It is often said that in Belgium you can either be a federalist (emphasis on the federal state), a con-federalist (emphasis on the member states) or a separatist… This is simply wrong.

It is time to realise that the con-federalist path has taken Belgium’s politicians to the edge of a cliff and can no longer be pursued. The confused politicians and citizens of Belgium now have to choose between grabbing the separatists by the hand, closing their eyes and jump; or heed the distant sounds of the moderate federalists that were left behind at the crossroads all those years ago and try to find their way back across treacherous country.

Wallonia and Flanders are like a married couple that is growing apart and sleeping in separate bedrooms, blaming each other for all that went wrong with increasingly bitter resentment. Like in any failing marriage, the parties involved are faced with two choices: rekindle the passion or file for divorce. Saving a marriage is hard work and significant concessions from both parties are called for if a continued Belgian union is to be guaranteed. Such is the reality of marriage. Separation, on the other hand, may appear as the easier solution, but the custody battle over Brussels could turn nasty… or simply impossible to resolve. Such is the reality of divorce.

In reality the two issues at hand, BHV and the constitutional reform, present Belgium with a unique opportunity to resolve their marital issues, once and for all. Any decision taken on these two issues will be indicative of all decisions to come, so rather than attempting yet another useless, aggravating and confusing constitutional reform towards more autonomy for the regions, the current issues could be put to good use and provide the ideal opportunity for moderate federalists to grab the bull by the horns.

Yves Leterme, the current incompetent Prime Minister, is anything but a “moderate federalist”… He is a fervent “con-federalist”, if there ever was one, and his party has been in bed with the separatist N-VA since before the elections. He will continue to insist on a version of the state reform that will remain unacceptable to the French-speaking community.

The country is in need of a substantial constitutional reform. But rather than following the logic of the past 40 years, heading towards ever more regional autonomy, a reform should be proposed that will reinforce the federal government and restore some of the country’s fiscal and economic unity. The same thorough constitutional reform could also solve the issue of BHV by allowing all Belgian parties, whatever their origin, to be eligible on electoral lists nation-wide, offering voters the possibility to vote for French- or Dutch speaking parties alike, whether they live in Wallonia, Flanders or Brussels.

To grant legitimacy to such a constitutional reform, and solve the Belgian question for once and for all, a draft constitution should be put to the people in a referendum. Should the reform be deemed unacceptable by the majority of the Belgians and the draft be rejected by popular vote, it would be a very clear sign on the wall that the political elite could and would not ignore. It would force them to act accordingly and declare the end of Belgium. Should there, however, be wide support for the draft state reform, the federal state of Belgium would emerge victorious, strengthened and invigorated.

The current situation in Belgium is unlivable and the current setup unworkable. No amount of constitutional reforms or splitting of electoral districts will change anything about this and it is time that the Belgians (but
especially the Flemish) faced the music: to BE or not to BE.

Introduction

In order to adequately analyse this contradiction and outline the basic misconceptions at it’s core, I will first have to look at the institution we have all taken for granted: the nation-state. It will be of crucial importance to establish the notion that the state-system as we presently know it, is essentially a system that only recently emerged, merely giving the impression of being genuine whilst actually lacking any sort of intrinsic character or inherent natural roots. This will then allow me to investigate to what extent the notion of the nation-state was consciously (or unconsciously) fabricated and developed in order to legitimise an entire new political system that would accommodate the needs of the industrial revolution. I will then go on to situate the role of national media within this process and illustrate how the various outlets of the media became decisive actors in the construction of the nation-state system and its “Imagined Communities”. The second part of the paper will reflect on more recent developments and ideas concerning globalisation and what has been described as the erosion of nation-state sovereignty. Many scholars would argue that besides the ascendancy of the free market and economic globalisation, global media are promoting cultural interaction and more significantly for this paper, deconstructing the nation-state system. Whereas globalisation in general raises numerous questions concerning state sovereignty, the globalisation of media can be said to alter the way citizens perceive the nation-state as well as transform the realm of cultural sovereignty and diversity. I will argue that the globalisation of media up to this day remains very limited and has therefore not been capable of a profound destabilising impact on the relatively new, yet deeply-rooted, state-system. Ultimately, I will attempt to proof that “transnational media”, provided such phenomenon is real and significant in scope, contains the potential power to change the prevalent state-centric approach to politics by politicians and citizens, by stressing and strengthening the similarities that exist in the world, rather than giving shape to the differences as national media has done for centuries.

Read the rest of the paper “Imagined Communities” here.

(This article was first published in the GE Vibes magazine in July 2008.)

Multilingualism enjoys renewed support in the light of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008, with the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe announcing that there is “clearly a need to ensure efficiency and ease of communication at work, including in multinational and multilingual environments like the European Parliament, but we must make a commensurate effort to keep alive the spirit of multilingualism and the rich variety of our linguistic heritage.”

Whereas it seems self-evident that maintaining the European linguistic heritage is of importance, this statement implies that languages are not necessarily self-sustaining and suggests that they need political and economic support in the face of stark competition from more dominant languages.

There are obviously arguments in favour of protecting linguistic groups that only speak their own minority language, if only to enable their members to fully participate in civil society and enjoy the benefits of EU membership. This is not to say that minority languages should be actively protected. Rather, it means that the EU should ensure that everybody can participate in economic activities and meaningful dialogue unhampered by language barriers. This is altogether different.

There seems to be an unquestioned consensus at the heart of the European Union that the only viable way to eradicate the existing communication barriers is through the promotion and protection of all languages within the union. This necessarily involves considerable budgets and a painstaking administrative follow-up as well as a clear commitment at the highest levels of EU policy making. The cost of maintaining the institutions’ policy of multilingualism alone (i.e. the cost of translation and interpretation) exceeds €1100 million.

Fearful of vexing nationalists across Europe, policy makers are reluctant to approach languages as self-sustaining entities that have a natural life span, depending on their usefulness and adoption rate (popularity). Without external interference, a language will only survive as long as it is deemed essential for societal life. Many elements affect the viability and longevity of a language, such as economic ascendance of the linguistic group concerned, geographical spread and the regional/global standing of the population at hand.

The advantage of allowing for “natural selection” is that some languages will be replaced by others that are used more widely and are at the source of the global economy and universal culture. The downside of this approach is that some languages will merely remain as linguistic relics when they have stopped serving a particular society’s needs.

In terms of feasibility and costs, whereas language protectionism at a European level seems inefficient and costly, leaving languages to develop naturally will merely require a framework in which people can easily adopt and learn a second language of their choice.

It’s undeniable that over the last centuries certain key languages acquired a significant competitive advantage over others. Adding native and second language speakers together, it is possible to list the following languages as the most widely spoken in the world (different lists exist, with minor differences):

• Mandarin Chinese (1.12 billion)
• English (480 million)
• Spanish (320 million)
• Russian (285 million)
• French (265 million)
• Hindi/Urdu (250 million)
• Arabic (221 million)
• Portuguese (188 million)
• Bengali (185 million)
• Japanese (133 million)
• German (109 million)

Of these languages Spanish, Russian, French, Arabic, Portuguese & German are widely spoken in Europe and therefore likely to gain adherents at the expense of other languages. Contrary to popular wisdom, this may very well be a desirable development, fostering intercultural dialogue by allowing European citizens to discover the similarities for themselves rather than stressing the existing differences.

Whereas the benefits and pit-falls of “shock therapy” (a label Jeffrey Sachs strongly disagrees with) are ingredients for endless discussions, the main arguments can be summarised by considering some of the processes initiated by Sachs. Whereas the transition of Poland to a free market by means of rapid price liberalisation and monetary tightening has broadly been considered successful, many critics of “shock therapy” are tempted to attribute this success to the gradual nature of the changes. This stands in contrast with the fact that Poland is widely considered to be the second country (after Bolivia) to experience “shock therapy” at the hands of Sachs. Similarly, “China’s wise gradualism” is often contrasted with Russia’s overnight reforms. In Russia many people are said to have lost out drastically following the imposed shock therapy, whereas Chinese citizens see gradual improvements in their life on a daily basis. Proponents of the “Shock Therapy” defend the alleged inevitability of rapid transformations in Russia by pointing to the fact that Russia lost a state, an empire, a ruling party, an economic system and an ideology, all in the matter of a few months. Under these circumstances, they ask, how could a gradual path have been followed?

Mr Sachs himself blames the failure of market reforms in Russia on politics and not on possible flaws in the logic of the prescribed economic “medicine”. His failure to reform the country was due, in his words, to “the triumph of politics over economics.” Privatisation in Russia turned into large-scale corruption benefiting a small group of individuals who manipulated the situation as to end up with all assets within their own control.

Sachs’s new crusade can be viewed in the light of previous successes and failures and the lessons he learned from past experiences. As the title of his books suggests “The End of Poverty” is the modest challenge he has set for himself and, as Professor of Sustainable Development at Columbia University, director of the Earth Institute, and special adviser to the secretary-general of the United Nations, he dedicates all his time in pursuit of this goal.

All his current work seems to be based on one “basic truth” that he swears by, “that for less than 1 percent of the income of the rich world nobody has to die of poverty on the planet.” This view has drawn a lot of criticism, including claims that “Africa is a lost cause” and that it will do nobody any good to keep on throwing money at it, a view that Sachs dismisses as far too easy. In his view the history of international development is a history of failure, because too many people in the field are complacent, or incompetent, or not accountable.

Others argue against increasing foreign aid following the logic that billions have already been spent to no avail and that so far there is little or no return on investment. Whereas some see Africa as a bad investment, Sachs argues that foreign aid has failed to produce obvious results because too little has been spent, rather than the opposite. “He compares the current situation in Africa to a forest fire: “if you try to put out the fire with one hose, and the fire continues to rage, do you conclude that fighting fires is hopeless? From Sachs’s point of view, the only logical conclusion is: you don’t have enough fire-fighters.”

In his report for the World Health organisation Sachs argues that with an annual investment of $66 billion the developed world could be saving eight million lives a year and generating economic benefits worth $360 billion a year. And with $200 billion / year, Sachs argues, we would see the end of poverty. It is rather hard to put a price tag on the economic benefits of the complete eradication of poverty in the world… Priceless perhaps?
How realistic is it that the “rich world” would contribute to $200 billion of development aid? And how likely is this to really eradicate poverty just as Sachs promises? Well, $200 billion would only amount to 1% of the rich world GDP… That should be within our reach, right?

But the situation looks bleak when considering the fact that governments promised to spend 0.7% of GNI (GDP + income received from other countries) on Development Aid at the UN General Assembly in 1970, more than 35 years ago. Today, the United States is the world’s largest contributor in absolute terms but the smallest among developed countries as a percentage of its GDP (0.14% in 2003). Currently only five countries (with Norway in the lead with 0.92%) have met the UN development aid target. We are still a long way from giving away 1% of our GDP.

But should the rich world be paying at all? Won’t it just perpetuate a situation in which less developed countries depend on foreign aid in order to get by? The risk that developing countries will once again acquire the status of colonies (unofficially) is real. The financial aid will keep the world’s population out of poverty but fail to create a framework and structure to support independent economically viable countries.

On the other hand, poverty needs to be eradicated first in order to build a better infrastructure, to educate the country’s population, to avoid violence, terrorism and war and to have a healthy population. This is why aid is indispensable.

But development aid needs to be accompanied by concessions from the western world. Rich countries, as well as developing countries, have to fully remove all trade barriers and protectionist measures that distort the world’s “free” market. It is impossible for developing countries to protect their markets in order to compete with the developed world and as long as the West subsidises its pet industries, other countries will not be capable of competing and developing their own industries. On a political level, the West should also be consequent in its condemnation of corrupt, repressive and violent regimes.

“We’re just talking about 1 percent of our income in the world for the need to avert potential calamity” says Jeffrey Sachs but he has also understood that it doesn’t always pay to “appeal to a man’s better nature – he might not have one. Invoking his self interest gives you more leverage.” So be prepared to hear about the “return on investment” of $200 billion aid money.

Flexicurity is at the centre of the Lisbon Strategy to tackle several employment challenges that globalisation has imposed on the European Union: “European and international economic integration; the development of new technologies, particularly in the information and communication areas; the demographic ageing of European societies, together with still relatively low average employment rates and high long-term unemployment, which put at risk the sustainability of social protection systems; and the development of segmented labour markets in many countries where both relatively protected and unprotected workers coexist.”

Adaptation to these changes requires a more flexible labour market with more freedom for employers. But many believe that a less regulated labour market presents a direct threat to European social security models and the welfare state. Thus it is that the Lisbon objectives seek to address simultaneously the needs of employers and employees by means of policies that would, on the one hand, create more and better jobs and on the other hand accommodate the needs for social security. The Danes provide the answer… flexicurity…

Flexicurity can be described as a welfare state model with a pro-active labour market policy. The model is a combination of easy hiring and firing (flexibility for employers) and high benefits for the unemployed (security for the employees). The term refers to the successful combination of both flexibility in a dynamic economy and security for workers and was first implemented in Denmark in the 1990s where it is seen as a “golden triangle” with a “three-sided mix of flexibility in the labour market combined with social security and an active labour market policy with rights and obligations for the unemployed.”

Denmark’s current low unemployment figures and its low social exclusion rates, coupled to output growth of over 3% have led the European Union to adopt flexicurity as its leitmotiv in its European Employment Strategy.
But what does this mean concretely?

• Flexicurity-inspired policies would shift the focus from job security to employment security, meaning that policies will aim to increase your changes to successfully find a job rather than keep a job.
• For companies, the aim of flexicurity is to increase competitiveness by implementing less restrictive employment policies that would allow for more flexible contracts and make it easier for a company to adapt/change its workforce in response to economic & technological needs.
• The Lisbon Strategy aims to close the gap between the skilled and unskilled workforce by creating a more widespread knowledge economy, emphasising life-long training and education

Flexicurity is not limited to more freedom for companies to recruit or dismiss personnel. If implemented successfully, flexicurity will enforce upward mobility within the European labour market, attract and promote new productive needs and skills and facilitate the combination of work and private responsibilities. It will equip the European workforce with the necessary skills, adequate unemployment benefits to facilitate transitions & training opportunities for all workers.

And lets not forget that for foreign investors, flexicurity is an attractive proposition. Investors generally approach Europe cautiously, aware of the strict employment laws, social security, taxation, etc… With a more flexible labour market, investors could overcome many of these barriers.

That is the proposal being put forth by the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy. The proposed union would consist of sixteen southern European, Middle Eastern and North African countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea: Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Malta, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. The union though primarily economic, would also involve member countries in discussions over controversial issues such as Turkey’s EU membership, illegal immigration, counter-terrorism, energy security, the Israel-Palestinian conflict and would provide another forum where Israel and its Arab neighbours could participate together. Sarkozy has said that he wants the countries that border on the Mediterranean to form a council and hold regular summit meetings under a rotating presidency and envisions it as being a bridge between Europe and the Muslim world.

While some countries have expressed guarded to full support for the proposal, Turkey has balked as it sees it as nothing more than a mechanism to keep Turkey out of the EU. This fear is not misplaced as keeping the EU closed to Turkey was part of Sarkozy’s campaign platform. In fact, Sarkozy has argued in the past that Turkey has always been part of Asia Minor and not Europe. Having appointed Bernard Kouchner as Foreign Minister, it was thought that the move could signal a change to his well known opposition to Turkey’s entry to the EU. That possibility now seems more remote, since Sarkozy sees the MU as a viable alternative to Turkish membership in the EU.
Sarkozy sees the MU working closely with the EU, eventually forming joint institutions, even as the organizations remain separate and distinct entities. His proposal could be seen as a follow-up of the EU sponsored Barcelona process which sought to bring 12 Mediterranean countries into a free-trade zone by 2010. This Barcelona initiative is currently the only forum where “Israel and Arab countries sit around the same table.”

The proposed Mediterranean Union obviously invokes several related issues, such as the limits of EU enlargement, current EU priorities, the potential Turkish accession to the EU and all issues related to migration to and within the European borders. As mentioned, Sarkozy views the European Union as strictly geographically limited and often seems to allude to the cultural and religious integrity of Europe. Following this logic he opposes Turkish membership to the EU and proposes the MU as a consolation price…

Whatever the reasons may be for limiting the EU geographically & culturally, the question remains how setting up an alternative (partially overlapping) union would benefit the parties involved. In practice the MU would be strictly economic in nature and serve as an additional talking-shop in order to discuss & tackle above-mentioned issues. This implies very clearly that the EU will differ from the MU in that it will be striving for more political union and a common European culture and that free movement and open borders within the MU will never be taken into consideration.

Assuming that the Mediterranean Union becomes reality, it is tempting to sketch a few broad lines of the likely implications for both institutions further down the line:

Following the instauration of the MU, it will be nearly inevitable for the EU to adopt a clear stance on its further enlargement and a clear limit will be agreed upon (based on geographical and cultural borders). In addition the EU is likely to embark on a large scale effort to actively promote the notion and existence of a common European Culture making references to religious roots and imagined commonalities between all member states.

The MU on the other hand will be relegated to the economic sphere, where economic policies, trade liberalisation and other agreements will be dictated by the EU (since nearly a majority of its members will be Southern European Member States). Whereas this may favour economic prosperity for all its members, the members of the MU will not enjoy free movement across the union.

The MU therefore will fail to address one of Europe’s most pressing issues: the “greying” of its workforce. Since there are only three options to address this issue, abandoning 1 of them seems rather short-sighted, especially considering that “immigration” is the most logical one. (Having more babies seems rather counterproductive in a world with an exponential population growth & working longer – until the age of 77 some experts whisper – will not go down as the most popular policy decision.)

Furthermore, whereas the MU may be a bridge between the EU and the Muslim World, it will never carry the symbolic importance of accepting a predominantly Muslim nation within the EU. If anything it could widen the gap and feed the existing frustration.

Ever since the 1st of June 2005, European bureaucrats have been trying to put the “European Constitution” back on track. In this they partially succeeded and, with Merkel’s Germany in Europe’s driving seat, managed to convince the German Presidency of the European Council to make the “European Constitution” a priority. Chancellor Angela Merkel kept her word and German efficiency eventually culminated in: the “Reform Treaty”.

The “Reform Treaty” is veiled in mystery and nobody seems to agree on whether it is a positive or negative development in the continuing “Constitutional Treaty” saga… Actually, nobody seems to know what it is… Poul Nyrup Rasmussen MEP, President of the Party of European Socialists and former Danish Prime Minister, said that if one had never seen the Constitutional Treaty, one would regard the summit outcome as positive…

…Right…

The European Constitution in all but name?

The Reform Treaty would keep most of the institutional innovations, such as a permanent EU president, a “foreign minister”, the same distribution of parliamentary seats, a reduced number of commissioners, a clause on withdrawal from the EU and a full legal personality allowing it to sign international agreements. On the other hand, it would drop state-like features such as the name “constitution”, as well as a reference to EU symbols.

So is it the EU constitution in all but name? Not quite…
The Treaty is likely to provide countries with a chance to opt out of EU policies in the area of police and criminal law. Furthermore, whereas the fact that the Charter of Fundamental Rights would be legally binding has been broadly welcomed, many regretted the UK opt out.

As mentioned during the State of the Union debate at the EPC, the opt out possibility on many important issues would not necessarily result in a “two-speed Europe”, but invokes the possibility that there would be a centre of gravity, with ‘core’ members participating in all key common policies and varying groups of countries involved in only some of them.

What happened… is that the “Constitutional Treaty” became the “Reform Treaty”… On the 23rd of July 2007 EU mandarins will then study the “Reform Treaty” to subsequently use it as a base for another draft document with another name, which will then be put up for ratification by all 27 member states…

That’s what happened.

When was it ever in retreat?

According to a recent article in the June edition of the German Times “Political liberalism is unimaginable without a strong state. Without it there is no free government under law, no secure market economy, no functioning democracy and no effective welfare state.” Stephan Leibfried, the author, goes on to argue the case for a stronger state against what he perceives as the increasingly prevailing anti-state rhetoric of the past four centuries.

This view, that the state has steadily been handing over or loosing sovereignty to those forces emphasising the market economy and reducing the role of the state is as mistaken as the view held by the anti-globalisation movement that is calling for an end to free trade. Just like it would be impossible to put an end to free trade because free trade never existed, it would be impossible to welcome the return of the state, when in fact the state never lost its clout, never mind left the global stage.

More than ever the state is able to control its citizens and all important decision-making processes. It decides on your education, your rights & duties and chooses between peace and war. The state controls all money flow, levels of taxation, interest rates, etc… Companies are obliged to follow strict employment laws and are taxed by state. In return companies and citizens enjoy an infrastructure & security provided by the state as well as a healthy and educated citizenry (obviously all the points mentioned above vary in importance & implementation from state to state).

This is not to say, however, that the argument on the degree of power concentration in the state is a redundant one. Far from it… It needs to be phrased & approached differently though. Whereas there has been a lot of talk over the years about reducing state influence on economic & financial affairs in order to promote free trade, and despite the fact that some powers, traditionally inherent to the state, have been transferred to international and regional bodies, the state-system remains the dominant framework through which all economic, social and political matters are approached and dealt with. If, as stated by Stephan Leibfried, the “anti-state mentality is fading in Europe and Germany”, it is less as a consequence of the realisation that the state system is the most desirable than the fact that many anti-state advocates are capitulating in the face of overwhelming opposition, deciding to adapt to the existing system rather than forcing change.

The reason the state-system is so strongly anchored in today’s world is because political and national elites worldwide depend on it. On the other hand globalisation has become inevitable, following the ascendance of the internet, telecommunications & the increased efficiency of global transport. The state-system has many powerful adherents and enjoys broad support in its attempts to bring globalisation under control within the existing framework.

But one should not underestimate the effects of globalisation resulting in increasingly mobile capital evading national taxation, global trade, migration, multi-level decision-making and pressing global environmental issues as well as poverty. As it stands, all these issues are dealt with on an international rather than supra-national level, meaning that states attempt to tackle them in a concerted effort of goodwill.

Obviously, to drastically reduce the state without replacing it by an alternative system of governance would be utterly destructive. Individuals, societies & companies all rely on the current system to provide protection, democratic legitimacy and the rule of law. Nothing, however, suggests that the state-system is the only system capable of providing free government, the rule of law, a secure market economy, a functioning democracy and social security. If anything, globalisation has made it harder for the state to uphold these indispensable institutions effectively.

Perhaps contemplating a shake-up of the current world system in favour of a framework capable of dealing with trans-national issues from a global perspective is not such a bad idea after all. Abandoning the state system does not have to mean sacrificing the ideals of liberal democracy & economy.