All JEF wants for Christmas is a Superstate

So it's 2009 now, and that can only mean one thing - the year of intercultural dialogue is finally over (or "just words" to quote my esteemed mentor Dr. Finlay) , giving way to the even more inspiring Year of Creativity and Innovation. Yeah. Think I might sit this one out if it's all the same to you. But of course, if innovation isn't really your thing, there's always the European Parliament Elections to look forward to. All politicos of all walks of life are by now gripped by European election fever. None more so than the Young European Federalists (JEF), a pan-European organisation of young euro-enthusiasts, not politically affiliated but sharing the same dream of the establishment of a European Federation.

Last june I campaigned alongside JEF in the campaign for the YES side in the vote on the Lisbon Treaty, in Ireland. At the time I felt their position of taking European integration all the way towards an inevitable federalist conclusion was perfectly in line with my own views. The fact that they were participants in a campaign run by the governing party in Ireland, Fianna Fail, an unpleasant bunch of conservative right-wing nationalists, didn't even trouble me too much at the time, since I felt we were at least all campaigning for the same result, albeit perhaps with different motivations.

Now JEF have launched their campaign "It's time for change, it's time for Europe", not with a view to getting any particular candidates elected, but rather with the aim of encouraging all elected candidates to support a series of proposals, contained in their Manifesto. Reading through their list of demands, a number of things sound alarm bells in my mind, which I'll go through briefly...

The demands on JEF's Christmas list...

"A European Economic Policy for ensuring growth, employment and sustainable
development, in particular to benefit young people;"

One could question the wisdom of establishing a common economic policy given that a one-size-fits-all model for an area with such political and structural disparities as Europe can hardly be appropriate just yet. In my opinion, development needs to come first. This is acheived by way of concrete initiatives that target areas of weakness, for example improving transport networks, or weeding out corruption. The EU has acheived its best results when focusing on acheiving specific objectives at regional level, keeping local concerns and circimstances in mind. Cf. Ireland over the past 10 years. A broadbrush single economic policy would surely be massively ineffectual in comparison.

"A European Energy and Environmental Agency for ensuring global leadership in the battle against climate change and managing a European Energy Reserve to guarantee a strategic independence of the EU;"

Shame about the second half, I'm all for the first bit. The words "strategic independence" disturb me first for their unattainable pretensions and also because they mirror exactly what the US is attempting to do by drilling to the earth's core. The idea of a European Union that is constructed with "strategic" ends in mind makes me distinctly uneasy. By all means let's work together to try to find solutions, but it's not as if we live in a world where we can cordon ourselves off anymore, though this is, unfortunately, so often what the EU has tried to do.

"A Solidarity Clause to ensure Member States protection against terrorism and natural catastrophes;"

Solidarity... but only within Europe. And enforced solidarity, since if it is written into EU law, not respecting such obligations would surely lead to sanctions of some kind. This one really sums up the idea of a united Europe that exists to preserve itself, its position in the world order, and to secure benefits for European citizens.

"European Blue Helmets enabling the EU to contribute to peace-keeping in the world in the framework of a real European security and defence policy;"

As if the UN Blue Helmets weren't responsible for enough chaos and human rights violations, as it is. Do we really want to expand on a formula that has proven to be so fraught with abuses? And I can only imagine and shudder at what a "real European security and defence policy" would mean, but with Russia and USA playing missile chicken with one another already, I doubt the assertion of a European defence policy would be much of a force for constructive progress in the whole equation.

"A Citizens’ Right of Initiative in order to listen to the voice of European citizens;"

A good idea. Just need to iron out some of the more fundamental details, like ensuring citizens would be aware of such a right and how to instrumentalise it, and to avoid the privelege being abused by other actors, such as lobbyists or companies, as happens all the time with the European Court of Justice.

"A European Civilian Service to promote EU citizenship among young people;"

So we can indoctrinate European youth with a strong sense of pride and belonging to the glorious motherland Europa? This one's just scary...

"European symbols to be officially recognised by all European institutions."

Fatuous, really. Besides, worrying about symbols is the first step towards shooting people who spit on flags. And then we really are going backwards.

Oh JEF! And yet so much of what is written in their mission statement I could not agree more with.
Why then have they produced such a list of demands that so plainly betrays the uglier side of their ambitions - the irony of substituting one kind of nationalism for another.

I suppose my views have undergone a significant amount of transformation over the past few years, especially thanks to the debates around Lisbon, where I was exposed to considerable intelligent and pertinent criticisms of the EU.
It didn't take me long to recognise the unsophisticated crudeness of the US "hard power" = BAD, EU "soft power" = Good dichotomy, as laid out in Mark Leonard's book (Why Europe will run the 21st Century). Whereas in The European Dream, Jeremy Rifkin managed to approach the issue with far more subtlety whilst still retaining a positive slant on the EU.

I still have that positive view overall, even though I now feel a cynical twinge whenever I hear of EU initiatives, especially where youth are concerned. That's down to my experience over the past few months, as a failed EVS volunteer, though not for want of trying. Much more then debates and hearing all sides of the argument, it is hard evidence, in the form of personal experience, that shapes one's held views, it seems to me.

I think the main danger of the supranational organisation which the EU institutions engage in, is the machinistic approach where procedures are followed blindly and to the letter, which brings with it a complete disregard for the nature of specific cases, communities or individuals being dealt with.

The things I dislike most about the EU - the incomprehensible Eurojargon, the ruthless and inhumane immigration policies which have earned the continent the title of "Fortress Europe", the famous democratic deficit... are all symptons of the failure of this approach - based on an obsession with procedures. This in itself may be well-intentioned, but it is accompanied by a more sinister undercurrent of inbuilt xenophobia, a desire to keep out that which may threaten the security and prosperity of European citizens.

The EU is guilty of strangling itself with the unending red tape tentacles of an immense bureacratic machine, where responsability is shifted up and down the line until everyone completely loses sight of everything and general confusion prevails.

Having been on the receiving end of such treatment throughout this past autumn, I am well aware of how frustrating it can be. When I and my co-volunteers wrote a letter condemning this treatment and testifying to our experiences here, of being continuously overlooked and never listened to, the response was fitting - a brief note from a Commission robot thanking us for our time and telling us absolutely nothing.

It may seem a sad way to begin the new year - in such a state of disillusionment and loss of faith. But for the same reason I am no longer member of a political party, I don't want to toe the European line either. Instead of being stuck in the compromising position of being obliged to turn a blind eye to the mistakes and flaws of any one group, or being gagged when it comes to criticising one's "own side" - for now I am happy to remain on the outside, to applaud the successes where they occur, as well as to condemn and denounce, where it is warranted, without reserve or hesitation.

Nothing like a bit of sacrilege at Christmas

Maybe it's a sign of progress that I haven't felt sufficiently sure of my opinions over the past few months to feel comfortable setting them out in written article format and broadcasting them to anyone who'll read.

Indeed, the last half of 2008 was a period of rethinking some of my established views, such as my staunchly europhile position, but that will be for another entry, but also re-evaluating myself, to a certain extent. New context - new light. These things take up time, energy and mind-space, it turns out.

But the blogging I did before was useful, as a means of processing the immense amount of information around me, the various discourses shovelled around by the media and politicians, trying to keep a critical eye on matters and explore some of the current questions which drew my attention and provoked me to ponder. This is why I'd like to make the effort to re-activate and sustain this blog, in order to keep a record of some of the themes we've been dealing here at the Circolo Culturale Africa, in Ancona, where I'm currently working.

But first - to begin with something more light-hearted, than talk of detention centres and racially-aggravated murders.

This christmas was dominated by a great controversy the likes of which has not been seen this side of the 20th century. No, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the great Hallelujah debacle of '08.

For those who may not be aware (that is, anyone living outside of the UK or Ireland), for the past 5 or so years now the christmas number 1 in the UK pop charts has been hijacked by the annual winner of a music "talent" programme called the X-factor.

The final show is timed in just such a way that immediately after the winner is chosen, the new record is released and crateloads of copies are shipped into every highstreet music/book/media shop, strategically placed near all the check-outs, with row upon row stacked in the shop windows, so that enough people will buy it in order to get the lucky winner to number one, for christmas. Cynical, I know. This sort of shameless commodification of dreams can be tolerated for one year, but by now the routine is beginning to get tiresome.

Subsequently, the winner is never heard of again, with one exception - Leona Lewis, who appears to be rather good at milking her 15 minutes of fame for all they're worth and thus hasn't quite sunken into obscurity just yet. Unfortunately.

Anyway, this year the song released by the incumbent winner, Alexandra Burke, is the controversial choice of Hallelujah, first written and recorded by Leonard Cohen somewhere back in the 80s, and has been covered and re-covered umpteen times since in a myriad of different styles.

Cue outrage and indignation from music aficionados everwhere, especially Jeff Buckley fans who launched a reactionary campaign to try to get his version to number 1. Unfortunately, it came runner-up to the X-factor version, at number 2. While Cohen's original lagged behind, way down in the 30s somewhere. Probably because the only thing that version has going for it is the fact that it is the original.

Others who've recorded the song include Rufus wainwright, Allison Kraus, K.D. Lang, John Cale, Imogen Heap, etc.

It's almost too banal to call Buckley's my favourite, because that seems to be the general consensus. At least listening to it again brought me to discover Buckley's album, Grace. Which contains some stuff that borders on being too complex and heartfelt to be listened to at all. "Lover you should've come over" is a gem, mainly for its entrancing and raw nerve lyrics. All very understated. I would recommend.

I have to say I'm also a big fan of the Imogen Heap version, because its so melancholic, and not too polished or sing-songy. Although I felt it was used very inappropriately in that final episode of the O.C. as Mischa Barton lay dying in a pool of blood on the tarmac (Clearly THAT was the moment to use "Forever Young"). As is my beloved who insisted on listening to it on loop for a week after selecting it as his favourite from a choice of 3 - hers, Buckley's, or k.d. Lang's, which is nice but, well, just nice.

But you're not meant to listen to it too often because it's a "classic", apparently. In any case, Buckley's can be listened to forever, whereas Alexandra's I couldn't stick even till the end of the first play. I think it had something to do with the fact that she herself alledgedly confessed to not being too keen on the song. I wouldn't like to think of myself as a pretentious music appreciator but there are some things even I cannot accept.

Money-spinning exploitation of young & innocent/stupid talent aside though, nothing was quite so annoying as hearing Fearne Cotton repeatedly pronouncing the word without its first letter - 'Allelujah, while the chart was announced. Now there is a massacre.

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.

Benazir

It's not the for first time, in this blog, that I will have mentioned Benazir Bhutto. My discussion of the Iraq War's 4th birthday all too briefly refers to her contributions on Question Time, insights which that day marked her out to me as one of these beacons of common sense and tolerance amidst the chaos. Since then I vaguely followed her tumultuous trajectory back into the heart of Pakistani politics. With admiration and not as much understanding as might have been warranted.

But now I'm becoming self-conscious. The media's description of her as a "westernised" politician makes me feel that maybe she appealed to me because she was essentially "one of us" and shared in "our" values. But responding to the argument that human rights and democracy are in some way specific to the West, in origin or application, will have to be saved for another day. For now, suffice to say the there is as much fundamentalism in the West as in the East, it is just as threatening to human rights and civil liberties, and just as condemnable.

What I failed to understand, essentially, is why she would have put herself at such grave risk, didn't she realise that the life of an academic, a commentator - would be far more cushy and lucrative, and far more likely to extend her life? But of course, she is one of these who could have been no other way. Put in context, her own, which is not the docile panel of disgruntled, ageing writers and armchair politicians & salon socialists alongside whom she sat last spring, it all makes much more sense.

That we are conditioned by our surroundings and our families should not undermine her courage nor her acheivements. Whatever can be said about being born into a certain life, part of a certain dynasty that shapes one's destiny, Bhutto clearly went a step further. That she now joins her father and brothers, who also suffered brutal deaths, was by no means a fait accompli. Though the convictions that cement our education, and the struggles of those close to us no doubt condition to some extent our conception of the world and of what constitutes reasonable sacrifice and risk for a worthy cause, no-one is born with the capacity nor the courage to defy the fear and the very prospect of death itself. Such defiance & resistance, in the face of extreme and inescapable danger cannot be simply attribted to an inevitable personal trajectory along pre-traced lines. Rather, it testifies to a kind of abandoned devotion and disregard for personal safety & interest, spurred by belief in a greater purpose so commanding and so intense that it simply cannot be ignored.

Ten today

I've already remarked on 2007's lack of an inspiring overarching theme, in comparison to say - worker mobility in 2006 which inspired a project on the topic, and inter-cultural dialogue in 2008 which may or may not inspire a young greens campaign.

The most significant thing about 2007, and definitely worthy of note and celebration if not political activism - is that it marks the 10th anniversary of 1997. No particular event that occured in 1997, just the year itself.

Anybody who's read Pete Burns autobiography (which I won't go so far as to recommend but rather will sympathise with anybody whose intrigue and curiosity wouldn't let them avoid it) will no doubt have endured his scattery account of "the formative years" in terms of popular culture, and because it's the holidays, I thought I'd go in for some similiar self-indulgence.

1997 was the year, for me. The one where you suddenly become exposed, to the stuff that comes to symbolise the pop culture of your generation. Also the one where you become turned onto politics, and current affairs. Admittedly, '97 was no '89, nor indeed was it any '01, but because of its particular timing and significance for me, everything seemed historical & momentous. It was a sudden & overwhelming rush of information, and it seems now, at least to me, that there never was nor will be a time quite like it, quite so colourful, so unprecedented, so revolutionary. As if nothing will ever be so incredibly important ever again.

To avoid an agonising Pete Burns-esque stream of consciousness, I'll take ten items from popular culture, in no particular order, in the name of memory-refreshment...

1. 
   American Beauty (MAJOR. The kind of thing that makes such a huge impact you spend the next 3 days constantly thinking about it, and mentally replaying it, to the point where it interferes with social interaction and keeps you awake at night. Very rarely, if ever, do films affect me so much anymore)
2. The Spice Girls (my debut in the reception of popular music basically consisted of a head-on collision with the Spice Girls, and is the reason why I can't be cynical about their reunion like those sneering 30-40 somethings)
3. Teletubbies (generally I either watch children's television with delight or horror, the the combination of the two stirred by the teletubbies was something I've really yet to come to terms with)
4. LA confidential cleaned up at the oscars, and I of course was not allowed to see it. Nor indeed was I allowed to watch Jurassic Park, which also caused a sensation that year, being as it was, on the cutting edge of computer-animated dinosaur technology.
5. Hanson (the novelty of androgenous children singing incomprehensible things blew my mind at the time, and all the therapy since hasn't helped to lessen the mental impact)
6. Blood on the dancefloor & Stranger in Moscow (two of the greatest and most-underrated songs in Michael Jackson's repertoire, & the latter, admittedly perhaps from late '96, featuring on the seminal HIStory album, I still go around proclaiming to be my favourite song of all time)7. Indie genius (Oasis - dyou know what I mean, Verve - Bittersweet symphony)
7. Gala (my initiation in skanky dance music began with the finest in euro-trash)
8. Boybands (BSB's first comeback, Gary Barlow - I may have missed the Take That generation, but at least i still caught the barlow bandwagon, brief as it was)
9. Titanic (when a generation of pre-teen girls fell hopelessly in love with leonardo dicaprio. in my case, it bordered on obsession, and one which it pains me to say im still battling today)

Other items of perhaps more far-reaching significance include, of course, the advent of new labour, Tony Blair leading the labour party to victory with a landslide result, putting an end to the Tory era.

What else?Diana died, Elton John sang about it, Dolly the sheep was cloned, the BSE crisis foreshadowed the many food-scares to come, Louisde Woodward shook a baby to death, and the IRA declared a ceasefire.

You couldn't make it up, in fairness.

Reclaiming Christmas

Is an atheist christmas a contradiction in terms? It's a view many Christians appear to hold, rolling their eyes as they do, at the annual church-goers, the dilletantes who go through the motions, all the style but none of the substance. They must wonder what it's all about for them, perhaps assuming they venerate and worship in the temple of the God of consumerism. How very vacuous for them. Perhaps, they've got a point.

The idea that atheists do, in fact, have souls too, might be tough to swallow for some believers and indeed non-believers alike, but it's a question that becomes of particular salience at this time of year.

The non-believers who partake in all the cultural ritual and hold no moral objections to the religious symbolism but simultaneously reject it with a certain measure of distate and unease, are not immune to criticism on the basis of paradox and hypocrisy.

In an atheist or agnostic christmas, it is the one day a year we pretend to beleive or do so in solemn remembrance of a time when we ourselves once beleived, or in honour of devout ancestors and relatives. It as if we can beleive through our past selves, or through those others, in admiration and respect for the strength of their convictions. Beleiving in the name of others - as a strange somewhat disembodied demonstration of faith by proxy.

Upon reflection, it seems to me this second-hand belief is not sufficient. I would rather celebrate in the name of my own personal convictions.

In his review of some "bright ideas" that have emerged this year, Will Hutton argues:
"If 2006 was the year of the rampant secularists, Richard Dawkins assailing religion as the source of much evil, 2007 has seen the case for faith begin to make a comeback. A life well lived for many is helped by a sense of higher moral purpose. Human beings still require a sense of the sacred.
Even if there is no God, the act of faith, the sense of purpose and the belief in the sacred have illuminating spillovers on the rest of us."

Although the stark polarisation between the believer and militant atheist seems to me unlikely to correspond to the reality (and the substitution of religion for faith in the opening sentence worthy of note), overall I think Hutton might be onto something.

But rather than keeping their heretic heads down whilst engaging in passive participation in the usual ceremonies, perhaps atheists need to depart from the traditional religious model and ideology of christmas, and fashion a new kind of sacred.

So when it's no longer about believing in Santa Claus, nor in Jesus Christ, what to fill the ostensible void with if not materialism?

Perhaps we can look to the traditional substitutes for religion championed by those with faith in a more tangible realm - socialism, humanism, historical inevitabilty... Or in terms of a focus which shifts from Humans to nature. Admittedly environmentalism doesn't sound very spiritual, and paganism, with its overtones of occultism & witchcraft, might likewise be a tough sell.

Hutton supports those making a case for "non-fundamentalist faith as a source of spiritual good, [which] must be tolerated" while "Dawkins-style militant atheism only widens hostility."

Tolerance is of course as essential for atheists as for any other kind of believers (Because as Hutton rightly points out, belief is not limited to belief in God). For some even, tolerance is not enough. But for those non-Christians among us who will be celebrating Christmas this year along religious lines, singing from the same hymn sheets as our more devout counterparts, where should we look for spiritual nourishment? The litany of secular greeting card concepts: peace, love, goodwill & so on, are surely key components of a secular faith.

But beyond this, perhaps we should endeavour to re-claim and re-brand the so-called "arrogance" of humanism, with its inherent capacity for irrational and boundless optimism - something just as basic and just as vital as belief in a higher being. Hope that is not embodied in the form of such a being, but rather in existence itself. Faith in our environment, in ourselves and in each other.

Going round again

Upon re-reading some my recent and not so recent posts, it occurs to me that perhaps something of a disclaimer is in order, just to point out that you might have to adjust the levels of your inbuilt sarcasm detectors to "mental", if attempting to gleam any threads of coherence at all out of my fragmented ramblings.

So I turned on the news this morning, as one does the morning after say - a big football match or a national election, in order to find out "the score" as it were, with Bali.

But of course, you don't get the results of a footie match or a national election being announced as "well, actually, we really haven't got a clue about the outcome". Unless it's a Belgian national election of course. Anyway, I found this most dis-heartening. But of course, it's so much worse than dis-heartening.

I like the way the BBC have covered the conference so far, I have to say. Incidentally, I also approve of the way the BBC exposed Gordon Brown's late arrival at the Lisbon treaty signing for the spineless, petty gesture that it was (and even interviewed my best friend Mr. Nigel Farage, who did a very good impersonation of someone for whom the world has more or less just ended). But back to Bali - I think the way they juxtapose the reports on the suits at the conference with the picture of "just down the road" in the rice fields, where people's livelihoods (and lives) are at stake, and they fear for their futures but hey, what can you do, etc, helps to reinforce the real scandal of the whole process. I don't mean to sound like Al Gore - but the immorality of it. Of shirking on such heavy, heavy responsabilities, of treating it like just another diplomatic impasse that has to be negotiated around with words that are just a little bit more ambiguous in order to keep people happy (cf. the Lisbon treaty, on that note).

Studying the rhetoric of colonialism, which may well turn out to be my vocation in life such is the passion I've uncovered for it, or "cultural diplomacy" if you want to be euphemistic about it (and they generally do) has on so many occasions struck me as bearing disturbing similarities to the rhetoric we hear nowadays regarding the environment. Oh the implications.

And no, I have to disagree with my learned African Politics lecturer, much as I revere him and his enthusiasm for political outcomes in a made-up imaginary country called The Gambia, I personally don't think the word "discourse" is an empty term. In fact, such a suggestion smacks of someone who clearly doesn't understand (french) sociology, and probably doesn't respect it either, if they're going around making statements like that. Discourse, is crucial. Not in itself, but because it's symptomatic of underlying attitudes and conceptions. Yes, I definitely think so.
If you want an example of an empty term, try - everyone's favourite - "sustainable development". Nobody in the world thinks sustainable development is a bad thing. It's something we can all agree on, and as a result - means absolutely nothing. This discovery, made at an early stage of my "Environmental sociology 101" class, was the source of considerable disillusionment for me because I actually thought we were making some real progress in this direction.

"Protection" is another favourite, that crops up in both. And problematic, because although it sounds nice & benign, in some contexts protection can mean annexation, can mean isolation, can basically mean theft. Depriving people of their livelihoods on the basis of "environmental protection" might sound like a moral dilemma, but it shouldn't. It's an ingenius way of turning the problem on its head. Yes, of course the (over)developed nations should lead by example, they should step up to the plate and commit to binding targets that slash their emissions so developping countries can go about meeting decent living standards without too much pressure and strain. But then remind yourself, that these are the very same nations, who 200 years ago decided to pump all the resources from their colonies, in order to fund their grand industrial entreprise (not to mention their monuments and palaces...). And instantly, it's the likelihood, rather than the emissions, which are slashed.

Between Gordon Brown's pig-headedness, Bernard Kouchner's casual quasi-threats of war against Iran, and George Bush every living breath, you don't have to look very far to realise that we are not living in an era of solidarity. Fairness and altruism, are not part of the equation, let's be clear about it.

Although there's been such scope for optimism this month, what with the EU-Africa Summit, the Lisbon treaty ratification, and ground-breaking talks at Bali, hopes for a real global breakthrough just haven't materialised. The problem is, the approach to diplomacy in these forums is still the same old dusty one that's always been deployed.

Case in point - Lisbon. Those who supported the original EU constitution aren't happy because it's been twisted out of shape and watered down so much, and those who opposed it initally are hardly any more enthusiastic. As for the Eurocrats, it's almost as if they're embarrased, trying to sneak it under the radar, to scrape back some legitimacy, but almost doing themselves more harm in the process. But this is inevitable if you're trying to resurrect & repackage a defunct and much-maligned document. The prognosis of Bali, at its most optimistic, seems to be about regenerating the Kyoto protocol, in a new & improved format that we can all agree on. But it's the same strategy of attempting to "replace" a treaty that failed, and has lost all credibility.

Perhaps it's no surprise that, for all their professed noble intentions, the same kind of diplomacy just leads to attempts to reproduce the same kinds of agreements. Which are inevitably destined to suffer a similar fate, unless they're modified to be made more pallatable - to the point of rendering them irrelevant.

The lesson is, sometimes - if at first you don't succeed, perhaps it's time for a radically new approach.

British primary school teacher arrested for naming teddy bear after prophet.

As news stories go, you couldn't ask for a better formula, or a more perfect cast...

The face of the well-intentioned noble european who sets out into darkest Africa seeking to bring education and light into the lives of those in need (stop me if you've heard this one before) and what does she get in return? Arrested, abused, and very nearly executed!

Happily, it's just a matter of Gordon Brown and his diplomats to the rescue and before you know it "common sense" has prevailed over extremism, and Ms Gibbons is, of course, on her way home within a matter of days.

And don't worry, it turns out Ms Gibbons is the gracious & forgiving type, and bears absolutely no hard feelings against the Sudanese or indeed Islam. Which is a damn sight more than they deserve. In fact, this mild, altruistic primary teacher who "wouldn't hurt a fly" sounds like an examplary individual in just about every respect, which of course makes the whole affair even more deplorable.

There's been many an indignant response to the claim from the Sudanese Embassy that the whole thing amounts to no more than "a storm in a teacup based on cultural misunderstandings", because we shouldn't be downplaying the event but instead taking it extremely seriously, despite exceptional and brief character of the whole affair. But the issue I want to address here is not about freedom of speech, religious law or whether or not 15 days in prison and/or 40 lashes for "insulting islam" is justified.

It's not so much the story itself that's objectionable, so much as the sheer amount of coverage it's been getting. And the way they've managed to use the incident to spark a "debate" about Islam.

The Sky News team has certainly been doing its bit, saying things like:

"There are going to be people who say "well this just proves what kind of a religion Islam really is..."
Are there? And are they going to be saying it on national television, or is that just you?

"Prominent religious leaders have all spoken out in unison to say that "British Islam" condemns this..."
Let's be clear about it - our own born & bred British muslims are one thing, the ones way over there in the axis of evil are quite another story. Why they should have bothered to speak out in the first place really doesn't at all seem obvious to me either.

I'm wary enough of the BBC but I absolutely loathe Sky News, it's the kind that had a camera fixed on the McCans front door for a week non-stop and calls it "breaking news". On that note, if you want a good critical & humorous perspective on TV news, I'll refer you to my hero Mr Brooker. Watching sky news doesn't so much supply information, as propose a partisan view of certain current events it has some vague notion of but really knows very little about, and tailors its scant information to adhere to the pre-conceived "plot" of the stories. If anything, it dis-informs.
I mean what is this story REALLY about?

It's just the kind of story we need to remind us all that there's dangerous extremist lunatics out there, that we should still be afraid and outraged by them - just in case we were getting rather too complacent about the state of the world and the global political consensus. And what's more, it also illustrates beautifully that our government has our best interests at heart, and will always fight our corner in the face of such trials. It's exactly the kind of fuel that threats of unilateral military action need in order to gain popular support and hey - Sudan rhymes with Iran, and everyone knows what they're up to.

Game on - nuclear annihilation.

This follows on quite nicely from my earlier discussion on sociology - that nothing above question or without an agenda of some sort.

This is what university in France taught me, and plenty of other things beside, but this is the central, fundamental key moment when something was clarified, something was lit up, and I felt as if I'd broken through a wall in my mind. Learning is normally a gradual, progressive exercice, happening over months and years, creeping too incrementally for you to realise, but sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it comes in a flash. In France I was brutally & suddenly confronted to the harsh reality that even the most fundamental values and foundations, the ones we build everything else upon, the ones that shape us, are the result of a struggle, an agenda, they are part of a dominant paradigm - just one of an infinity of others. And what's more - it's all imaginary. This rhetoric, this nationalism, this so-called clash of civilisations, these "revendications a l'universel" - are all riddled with implicit conceptions, that need to be dissected and taken out of context and looked at in an altogether new light and it's like performing self-dissection, and in this way it's inevitably limited, because we can only extract to a certain point... a bit like the paradox of exploring the unconscious, yet essential in order to understand the world, not understand as in comprehend the News, but REALLY understand.

We look at the problems in the world today, in society - problems like racism, globalisation, immigration, xenophobia, descrimination, intolerance, religious fundamentalism, conflict, nationalism, genocide, sectarian violence, but these are all symptons. And this is why it's so difficult to make sense of them, without seeing beyond, without looking to the underlying causes - to the roots.

In fact, it's not so much about what's there - as what isn't. As what ISN'T on the news, what the politicans AREN'T talking about, what is ommitted. As Adam Hochschild argues, our world today is "shaped far less by what we celebrate & mythologise than by the painful events we try to forget" - Leopold's Congo being one example, but that's another story...