Experiment "Europe"

The balance of virtues and vices is clearly in favor of the Nobel Prize winner

The balance of virtues and vices is clearly in favor of the Nobel Prize winner

Ruslan GREENBERG - especially for Novaya

Isn't it strange that the award was not received by an outstanding peacemaker, not a fearless human rights activist, and not even a politician who is awarded from time to time as an advance in the hope of his future effective work in the interests of peace and progress. It is truly exotic that the Nobel Committee has awarded a peace prize to a regional country bloc, and even at a time when it is going through the most severe crisis in its history.

But, after a little reflection, I came to the opposite conclusion: the European Union rightfully received this award. He really deserved it for the exceptionally effective efforts to unite Europe and transform it, as the Nobel Committee said, from “a continent of war into a continent of peace”, and also for the fact that “the EU and its predecessors have been contributing for more than six decades to strengthening peace, democracy and human rights in Europe”.

The newly minted Nobel Peace Prize winner is not without sin. There are a lot of defects in its functioning and errors in actions. The current crisis, in fact, is largely a consequence of both. Hundreds of books and thousands of articles have been written about the sins and omissions in the policy of a united Europe, real and imaginary. I will list here only those of them that, as an outsider, firstly, and a Russian, secondly, seem quite obvious to me.

Of course, we are all smart in hindsight. But still, it was not so difficult to assume that the one-time "collective" expansion of the EU in the middle of the 2000s is fraught with big problems in the very near future. Here one would like to recall Lenin's "law" of uneven development with its inevitable social revolutions. It was even easier to imagine the enormous difficulties that the European Union would face if it formed a monetary union without any integration or even coordination in budgetary policy. The lag of financial integration behind the currency in the euro area and the systematic violation of the Maastricht Rules by its members could be relatively unpunished in the context of general economic growth, but immediately dealt a severe blow to its stability with the onset of the global financial and economic crisis. In a word, the Greek drama was programmed by the lack of coherence in the actions of the European Union in the monetary and financial fields.

The laureate deserves reproach for his, to put it mildly, incorrect behavior towards some former socialist countries. I will point out only two cases here. The first is about supporting the outrageous and UN-sanctioned bombing of Serbia. In the second, about an absolutely irrational attitude towards any attempts by Russia to at least somehow consolidate the post-Soviet space. We have to admit that both in Western and Eastern Europe there are very influential forces that cannot get rid of groundless fears about the restoration of Russian imperialism. In fact, Russia, be it the vast majority of its ruling house, not to mention ordinary citizens, does not want and cannot become a new imperial center. So our attempts to create even a purely economic Eurasian Union are often perceived very suspiciously there, but these suspicions are in most cases groundless.

And yet the balance of virtues and vices is clearly in favor of the laureate.

First of all, the EU has an amazing ability to overcome crises without being a single country. After all, this is not the United States of America, where everything is decided by the president and his government. Of course, they are hindered by Congress, but nevertheless it is one country. In the EU, it is necessary to persuade, give arguments, make compromises. The European Union, as a regional association of peoples, also shows an exemplary ability to draw lessons from the past. It is not only a matter of reconciliation between Germany and France after 1000 years of enmity, although this is very important. I believe that the generation that was born in the late 30s and later is the happiest in Europe, and perhaps in the world.

In addition, it should be noted the relatively even distribution of the fruits of economic growth, in contrast to other even more successful economies, respect for human rights and dignity.

The unconditional success of the EU is a tolerant attitude towards people with a different skin color and a different religion, despite the excesses of recent years and the alleged collapse of multiculturalism. There is no collapse, but there is a crisis of multiculturalism, which is based on purely economic problems. During a crisis, you always want, and this is purely human, to attribute your problems to a foreigner. This is the very first reaction of the autochthons, who are afraid of losing their jobs, although in fact they will never - neither during a crisis, nor even during economic growth - be engaged in hard unskilled labor, like those unfortunate people who aspire to a prosperous Europe.

We see further how the share of women in decision-making bodies is increasing in Europe, especially in the Scandinavian countries. Where there are more women, there is more order and social justice.

Perhaps the most important achievement of the EU is the high level of development of the social sphere. In particular, this is high-quality and fair healthcare, where the chancellor and the homeless are served approximately the same, amazing cultural diversity, as well as practically free education. It is also important to mention the inconspicuous attention to scientific activity, where, unlike Russia, which is striving to transfer everything to a private track, the huge state funds of Europe are effectively spent on fundamental and applied research.

Finally, Europe shows an example of interaction between large and small nations. Here, in essence, they abandoned the old principle according to which large states behave like bandits, and small ones behave like prostitutes. A new type of policy has been formed and operates in the EU, when little Estonia is not pressed or strangled, but listened to and persuaded. Isn't this a unique achievement of human civilization?

We don't know if the European Union will become the United States of Europe. Moreover, today there is no time for discussions about ultimate goals. Separatist sentiments, distributive conflicts are very reminiscent of the end of the Soviet Union with its absolutely fruitless discussion on the topic "Who feeds whom." This is largely due to the irrational reaction to economic difficulties and the contradictory actions of European governments, which actually step on the gas and brake at the same time: they are trying, on the one hand, to stimulate economic activity, and on the other hand, to reduce budget deficits through austerity measures. Of course, this is very painful for the growing mass of people, especially the young, who are losing their jobs and often their life prospects. And yet, I am sure that Europe will once again overcome its difficulties, despite, perhaps, the most severe crisis since the beginning of European integration.

Unfortunately, our mass media, political scientists, and experts often take the side of anti-Europeans and European pessimists, who are constantly waiting for the “end of the world,” with malice. It has even become fashionable to call on the EU to take the most radical action, to support, for example, the exclusion of Greece from the eurozone and the European Union. I am depressed by the almost maniacal passion to demonize the European bureaucracy, the provincial ridicule of European procedures. On the contrary, as soon as we are going to build Eurasian integration ourselves, we should learn from them how to harmonize various types of policies, mechanisms and institutions that provide the most favorable conditions for life.

In conclusion, there is one more important circumstance. Both the EU and Russia are objectively decreasing numbers in the modern world, where economic power is rapidly moving to the East. The main thing is that demographics are not in their favor. But the socio-cultural closeness of our peoples after several decades of the "Iron Curtain" is becoming more and more tangible, especially among young people who did not live in a divided world. Therefore, we need to be together. We have natural resources plus still undead fundamental science. Europe, on the other hand, remains a model of both the cohabitation of people and the modern structure of the economy. The convergence of both is the imperative of time. The conclusion is obvious: the idea of ​​a “common European home,” put forward by Mikhail Gorbachev a quarter of a century ago, is as relevant today as ever. And both sides should begin to implement it jointly, getting rid of the shameful and ridiculous mutual distrust.