Europe was growing from an idea. We could call it in the simplest way: the idea of Europe.
Let aside geography, it was about the most important spiritual, therefore, deeply unifying, matters realized as European ones.
The tragic experiences of the last century contributed to that, as well. Some simple things finally became understandable. First, if Europe will continue with wars inside, it will destroy itself and become a weakened, easy target for any external expansion. And in general, Europeans have realized that common being is more important than constant fighting. To live and grow is better than to kill and die. Go discovering yourself among brothers, not enemies.
Of course, the commune of brothers and sisters for a life in peace and for essentially longer life than just your biological carrier, this commune always meant open or secret Christianity. The founding fathers of Europe, still before it has been turned by them to peace and solidarity, were aware of Europe's Christian roots and did appreciate this fact. By good accident, they were Christians themselves: Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, Alcide de Gasperi.
Usually, the picture is presented as a series of events: the Second World War is allegedly over (with Central Eastern Europe still occupied by the Red Army, which means, the USSR) and a new tension is again arising in the Western part of our continent; the renewed competition of big companies and social depression makes that Europe unstable and vulnerable for Communist influence and threats from the Soviet empire just beyond the fence. Then comes an idea of European unification and it helps, certainly, together with Marshal Plan's assistance, with resolute steps to build the transatlantic union of common defence – NATO. Democracies want to survive.
That was one side of the picture, rather reverse than averse.
The idea of Europe was indeed something more than such urgent needs as defence. The idea was the creation of better Europe than it had been before, better Europe in moral dimension, – and pragmatism followed only as a supplement to the inspiring idealism, not in the opposite. Nevertheless, the shadow of pragmatism followed all the way, and not only as the Shadow Pilger by E.A.Poe on the way to El Dorado. The profit often tried to take the upper hand and become ruler of progress.
In the course of over 50 years the word or European idea was becoming a body able to live, grow and mature in freedom. It should look exciting: Europeans, no internals wars anymore; get your painful and burdening colonial legacy resolved; go to build the common prosperous being, growing living standards and bright mythology of the state of welfare! The free European states and nations enjoyed this way the benefits of productive cooperation and deepened unification, and used to call themselves proudly: "Europe".
To call itself rightly "half of Europe" would be less popular, much worse entertaining music. Therefore, those beyond the Iron Curtain, if sometimes entitled (rather in the US) "captive nations", were never called "captive Europe". The free Europe did not feel itself badly, being only a half. Less problems, outside grim reality, but why not? Therefore the modest mentioning by Robert Schuman "Europe is to be completed" was left to await better times.
They came. The problem of recognition and adoption of realities came in line with a discovery that the additional or the "second" Europe is still alive and goes on regaining its freedom. East Germany was assisted and followed by other Central European and Baltic States. In one and half a year after the three reform- and liberation grass-root movements were established in the Baltic States still under the Soviet system of governance but already shaking its fundaments, the Berlin Wall fell.
Artificial and not true definitions were used for that discovery of the "second", "new", or post-communist Europe, instead talking about one Europe open for all wishing and unifying in democracy. Idealism and pragmatism are from then in a continuous debate, which recently is going in more and more open ways: what is at stake and where is the end?
Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, what I am telling you is not a story or a fairy tale about the past. It is "Lilly for ever", if you have seen that moving and true Swedish movie.
Europe went forwards by unifying markets, trade, enterprises, legislation and judiciary, space for travelling and education, and was seeking, until now not very successfully, to have common external policies. It was Europe's growth in a dimension of maturity. The idea of one Europe was becoming a body in the West.
Another dimension and track of record was the territorial growth, called enlargement of the EU It was exercised not by any Grand Armée but via free-will accession, thanks to good will and good home work of more and more European states.
The greatest breakthrough on this way happened when ten Central European states, formerly captive nations including those from Baltic See and Black See coasts, joined the Union in 2004 and 2007. An even greater European breakthrough is in minds. It already happens when an additional group of Western Balkan states is expected to be ready to join the Union in some foreseen future. Turkey is already accepted as a long term and Croatia as a short term candidate, and still more Easter European countries, at least the Ukraine and Georgia, are waiting to be sincerely and definitely expected by the Union to accede.
Many say that the recent enlargement was the main success story for Europe, after the Cold War was over. Some say, it brought new problems, therefore, the "old" Europeans became uncertain and unhappy.
I say, the openness of the picture is growing in Europe's mind. No more debates, is the Caucasus Europe or not. Even the unfortunate bleeding Chechnya, being subjected to the genocide in a lavatory, is understood now as the remotest corner of Europe, therefore, our wound, as well.
In provision, though distant, of Turkey's membership, the map of the EU will grow essentially in geopolitical sense. This candidate country and member of NATO is already now at the outskirts of the Caucasus and is bordering Iraq – so will be the EU, approaching the Middle East.
Over there, there is already at least one European-type democracy, the state of Israel. Despite criticism, it is hard to believe that Europe could allow to destroy Israel; therefore, the Middle East in some future will become for the EU itself (with member Turkey or not yet) a competition field with Iran.
If we like it or not, it comes. Palestine and Lebanon, just next to Syria, are European challenges, as well.
Even Central Asia may become European new opportunity, and those states not by accident are defining themselves in more open perspective as Eurasian ones.
To add, the fresh idea of the Mediterranean Union does present us how the previous European idea of only several founding fathers is expanding now in its virtual geopolitical growth. Unfortunately, the real expansion of Gazprom Union goes faster to take Algeria and Libya first, to make Russia Mediterranean sooner. If Europe wants it or not, it is becoming a global player in security strategy even before the world trade problems are met. Is Europe really ready to be the player and not the time victim behind his chances - this is the question.
Just besides Europe, there is Russia also seeking to be a global Eurasian player. Paradoxically, it was given a place d'armes also inside of Europe and EU. Such was the result of WWII and the then weakness of Western victors - the Konigsberg/Kaliningrad exclave. The Eurasian militant imperialism in the very middle of Central Europe is a pretty gift of unfortunately losing victors.
The same with the victors of the Cold War.
So, Russia. Not so much a loser in the Cold War, as a loser in its post-Cold War strife for democracy. Otherwise, if neither democracy nor human life would be an asset, there are no losses for Russia of today, but the "territories." The empire of violence and corruption, already restored in state's spirit and practices of lawlessness, this is the post-yeltsinist or current putinist Russia.
To remake Western democracies in the some way getting them entirely corrupted, - that would be the sweetest dream and world victory of the Kremlin. To make "them", Europeans, simply obedient, such is its current putinist energy strategy.
This challenge comes in a bad moment of decline of Europe's spiritual and moral identity as well as demography.
After the period of an official joy with the growing unification and territorial enlargement, when milestones were Paris-Rome-Maastricht-Nice and recently Lisbon, and after the peoples' disappointment resulted in the failure of the Constitution for Europe, the European consciousness has partly turned back to more essential idealism.
What are we? Was it all right and sufficient? Is Europe, while striving to be geographically completed, mature enough in itself and completed in spirit to withstand global challenges?
Here a concept comes again: Union of values. Subsequently it recalls some consideration, where we are – Europe and Europeans, short of existential determination about our values, indeed. And again Hamlet's question: to grow or to decline? I am sorry to say, both processes went ahead synchronically.
When Constitution for Europe was drafted, those concerned could discover the problems explicitly shown by its Preamble. In an effort to define what Europe is, the authors of the Draft underlined fundamental freedoms and rights, the supremacy of law and equality of all individuals granted in a state of law. However, no duties or responsibilities of that individual have ever been mentioned. Only the rights, O.K. Mr. Giscard d'Estaigne, who led the work, explained to European Parliamentarians some basics: Europe was built on two pillars. They were Pericles' law and the Enlightenment. You see, so small a gap as 2000 years of Christianity was left out of the account, even on the margin.
For me and for many others it looked like an absurdity – denouncement of so significant historical cultural fact! – But socialist intolerance prevailed. The word Christianity as one of denominators of identity was torn away from the Constitution for Europe. As if this were the name of class enemy not permissible even to be mentioned under totalitarianism. I remember those times and that mentality which was so significant by its total intolerance. – You say, Christianity was a historical fact – two millennia of Christian beliefs, philosophy, poetry, architecture, music and education? Well, the worse for the facts!
Suggestions that nobody wants to alienate non-Christian believers, that all the three great monotheistic religions should be mentioned together as contributors to Europe, did not help. As if no religion was ever important for Europe's historical identity.
It is a sad story, gentlemen, how Europe betrayed itself or, more concretely, its own roots. At the same time the same EU does insist on promotion of unifying concepts of European identity and European citizenship. The latter is to be based either on national passports of Member States or European identity cards, when this very identity - if it goes back to a deeper past - should rather be forgotten. Cards do not matter. As a number of new Europeans of non-European origin might feel themselves less comfortable if asked what Europe was in the history of culture, it was decided to remove the problems of historical identity. In this way the real European identity was intentionally neglected, perhaps to make the whole population equally comfortable or equally uncomfortable.
Were these the tricks of European social philosophy - to avoid the truth? – Yes, such philosophy is tricky, indeed.
Not accidentally, the equality issue as one of the most important values of European democratic culture was just touched upon by me here. We could find it underlined in the Preamble of the Constitution for Europe along with the liberty presented in plural as fundamental freedoms. Well, if anybody remembers the three beauties of the Enlightenment and French Revolution, they were Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. Alas, only two of them have survived in the course of European evolution until now. You may go through all thick volumes of the Constitution as drafted, and no mentioning about Fraternity - Brotherhood is to be found there.
I cannot say if that third beauty was even debated. My small effort to transmit a suggestion was too distant, weak and low. To add, the experts could feel that Brotherhood was not an outdated issue only, but in some sense also a certain replacement for Christian teaching or that damned Christianity.
Of course, to expect still more items among European human values, i.a. love, would be an extreme naivety. "If I have no love, I am nothing", taught the Apostle, and we can perfectly observe that today’s European civilization prefers, in a sense of Teaching, to become nothing.
Working hard with the Constitution and its Preamble as drafted, my brothers Christian Democrats succeeded in getting only a little compensation for Christianity: the word "solidarity" was inserted. I was told that an influential French socialist had said: if there is Christianity, we vote against the Constitution.
Finally, even without Christianity, they voted against, anyway. In such realities, I would prefer sound reason, not appeasement.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am telling you not mere facts about the events but about the actual situation with post-Christian, if not post-European, mentality. Is it about the growth or decline, let us conclude that for ourselves.
What with the rest of values?
Consumerism as the European style of living is not a value in any sense but the tomb of all other senses. It causes and especially cultivates the poorest ideology (of the rich and the poor) about what is human happiness. The idea of short life so similar to an insect's time given for one-day's pleasure and adventure is the soil or, maybe, fertilizer for "culture of death", as John Paul II described that feature of our times. In line, consumerism as a form of egotism in human hearts that are empty and disabled for compassion and wish to help, is causing perversively promoted alienation with the children. Too often they are treated as burden and not happiness and the sense of life. (To say even brutally, millions of non-borns are treated as tumours. It cannot pass by without affecting our societies with increasing brutalities and cruelties.) The direct result of such approaches is the evident decline in European demography.
The remedy is also evident; national and international economies do appreciate renewed population of the continent with constantly increasing numbers of new Europeans of non-European origin. They are just bringing and will bring new quality of culture and type of mind, save God, if not the social conflicts. Their integration into Europe versus disintegration of Europe as a whole, this again is Hamlet's question. In any case, Europe will soon turn very different. God help us to regain and preserve the forgotten value of brotherhood.
Nature is exploited if it is not our house but our conquest. Too little attention is given to Nature's signals transmitted for us by its body language: disasters caused by typhoons, earthquakes and tides, the new and new diseases, incredible suffering of polluted seas and oceans, losses of ice and water for lands. Sometimes it looks like Nature is becoming ready, for self-defence reasons, to get rid of parasitizing humans. And less a month ago I listened to a high official at the plenary sitting of the European Parliament lecturing how "to fight the climate change not undermining our industry".
When the crazy bitopus, the creature on two legs, is eager to use even the earthquakes and typhoons, not to mention the newly invented diseases, as weaponry against other human beings, it will not pass unpunished as well.
Europe is talking about fundamental principles, but is not able to simply say "no". Sometimes it says that to China, but never to Russia.
While calling for transparency, Europe is not introducing any transparency in its relations with Russia. Even more, while giving good advices on recognition and reconciliation, Europe (or EU) is not able to cope or reconcile with its own past. Let us remember WWII in its circumstances and consequences. Then something big and ugly happened – the selling of the "second half" of Europe for the USSR at the subsequent Tehran-Yalta- Potsdam auctions.
Later the three Western victors administrated their corresponding zones of the occupied Germany with no concern what the Soviets were doing in their occupational zone, where even Nazi death camps of Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen were used for the same purposes, being officially incorporated into the Soviet system of the Gulags.
Fortunately, no European democracy, except Sweden, approved and legitimated the illegal annexation of Lithuania and other Baltic States by the occupying USSR. All welcomed us restoring independence in 1990-1991 after being for long decades left alone to fight, disappear for ever, or survive. We did survive and are now together in the EU. Nevertheless, smaller drops of injustice remain until now, if the Second World War is not finished yet. Here in Rome, unfortunately, still remain the assets of Lithuania neither returned nor compensated to my country. This happened when the USSR occupied the independent Republic of Lithuania in June 1940 and the Soviets immediately demanded for our embassy at Via Nomentana. The Government of Benito Mussolini was eager to appease Stalin, then ally of Hitler, so the keys of the embassy were taken from the Lithuanian ambassador and given to the Soviet one. Despite various efforts undertaken, when Lithuania, after 50 years, restored her independence as a continuator of all her rights, that post-occupation case until now is unsolved, like a frozen monument to WWII.
You see, Europe has some sins, too.
Finally, the question of partners.
– Tell me, Europe, who is your friend and I will know who you are.
In politics this word "friend" is replaced by partner and partnership in various combinations. Partnership for Peace, Extended partnership, Strategic partner – the latter looks very much like friend.
The EU often calls Russia its strategic partner in energy business and in fighting terrorists. The problem is that this partnership contains different meanings for both sides.
In Western understanding of partnership, it is cooperation with mutual benefits. The Soviet as well as Russian post-Soviet view is different. It is rather similar to gambling or playing sports. Accordingly, your partner is adversary and opponent to be put down, and all beneficial awards from the game are then yours. Only pleasure is mutual.
Finally, when you are political winner, your European "partner" is kneeling at his proper place. Delighted with his own beneficial servilism, obedient and shaking hands in congratulation for such a perfect game – such is the partnership along Lenin-Putin's lines. The famous Lenin’s expression: “they will pay for a string, on which we will hang them” is worthwhile to be often repeated. A good remedy against forthcoming mockery.
Putinist Russia is confident in its future victories over the West. Russia's provision is the New World Order again, another legacy of communist dreams, in which such gimmicks as "universal values", "internationally recognized principles", "human rights" and "state of law" (if that law is not imposed by dictators) are ousted even from mentioning, since this could be seen "politically incorrect" towards Russia and "antagonizing" it.
Nobody is so stupid anymore, to antagonize gas. To antagonize your own consciousness and dignity is less painful.
Europe finds itself on moral crossroads, and overwhelming post-Christian relativism makes it difficult to choose the way to be called European. And Russia is a grim mirror to that situation. Thus for the end I took the mirror.
Strangely, most of EU politicians like to repeat mantras on “strategic partnership” with Russia, but avoid define the content and differences between the “strategies” of both. Many are still happy with the paper signed on four “common areas”. One among them is for justice, freedom and human rights, since for Russia there is little compliance with reality. Are we in a common area when looking at Chechnya torn down to ashes and ruins for its political disobedience? Are we in a common area with authoritarian governance at home and professional killers sent to London? Therefore, “common values” with Russia are too often put at stake of ultimate incredibility, what are those European values.
Europe may soon find itself on the edge of total self-determination. Some of Russia’s plans may be just a means of psychological war, used to make Europeans flexible to the maximum and keen to exchange their dignity, spiritual heritage and principal beliefs for gas, etc. Their dreams and illusions to become the states of stable welfare for a long life and the new economic world power based on Russian supplies, nevertheless, is a devil's temptation worthy to rethink soberly. What is the price? And what is the alternative? Is there none?
One could say something fantastic: if you still want to remain free from the Kremlin’s dictate, you must at least to show some moves towards living without Russia. It is the only way to get Kremlin (whom?) thinking normally even on “interdependence”. But this way is too demanding for Western politicians. Just in theory, that utopian idea of living for some time without Russia (before it comes to senses) would mean illusions about welfare and leadership frozen. In absolutely great proximity, it would be seen as too high a price for European liberty plus identity. Words, words and words about community of values cannot disguise the erosion of those values and crawling disbelief. Real values for today are rather material, nor moral.
Ladies and gentlemen, the situation on the edge of new European self-determination may turn out to helpful. This is the chance, anyway. Not everything can be predicted. The new philosophy of life is needed. I only tried to share with you my observations and concerns. Sorry, my main concern is Europe, second after Lithuania, part of Europe.
Lecture at Magna Carta Foundation, 19 April 2008, Rome
