What kind of Europe does Stockholm want?

 After the collapse of the EU budget talks this week, Barroso was clearly dissapointed with a small group of countries that fought against increasing the EU parliament's budget. One of these countries was Sweden, together with the UK and the netherlands. To the Swedish minister of finance, it was irresponsible to expand spending while European states are slashing expences. To Barroso, and the MEP's, it is pennywise to try to build an integrated Europe without money.

To me, the differing opinions are less interesting than the fact that they differ. Maladets! has long since noted a growing rift between the Swedish liberal right government and European institutions. It has been about Israel and the Euro. More recently the EU directive on maternity leave was heavily critizised by Swedish liberals in the government and in the press.

For the Swedish left, it is easy to sarcastically label the EU-weary liberal right as nationalists and inward looking. In deed - the Swedish right wing has historically been very quick to label anyone who questions EU policies as a nationalist, so it might not be more than fair that they are judged by their own standards, but I don not think this is a correct analysis.

The Swedish liberal right is not inward looking, and they are fond of European integration. It is not just for show that the liberal party is the only Swedish party to seriously campaign for euro membership. Moreover, the Swedish government is far from isolated when its opinions run counter to Bruxelle's. As Barroso pointed out, there was a number of countries who opposed the EP on this issue. A number of countries, who tend to think the same in European debates. So it is rather about conflicting visions about europe, where continental Europe (read: France) stands against the north western periphery, like the UK and Scandinavian member states. And Germany lingers somewhere in the middle.

The issue at hand - what resources should the European parliament reign over, is emblematic. The Cameron-Reinfeldt axis in the north west seem to favour a Europe with a downsized bureaucracy, that decides as little as possible. Its foremost function is to make sure that member states are not unduelly distorting competition. It is easy to see the contours of a neo liberal night watchman state, but we must admit that this vision also allows for any  social policies, as long as they are administered on a national - not European - level.

On continental Europe, the push for a more active EU seems much stronger. I can imagine that there are different forces at play here. One is the more ambitious franco-german vision of the European union, that sees national legislation and bureaucracy replaced with a European legislation and bureaucracy, that is bascially the same thing on a bigger scale. As an example, the Euroepan Union is already involved in a great deal of projects that a night watcher state would shun. For example, many readers will be familiar with the Youth in Action programme, in which the European Union finances thousands of volunteers every year with the direct ambition of spurring social change - creating a European consciousness among the continent's youth.

If we compare this vision of the EU, with the north western idea of a night watchman state, it is very easy to recognise an old historical heritage. Whereas the british isles spawned liberals like J.S Mill, Adam Smith and Spencer, continental Euope fostered ideolgies like Marx's socialism and Durkheim's organic solidarity. 

But maybe more relevant than historical precurrents, is the fact that different countires expect very different things from the EU. Some contries, like the Scandinavian, percieve themselves as wealthier than the EU at large, and are so according to economist's common sense. For a cynic, it is easy to see how Sweden would pay money to an EU budget but less clear what Swedes would benefit.

On the other hand, there are a whole lot of Euroepan countries who perceive themesleves as, and are, less wealthy than the EU at large. In these countries, social policies are hard to find because they are difficult to fund. An enlarged EU budget, and wider responsibilites for the Union, might well mean a great improvement for citizens' welfare in poorer EU countries.

In today's Sydsvenskan, the editor in chief notes that the collapsing bugdget talks will seem like a friendly chat compared to the upcoming talk about agricultural subsidies. Here enormous economical interests clash with strong ideological convictions, and it is a safe bet that Sweden and the UK will be on the same side against France again.

Crises come,a dn crises go - and the Union will survie also this row, of course. But if the counterparts in the same in row after row, the European Union might at one point seem like a confederation of wider regions, not a federation of national states. But maybe that is a natural development? It is interesting to ponder.

The Swedish Radio and Belarus

Sveriges Radio - the Swedish public broadcasting company has decided to close its sendings in Belarussian. These sendings were a kind of "Radio Free Europe" in the dicactorship Belarus . The Swedish students' group Liberala Studenter have launched an online petition, askin Sveriges Radio to keep the broadcast as a way to support democracy work in Belarus. I was made aware of the topic from posting on the Central europe mailing list. Since it is a public mailing list I take the freedom that publish the entire letter from Sławomir Wójcik here.

Posted by: "Sławomir Wójcik" swojcik@pk.org.pl slawek.wojcik
Sat Aug 8, 2009 3:45 am (PDT)


Protest against Swedish Radio International - who are closing down the
belarusian radioprogramme which had listeners in Belarus (in
belarusian) and promoted the democratic society. The chief of SRI
Ingemar Löfgren says "democracy projects is not our job" - but the
thing is - Swedish Radio is Public Servise and it SHOULD promote
democracy aswell. Please help us support this protest and sign this
petition!

In swedish: Namninsamling startad - protest mot Sveriges Radios
nedläggning av de vitryska sändningarna. Skriv under du med och stöd
demokratirörelsen i Belarus!

http://www.namninsamling.com/InfoBelarus

Press: "Skriv på listan" (=sign the list) down in the corner, then
sign your first name in "förnamn", second name in "efternamn", your
e-mailadress in "epostadress" (it will not be shown on the list, its
just to confirm the signing in a confirmation email) and in "postort"
you write your city. Then press "Spara" (=save).
Thank you!

PLEASE, FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO ALL, WHOM IT MAY CONCERN!

There are, of course many reasons to keep these broadcasts. Sweden has direct historical, ecological and social ties to the Baltic region incuding Russia and Belarus, and a great reponsibility to work for improved human rights in the region. The fact that Lukajsenko, the dictator of Belarus have showed an increased interest in Europe, should not be an excuse for be more forgiving towards crimes against human rights.

Except for historical and social ties, the Swedish and Polish governments have launched the EU's so called Eastern partnership, a program that was covered in this weekend's Kapital ( #31 page 25). Unfortunately it doesn't seem very clear what the EU wants to offer these countries... certainly not a quick membership, or abolishment of visa regimes. Russia on the other hand, can offer cheap gas and visa-free traveling, at the expense of human rights.

If the EU wants to play hardballs againts Russia, vagueness is unforgivable. And EU showed nothing but indecisiveness towards the violence in Moldova in April. Moreover, as Kapital points out - how can you formulate one coherent policy for countries as disparate as democratical, chaotical Ukraine, authoritarian pro-russian Belarus, a little less authoritarian pro-western Georgia and discretely authoritarian, slighlty democratic and chaotic moldova?

The countries themselves are deeply split on the issue, and in no country, except for Moldova, Kapital writes, is there a strong majority for closer ties to the EU. Kapital adds an interesting graph, showing that in Moldova 80% are for closer ties with the EU and 60% for closer ties with Russia. 140% of all Moldovans are confused I guess...

Maybe Kapital's mistaken graph is closer to ones they got right. Identities are complex, and closer economical ties to the EU and human rights should not necessary exclude a strong cultural affinity with Russia in these countries.

The EU should also ask itself - is Europe ready to redefine itself and regard Moldova, Azerbadjan and Ukraine as parts of Europe - as European as Bretagne or The Rhein valley. If it's not, what could it actually promise?