Pride comes before a failure

The "story" of the Green Party annual convention that took place in Dundalk, co. Louth last weekend was undoubtedly John Gormley's clear message to the Chinese government (via the intermediary of the Chinese ambassador, conveniently seated in the audience) re. Tibet, during his leader's address on the saturday evening. Those words once again:

“Respect for human rights must extend to all cultures and countries. One country which has been exploited and suppressed and suffered for far too long is Tibet. We condemn unequivocally the flagrant abuse of human rights by the Chinese government and call on the Chinese government to enter dialogue with the Dalai Lama.”

Following this statement, the ambassador and his little team of diplomats, were no longer sitting in their seats. Cameras flashed, champions of Freedom and Human Rights everywhere cheered, and a buzz filled the room which didn't dissipate until well into sunday afternoon.

I wouldn't describe myself as a contrarian, by occupation, I think it's fair to say I've no objections to towing the party line, when it's a line I can stand by. No doubt it would be cynical and harsh to describe our esteemed leader as merely jumping on the china-bashing bandwagon, I'm sure John's sentiments were genuine and that his intensions were golden. But his words and especially the reaction that followed, left me feeling distinctly uneasy. And perhaps for that reason I began to search for another side to a debate that, so far, I feel has been extremely one-sided.

And as it turns out, one can ask questions about the Tibetan campaign and not be a fascist: http://organizedrage.blogspot.com/2008/04/tibet-china-and-west-so-many-questions.html

I have to say I wasn't particularaly impressed or filled with pride by what was effectively an orchestrated publicity stunt. And a rather crude one at that. It's not news, it's not a message that's being suppressed, in the media or political spheres, by any stretch of the imagination, so I fail to see the element of bravery involved.

But I was even less impressed with the jeers, with the name-calling and the self-congratulatory pats on the back all round that many indulged in, in the aftermath. But this was my first "grown-up" party convention, so perhaps that's what goes on at these kinds of things. The herd-mentality kicks in, it's a bit like supporting your home team at a football match, this is just the way in whcih we identify ourselves, by our political convictions, but it's just as basic in many ways. Unfortunately.

It's an unfortunate coincidence perhaps, that the day after the convention ended it was reported on the BBC news that China had just overtaken the US as the world's number 1 polluter. In fairness to the BBC, they did of course report the fineprint - that carbon consumption per head is a fraction of what it is in the West, and living standards for the vast majority of Chinese still lag far behind. Speaking of inconvenient truths...

The Free Tibet campaign has exploded over the past few months, gaining increasing momentum with the approach of the Olympics. Understandably, if there was ever a time to take to the streets in support of Tibet, now is it, when everybody's watching and the profile of the dispute and the plight of Tibet & the Dalai Lama is sky high.

I'm not saying that Tibetans don't have legitimate and very serious grievances, I'm just wary of the fact that the cause seems to have been latched onto by a whole new group, at a time of particular political and economic significance. And perhaps it serves their cause, but it also undermines it. Sympathy with Tibet shouldn't necessarily mean anti-Chinese feeling or Sinophobia, but they're in danger of becoming two sides of the same coin.

Chinese imperialism and the oppression of minorities are one thing (that I'm by no means defending), but when it comes to countries in the West ganging up to take pot shots at China, it seems to me that there's another kind of power-game going on here at the same time, a kind of bullying on an even larger scale, a reaction to the fact that China seems to have pretensions in terms of acquiring super-power status, and needs to be kept in check. But perhaps these relations of domination are benign, because the West is in the right - it systematically supports human rights and claims to independant sovereignty, after all. No vested interests there then.

No doubt this is hardly how the Chinese see it, but then what would they know, they're just being fed a load of propaganda.

Clearly we think we can afford to trample on our diplomatic relations with China. To throw stones and ostracise them, to be uncompromising. But how is that going to serve our purposes, exactly, when they subsequently refuse to engage with the rest in dialogue about say - the environment, let alone Human Rights or Tibetan independance. How does it help the state of the world to make the Chinese - politicians, youth, and the general population - feel isolated, under attack and discriminated against? From someone who has just returned from China, I'm told of the fierce anti-Western feeling, the anger among many, and it makes my blood run cold.

I don't think one can overestimate just how dangerous it is for Europeans and Westerners to boil the issue down to demonising China. I think in the long-run this can only lead to very serious intractable problems and fractures. So why on earth have we begun digging another rift?

Is there really so much of a consensus in the world that we need to go out of our way to alienate and ostracise vaste sections of the population? I think the Greens especially, who desperately want a breakthrough when it comes to global environmental policy, have administered a real shot in the foot here, and demonstrated a remarkable lack of tact, sensitivity or foresight.

Aren't there other means of negociation and pressure rather than calculated insults? Isn't the only chance for global co-operation necessarily about compromise and finding common ground, about respect, rather than launching attacks and making demands, just for the sake of a round of applause?

The Battle for Europe

I have now accumulated a huge backlog of various bits and pieces I wanted to write about, and I shall do my best to try to get somewhat up to date and be as chronological as I can about it, although no doubt some synthesis will be necessary, and some things are not so fresh in my mind as they were.

First, here are my updated and slightly more thought out views on the question of the Lisbon Treaty and its little friend the Irish referendum. The ad hoc patched-together little piece below turned out to be only the first foray into a long process of searching, questioning and discovery on the subject of the Treaty and its real meaning and wider political implications. The regrets and the ensuing legitimacy crisis that it sparked in the aftermath of the Convention the Irish Greens held on the Treaty, although with a vengeance, were qualified in the end by my admission that that "speech", although containing elements of sincerity and earnest conviction, was an over-simplified parody and I was right to second-guess it (although perhaps not right enough to warrant full justification for my inaction, such as it was). Its considerations in no way do justice to those who've read the Treaty in its entirety, who've made efforts to uncover its full meaning, intentions and detail, against the odds, or who've agonised over which way to vote, due to conflicts of interest that touch the very core of their ideological convictions.

It's a debate that has rattled on and on, and will no doubt continue to do so up until the referendum, and probably well beyond. It's been inescapable. On television, in the papers, among the Greens, on the radio, in my university lecture halls and its debating chambers... and each time I've issued a "statement" on the matter, I've been determined to draw a line under it but that's just not been possible. So much debate and so many views heard has not left me indifferent. I've been through phases of euro-phoria, euro-scepticism, euro-phobia, and euro-indifference and I've emerged the other side with a far better understanding of why people might feel nthe way they do about Europe, and why people who I feel should be pro-Europe, might not be, for reasons that aren't just down to national pride and/or ignorance, as I always previously believed. And this hasn't just taught me more about people's attitudes to Europe, but also about where my own political loyalties lie, fundamentally. I am above all a Socialist and Green, I have definite extremist tendancies when it comes to the former, but I am also above all a Europhile. Although when I say I've been brainwashed by the Brussels Eurocratic establishment it's only half serious, I do feel very strongly that people's political beliefs are conditioned by their environment. When it comes to my immediate surroundings, I always suppsed we were pro-Europe because we came to Brussels, but perhaps we came to Brussels because we are pro-Europe. In any case, the fact remains. I am a passionate beleiver in the potential of Europe, its as yet under-exploited capacity to be a progressive force, politically, socially and ecologically. And I think that just because it hasn't lived up to the Left's expections on this account (although there is certainly much worth commending it for), doesn't mean it can't.

Many people I fervently admire would disagree with me on this point, and would argue that it's not good enough, that it's too much of a compromise, and a bitter pill. (That said, given how well the Greens have shown they can take pills of that kind when it comes to national government, one wonders at their incapacity to do the same when it comes to Europe, but this isn't the case for everybody.) But who I'm really thinking of here is my newfound ideological leader, the trotskyist postman Olivier Besancenot, leader of the Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire, a fledgling party with the audacity to flaunt its slogan "100% a gauche" and yet still managed to score almost 5% in the first round of the French Presidential elections (and if that sounds meagre, just remember that he regards himself as Communist revolutionnary - these aren't words we hear in politics anymore.)

I had the good fortune of hearing Mr Besancenot's views on the Treaty when I was home in Belgium earlier in the Spring. Of, course, it took a secnd viewing to let it all sink in. Besancenot is hardly like other politicians who speak slowly and in nice short words to hammer their message across (cf. Segolene's bathbook discoure or Le Pen's inflammatory demagogie), he talks about incredibly complex political things at a very high velocity and I find him very difficult to keep up with.

He's a wit too. When asked if he would be attending Sarkozy's wedding, he retorted: "Je ne serais ni a son marriage ni a l'enterrement de l'Europe sociale-democratique pour laquelle on se bat"
When it comes to his reasons for placing himself firmly in the no-camp, his assertions are fiery, forceful and biting. He explains the previous no-vote to the Constitution by the fact that Europe was back then and still is -
"L'Europe de plus en plus discreditée dans le quotidien de millions de personnes, parce qu'elle correspond a des licenciements, a la precarité, a du chomage et a des services publiques qui sont cassés."

By voting no, the extreme left can dissociate itself from the consequences of all the directives to come. So then at least, those who resist, "qui sont en bas", can say Not in Our Name, nor is it legitimate (but a fat lot of good that does them).

And make no mistake, those of us who are apologists for the EU as it currently stands are deluding ourselves. This Europe we see today is -
"L'europe du movement des services, de la monnaie unique, de Schengen, la forteresse, et l'Europe sociale elle vient jamais"

This disillusionment has long since been taken as a reality check for people like Besancenot. We have been waiting too long to see the kind of Europe we wish for to begin to take shape, and Besancenot like many has now been permeated by the sense that it will never arrive. As one of the deluded, I am of course willing to give the EU the benefit of the doubt, another chance, to wait a little longer. Those who are critical, unrelentingly so, who believe that we should make the eurocrats squirm at every opportunity - are led to be so by loyalties that I confess do not override my apologism. When the eurocrats squirm, I squirm along with them. And although it sounds ridiculous, I can't apologise for being an apologist for them and the whole European Project.

Sometimes he makes me angry, along with the other no-voting greens and lefties. Their intransigence, they do not feel the way to win is to compromise, the way to win is to stick to the hard & fast line and not give an inch - but since when is that politics? "Compromise" is essential and always has been, but for the extreme green/left, the prespect seems to be a fate worse than death.

But you don't have to listen to Besancenot for very long to realise that he isn't the kind of lefty who opens arms towards the centre, who panders to the right like the mainstream socialists in attempt to maximise voting score. "Je me bats pour que nos idees soient de plus en plus majoritaires" - OUR ideas. Essentially Besancenot is in politics to get more people to agree with him. Not to obtain power by satisfying as many people as possible, even if it means distorting his ideas out of shape. For this reason, he will no doubt always remain a marginal figure. Because let's face it, a lot of people are never going to vote Left, let alone extreme left.
Besancenot seems confident that a shift is taking place however. Largely because "La politique de sarkozy, elle exaspere." and this is provoking "un changement profond dans la societé", "une radicalisation" no less, and "un engagement nouveau".

He is completely open about this ideological immobility and his ambitions, "Moi mes idees j'ai envie qu'elles gouvernent" and yet he himself admits to not quite knowing what this non-capitalist, non-market economy society would look like exactly, but wants to bring as many people together in support of the prospect, to imagine it.

But returning to Lisbon from that little detour into the more general politics of Besancenot, what I am incresingly coming to understand is the sense from the people in these camps that we need to start completely over - that the Europe we want CANNOT be reached from this path, forged from this mold, that we need to trash the whole thing and start to build again on diferent foundations rather than chipping away it to make it more pallatable, more suited to our interests and values and convictions.

When it comes to deconstructing gut feelings and motivations, it goes without saying that we follow our convictions, and speak/vote/believe in ways that are in accordance with them, complex and multi-facetted as they may be (and sometimes in conflict - cases of cognitive dissonance I believe is the term in social psychology). Thus, Olivier Besancenot will vote no because he is extreeeeme left, many greens will vote no because they are foremost green, my own mixture of socialism/extreme leftism/green fervour is diluted by an overarching sense of faith and beleif in Europe (as an inherently positive phenomenon), in moving the European project forward even if we're not 100% sure it's the right direction because it's preferable to moving it backwards or paralysing it completely, which effectively come to the same thing.

Gunning for the YES

At the Green Party's Special Convention on the Lisbon Treaty tomorrow, I won't be speaking, in fact I'm not even certain I'll be voting. However, if I were going to take the floor for 3 minutes, I would probably say something along these lines...

First, I want to begin by reminding you how Europe has evolved. A look at its trajectory, over 5 decades, from Paris to Maastricht, from 6 nations to 27 and counting, from its initial narrow economic focus (on coal & steel sectors) to legislation spanning areas from the environment, to human rights & international law - is cause for enormous optimism. It proves that when considering the development of Europe, nothing should be ruled out, but also that we should not look to the past for inspiration of what the European project is about, but rather ahead, we are shaping it now, as we move forward.

The Greens have a place, unlike any other group, in this new order, and a responsibility that goes with it. As a modern & progressive party, it has attained a level of co-operation and united status between the Greens parties across europe, far & beyond any other party. This is why Europe is a forum where the Greens come into their own, where they can be empowered, engage in dialogue, and promote the values of tolerance and collaboration by leading by example.

We cannot retreat into our own national political universes anymore, shut the rest of the world out, talking about "sovereignty" as if this were something inherently good - it is only ever important and meaningful when a nation is under threat. The EU is not a threat but a vehicle for progress, for the diffusion of values, and the echange of information. Furthermore, EU & state are not mutually exclusive, the EU was never intended to replace it, rather to complement it, to exist in parallel, as a forum for debate & cooperation, common regulation of areas that NEED to be regulated centrally (refer to the many progressive environmental that policies began in the EU).

That is not to say that there are no aspects of the EU that are not entirely benign. The move towards social europe hasnt happened yet, but as mentioned above, nothing should be ruled out. We've seen pan-european social mobilisation and strikes - the advent of "europrotestations" and pan-european workers rights movements. We've seen huge progress in development, integration, and the free movement of peoples. National boundaries are not so impermeable as they might one have been, and this is a fundamnetal reason behind the need for supranational regulation & CONSENSUS on these important issues with which we are all confronted, and cannot effectively deal with in isolation, such as migration and environmental degradation.

We need a different kind of europe, but let's not allow that to make us lose sight of the fact that we want & need Europe.To give europe the political weigth to make a real difference, to influence, to be a leader, we need to steer it in the right course, and this can only be done through a democratic process of consulation, of dialogue, in the words of Senator Deirde De Burca, of "critical engagement". One of the formal institutional measures towards this end provided in the treaty, is the attribution of more power to the Parliament, which allows citizens to vote directly in European elections - crucial to resolving the democratic deficit and promoting a sense of European identity & awareness. We need to encourage the taking of measures to enable people to engage, necessary for the process to be democratic.

The original aim of the constitutional treaty was an attempt to simplify Europe, to make it more comprehensible to the citizens of Europe, to frame its policies in a comprehensive & clarified system. Beyond this, it recognises the crucial element of fundamnetal rights - the charter will gain binding legal status, giving much-needed substance to this framework for citizenship. Yes it is too weak (the result of compromise upon compromise) incomplete and imperfect, but nevertheless part of a process that gives us cause for enormous optimism. Let's be clear, it is NOT a solution, but it is a step.

Europe is a political process which is unfolding day by day, progressing by trial & error, and we must to hold those driving the process forwards accountable at every step & make demands, this is essential to the democratic process, and for establishing conditons under which a meaningful european citizenship can emerge.

A European consensus, deveoping alongside a rapprochement of nations & the integration of its peoples, must be rooted in a spirit of tolerance & co-operation, ever broadening in reach & scope. Co-operation is difficult to acheive, but it is not constructive to obstruct it, and we should remember the symbolic aspect of a vote on such an unprecedented european-wide document, in its implications for European unity & integration, both now & in the future. Clearly, it is difficult enough to come to a europe-wide consensus given the diversity of opinion - without protest votes in national referendums, where far-right and far-left both perversely vote the same way for vastly different reasons - which certainly does not send a clear or useful message to the creators of this document, and the leaders of Europe.

Therefore I implore you, do not allow your reservations on individual clauses of this reform treaty that is perhaps merely an attemp on behalf of europoliticians to save face, put the crisis behind them and move forwards, to make you lose sight of the greater picture, and the challenges & difficulties ahead, please don't vote no to europe.

Recall Caroline Lucas's wise spanish proverb: "there is no path, paths are made by walking." We must fashion our own, in our name and in the name of our convictions, but first we must be brave enough to take that step.