—————————————————————————

EU-Russia relations are a thorny and controversial issue.And mostly debated in terms of energy and pipeline politics and/or within the human rights and democracy domain . However, having spent the last couple of years  debating EU-Russia relations with a number of academics/think tankers/policy makers I decided to post a couple of observations. For the sake of the argument I will have to use generalisations although I know perfectly well that there are exceptions on both sides. Moreover, I think, the argument does not only affect Europeans or Russians but also decision makers in the USA and in countries of the EU neighborhood/ Russia’s near abroad.  I should also mention that this mainly applies to policy-makers/ think tankers/ academics/intellectuals.

1) The “knowledge gap”

Surprisingly, there is quite a knowledge gap – on both sides.

Russian intellectuals and policy makers  do not know enough about the EU and how it works. They usually treat it as a something “state-like” but criticize it at the same time for not being a state. And something that is not a state cannot be efficient. Hence nothing to be taken too seriously. But I think the underlying problem is that many are not aware of how certain EU policies come into being. And that does not only include CFSP or ESDP issues but also the broader EU policy agenda.  It is actually striking how little decision makers in Russia as well as in the “EU neighborhood” seem to know about how the EU works in terms of agenda setting and lobbying. Questions about how to get something out of the EU machinery are not discussed. The only thing everyone seems to be thinking is: If the EU does not act we can ask member states. As if they were  not part of the EU. (Well, that member states are sometimes more receptive than the EU institutions is not helping either…) The problem here is that there is no understanding of how long decision-making in the EU actually takes and what needs to be done to influence it. It is not enough to only lobby for when there is a military conflict or when it is about energy and pipelines. Other policy issues also have an external dimension and can be shaped (at least to a certain extent) by outsiders! Moreover, by engaging permanently on a variety of substantial issues does increase trust!

The  creation of the EEAS  is a similar issue: Russians complain about the EU being ineffective without acknowledging the inter-institutional struggles within the EU. Nobody seems to understand the nature of the EEAS: why it is there and what it is supposed to do and especially what it is supposed to replace!  One example are the numerous complaints about the future of some the EU special representatives (Moldova, Caucasus) – in the past they have often been criticized of being not efficient enough because they have no links to the local EU delegation…

Europeans do not know enough about Russia’s political system and how it really works. Do we actually know who is influential? Do Europeans understand how the Russian elite ticks? What about the relation between business and politics? And how do they interpret (and teach!) the history since the end of the cold war. Can we actually grasp the idea of a country that spans 9 time zones and includes numerous internal conflicts? How do Russians perceive the USSR? And what does that mean for the “EU neighborhood”?

2) The “discourse gap”

Russians and Europeans work with different discursive models.

Russians think in terms of zero sum games. Realism is the only paradigm that seems to be acceptable for most commentators and policy makers. It is all about interests, power and geopolitics. Politics is about winners and loosers. The philosophical basis for any alternative approaches seems to be absent. Every theoretical idea outside realism (which is ironically an American model) is perceived as weak and is somehow denounced as being “western”. However, as long as Russian academics are not aware (or don’t want to be aware) of other philosophical traditions and methods of analysing politics, we will not see a change of politicians mindsets as they will be limited to the ‘realist’ options. The nature of realism is also not helping as it is quite easy to analyse everything as a zero sum game.

Europeans, generally speaking, are not that fond of thinking only in realist terms. Europeans think that realism is a lazy form of thinking. Russian commentators and policy makers are therefore perceived as being outdated and stuck in the cold war. Europeans think of “new forms of governance” that are embedded in “liberal norms” of democracy. But the underlying problem is how to deal with others that do not embrace this “governance” and “liberal” discourse  or do not not use it as a form of analysis? The clash of different methods of how to analyse politics seems to create problems how to deal with each other.

So what can be done about the “knowledge” and “discourse” gap?

“Entropa”, as the project is called, is a joint creation by 27 artists, one from each Member State, each of them depicting their country by means of commonly used stereotypes. The Czech artist David Černý, who conceptualised the project, managed in this way to extract the stereotypes from their natural context (the us/others dychotomy), “internalise” them through the visions of the local artists and put them together only to symbolise the impossible match. A messed-up map of Europe, where the rigurously drawn geographical borders become unbridgeable gaps, and where mental barriers are created through stereotypes. The installation might seem utterly non-esthetical and unfitted; but, baring in mind its purpose as a warning, isn’t it just the way it should look?

The concept behind the installation is summarised by Milena Vicenová, the Permanent Representative of the Czech Republic to the European Union:

The freedom of art as an extension of the freedom of speech is the core value of democracy. There are many barriers to integration and cooperation in Europe. Stereotypes are such barriers. When we point out the stereotypes we begin demolishing them. Making fun of prejudice destroys it most efficiently.

The stereotype installation shows in a very figurative manner German highways, France strikes, Italian football, as well as Dracula in Romania and IKEA in Sweden. A more political approach, mirroring the debates on Europe, was taken in the case of UK and Czech Republic. The UK is missing from the installation; its physical absence symbolises the negative attitude the British are seen as having towards the EU. Another stereotype. And what better prejudice can represent the Czech Republic in a European context than President Klaus and his controversial ideas? Diversity issues and tolerance are also touched upon in the cases of The Netherlands and Poland. A presentation of the project and each of its 27 components can be found here.

Critics complain about the dimensions of the installation and the noise it makes (and it only starts “living” on 15 January!). Even though one might argue if its place is in the Council building or rather in a museum, the idea behind the installation and especially its non-abstract nature are an appropriate starting point for European debates on barrier and borders constructed through national(ist) perceptions. In order to reach out beyond the Council bureaucrats and stir a real European debate, the installation (which only weighs 8 tones) should tour the marketplaces of (medium-sized) towns across the EU.

An exclusive photo of the installation:

and the “French – German axis”:

Update 13.1.2009: Now it is getting interesting: Conceptual art at its best. As a Czech Newspaper revealed today David Cerny fooled the art and the political world. There are no 27 artists, all CVs are invented by the artist himself and it was only him that created the installation. Basically the debate around the project is also part of the installation. Art and discourse are one.

Now, of course this has political implications: Did the Czech EU Presidency know about this? Apparently Cerny signed a contract to work with 27 artist on the piece…did he breach the contract or was the Czech Government aware of it? (Hat-tip: Coulisses de Bruxelles) According to Reuters the artist said he had deceived the government: “We knew the truth would come out. But before that we wanted to find out if Europe is able to laugh at itself,” Cerny said. Interesting detail of the story is also that apparently no tax money was used for the art project and all costs were covered by the artist himself! And I agree with Bruno Waterfield (who also has more details!) that this story ain’t over yet.

Update 16.1.2009: Mission accomplished as controversy continued: Bulgaria demanded to remove the Bulgarian piece of the installation, the Czech presidency apologized (good speech here). Don’t understand why Czerny also thinks he has to apologize… And the installation started its own “life”, so watch the video:

Entropa: Czech artist David Cerny speaks out

However, to put it into context of the debate, let’s look at the main argument of Julien Frisch who thinks rightly that “The problem of European political communication is that it is not filling our attention on a daily basis because it focuses on the wrong notion of “importance”. Of course it is debatable whether importance as such exists or whether it is a construct of the media/society. So if we accept the latter we should ask ourselves why EU debates are generally constructed as not being inportant?

1. facts vs. myths

Every EU debate at some point touches the issue of EU myths. What does this tell us about the quality of the debate? The fact-myth problem in debating the EU is a time consuming one with two implications: (1) it only reinforces the ideological standpoint of the reader and the commentator; and (2) people tend to forget about the real issues at stake. This shows that something is missing. I would suggest it has something to do with education. Interestingly, not many “national” legislative myths do exist (at least I tend to believe that, but I could be wrong about that…)

2. facts vs. oversimplification

Closely connected to myths is the tendency to oversimplify EU issues. One example is the notoriously used “Brussels wants…” phrase. But also the battle motive is very popular: Head of state 1 vs. Head of state 2. It is very handy to forget that different actors (Commission, Parliament, national ministers, lobbyists, NGOs,…) are involved in the decision making procedure. The European Parliament has a similar problem, citizens do not link their MEPs (in case they know them!) with any EU policies.

Another tendency is a kind of ‘conspiracy component’. Lots of people conveniently buy into some sort of conspiracy theory when it comes to EU institutions. I want to emphasize two points: (1) In every political structure there needs to be a certain degree of secrecy in order for the system to function. (2) The institutional setting of the EU is quite complicated and, yes, the EU is a huge bureaucracy.

The result of overlooking both aspect leads to the perception that the EU is a huge “anti- democratic conspiracy” and lots of people also tend to believe that there is some sort of masterplan somewhere behind closed doors. I do not want to deny that there are indeed problems regarding democratic accountability in the EU but people tend to forget where they actually come from… Paradoxically, both points are also interconnected: If the EU acts not coherently (because of its institutional setting) it rightly gets criticized. But if the EU tries to coordinate policies and approaches (similar to the coordination between national ministries) it gets accused of too much secrecy and not enough transparency. I do not want to defend deals behind closed doors but it is rather difficult to streamline positions of 27 member states (including internal disagreements between ministries!), several European Commission DGs as well as the necessity to deal with lobbyists and other organizations that all want to have a say in EU policy making!

3.institutions vs. policy

Every EU debate at some point turns to the legitimacy question of EU institutions. Of course this is important for any future development of the EU and it also shows that EU institutions are far from being perfect. At the same time, the debate about policy content is missing. Public debates never discuss policy options at an early stage.

4. General popular apathy.

Ok, this is a topic on its own. However, the majority of European citizens seem neither very enthusiastic nor concerned about the EU. They simply do not care about the EU because it is not something one can easily relate to, it is too far away from every day life and it is really boring (that is how it is perceived). Even the European success stories (generally related to the “four freedoms”) are usually taken for granted. I am not very optimistic here, probably this is not gonna change any time soon…

Conclusions

I my opinion EU debates take place too late. Especially national media only reports about EU initiatives after their adoption in the Council, or more accurately, in that moment the national parliament debates it. The debate needs to start earlier in order to have any impact on proposals. I think two major reforms should take place:

1. It is still cumbersome for non-experts to monitor the EU decision making process. Especially the internet and new online tools have the potential to make it easier to monitor and control EU decision making processes. Even though the europa.eu portal contains most of the information, it needs a serious relaunch. A new EU portal needs to be transparent, with a focus on policy processes that makes it easy to follow documents, combined with some interactive elements.

2. Education seems to be the key. Topics such as EU institutions and decision-making procedures need to be integrated in all school curricula as a core element at an early stage. Also national newspapers and TV stations should find ways to integrate EU news in their daily news coverage.

3. The European Parliament or better MEPs individually need to strengthen their relations with national parliaments/MPs. At the same time, national parliaments should be encouraged to engage more with ‘Brussels’ in order not to be surprised in the end… Needless to say that a lot of MEPs should step up their efforts to communicate with their constituency.

4. Further institutional reform (even though that is neither on the agenda nor very popular these days…) that addresses legitimacy, accountability and efficiency issues.

5. Better politicians for Europe! Although some improvements have been made in the last couple of years, there is still a tendency that Brussels/Strassbourg is seen as a retirement posting. However, it is a good sign that lately MEP and Commissioners were appointed national ministers!