Abonament gratuit
Videoconferinţa “Antreprenoriat fără gen”Videoconferinţa “Antreprenoriat fără gen”

EU concert, in the winter of our discontent

Translated by Cosmin Ghidoveanu
English Section /

EU concert, in the winter of our discontent

Jean-Claude Juncker and the College of European Commissioner are in Bucharest since yesterday, where they are attending the festivities dedicated to the official takeover by Romania of the rotating presidency of the EU council.

The official takeover, by Romania, of the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, has led to many controversies both domestically and abroad. The mass-media in the powerful countries of the Union have criticized the government in Bucharest and the PSD-ALDE coalition. Nevertheless, the representatives of the Government have claimed that we are ready for the presidency of the EU council, even if the leaders of the parliamentary opposition have alleged serious deficiencies when it comes to the qualifications of the members of the Dăncilă government to match the European requirements.

To clarify the meaning of the events happening lately, we have made short interviews with leaders and representatives of the main political parties.

Opinia Cititorului ( 7 )

  1. Perspectives on the challenges and opportunities of the future EU enlargement towards western Balcans


    The hypothesis: for all the progress in the construction of the new identity of European Union, the European Civil Society (resistance against the coercive European Political Society) cannot accept “the embedded neo-liberalism” (the EU’s actual hegemonic Project) without finding real solutions for so-called “social fracture” of globalisation and this represents a big threat to the soft security model of Europe. This research is based on the neo-Gramscian integrative theoretical perspective. The question is: could Civil Society fr om CEEC, as social power participate in the potential anti-hegemonic Project of European Civil Society (in neo-Gramscian terms), able to face the hegemonic project of European Political Society, “embedded neo-liberalism”? After examining CEEC case study the answer is negative because this Civil Society is not yet well organised, even it is ripe to understand their social situation and the possibilities to change it in alliance with other transnational forces of Social and Christian Democracy fr om Europe. This study of the CEEC’s EU integration was made fr om two perspectives: as a challenge, but also as an opportunity for the Western European and Eastern European winners and losers: European Round Table of Industrialists, European Civil Society, European Union and CEE Governments and Civil Society, by examining the connections between power in production including social power, power in the state, and power in international relations and proposing a new project by shifting fr om a paternalistic policy paradigm of “embedded neo-liberalism” towards a new and more enlightened policy paradigm towards integration, in the frame of a comprehensive humane security concept in Europe and humane governance, fr om a feminine perspective, by adapting the emergent geo-governance to the realization of human rights.

    1. To what extent, and in what ways, does globalisation contribute to international and intra-national conflict?

      To answer this question a number of questions will guide us in this attempt, which can be summarized as follows: 1.What happens? 2. Why is it happening? 3. How can this be judged? 

      1.What happens? 

      Globalisation, as well as the economic regional integration1 processes, create a gap between powerful economic convergence - simple globalisation2 (American type of economic integration) and less powerful complex convergence – complex globalisation3(new European type of complex integration, EU new embryonic structural power4 which can create unity in diversity at global and regional level, and vertical community), and also create discursive tensions originated on the gap between rhetoric and reality of globalisation. For analytical purposes, the most helpful use of the term globalisation is to clarify this process, within various trends and counter-trends, tendencies and counter-tendencies need to be specified rather the notion of globalisation itself, so we should look for causes and consequences. Individual, State and International System level of analysis, is relevant also for the explanation of the conflicts of globalisation, individual and collective human rights, whose violation gives rise not only to injustice and tension but also to unpredictability and instability and hence to international insecurity. 

      Globalisation historical, multilevel and multilateral process appears as a new type of relationship between old and new actors of international system, which involves simultaneous trends of integration and fragmentation of solidarity at all levels: individual, community to one side and institutional (local, regional and international) to the other side (so world turbulence). The nature of this relationship can be competitive or cooperative, in an ideal case. The relation became the new unit of analyses of the international system. fr om the conflicting nature of the relations between these new actors, on the one hand (minorities, public opinion, terrorist movements, nongovernmental organisations, epistemological community, individuals and multinationals - non-state logic or private sector, conflict is present also between these private actors) and old actors on the other hand (nation-states - state logic or public sector- the conflict between groups of states; between centre, periphery and semi-periphery, between the sovereign states and international intergovernmental organisations in search of new identity and legitimacy) and fr om the conflict between different levels of governance systems including: economic, political, strategic and diplomatic on the one side (the logic of global capital ch aracterised by individualistic and corporate profit and self interest – hegemonic project of globalisation) and social, cultural, communicational, human rights, environmental, so human security and development sector on the other side (the logic of global Civilization designed to provide a good life for humanity - anti-hegemonic project of globalisation) starts three principal types of conflicts of globalisation: structural, functional and legitimacy, at both international and intra-national level, because in this interrelated world the artificial boundaries between international and intra-national conflicts are being erased. 

      2. Why is it happening? 

      Globalisation theorists draw attention to extremely important change, which have occurred in the organisation of financial markets. This change reinforces the position of states actors following neo-liberal economic strategies and constrains social democrats, consequentially eliminating existing welfare regimes. To answer this question we have to analyse at two levels: the surface structure and the deeper structure. At the surface structure we have: structural Anarchy, Security Dilemma, Power Politics, Resource Scarcity, Ascriptive Factors (Culture, Nationalism etc.), Interdependence. At the deeper structure we find the discursive lack of a new functional paradigm of theory of knowledge and international relations, which can create solidarity of the actual discursive gap between the process of Integration and Unity. The old paradigm of the theory of knowledge thought as that Human society is fragmented into isolated parts, which are frequently in conflict and this is starting fr om the axiom of selfish and aggressive human nature fighting for power and survival extended to human society5. This fragmentation creates different world views based on different conflicting values (religious values generator for cultural values), interests (big finance private interest against national and general public interest, national security competition against evolving cooperative security paradigm so called security dilemma6). Let’s have a look on the classification of the causes and nature of conflict worked by Abduíl-Aziz Said and ch arles O. Lerche.7 

      Legitimacy conflict 

      The paradox of identity and reflexivity8 is related to legitimacy conflict: minorities often see the state as no longer a advocate and guardian of domestic interests9, but to a certain extent a co-worker with outside forces…and the growth of reflexivity through large access to information, increase the “disobedience” of citizens. Thus, in the 1990's it can be argued that the principal area of conflict may no longer be originate between states, but between the state and sub-national groups and individuals. Thus, reasons for conflict recline in questions of legitimacy; while its forms and ways of expression are culturally determined and influenced, international conflict is, consequently, no longer easily separated fr om racial, class or religious problems within the state and can be instrumented by political elites.10 (Authority crises) 

      Structural conflict 

      It is obvious on a global scale, whe reexists a mal-distribution of resources among states and people. Structural elements, such as asymmetrical relationships between states are considered at the core of international conflicts. Structure is described as a process whereby benefits in the system are distributed unequally, structure involves most visibly political and economic exchanges but also cultural, social interaction 11 and environmental aspects, like clean water and air. The actual form of globalisation, driven by economic power, obviously promotes the hegemony of Western culture and economic Model and corporations and creates structural losers and anti-political movements. (Distribution crises) 

      Functional conflict 

      Functional theorists have proposed that the states system does not effectively perform necessary global functions. This judgement is based on the hypothesis that an efficient world order must carry out certain tasks to afford a minimum of services to the world's population. This strength includes such things as an effective communications network, adequate institutions for economic and security cooperation, and basic social welfare. Inefficiency in these areas results in human needs higher than the capacity of the existing structures available to address them; which, in turn, precipitates crises of legitimacy and conflict on both the intra-state and inter-state levels. 12 (Institutional crises) 

      3. How can this be judged?

      In conclusion Globalisation process is evaluated as an "engine" of social conflict13 which creates institutional, authority and distribution crises because the actual global governance can’t accommodate the biggest contradiction between the two logics of globalisation, the logic of global capital ch aracterised by individualistic and corporate profit and self interest, and the logic of global Civilization designed to provide a good life for humanity, so “the continuing gap between Unity and Integration in the contemporary world order foreshadows further tensions and conflicts14 until its institutions and processes of governance can accommodate both the universalising and the localizing effects of globalisation and both logics of globalisation”15, in other words the logic of private sector and the logic of public sector, by democratisation of actual global governance and structural foreign policy16. The roots of conflict found in human nature has been proven wrong by current integrative approach of sciences and also the belief of Wilson that you get peace if you have free trade and democratic systems (capitalism is not democratic at all de facto), which in fact created discussed conflicts at international and intra-national level. Conflict arise fr om the dynamics of inter-state relations, power politics instead of normative politics, anarchy increase the likelihood of war in actual global order governed by death principals, Thanatos and less by life principal, Eros “the engine of unity”, as Freud understood. Let’s hope in the three activities virtues of “globalism” to bring unity trough solidarity: active communication for understanding, sharing of resources and mutual aid in difficult time.17 

    0.0. Challenges and Opportunities for a new European Humane Security Order

    This introductory chapter has three sections: first deals with ignored types of threat showing the economic influences on popular disturbance and the link between Globalisation and European integration, the second introduces the common opportunities and challenges of EU enlargement towards CEE space and the third one, proposes the paradigm of cooperation, starting point for a new Model of Global Humane Governance. All three sections present the issues fr om a feminine perspective: new paradigm of Humane Security taking into account the ignored types of threats, the opportunity of Cooperative relationship instead of Competitive relationship for overcoming the main common challenges of all actors involved on European, humane governance for sustainable development. 

    This first section of the introductory chapter evaluates how structural change in the international system level, such as Globalisation and the end of the Cold War, have impact on the Security agenda, by looking at those ignored types of threats1 related to security in post-Cold War Europe, fr om a feminist point of view; hunger, disease, illiteracy, person abuse and exploitation, pollution of the air and water and especially unemployment.  

    Comprehensive security concept is a big challenge for state and other existing institutions. This type of challenge consists on new linkages between political, security and economic threats, which have challenged the capacity of the state to perceive and to respond to new challenges and needs for action in one side and on institutional challenge relating to the competence of existing institutions for international action in the other side and finally to the potential for co-ordination between state and other non-state (transnational and subnational) forces.  

    This first section also explains the relationship between Integration and Globalisation, by warning on the present and future impact of integration on the poor of the most of the CEEC. An analysis of challenges and opportunities of European Enlargement is not an end in itself; it is a useful way of understanding the social and political world in order to change it, in a neo-Gramscian, feminist perception, producing a more “feminine” society and a new model of governance, by adapting the emergent geo-governance to the realization of human rights. 

    We continue trying to answer what is the relationship between these three simultaneous processes in the most of the CEEC: multilevel and multidimensional process of transformation, the process of integration into the EU and both of these processes are occurring in the larger context of the Globalisation process. All these three macro-processes are strongly interrelated and it is difficult or even impossible to distinguish clearly the transformation, integration and global processes and their impact on the economies and societies of the transition countries because we don’t have a theoretical approach able to explain this simultaneity and existent theory of integration are limited.  

    We assume that if we would like to find solution in the real life we have to find solution also at the theoretical level, taking into account the power of ideas for change. We need a new theory of integration as a useful instrument for generating alternative models of governance adequate to the reality of European Integration. We need new theory because the old ones are limited and are not able to explain the reality. 

    Despite the continuing domination of states, multinational corporations, non-governmental organisations, intergovernmental organisations and supranational institutions such as the EU share the stage of global politics affected by economic and political development combined with technological changes. The inability for governments to manage problems arising fr om trans-border transactions requires co-operation even at the cost of losing autonomy. The first section of the second chapter will demonstrate the impotence of state - the Romanian case study - to guarantee humane security and sustainable development and consequently their priorities of foreign policy to fill this vacuum of security, by the CFPS regime of EU and by integration, potentiality for a win-win game instead of zero-sum game scenarious. We will also demonstrate that state sovereignty and personal sovereignty are myths only, because in reality, multi-national corporations are not subordinated to states and International organisations, such EU and law have superior authority and for this reason states can’t determine their own policies. These actors have different interests and power politics is made less important because they are operating within the societal domain and beyond direct state control. We are summing, in this section, the existent theories of integration pointing out their limits. 

    Neo-functionalism explains European Integration through an emphasis on the internal dynamics of European Politics, of spill - over, fr om different sectors of economy to political sector. The wider structure, within European Integration is situated, is completely ignored. It is impossible to take into account structural change such Globalisation and the end of the Cold War.  

    In contrast to neo-functionalism, which emphasizes the importance of non-governmental interest groups in the process of European integration, inter-governmentalism considers the international structure to be an anarchic system in which states are the only important actors. This approach argues that states pursue rationalist policies of power maximisation and security in order to ensure their survival in the absence of a central power at the International level. 

    Liberal inter-governmentalism put the predominant emphasis on state as the main actors in international relations neglecting the power of ideas and transnational actors as independent forces behind integration. The behavior of TNCs, after1980s in the EU, is interpreted as rational adaptation of intergovernmental commitment, while policy involvement and ideas of TNCs are view as the result of intergovernmental demands, but not as independent force. 2 

    Neo-Gramscian alternative gives another answer to this behavior, showing the role and power of influence and control of this transnational capital and financier actors at the European level, being a critical theory which tries to explain the change and treating the human nature and all structures, including the international system, as product of history and consequently subject of change. 

    The revival of European integration since the mid-1980s has reconciled regional integration with Globalisation. How it was possible? The answer is obviously simple, the same transnational fractions of capi­tal that are behind the current drive of European integration are components of a wider transnational historical bloc, working within high profile fora such as the G-7 meetings (now G8) and including also private organisations such as the Trilateral Commission and the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT). It is this bloc which has generated the ideas, institutions and material capabilities for a global shift towards more neo-liberal forms of state and which influenced the development of European integration making it compatible with Globalisation, not opposed to it. It is correct to agree with Cox, that the task to change World Order begins with the long laborious effort to build new historical blocs and our thesis will try to analyze the potentiality of such occurrence in the post Cold Europe. 

    Change of the polarity of the international system after the Cold War, reflects the development of new structural variables, as results of trends aiming to revise institutional entities as European Union and state policies. Not all elements of change are causes of conflicts, because it is not polarity but polarisation that can lead to conflicting situations. There is no evidence that such a process will occur in the European subsystem yet, but the coming situations are not predictable, thus this thesis will try to analyze the potential polarisation in Europe, as a product of willingness for change of the losers representing the social power of the European integration process with its both aspects deepening and enlargement, process which is driven by the transnational forces of globalisation, which are the real winners.  

    What is important to notice is that the states become “a transmission belt” fr om the global level to the national economy level, “undermining the sovereignty and autonomy in all aspects of security”. This phenomenon “can be called internationalizing of the state”, according to Robert Cox .3 This phenomenon created the so-called “social fracture”, engine of the conflicts of globalisation. (see annex 1,Conflicts of globalisation, first neo-Gramscian analysis of the author of this thesis). 

    Linked with this social fracture of Globalisation and European enlargement towards CEEC, we have to start our analysis by looking to the ongoing hegemonic project of “embedded-neo-liberalism” synthesis aimed to unify the transnational capitalist actors (TNCs) and first subchapter of the first chapter elaborates on it. This includes the social purpose supporting the emergent European Order. The Maastricht compromise reflects the gradual rise of what can be called an ”embedded neo-liberalism”. This is neo-liberal view as it emphasizes the primacy of global market forces and the freedom of the movement of the transnational capital. So, as a result of such processes, markets become increasingly disconnected fr om their post-war national social institutions and we risk a shift fr om a “national dictatorship” to an “international dictatorship” in these so called transition countries. In one side, one may read “embedded neo-liberalism” as the outcome of the transnational struggle between the three projects of neo-liberalism, neo-mercantilism and supranational social democracy. This was a struggle in which the neo-liberal became dominant but still had to accommodate the concern both of the former neo-mercantilist and of the social democrats. The neo-liberal project incorporated these rival concerns in such a manner that they were subordinated to the interests of globalising capital (neglecting the social democratic concerns in this compromise). In the other side, “embedded neo-liberalism” can also be interpreted as the emerging hegemonic project of Europe's transnational capitalist class. This class has become dominated by- the leadership of a globalist fraction both in terms of financial firms and global industrial TNCs.4 

    This process of assimilation is an extremely attractive and powerful project, which became the basis for expansion towards Central and Eastern Europe. Our thesis would like to argue that European Integration is not a win-win scenarious yet, as it is considered on the theory of integration5; even the removal of barriers to free trade and closer integration of national economies, they have the potentiality to enrich every one, especially the poor. What is the reason for this failure? The neglect of the social protection and the denying of the existence of genuine unemployment by the standard model that economists had used for generations could be one explanation; the only reason that unemployment existed was the wages were too high, suggesting the simple remedy: lower wages. They argued that markets worked perfectly and outworn presumption that markets, by themselves lead to efficient outcomes and this failed to allow the desirable intervention of the government in the market for the guidance of economic growth and make everyone better off. Therefore, the second section of the first chapter deals with the existing social cohesion policy and unemployment policy at the EU level, which is not yet prepared to answer to the social challenges. Some hope for the future exists, taking into account the recent proposal of social working group, to include on the draft of the constitution, as objectives on the Art. 3: promotion of full employment and quality of work, together with social justice and sustainable development. 

    In sum, “embedded neo-liberalism” is here interpreted as a potentially hegemonic project unifying Europe's “transnational capitalist class” and expressing its collective interests and identities. The discourse and strategy of the ERT continued to play an important role in the evolving regime of European socio-economic governance into the 1990s. The question is who will articulate and defend the public interest against the global reach of private financial and commercial interests, when the latter will go too far? The third subchapter of the both first chapter and second chapter will introduce the Gramsci’s concept of Civil Society in contrast with the actual concept of civil society at the European level. Gramsci’s concept of civil society has the potentiality to advocate the losers of integration, “organic intellectuals” having the noble mission of imagining a counter-hegemonic project - basis for a new building bloc. 

    It is possible to analyze the history of European integration revival project, as well as we shall discouss future possible scenarious and developments including the opportunities for resistance against the dominant hegemonic projects. The method of understanding historical processes put forward by neo-Gramscian perspectives open the door for alternatives for European Integration. 

    The second section of the introductory chapter introduces the common challenges and opportunities for a new European security order in the “post-Wall” period, fr om the winners and losers of EU integration perspective in an aggregated effort of finding the common denominators in a cooperative paradigm and discusses the need for redefinition of security, in a feminist perspective (related to it, the definition of a threat and its perception also it is necessary). A big challenge at the theoretical level is to find an alternative approach of the theories of integration, which could explain the actual reality of European integration and fr om this theoretical position to find the mechanism of global governance, which could manage the global structural change in a more humane nature. The biggest challenge for the development of human being in our contemporaneous world is unemployment victim of so-called “fragmegration” process. The biggest disruptive force appears to be at first glance, economic in nature. Widespread large-scale unemployment in modern industrial economies, resulting in reduced levels of income, consumption and actual tax revenues needed to pay the generous unemployment that benefit the unemployed demand, have imposed painful fiscal sacrifices, such as a higher level of taxation, that have become increasingly accepted as inescapable features of modern societies. Years of unmitigated unemployment have sapped the pride and self-respect of whole generations and have left workers, business and governments in a state of despair and suspicious about the real costs of integration. Paying for the newly eligible recipients of unemployment benefits, who have not contributed anything in the past and cannot, if unemployed, be expected to contribute anything in the future, has come to be regarded, by some of the richer partner, as too high a price to pay for the luxury of integration. In conclusion disruptive forces like unemployment will challenge the meaning of security and the definition of threat. Any discussion about the common denominators has to start with the opportunity of a new system of col­lective security in Europe - as they have been expressed through the decisions taken in Maastricht, Amsterdam, Berlin, Madrid and Saint. Malo - and also should take account of the constituent elements of change that produced the ”new order”6. The elements of Change usually create conflicting relationships; the wisdom and challenge will be to deal creatively with them, transforming these challenges in opportunities for new policy and strategies in an aggregated effort of all European actors involved in building a new Humane Security Order, based on common denominators. This can be an opportunity for the regime-building process, which should draw fr om states their common interests in redefining the terms of an interstate security com­munity in Europe, recognising non-state actors as “critical supporters” for this process, in a feminist theoretical perspective of cooperation. 

    The condition for successful security regime building, as an opportunity is the identification and definition of the threat. NATO experience in Kosovo has shown that there is a linear relationship between the internal cohesion of an alliance and the way in which members perceive external threats and challenges. The nature of interstate relations in post-Cold War Europe has changed to such an extent that the definition of a specific threat is very difficult by replacing “ the Soviet threat” with a complex of secondary threats or collective risks. (see annex 2). 

    The failure of EU states to define the nature and ch aracter of post-Cold War threats could not only undermine the attempts to transform the CFSP into ”defense policy”, but could endanger the integration process in other fields. By linking threats to internal security of the EU to the enlargement project by some politicians, the public opinion would be against enlargement project. 

    Related to this aspect starts the question: ”Is it the real threat for the internal Security of the EU, the enlargement towards CEEC or “social fracture” of Globalisation?” 

    The answer is not so simple. The more politicians fr om Western Europe point to international competitive pressures, the EMU, and so to legitimate and push through changes in structures of social policy, the more they run the risk that potential and real losers of such policies will turn against Globalisation and European Integration and demand more control over foreign economic policy, in short protectionism. 

    The challenge is to explain to the public opinion the real threat for individual security, on one side and to find the principal common denominators of the actors involved on the European affairs, on the other side. Therefore we will try to elaborate on these issues during the journey of our thesis, as an opportunity and challenge at the same time, by looking at the emerging social forces, fr om Western and Eastern Europe, which potentially have the interest to con vert the losers of integration in winners contributing to the emerging project of Humane governance, based on new core values as Humane security and Sustainable development. It is important to challenge the neo-liberal wisdom, which has acquired a status of natural truth during the processes of Globalisation. 

    The third section of this introductory chapter deals with another question: Can EU neutralise the negative impact of the anarchical international environment by the long-term experience of co-operational and institutional frameworks of normative interaction? 

    We will argue that the nature of the new systemic reality, contrary to realist and neo-realist predictions, can converge with the efforts of the EU member states to formulate norms and rules which can promote co-operative state and non-state behaviour and advance the integration process, in a feminist perspective, as a positive compromise for a model of humane governance.  

    The European model represents a fusion between “liberal” and “realist” visions of the international system, states are basic units of analyses, in the view of realist, but contains the security dilemma within a non-violent conflicting - cooperative - relationship, or even culture of cooperation. 

    The shift fr om state, as a unit of analysis, to relationship, as unit of analysis of International Politics, it is the important change in International Relations. Building constructive relationships between all the European powers and actors has been a challenge amplified by the existence of military and economic competition. It was a wise paradox and good example, at the same time.  

    New type of relationship between western great powers and transnational capitalist actors is called geo-governance. In this case geopolitical axis will certainly shift fr om statist field, balance of power, stability, self-defense, spheres of influence and alliances to global market concerns with competitiveness, financial flows, capital sources, trade expansion, coordinating mechanism of labour market. 

    The challenge will be to build a common agenda for all actors by a cooperative relationship in short between soft and hard power. The common denominator of all this powers is the struggle for survival and we assume that in a long term only humanistic values like humane security and humane governance for sustainable development can assure the survival for all. The question is could be this struggle transformed in cooperation for survival of the Human being and preservation of the Earth? 

    In the regulation of power relations, the European system puts constraints on the state behavior and the stability becomes a special vested interest of dominant powers, in the management of the status quo. Despite the continuing domination of states, multinational corporations, nongovernmental organization, intergovernmental organizations and supranational institutions such as European Union share the stage of global politics affected by economic and political development, but on the other hand, non-adversarial problem solving mechanism would not be promoted in a hierarchical order controlled by elitist decision- making. This is the biggest dilemma. 

    Our hopes must continue to rest on the democratic energies of the peoples of the world, acting in all their diversity, yet conscious both of the threats that confront them and of the historic necessity to adapt the emergent geo-governance to the realization of human rights, transforming it in humane governance for human security and human sustainable development.

    Global humane governance as a counter hegemonic project, fr om European Civil Society perspective

    Global humane governance will be the subject of discussion on this subchapter. First section points out the necessity of creating such a system in order to avoid the blaming and also the prescriptive top-down approach of global governance after analyzing the world order present models. Third section discouses the conflict between long-term interest and short interest, common values of the actual actors involved on international politics. Sustainable development and Humane security transform the global geogovernance concept in Humane geogovernance and the fourth section will try to explain the prospect for Humane governance. 

    Our thesis will only present general ideas because the discussion needs more space. We give more space to the prospect for humane security, which eventually will be part of the new security identity of Europe, civilian approach (see the non-violent peace force network-making the bridge between USA and Europe). 

    In order to find a global humane governance system, we need first a constitution developed around the following functions: disarmament, involving the protection of human rights; social justice, environmental protection; economic and social development; and the regulation of international processes such as trade, transportation and communication. What the new world-order models have in common is a commitment to the basic human values as fundamental criteria of world order. They begin with common problems and then formulate functional institutions to cope with those problems. In today’s nation-state competition, those values that conflict with national security goals have little chance to become operative on any significant scale. 

    The starting point of each Model or governance is the necessity to have as a common denominator but the problem is which one? Sustainable development and Humane security for all actors of international system and the Right to development can be the key words, as integrative concepts of all human needs for the humanity as a whole. In public policy debates, few argue openly in terms of their own self-interest. Everything is couched in terms of general interest.  

    Fourth section deals with humane governance opposite concept of geo-governance. Humane geo-governance is the preferred variant of geo-governance. Humane geo-governance is not a structure to be blueprinted, but a process of engagement that is guided by a principle of non-violence. Humane governance is a preferred form of governance being a process and a goal, which emphasizes the achievement of comprehensive rights for all peoples on earth. We have to worn that our passivity will ensure the triumph of the G-7 view of the human future. The prospect for human governance is urgency. (see annex 10) 

    In sum, Humane governance emphasizes people-centered criteria of success, as measured by declines in poverty, violence and pollution and by increasing adherence to human rights and constitutional practices, especially in relation to vulnerable segments of society, as well as by axiological shifts away fr om materialist/consumerist and patriarchal conceptions of human fulfillment. The perspectives of humane governance stress the accountability of elites and the participation by the peoples of the world and their directly elected representatives. It is necessary to explore the meaning of humane governance in a series of conceptual and policy settings, as well as some implications of counter-projects to shape geo-governance in more beneficial ways than those resulting fr om global market forces. 

    The political imaginations of the rich and powerful are still caught up in greed and by efforts to retain short-run advantage. As a consequence, the historical opening at the end of the Cold War has been largely squandered, being treated as one more opportunity to consolidate power and wealth.

    If Globalisation brought negative aspects, the positive aspect of Globalisation is that it has brought an active civil society, fighting for more democracy and greater social justice. 

    1. Conclusions and perspectives on the future project of the European Civil Society

      We could conclude that a civilization the more it advances in sacrificing ideals and values to interests, the more perverse and degenerate is. A "civilization" that conveniently and unscrupulously subordinates values to interests is not really worthy of being called a civilization. No matter how it may develop its material aspects, it will remain empty at its human core, which is always moral-spiritual based. In this regard, world politics is shifting fr om a horizontal axis of Right vs. Left, to a vertical axis of economic materialist values vs. ecological, feminist, spiritual values; and the central “struggle” for the next generation. 

      A hegemonic project should be developed around issues of a humane security system via the OSCE and an economic strategy, which considers good environmental and social standards and full employment to be more important than efficiency, competition and high levels of economic growth. In this respect, it is important to challenge the neo-liberal wisdom, which has acquired a status of natural truth during the processes of globalisation. This will not be easy and requires a long war of position. Institutions should be set up, which could provide the platform for organic intellectuals and for the devel­opment and promotion of an alternative to neo-liberalism. Ministers and representatives stressed the crucial role of NGOs as key non-state actors partners in developing, advocating, building and implementing humane security1. The question is if these social forces are prepared to face the actual hegemonic ongoing process of embedded neoliberalism. Let’s sum these potential forces of Europe and their input to this coalition already in formation, before answering to this question: 

      Pressure groups - Redistribution of benefits and losses resulting fr om lobby activities and these influential pressure groups both in the CEEC and the EU itself can affect the position of losers and winners. 

      Trade union- Intensified co-operation between trade unions within Europe, including the sector level: on co-ordination in respect of wages, working conditions and social regulation complemented by much closer co-ordination of national economic and social policies, going beyond neo-liberal solutions. 

      Nation-states - particularly decision-making elites could be ready to participate on this coalition with new ideas able to relegitimise their authority because even the most powerful nation-states - are no longer able to fulfill the purpose for which they were created (elected) consequently not longer legitimate. 

      The exploitation of the sphere of reproduction may result in either a nationalist, reactionary response led by extreme-right parties such as the Austrian Freedom Party, or a progressive internationalist response as indicated in the programmes of Green parties and a broad array of social movements. Recent demonstrations during the Carnival Against Capitalism (London, June 1999) as well as mobilisation against the World Trade Organisation (Seattle. November 1999) and the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (Washington, April 2000; Prague, September 2000) are examples of progressive internationalist response. An important step in building a more viable human future is to identify all the sources and causes of our present powerlessness. For this purpose we have to examine the report between: Legal justice / Social justice: Legal justice is conformity to laws passed by a legislative body. Such justice may no have relationship to social justice which is conformity to natural laws that do not depend upon human legislation, i.e. inalienable rights to food, dignity and self-determination. In fact, in many cases, legal justice is in direct conflict with social justice. A major task in our days is to develop a process and system in which the criterion of legal justice is social justice. This is a big challenge and opportunity at the same time for lawyers, social scientists and practitioners to help this project of civil society, as noble mission.

      What is common to all actors is that the criterion of human development is shelved “for the duration”. The duration here is not the short -term reality. Rather, this duration is here to stay until a global security system with functional institutions capable of dealing with rampant global forces is developed. Some of our friends have counseled us that to speak of the logic of national security mobilization and of corporate elite rules is to furnish “the haves” with the rationale needed to preserve their power just at a time when they are under attack fr om every side. What is needed, they argue, is even greater pressure fr om the people. Such advice does not dig deeply enough in its search for a solution. As long as the obsolete world system continues unchanged, the logic of national security mobilization will remain operative as a major obstacle to goals of fuller humane development. 


      The theoretical approach of explanation of European Integration is out dated because neo-functionalism and intregovernmentalism can’t take into account the wider structure of Integration, namely the global structural change and the post-Cold War context. Globalisation is ch aracterised by two interlinked processes, the transnationalisation of finance and production at the material level and, a shift fr om Keynesian to neo-liberalism as a driving force of Globalisation and European integration, fr om a political economy perspective. The post War international economic order in the Western world was a compromise between the principle of economic liberalism and national interventionism, called “embedded neoliberalism”. Consequently, of equal concern is what globalization does to democracy. Globalisation, as it has been advocated, often seems to replace the old dictatorship of national elites with new dictatorship of international finance and this is big threat for the state and personal sovereignty. To overcome the theoretical impotence, we need a theoretical model able to explain integration and to democratize the actual geo-governance for the realization of human rights. The humane governance prospect is urgency and our thesis has tried to propose an embryo of it. 

      In conclusion global mobility capital and production in a world of open economies have made the central policies of European social democracy unworkable1. By so doing they have made today’s mass unemployment a problem without a simple solution. The monetarist theories that presently dominate the world’s central banks and transnational financial institutions deny that any trade-off of price stability with full employment can be achieved. 

      We assumed that a shift on the theoretical discourse could produce a change in real life. This was the motivation of our thesis at the deeper structure. Let’s sum the perspectives on the opportunities and challenges of the European Enlargement. 

      fr om the EU perspective the enlargement towards CEEC is evaluated as a challenge for his strategy of Enlargement, for ERT as an opportunity for a free market strategy, fr om CEEC perspective as an opportunity for filling the vacuum of security and their impotence to assure sustainable development in the actual context, fr om the Civil Society perspective, European integration can be evaluated as an opportunity for a new counter-hegemonic project, for global governance for humane security and human development oriented, and organic intellectuals have the noble mission of the construction of the anti-hegemonic Project, in a neo-Gramscian terms. All this actors are winners fr om their perspective. 

      In sum the big challenges for ERT are the job creation for overcoming the European crises of unemployment and the disparities between East and West, demonstrating on their perspective that integration is win-win scenarious and thus public opinion has to support this process. 

      The real challenge would be the adaptation of the ongoing geo-governance to the realization of human rights as we stated before. This is a big challenge and opportunity at the same time. 

      For millions of people fr om CEEC and Western Europe globalisation has not worked and they are losers. Many have actually been made worse off, as they have seen their jobs destroyed and their lives become more insecure. They have felt increasingly powerless against forces beyond their control. If we fail to learn fr om our mistakes, globalisation will not only succeed in promoting development but will continue to create poverty and instability. This will be a tragedy for all of us. Unemployment could persist for years, and government intervention would be required. The free market ideology should be replaced with analyses based on economic science, with a more balanced view of the role of government drawn fr om an understanding of both market and government failures. 

      These challenges are present at the surface structure but what are the remaining challenges, at the deeper structure? And what new strategies and policies should be formulated to effectively address these challenges? A big issue for actual history is who will be the responsible for the failure of the states? Who will be the guardian of the general interest when the private interest will go too far? Who will be accountable for the Human rights violation when the states are force to give up their sovereignty? These are questions without a proper answer. This thesis cannot provide an answer; it can only invite you on further reflections and research on this field. 

      We can start by assuming that ”as long as the nation–state system continues to dominate global interaction, the state will continue to be the key provider, or alternatively, the major abuser of human rights towards its citizens.”2 This paradigm seems to be out-dated because at the deepest structure, the biggest violators of human rights are the Transnationals and some International Intergovernmental organisations as well.

      Global Humane Governance is the magic word for the management of the common affaires of the World and European Union is the only International actor having the real material and spiritual potential to do it, because UN doesn’t have the material capabilities for it. We are very optimistic about the important role of Europe in world politic as a soft superpower able to balance to USA - hard superpower. 

    The principal question was if the civil society is ready to form a counter-hegemonic bloc at the European level in alliance with CEE governments, able to face the actual hegemonic bloc driven by embedded neo-liberalism. The answer is negative fr om two reasons: the actual European Civil society is manipulated by the EU by institutionalization of the civic dialog via the ESC, for the preservation of the status-quo and the other reason is the lack of financier independence, logistic and internal problem of democratization of these civic society entities fr om both sides Western and Eastern Europe. The creation of counter hegemonic bloc would be possible at the International level and we can’t make any prediction yet. The actual tendency at the European level is for polarization not for polarity and this represents a big threat for the soft security model of Europe. Therefore a marriage between Social Europe and neo-liberalism has to be a priority for the new identity of Europe, to curb the eventual polarization of social forces of all Europe. Europe could be a model of global humane governance for humane security and sustainable development, and the recent White paper on Governance and Strategy for sustainable development shows clear signals of this political will. Europe has humanistic values, material capabilities and institutions to make a difference in the World, as a feminine soft answer to the paradox of Democracy (spreading democracy in very undemocratic way) and Security dilemma. The question is how to make all this actors work together taking into account their divergent interest. The solution is to find the values, which are commons for all actors, as sustainable human development including humane markets and humane security and cooperative behavior and culture. Our continent has tradition in Christian message and this represents an important value, which will transform integration into a real win - win scenarios as peaceful conflict resolution soft model. A shift fr om horizontal logic of Left and Right to a vertical common logic of ecology, feminism and sustainable, equitable and democratic development is already in process at the theoretical discourse. Development is not about helping a few people get rich or creating a handful of pointless protected industries that only benefit the country’s elite, for the urban rich and leaving the rural poor in their misery. Humane development is about transforming societies, improving the lives of the poor, enabling everyone to have a chance to success and access to health care and education. This sort of development won’t happen if only a few people dictate the policies a country must follow. Making sure that democratic decisions are made means ensuring that a broad range of economists, officials, and experts fr om CEEC are actively involved in the debate in a new model of global humane governance. It also means that there must be broad participation that goes well beyond the experts and politicians, so the democratization of the actual geo-governance and ESC institutionalized such a civil dialog and this represents a great opportunity. But still the people in Western countries escape their responsibilities stating that transition countries must take ch arge. We need some time for the reactualization of our humanistic European tradition in new ideology.

Cotaţii Internaţionale

vezi aici mai multe cotaţii

Bursa Construcţiilor


Cabinet de avocatTMPS