Eurovisie December 2018

eurovisie a publication of the study association for european studies

THE FUTURE OF EUROPE DIWALI & DHARMA - FUTURE CITIES - JOURNALISTS - IDFA & REFUGEES - EUROPEAN ARMY - LEERSSEN - UKRAINE TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE - ALUMNI INTERVIEW

www.ses-uva.nl /// december 2018 /// eurovisie@ses-uva.nl

Volume 14, Issue 2 - December 2018

Imprint

Editorial office: Kloveniersburgwal 48, room E2.04/2.05, 1012 CX Amsterdam Editors-in-chief: Nikolai Markov, Anna Boyce Editors: George Bandy, Jorens Jakovlevs, Jyry Pasanen, Cara Räker, Marthe de Roos Design: Daniël Adam With contributions by: Job Knobbout, Joep Leerssen , Jamal Shahin, Gilles de Valk

Editorial

Innit a coincidence dat Jesus was born on Chris’mas day?

- Ali G

ell, it’s beginning to look a lot like… madness. The end of the year seems to instil us all with an obsession to put order into the happenings of the past year, to check up on where we ended up and hope to be happy with it. As much as annoying people like myself would say that introspection of this kind should not be dependant on the illusion of time and planet earth’s completing another full spin around

the sun, everyone, including me, finds themselves in this almost compulsory obsession to get it right. Much in this spirit, this issue is trying to look ahead and propose where we could take Europe from here. See it as a compilation of takes on pressing issues and tag along as we take it upon ourselves to play prophets. Someone’s got to do the dirty work.

Nikolai Markov

W

IN THIS EDITION...

3) NIKOLAI MARKOV DHARMA, A MATTER OF CHOICE

20) JOEP LEERSSEN EXCEPTIONS ARE THE NEW NORMAL

6) CARA RÄKER EUROPE’S FUTURE CITIES

21) JOB KNOBBOUT STANDOFF IN THE EAST

9) MARTHE DE ROOS EUROPE: A DANGEROUS PLACE FOR JOURNALISTS?

23) JAMAL SHAHIN TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE

12) ANNA BOYCE RE-HUMANISING THE REFUGEE CRISIS 16) JYRY PASANEN WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR IN EURASIA 2

26) GILLES DE VALK ALUMNI INTERVIEW

NIKOLAI MARKOV

DHARMA A MATTER OF CHOICE

O

n the 7th of November 2018, my flatmate, Mangleshwar Sriwastava, nicknamed Mangal, had organized a small celebration for the Hindu holiday Diwali in our home. He is from Varanasi in Northern India and currently a researcher at the Nikhef (Dutch National Institute for Subatomic Physics). Diwali is the festival of lights, which can easily be put as the Hindu equivalent of Christmas due to its significance to Hinduism. Already during the celebration, he was beyond excited and I was quite curious to know why. ‘I never ever thought that within my time in Europe I would be able to celebrate Diwali with so many different people in my home. Two Moroccan-Dutch guys, two Indian guys, a Bulgarian-German and a Luxembourger – wow!’ I was very happy for him and I understood how much this moment meant to him due to our more than two years of living together; the many conversations we had during this time and the help we had given each other with our very own hardships. This year’s Diwali had started a long conversation about what struck him as the biggest confusion to clear during his time in Europe and what helped him gain a better understanding of the European modus operandi if you like, crucial to his by now quite happy life here in Amsterdam. I want to use the experiences he shared with me to formulate a take on Europe’s future. How exactly this might be useful to gain insight into the big questions one could ask about Europe will not seem evident at all from this approach but I do hope to bring some sense into it for you as you read through the article. Also as a disclaimer

upfront: I am not writing from the position of an “expert” on Indian culture. Nor do I want to make far-reaching cultural comparisons in an attempt to exchange ideas from both cultures with each other and offer solutions.

These are merely trains of thought, which are worth pursuing because they just might loosen some stiff thought processes that have become so consistent that they seem to have settled in the flesh of Europe.

The first point we touched upon was the actual fear he had of claiming Diwali for himself in an outspoken manner. This point already was deeply interesting to me as he connected it to a ‘post-colonial feeling of inferiority’ as he put it. This raises two questions: the question of cultural/political obstacles he felt raised for him due to his post-colonial identity and the question of the meaning of religion, especially “foreign” religion, within Europe.

Firstly, he explained to me that already in his schooling in India (everything up until the end of his undergrad) the fear of rejection was deeply instilled into him. Rejection, the way he was taught, meant a status of worthlessness within the social structure of India.

Then in his next sentence, he connected it to the following: “You know, to us, the white man is always right. We need certification from the Westerners for every effort we pursue.” Again, this has a twofold meaning.

Firstly, the deep fear of rejection is connected with an absolute thrive towards success.

It is quite relatable, especially when thinking in terms of the perceived social pressure of competition we are all living under in today’s day and age. However, by following up with the criterion of a “White man’s certificate”, he was trying to expose a further-reaching problem connected to the post-colonial identity of India.

The pressure experienced by Indians in their schooling through the instilment of a deep fear of failure is, in this case, a direct consequence of the post-colonial setting. Indians

3

are expected to thrive towards Western ideals, Western criteria and within a social system that was substantially shaped by European influence through the British Empire.

It even goes as far as for people born in India to not only completely reject the pre-colonial cultural heritage of India, but to also take up arms against that heritage from the position of Catholic upbringing and Western schooling. Factors like literacy, standardised education and Western etiquette through dress-codes and manners (Levis jeans, eating with knife and fork, keeping your mouth closed while chewing etc.) are passed down and appropriated by a new generation, which takes it upon itself to prove the superiority of Western culture over the “primitive original”.

Basically, this means a repetition of the White Man’s Burden to civilize and show what is right, only that the White Man does not even have to budge for that burden to be carried. The signature colonial times have left within India is so deeply ingrained into the social fabric that it still heavily contributes to the placing of India within our globalised world. What we hear praised by the West most often is India’s great economic success and its role in technological advancement.

Indian expats in the Western world have become a common phenomenon, but the reason that they have, gains a much darker note when considered in the context of the underlying post-colonial identity complex.

The necessity of certification by the White Man, starting from the cultural footprint colonialism has left within India, is something that accompanies Indian expats as they move to the Western working environments.

It had always struck me that when I would visit Mangal at work he would strictly obey classic social etiquette, assume a super submissive position in every conversation, speak in a very low voice, address the person he was speaking to with ‘Sir’ or ‘Madam’ and use highly formal English. All of this seemed so very odd to me, especially considering the rather loose culture of communication I

4

have encountered in Amsterdam, no matter whether at university, at work or in free time.

It just looked like he was drilled into acting in a certain way around Europeans and it did not seem like he was doing it very consciously either. He explained to me that in India, you are taught to address any white man or woman with ‘Sir’ or ‘Madam’. In the beginning of us living together, he even called me ‘Sir’ on one occasion to which I responded: ‘do not ever call me ‘Sir’ again. Who do you think I am? Keep the ‘Sir’ for the ‘Sirs’ and do not let me have anything to do with them, please.’ My unwillingness to be called that was not just because I did not want to be associated with the addressing itself, it was more my will to break the dichotomy with which he was taught to think of the West vs.

India.

Coming back to the original point of difficulty to claim Diwali as a holiday for himself and share it with others here in Europe, Mangal opened up to explain the core concept of Hinduism to me. In our thinking, we sort Hinduism under the category of religion: A canonized way to approach spirituality and the connection of human beings towards the transcendent, the all-encompassing. This process of subordination to a certain belief is in itself a wrong step to take when trying to grasp Hinduism, in that Hinduism does not ask for a clear subordination in that form.

Unlike monotheistic religions, Hinduism does not demand the belief in one form of divinity.

All the different forms of divine pursuit showcased for example by the hundreds of Hindu gods, in a way stand for the encouragement of seeking an own path towards the transcendental level. It goes from the clear core presumption that from our frame, limited in time and space, we cannot make claim to one way, one divine being, and demand a strict following of only that. ‘Religion’ itself etymologically carries through meanings of piety, devotion, obligation and obedience. However, the central concept of Hinduism is Dharma, which etymologically stems from the Sanskrit word Dhree: to wear, something we wear

by our own choice in heart, body and soul.

Placing these two conceptions of spirituality against each other shows an epistemological clash in the discussion of religion between monotheistic religions and Hinduism. In the first case, the focus is very much on giving away agency to the faith and obeying its framework in its entirety. Dharma, on the other hand, constantly places the choices to take within the hands of the individual without impending sin or other repercussions. Trust is put in every human being to find and follow their own path to divinity and life itself.

The fear then of claiming Diwali for himself actually comes from exactly that epistemological clash, or better put, the image of religion in Europe against the meaning of Dharma. Mangal had told me that whenever he would admit among his colleagues or acquaintances back home that he is in English terms ‘religious’, the reactions were usually quite off-putting. Actually what he faced was discouragement from it as soon as he admitted to it. The meaning of religion in itself, the aspects of canonized obedience and firmly sticking to a certain belief because you were always told to do so, is the bell it rang for most of the people he spoke to; be it his fellow countrywomen and men from urban areas in India or Europeans.

Over time this fear was dropped though by countering it with clear communication.

Mangal reminded me very much of my family in Bulgaria as there was one thing both had in common: It is not as important what you say but much more important how you say it.

A phrase is never just a phrase; its expression through emotion is what determines the extent of meaning it will bear. In the West, I always had the feeling though that it is not as much about how you say it but what you are actually saying. Concepts have to be clear-cut and unambiguity is quite important in communication here. Using the years spent in our lovely study of European Studies I then tried to not only understand what the points

were he would try to get across; I wanted to pass on a mode of communication that was going to make it possible for him to be understood easily and as close to what he is actually trying to express by those around him. Just as for a happy end to a cheesy movie, I can tell you that it very much worked. His life truly blossomed up over the years and he is bridging his own inner divides to shape his life happily, beyond the Indian expat cell he saw himself put into.

This year’s Diwali was but one example of cross-cultural encounter, which Europe has always been a hub of, although through globalization it steeps much clearer into our consciousness than before. How exactly is all of this now useful to understand anything about Europe today better? The feeling of regress we have for Europe now I truly think has its root in the almost digital taxonomy the European tradition has taught us to frame the world in. In our minds, things are sorted and clear-cut. Categories, places, times, cultures, philosophies – anything is ordered in a taxonomical, “universal” framework that is nothing but European. With that we fall into a difficult conceptual trap because things either are or they are not; they belong or they do not. We should not just deny or accept differences but really attempt to understand them from the deepest root we can possibly perceive and then foster a mode of communication that will enable us to deconstruct the binaries we generate. Analogue instead of digital; let the zeros and ones not fool you because they are there to simplify.

In that sense, Merry Christmas, Namaste, inshallah наздраве!

Analogue instead of digital; let the zeros and ones not fool you because they are there to simplify.

5

EUROPE’S FUTURE CITIES

About sustainable city development and what Amsterdam has to offer,

by Cara Räker

I

f our European cities today looked like the ones envisioned by the comic artists of the 1960s, Amsterdam’s Cityscape would include a lot more glass spheres, robots and people sporting fish bowls as headpieces and aluminum foil as a denim replacement.

We would get to uni with our jetpacks and complain about tourists, who would stop their flight randomly mid-air to marvel at the complex road system criss-crossing over Amsterdam which allows the hovering cars to noiselessly swoosh from Centraal Station to the Rijksmuseum in no time. What might seem a bit overambitious nowadays was very much in line with the sentiments of the day.

The (western) economy was booming, consumerism was on the rise and people were happy to replace World War II memories with TV sets and vacuum cleaners. As Cornelia Dinca, founder of Sustainable Amsterdam and graduate of the UvAs Urban Planning Program, has pointed out: In the 1960s urban planning was really more about cars than it was about people. We all know that this power dynamic is not entirely applicable to Amsterdam, as it is really more about bikes than people, or cars in the first place - but it has not always been that way. When looking at pictures of the Haarlemmerdijk in the 1980s, for instance, one can clearly see the prominent role

6

of cars compared to the dominance of bikes today. Even the Green Space in front of the Rijksmuseum was once a busy highway with cars passing right through the big opening gate.

It is funny how things change. Our general set of values has shifted and visions of the future have taken on a more dystopian undertone along the lines of The Hunger Games or World War Z. Urban planning of the day focusses on far less exciting topics such as air pollution, the avoidance of congestion and making cities more “livable”. We want “green”, “people-friendly” and “smart” cities now because we have become aware of the link between the environment and our overall well-being. A video titled ‘Why Beautiful Things Make us Happy’ by the Munich-based design studio Kurzgesagt mentions skin sensor studies that demonstrate how humans physically react to their environment. Looking at plain dull facades, for instance, made the individuals feel bored and even uncomfortable which could be measured in raised heart rates and stress levels. Surroundings that are aesthetically pleasing, on the other hand, have been linked to more positive emotions and even increased cognitive function.

The importance of carefully designing an

efforts to set an example for environmentally friendly and sustainable urban living. On the website you can view short videos of some of the winners’ achievements whereby the ones of Bristol (2015) and Nantes (2013) are on the more entertaining side of the spectrum.

urban landscape that is as efficient and sustainable as it is livable is emphasized by the ongoing process of European Urbanization.

The European Commission estimates that by 2020 80% of EU citizens will be living in cities. I was unfortunately unable to find exact figures (though I tried) but the implications are clear: City-life is going to get a lot more cozy than it already is in the upcoming decade. With that in mind the European Commission’s website informs us of the following: A new environmental programme was launched in 2013 called the 7th Environment Action Programme (EAP), which ‘sets out a strategic agenda for environmental policy-making with 9 priority objectives to be achieved by 2020.

It helps to establish a common understanding of the main environmental challenges Europe faces and what needs to be done to tackle them effectively. This programme underpins the European Green Capital Award in relation to policies for sustainable urban planning and design.’ One of the two major objectives highlighted by the programme are for one, to make the Union’s cities more sustainable and secondly to address environmental and climate issues more effectively. The European Green Capital Award (EGCA) is one of those measures. Each year one European city is selected based on its

Even though 70% of trips within Amsterdam are made on foot or by bike, it has yet to join the ranks of Europe’s most sustainable cities. Accordingly, efforts are being made. In 2015 the Amsterdam City Council released the rather clumsily titled ‘Structural Vision Amsterdam 2040 City Master Plan’ which proposes 75 different smart city projects.

Amongst them are efforts to revive industrial riverfronts, enlarge the public transport system and establish a set of wind parks to meet local energy demands. There are even proposals being made for enabling the hosting of the 2028 Olympic Games. On a more immediate level the city aims to increase the amount of trees (of which there are currently over 1 million scattered all over Amsterdam), sidewalk gardens, green roofs and vegetable gardens. If you are cycling past Waterlooplein on your way to uni you might have noticed a couple of Green Walls close to the Municipality Office of Amsterdam, which aim to purify the airways alongside one of its busier motorways. These so called CityTrees are moss-covered walls with a built in irrigation system which absorb environmental toxins from the surrounding air. Apart from the top-down efforts of Amsterdam’s administrative sphere, there has been a rise of several innovative projects all over the city which each one of us can get involved in!

Take the café and business initiative De Ceuvel for example. Situated in Noord (North Amsterdam) it is a prime example of what the 2040 Amsterdam City Master Plan would title the ‘revival of industrial riverfronts’. Ten years ago the area was an industrial wasteland, a shipyard, that has been completely transformed by a team of skilled architects and volunteers. The ships are still there. They have been restored and are now being used

7

as offices. A wooden high-rise walk enables visitors to peak into every single one of them whilst being offered interesting facts written on signs along the way about topics such as water management or sustainable energy sources. Teaching you, for instance, that the plants underneath the planks you are walking on have been carefully selected to clean the soil from years of heavy industry pollution.

Plants such as these are called hyperaccumulators and amongst them are clovers, foxgloves and willows. The initiative describes itself as a ‘creative, circular and urban community’ and it is an excellent example of this. 150 Photovoltaic panels cover most of its annual energy needs, 60% of warm air is being recirculated to reduce energy expenditure and due to the purification of waste water the office boats consume 75% less water than conventional offices.

Entering De Ceuvel is a little bit like entering the toolbox of an artist, who takes an extended interest in gardening. It is green and colorful - a mish-mash of different materials, all of which up-cycled or hand-me-downs.

Somewhere integrated within the main building is a lifeguard beach pavilion from Scheveningen and on a sunny day one can enjoy a locally produced elderflower soda sitting in a rusty shipwreck overlooking the water. When

8

it comes to the average city-dwellers’ contribution towards a healthy urban community, the support of such businesses is really the way to go. Amsterdam especially has a lot to offer. There is the Taste Before You Waste initiative which hosts weekly three-course dinners cooked solely with produce which would have otherwise been thrown away by supermarkets, despite being perfectly edible. Interesting to note for us poor students: Payment is on a voluntary tip-bases and excess foods are usually handed out for free - my roommates brought home a bunch of avocados, tortillas and apples the other week. De KasKantine is an ‘urban farm café’ in the South of Amsterdam which aims to be completely self-sustained in terms of energy, water and food supply. Six Shipping containers and two greenhouses serve as the basis for this independent community - yet another example of a smart urban initiative. The word ‘city’ is derived from the Latin civis for citizen because a city is a community in the end.

A city can only be as smart as its citizens, only as green or livable as we want it to be.

So let’s look ahead, keep learning from one another, put some bee-friendly plants on our windowsill, keep riding our bikes to uni and welcome change - even if it is that ugly CityTree in front of Amsterdam’s city hall. Sometimes it does not take much more than that.

EUROPE

A DANGEROUS PLACE FOR

JOURNALISTS?

O

n the 2nd of October 2018, the Saudi Arabian journalist, dissident and author Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi entered the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul but never left the building. Two weeks later, the Saudi Arabian government admitted that he was killed inside the consulate after a fight broke out. This was later contradicted when the Saudi Attorney General stated that the murder was premeditated. Rumor has it that the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the assassination. The whole world is following the investigations on the murder with shock and disbelief. However, the murder of Khashoggi is part of a wider global trend. Over the past 12 months, 3 journalists were murdered in Europe alone.

The first victim was Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta in October 2017, followed by Ján Kuciak in Slovakia in February 2018 and finally Victoria Marinova in Bulgaria last October.

All three journalists were investigating fraud with EU funds and ties between organized crime and their governments. What do these cases tell us about the safety of journalists in Europe?

Daphne Caruana Galizia was a Maltese journalist working for The Sunday Times of Malta, The Malta Independent and she had set up

BY MARTHE DE ROOS a blog called Running Commentary. Caruana Galizia worked on exposing corrupt politicians, criminals and foreign millionaires who were operating in Malta. Despite the fact that the EU does not consider any member state as a tax haven, Malta can definitely be regarded as one. In Malta, companies pay the lowest tax on profits in the EU. Caruana Galizia also published the documents of WikiLeaks and the Panama Papers. She revealed the news that one of the Maltese ministers as well as the prime minister’s wife had companies in Panama. This meant that high-ranking state officials were possibly involved in money laundering and tax fraud.

Caruana Galizia took many risks by revealing these documents. As a result, she was being harassed and assaulted on a daily basis. She received death threats, her front door was set on fire, and she found her dog with his throat slit open on her doorstep. On the 16th of October 2017, Curuana Galizia got in her car to go to the nearest bank. Shortly after that, her son Matthew heard a blast from their family home. He ran outside and saw his mother’s car burning in a field next to the road. Later Matthew wrote on Facebook: ‘I looked down and there were my mother’s body parts all around me.’ Today, the case of her murder has stalled, and the impartiality

9

the #GPGate. This refers to the large-scale misuse of EU funds by Russian oligarchs connected to the Bulgarian mafia. It also involves different branches of oil and construction companies. The directors of the Bulgarian GP Group Company are accused of spending money from the European Regional Development Fund for their personal purposes. Its general director Valentin Zlatev is known for his close close ties to Prime Minister Boyko Borisov.

Ján Kuciak was a 27-year-old Slovak reporter for the news website Aktuality.sk. Kuciak In the final show of the television program Marinova interviewed two investigative jourfocused mainly on investigating tax fraud of nalists from Bulgaria and Romania who had businessmen with connections to top-level Slovak politicians of the ruling party. This also been working on allegations of corruption and included cases related to Prime Minister Ro- misuse of EU aid. Marinova stated on camera that with this show she will detect lies and bert Fico. On the 21st of February 2018, the police found Kuciak and his fiancée shot dead in their house. Both were shot at close range.

According to Reporters Just before the murders, Kuciak was working on a story about the Italian mafia organizaWithout Borders, tion ‘Ndrangheta, which had ties to organione journalist is killed zed crime based in Slovakia. According to his investigation, the ‘Ndrangheta is involved in on average every week drug smuggling, weapon trade and fraud with around the world EU funds intended for the development of the poor region. Furthermore, figures from the Slovakian political elite such as the advisors of the Prime Minister were discredited by bring the truth to the surface. One week Kuciak’s work. They were being accused of later, Marinova disappeared after going for a involvement with the ‘Ndrangheta. The mur- run. She was found murdered and raped. The ders sparked protests and political crisis. The immediate assumption was that her murder protest march held after the attacks, had the was connected to her work. To the Bulgarian biggest turn out since the Velvet Revolution prime minister, Boyko Borisov, these allegatiin 1989. The crisis escalated into the resigna- ons are part of a smear campaign. On the 9th tion of the Prime Minister, two of his cabinet of October, the 20-year-old Bulgarian Severin members and the national Chief of Police. The Krasimirov was arrested in the German city of investigation into the murders revealed a link Stade. He admitted to the murder, but denied between the deaths and the work of Kuciak. the rape. With the murder of Marinova, three So who is responsible? Latest evidence points journalists working on fraud with EU money to the Italian mafia. In September, eight sus- have been killed this year. pects were arrested, and the investigation is According to Reporters Without Borders, one still ongoing. journalist is killed on average every week around the world. Several EU-level politicians The latest victim of the attack on the freehave expressed their concerns regarding this dom of press was the 30-year-old Bulgarian trend. The European Commission stressed television journalist Viktoria Marinova. Marin- that ‘there is no democracy without a free ova was working on the so called #GPGate. press.’ The Council of Europe even set up a In September, the research website Bivol.bg live tracker which lists all the journalists in started publishing hundreds of documents on detention across the EU. Currently that numand effectiveness of the Maltese authorities’ investigation is being questioned. At the time of her murder, there were 43 cases going against her and after accusing the Maltese minister of finance, Chris Cardona, of visiting a brothel in Germany, her bank account was frozen. Her family fears that the perpetrators will get away with murder.

10

ber is 126. These days it is dangerous to be a journalist, even in a European liberal country.

There are more than 200 cases related to journalists convicted for their work under terror laws in Europe. Apparently, European countries are able to set up their security laws in such a way that it limits the freedom of press. Bulgaria has the lowest score for media freedom in the EU. The freedom of expression in Malta seems to deteriorate.

The perpetrators of the murder of Caruana Galizia seem to have found themselves in a situation of impunity. Therefore, the EU should step in to protect journalists. For example, Europol should step in to conduct international investigations to end the killing with impunity. The EU has to put pressure on Member States in cooperating with Europol to ensure independent investigations. Over the years, different legislation has been

proposed within the European Parliament to protect the safety of journalists. In many European countries, journalists can be put in jail for refusing to name their sources. After the Panama Papers there were many debates on how to protect journalists and whistleblowers within the EU. In April, the European Commission proposed EU-wide standards to protect whistleblowers from being fired or becoming the target of other forms of retaliation. In February, six MEPs proposed an EU directive that would require Member States to implement the so-called anti-SLAPP legislation: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. This measure will make it illegal to file a lawsuit intended to censor, intimidate or silence critics. The question is now whether the European Parliament will take action on the proposed directives and standards to protect free press within Europe.

11

RE-HUMANISING

THE REFUGEE CRISIS

In a time where media and politicians portray refugees to be nothing more than facts and figures, ANNA BOYCE explores another side of the refugee crisis as portrayed through cinematic representations.

I

f the hundreds of multicoloured flags around the city escaped your notice, a few weeks ago the IDFA (International Documentary Festival Amsterdam) took place here in the city. Hundreds of never before seen documentaries where screened, whose topics ranged from climate change, to VR experiences immersing you into the depths of the Amazon. The city was peppered with international premieres, doc-talks and Q&As; I found myself attending a number of screenings which mostly comprised migrant and postcolonial cinema. These films gave me a chance to approach the ever relevant refugee crisis from the point of view of the refugee, in the midst of media representations which show them as a stigmatised and generalised

12

group.

Whilst many of these films help to counter these stigmatised images, by putting a name, face and a story to these too often faceless people, they also identify the disparity of the lives of Europeans in contrast with those of refugees. The characters telling their own stories of loss and of suffering within the setting of a Europe in which people continue about their affluent and comfortable lives, highlights Europe’s metaphorical blind eye and stresses the need for more effective polices and attitudes in the future.

One of the first documentaries I viewed at the IDFA was by Brazilian director Karim

Aïnouz. The film, Central Airport THF, depicts the life of 18 year old Syrian refugee Ibrahim in a refugee settlement within the disused Tempelhof airport in central Berlin. The settlement, initially established with the aim of providing refugee’s accommodation for six weeks whilst their asylum cases were processed, had become a permanent residence for many, including Ibrahim who had been living there for nearly two years. Ibrahim’s own story and that of those surrounding him highlight the perpetual state of uncertainty that many refugees find themselves in on arriving in Europe. Nearing the end of the film Ibrahim finally receives his refugee status. He calls his mother to tell her the news, overjoyed that he now has three and a half years

of security. Many of those around him are not yet so lucky, assigned the status of a ‘protected person’ they live their lives in a state of liminality, constantly fearing that this protection could be taken away.

It is not only Ibrahim’s own story that provides a commentary but similarly the filming techniques and camera work provide a narrative on the duality of the lives of the refugees in contrast with the Berliners that surround the airport. The old airfield was, after a considerable amount of civilian action to reclaim the space, turned into the Tempelhof public park. The park directly borders the settlement, and overhead drone shots show the disparity between the Berliners, running,

13

riding bikes, having picnics and enjoying their freedom in the park, and the lives of the refugees directly next door living eight people to a cubicle.

Whilst the Tempelhof project shows great initiative in its repurposing of space, additionally taking into account the settlement was set up in under 3 weeks. The time in which people were spending in this space meant that somewhere meant to be a place of transit became a permanent home for many. The irony of Tempelhof being an airport, essentially a springboard to new locations, becomes apparent here. This highlights the EU’s slow progress in creating a policy by which refugees can be quickly processed and provided with a place to reside.

Another cinematic representation of the migrant experience in Europe is Gianfroco Rosi’s 2016 film, Fire at Sea. Here we see the daily lives of the residents of Italian island Lampedusa contrasted with the experiences of the hundreds of migrants landing on the island during the height of the crisis in 2015. The protagonist is a young boy living on the island named Samuele. His main concerns in life are his seasickness considering the location of his homeland, and his lazy eye which when covered by his doctor with an eye patch becomes a more physical representation of Europe’s ignorance to the suffering of migrants. Samuele continues his life with little awareness or concern for what is taking place on his small island. The local news channel broadcasts ten second long segments covering the arrival of migrants, at which point we see a grandmother look up from her coffee and shake her head, before returning to what she was doing as the news aptly turns back to the weather for the coming days.

Rosi’s film somewhat differs from that of Aïnouz in that despite his up close filming of the refugees arriving in Lampedusa, he does not give them voice in the same way that

14

Ibrahim’s narrative represents the refugee story. Rather the refugees are seen as a mass arriving by boat, indistinguishable from the images and accounts published by the media to evoke fear of a mass invasion of migrants.

Much of the focus with regard to the refugee crisis is on concrete borders, allowing people in danger to cross national borders and seek asylum. But what these documentaries bring to light is the importance of addressing less visible borders: the ones refugees face once they arrive in Europe, that they must overcome to establish new lives in Europe. When a refugee camp opens in a European town or city, bordering the normal everyday lives of Europeans, it brings the problems people hear on the news close to home, they can no longer simply turn a blind eye. But why do so many respond to this with resentment and anger?

The roots of this can be found in media representations of migrants, the images of refugees packed into ships titled ‘The migrant invasion’ immediately feeds into hostility and fear. Then exploited and exaggerated for political gain by Europe’s rising xenophobic parties the refugee becomes stigmatised as an invader of Europe here to take jobs and resources. The economic fear of the migrant is another result of this fear mongering; Brussels based think tank Bruegel published an extensive paper on possible solutions to the migration problem. One of their central points was that rather than flooding the job market, migrants are providing much needed labour, especially in parts of Europe hit by inter-European migration. They also state that a shocking 35% of migrant workers are overeducated for the jobs that they do find, and that one of the main causes of this is not only difficulty in getting their qualifications recognised but also linguistic problems.

This reminds me of one of the other central characters in Aïnouz’s film, Qutaiba Nafea an Iraqi doctor working as a volunteer in the refugee settlement, struggling to find the

money to pay for his wife’s German lessons, whilst also having to renew his medical qualifications in order to work in Germany.

According to the EU, European values include respect for human dignity, freedom and equality so why is it that these values so rarely apply to refugees? Earlier this year, Angela Merkel stated that the future of the EU hinged on how the refugee crisis was dealt with. This statement has some potency. A functional response to the situation requires the EU states to cooperate on a supranational level to deal with an outside body, which is not, as the media presents, an invading force, but a group of people who have suffered and risked their lives to get to Europe. The EU’s ability to deal with this situation will be an accurate indication of the ability of the member states to cooperate with one another, and thus the state of the union.

So far their ability to cooperate on this issue has been lacking. Some states, most notably Sweden have become a “haven” for refugees, whereas others have been far less willing to follow suit. The refugee crisis can be seen as a way for the EU to revitalise itself. It is essential that all states share the burden,

so that refugees arriving in Europe can find a permanent place of residence far quicker, rather than being stuck in ever prolonged transit periods with no clear vision for their futures. If the member states can successfully come together, this will not only provide relief for the millions of refugees so in need, but also reduce friction between EU states, and re-establish the EU’s success as a supranational institution.

In addition, there are things that we as citizens can do to ensure a better future for refugees in Europe. A pop-up shop in London appeared on Black Friday named Choose Love, where shoppers could redirect their consumerism toward a better cause. Inside buyers could purchase gifts for refugees, ranging from sleeping bags, to clothing and toothbrushes, the shop was a huge success.

Refugee’s Welcome marches have taken place all over the continent, aiming to provide visibility to people who have become invisible. Whilst action such as this may have no direct effect on the goings on in Brussels, the awareness it promotes and political pressure it creates stand to enforce the humanity of the refugee crisis and emphasise that these people who so often appear as facts and figures are so much more than that.

15

WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN

AT WAR IN EURASIA JYRY PASANEN

O

n Armistice day, the 11th of November this year, 60 heads of state and government gathered in Paris to commemorate the centenary of the end of the First World War. At the centre of attention, the gang of four: Donald Trump, Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and Vladimir Putin.

Much has been said about Merkel’s and Macron’s mournful speeches: apparently, they offer an antidote to the jingoistic rhetoric of Trump and Putin. But for all their grief and sorrow, no doubt genuine and justified, it is their actions that should matter more. It is easy to appear peaceful and progressive when sitting next to two quasi-dictators, but the fact remains that France and Germany are among the top four weapons exporters in the world. Only Russia and the US export more. The fact that any of these four are allowed to represent ‘us’ at a celebration of peace, points to a very crooked understanding of the very concept of peace.

Macron might claim that Europe has miraculously been at peace for 70 years (ignoring, for example, the Yugoslav Wars, the Troubles and the Basque conflict) while selling

16

weapons to the murderous regimes of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Between 2008 and 2018, French weapons exports to Saudi Arabia amounted to over 11 billion euros. Macron has only been in power since April 2017, but he shows no sign of wanting to reverse this trend. Germany is no different. Since the Khashoggi-affair, Germany has suspended its arms exports to Saudi-Arabia but continues to sell weapons to countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. Neither of these countries’ leaders have recently ordered the killing of an internationally known journalist, but just like US-ally Saudi Arabia, the UAE has a hand in creating a humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

Since the start of the conflict in 2015, tens of thousands of people have died. It is estimated that in 2017 alone, more than 50 000 children have died in Saudi-led (and Western supplied) bombings, or due to malnutrition and disease. Twenty-two million people in the country are in dire need of humanitarian aid, and most of all: peace. Egypt’s Sisi, on the other hand, is responsible for the bloodiest urban massacre of civilians since Tiananmen Square. On 14 August 2013, Egyptian security

forces led by General Sisi violently dispersed two peaceful protests, killing at least 817 people.

Yet, both France and Germany recently ratified the Arms Trade Treaty, which bans the sale of weapons to countries that might use them to violate human rights. This has not stopped or even reduced weapon sales.

In fact, France’s weapon exports to Egypt have significantly increased since. Germany’s exports to Egypt grew 500% between 2016 and 2017. In any case, Merkel and Macron do not seem to be satisfied with only selling weapons, they want Europe to flex its own military muscle. To this end, they have voiced their support for the creation of an EU army.

In Macrons words: ‘Europe must not accept a subordinate role in world politics’. Ostensibly, this European army would be in service of peace and human rights, but we should all know by now that ‘humanitarian’ military interventions rarely, if ever, work as intended.

Perhaps, as the leaders of the top European weapon-exporting countries, Merkel and Macron have realised that if they want to simultaneously respect the Arms Trade Treaty and keep their precious, job-creating arms industries, they must create a perfect army to sell weapons to that never violates human rights. One should not be too hopeful, however, because as Macron recently reiterated, the Western partnership with Saudi-Arabia is not merely economic, but strategic. As long as the global economy runs on oil, Western countries will support whoever guarantees its low price. Smooth operators such as Macron might not say it outright, but luckily for us, Trump will. Being questioned on the US’ relationship with Saudi Arabia following the Khashoggi killing, Trump talked up the importance of Saudi investment and thanked them for lowering the price of oil.

What is the real reason, then, for this project? There has been a sense of unease in the EU, ever since the Brexit referendum and Trump’s election. With the strongest military power of the EU leaving, and Trump’s ‘America First’ attitude to military affairs, this is

completely understandable. Add in a sense of impending doom caused by catastrophic climate change and the rise of authoritarianism around the world, a fear of EU disintegration, maybe some lobbying from the European arms industry, and there you have it: the perfect political atmosphere for increased militarization. Naturally, the project has its critics: Donald Trump calls it ‘insulting’, Federica Mogherini, The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, is also against, but no real criticism of the project itself has reached the mainstream discussion. Mogherini says that no one is considering it, Trump does not want anything competing with NATO, and the rest call it unrealistic. But what would a common army mean for Europe? How would EU foreign policy change if it had an army?

The controversial answer to these questions is that the EU is already a military actor. It is currently engaged in six military operations, including those in Somalia, Mali and the Central African Republic. In these military operations (excluding those at sea), EU troops ‘assist’ local and UN combat troops. This usually consists of training local troops and protecting civilians. According to their mission statements, their primary role is not to kill, but that is not the primary objective of any modern army engaged in counter-insurgency warfare. The objective of counter-insurgency warfare is to defeat or contain a rebellion, using both military and civilian means. This is generally done by isolating the ‘enemy’ from the wider population, and ideally, by addressing the root causes of the insurgency. This kind of warfare is more about legal reforms, setting up checkpoints and interrogating enemy fighters and less about shooting or bombarding ‘enemy strongholds’.

By offering military advice and training in these countries, the EU is engaged in counter-insurgency warfare, even if no European ever pulls the trigger. If this was not morally ambiguous enough, the EU intervention in Chad in 2007 coincided with a French military operation in the country, agreed upon in

17

a bilateral agreement with Chad. The EU force, consisting of mostly French soldiers, had a peacekeeping mandate, but its neutrality was called into question due to the difficulty of distinguishing these EU troops from the French military.

The EU’s border management is also highly militarised. This is most visible in Operation Sophia, which is an EU Naval Force mission to wage war on human trafficking on the Mediterranean Sea. The mission has saved many lives, but it has also been criticised by many NGOs for not complying with its own human rights criteria. The main accusation has to do with the non-refoulement principle in international law, which stipulates that rescued persons cannot be returned to their port of departure unless it is deemed safe, nor can they be brought to a third country.

Part of Operation Sophia consists of training and equipping the Libyan Coast Guard, and in a sense, externalising border work to a country at war. Anyone ‘rescued’ by the Libyan Coast Guard is returned to Libya, which has been consumed by civil war since 2014.

Furthermore, the EU’s border management policy has been criticised for not providing enough legitimate channels for migration.

The lack of such channels has forced many desperate people to attempt to traverse the Mediterranean Sea, leading to tens of thousands of deaths since 2015. This has not stopped the European Commission of using the mission in its uncomfortably self-congratulatory propaganda videos. The militarization of border work is especially worrying if it becomes a long-term “solution”, as it may crowd out more effective policies that address the root causes of forced migration.

Clearly then, Operation Sophia does save lives, but it does so in a highly ineffective and hyper-visible manner. It is almost as if the EU is more interested in PR than actually stopping mass drownings at sea.

So if the EU is already a military actor, the calls to create a ‘true European army’ are not motivated by any sense of genuine fear or

18

unease about the security situation. Rather, the European army is a symbol. It symbolises European Unity and progress in the face of real and constructed threats. It symbolises a peculiar conception of peace through war, and it symbolises European defiance against the untrustworthy anglos in the age of Trump and Brexit. This is important because politicians such as Macron and Juncker rely on the progress of European integration for legitimacy. The idea that more integration is always good is so prevalent, that the content of integration is not as important as the fact of integration. And as it seems, a European army is the only avenue of integration available. Even Hungary is in favour!

What is crucial about this whole discussion around a European army is the framing of the threats that Europe is facing. It is important, because these threats serve as arguments for increased, if merely symbolic, militarization. From Macron’s radio interview and the EU’s current military operations, it is clear that Russia is seen as Europe’s “conventional” military rival. This is not to say that there does not exist a deep paranoia about Russia’s “asymmetric” information warfare tactics: fake news, twitter bots et cetera, but there is a clear difference in the military capabilities of the Russians and the other “threats”. The other threats seem to be Islamic State-affiliated militias, and “human trafficking”. The truth is that neither of these can be defeated militarily. The “war on terror”, as we should have learned by now, is a self-reinforcing vicious circle. What these regions need is not European military intervention, but peace. The same goes for “human trafficking”. As long as people face the violence of abject poverty at home, many will be forced to leave. States and human traffickers then take advantage of these vulnerable people.

There is simply no way to stop this with an army (or navy). Furthermore, the use of the term “human trafficking” might as well be a trick by the EU to make it seem like they are not also waging war on refugees and other migrants. The militarization of border

operations is a worrying trend, but in matters of migration, the EU’s economic and diplomatic power is more effective. In many trade deals the EU has signed with African countries, the EU has insisted on including a clause restricting migration towards Europe.

Effectively, the EU is externalising its border management to third parties, and limiting our exposure to the inherent violence of border work. The EU will strike deals with Erdoğan or even Gaddafi, if they agree to restrict migration to Europe.

As long as migration continues to be seen as a threat to “Europe”, the EU’s foreign policy will continue to reflect this. The EU will continue to support the most brutal regimes if they promise to keep the brown people away.

The EU will continue to supply these regimes with weapons and surveillance technology, and the Mediterranean Sea will remain a mass grave. As long as these migrants do not reach “our” shores, the EU, or any Member State will do nothing to help these people. In fact, they will try to make their lives harder.

When Gaddafi was still alive, and Berlusconi was relevant, their governments signed a deal that allowed the Italian coast guard to return anyone found at sea to Libya. The Italian Coast Guard would even do this if the boat had reached Italian waters. This goes against the principle of non-refoulement, and is a violation of international law. At the time, Libya did not even recognize the legal status of refugees, and they would simply return everyone to their countries of origin, no matter how dangerous the situation there.

If there was any ambiguity about a person’s origin, they would drop them off on the other side of the southern border, in Niger. This EU approved policy directly helped the human traffickers the EU claims to fight, as the people stranded in Niger with no money or other means of survival were at the mercy of smugglers and human traffickers. Italy is currently on trial for these alleged human rights violations, but this has not stopped Prime Minister Salvini of restarting this criminal programme of so-called ‘push-backs’.

A European army would clearly be ineffective in responding to the purported threats in a humane manner. As it stands, the EU’s actions outside of its territory already violate its own values and foreign policy aims of promoting human rights, the respect of international law and the rule of law. A “true” army would also be a colossal waste of resources.

If the IPCC report is true, and we have about 12 years to try to stop climate change, we do need an army. Not an army equipped with guns, but with the tools and knowledge required to transform our economy to rely on renewable energy and not fossil fuels.

This would also mean that Europe would no longer be so dependent on oil states, and we could stop bending over for Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, for example. An energy independent EU could have a much more credible foreign policy, as they would not have to fear German homes going cold if they criticise Putin too harshly for his illegal war in Ukraine.

Military investment at a time like this is incredibly short-sighted. Not only is the US army the most polluting organisation on the planet, but it also suffocates human potential by killing and destabilising the lives of thousands and thousands of people. What is acutely needed is not war, not weapons, but peace and global cooperation. If Macron is so desperate for Europe to remain relevant in the world, maybe he should stop talking about the EU army and start taking climate change seriously. Instead of militarising Europe’s borders, we should accept that forced migration is a result of the uneven geographies of wealth and security, in part created by European colonialism, and not an attack on Europe. With this in mind, Europe cannot isolate itself, geographically or temporarily, and it must face reality. Europe is in debt to the rest of the world; it is time to pay it back. Reparations in the form of climate action, a genuine commitment to peace by ending all military operations, an end to violent borders and an end to weapons manufacturing would be a good start.

19

JOEP LEERSSEN F

EXCEPTIONS ARE THE NEW NORMAL

or most of my working life I have been a commuter: between Utrecht and Amsterdam, and between Holland and the South of Limburg. For most of my working life there have been roadworks on the A2, and massive restructurings of the Central Stations of Utrecht and Amsterdam. For decades I commuted between two building sites; and more often than not trains to Maastricht were interrupted and replaced by shuttle buses.

Now that I am beginning to approach retirement age, it is all nearing completion: fine new stations in the two cities, actually enjoyable to walk through on the way to/ from work. Until a good week ago, when the admirable esplanade in front of Utrecht CS was transmuted in an open-air disco and light show, with cables, scaffolding, Terawatt amplifiers, and once again the familiar guys in dayglo jackets and hard hats pretending I was in their way (instead of vice versa).

A Special Event. Nobody had asked me if I needed this. Tatty bargain-basement-imitation-themepark crap like this happens almost every other week on Maastricht’s beautiful Vrijthof square, to the delight of the entrepreneurs and the tourists and to the exasperation of the locals.

Meanwhile (but when you read this there will have been further turnings of the manic screw) the Brexiteers are telling Theresa May to renegotiate Brexit. Not that there is any hope of a better deal, but I am beginning to get the point: for them, the best thing about Brexit is not the destination, but the journey.

The constant, ongoing, sense of negotiati-

20

on, excited opinionating, grandstanding in front of the media, the political equivalent of a theme park rollercoaster ride. Political adrenalin.

Or rather, a lack of political Ritalin. Trump is sending his apoplectic tweets to irritate the world’s attention-deficit syndrome. Putin ups the ante around the Crimea. And I am beginning to wonder if the whole purpose of all those erratic posturings is not, precisely, to stoke and feed a sense of abnormality, crisis, a state of exception. Populism and social media feed on it. It is not publicity that is their most fundamental need, but political bungee jumping. It’s a rush, not a strategy.

The idea of a state of exception is deeply sinister. It has been identified by two eminent political philosophers, Hannah Arendt and Giorgio Agamben, as the natural ambience of totalitarianism. Totalitarian states work, not as a formal abolition or replacement of the democratic state, but as its ‘temporary’ (but open-ended) suspension under what are cited as exceptional, crisis circumstances.

Hence the need for regular massive parades.

Hence also the need for places where the state of exception – the suspension of normal law and order - is normal: the Gulag, the concentration camps, Guantánamo; the black sites and the Black Ops. Not that the open-air disco in front of Utrecht station is a concentration camp. But I get very, very annoyed with the guys in the hard hats and the dayglo jackets bossing me around because there is a Special Event on.

STANDOFF IN THE EAST THE NEVER ENDING TENSION BETWEEN UKRAINE AND RUSSIA

JOB KNOBBOUT In September, the Study Association for European Studies and PAX from Stretch came together to host an event to discuss what the conflict in Ukraine and more specifically in the Donbas area meant for Ukraine, the East and more importantly Europe as a continent.

Now, three months later, Ukraine has issued a martial law decree due to a direct attack from Russia. Does the fight over a narrow sea bring with it the risks of a wider war and what will this mean for European stability?

How far is the West willing to go to help a country addled by corruption, but for all its problems still offers its citizens liberties including real elections and a free press?

On November 25th, Russian forces impounded three Ukrainian naval vessels near the Kerch Strait, an important shared waterway, detaining 24 sailors including three wounded in the shooting by the Russian side. The Ukrainian naval vessels were passing from the Black Sea to the adjoining Sea of Azov. There is still a lot of uncertainty surrounding the forces that triggered the sudden escalation in this four year long confrontation between the two neighbouring countries. Is it a power play by Russia or is it a minor ‘border incident’ as President Putin said? Both Moscow and Kiev accused the other of flouting the rules of passage through the strait. Russia is pas-

sing the situation off as a criminal matter - its courts are placing the captured Ukrainian sailors in two months of pretrial detention on charges of crossing the border illegally. On the Ukrainian side it is still unclear as to how to approach the event. What is not in dispute though, is that Ukraine is now in a state of high anxiety. Officials are warning that the country could well face a full-out war with Russia while insisting that a declaration of martial law will have no effect on ordinary life.

Now Ukraine is proposing that Turkey, a member of NATO, seals off the Bosporus, one of the world’s busiest waterways, and that the alliance sends a convoy into the Sea of Azov. Although the chances of any of that happening are near zero, the Ukrainian president Petro. O. Poroshenko, highlighted the extent to which the country is dependent on outside help as it struggles to hold its own as a sovereign state and that Russia’s pressure on the country remains high. Ukraine accuses Russia of violating a 2003 treaty between the two countries treating the Sea of Azov as shared territorial waters, and the international law of the sea, about free passage through any straight. Russia, on the other hand, says it is maintaining new rules that were put in place in 2015, which oblige

21

any vessel that wants to transit the strait to seek permission 48 hours in advance. According to Russia, the three Ukrainian ships on the Black Sea side of the strait did not stick to these new rules and were thus ‘illegally’ crossing the strait. Russia was also worried about threats from Ukrainian extremists who threatened to sabotage the 12-mile long Kerch bridge which costed $7.5 billion and connects the Russian mainland to the Crimean Peninsula - the territory Russia seized by force from Ukraine in 2014. Russia accused the Ukrainian ships of executing dangerous manoeuvres and closed the shipping lane for what it called security reasons. Russia also claims that it ordered the ships to leave which lead to the confrontation. Afterwards they broadcasted so called confessions from a few Ukrainian sailors who said the episode had been a deliberate provocation by their side. Ukraine and the west condemned these statements as coercive and an abuse of war prisoners.

This clash is an accumulation of long-term tensions that have been building since at least March, when Ukrainian border guards impounded a Russian fishing boat and kept its crew until October. Matters worsened in May after the Kerch Bridge opened and Russian border guards started inspecting foreign vessels navigating the Sea of Azov, hurting trade and Ukrainian exports consisting of mainly steel and grain. More importantly, the Ukrainians felt that Russia was gradually restricting Ukrainian access and converting the waterway into a Russian lake. Having ceded the Crimean Peninsula without a fight, Ukraine seems determined not to let the same happen to the Sea of Azov. President Vladimir V. Putin and other top Russian officials suggested that Ukraine might exploit martial law to rev up the conflict. The Kremlin has accused Mr. Poroshenko of manufacturing the crisis to strengthen his weak prospects in the upcoming presidential election in March 2019, showing the conflict is very complicated and many different actors and factors are at play.

22

Given that most of the world has yet to recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea, NATO, and numerous Western governments supported Ukraine in the confrontation.

President Trump said he was going to cancel his scheduled meeting with Mr. Putin at the Group of 20 summit because of the maritime clash. Although Ukraine is not a member of NATO, the focus of the alliance has traditionally been on guaranteeing security against Russia. The alliance issued a statement condemning Russian forces for impounding Ukrainian vessels, but NATO commanders have said entering the Sea of Azov is unlikely as it is not considered international waters. Politicians in Germany, Austria, Poland and Estonia raised the possibility of new European Union sanctions against Russia, however new sanctions seem very unlikely.

So what will happen next? Putin’s annexation of Crimea proved widely popular at home, and with his approval rating now sinking he might benefit from a new confrontation with Ukraine. However, he has since sought to end the Western sanctions imposed after the annexation, so may not want to risk more by continuing the fight. Mr. Poroshenko might also burnish his presidential campaign by looking like a tough leader challenging Russia. In the meantime the hands of NATO and the European Union are bound because of legal and political boundaries. Oleg Kashin, a Russian columnist and political analyst, wrote in the online publication Republic that the expansion of the shooting into the Sea of Azov seemed more like an extension of the endless skirmishing in eastern Ukraine than the start of any full-fledged war. According to him, ‘The Sea of Azov is the most convenient space for the most spectacular political wrestling.’ Let’s hope it is indeed political wrestling and not the kick-start to a full-fledged war that will affect the entire European continent and pull NATO and the European External Action Service into the conflict.

TALKING ABOUT THE

B

FUTURE JAMAL SHAHIN

y its very nature, defining the future is playing a game with time. Like a dog chasing its tail, the future is a time, or a place, that is always just out of reach. Utopian - and dystopian - visions that we are familiar with from different strands of literature resonate in our minds, but the years 1984 and 2001 came and went with little of what was proposed in those visions of the future actually coming to fruition. ‘The future’ is an imaginary, a place where we want (or don’t want) to be.

In another sense, the future is a substitute for now. Talking about the future gives us an opportunity to explore variations on the present, and thus be critical and reflective about our environment. Talking about the future allows us to express our anxieties about the present without being bound to real-world constraints.

It will not come as a surprise to hear that ‘the future’ features in many discussions about how European politics are organised. A ‘future Europe’ is both seen as the imaginary: the place we want, but can never have, and as a ‘now’: the place that we already have. The European Union is constantly being formed and re-framed in these two senses of ‘the future’ both by its detractors and its advocates.

To some observers, the contemporary European Union runs on contradiction, deadlock and stagnation: they believe that we should rebuild the European continent in either federal or intergovernmental imaginaries. They look to tomorrow and see a different future.

For others, discussion of the future of Europe

starts with a different logic. These see the European project as a gradual march towards a variant of a slightly better ‘now’.

Policymakers make use of foresight and futures studies to try to understand what they need to do to work towards a better today. These studies make use of scenario building exercises that envision a number of futures in order to understand how to organise the present. They do so by identifying a number of ‘drivers’ that are considered to be important for the future. Drivers can be, for instance, demographic change, globalisation, the environment, or migration. Participants in a scenario building exercise are then invited to reflect on how such drivers would shape society in a given number of years.

In another foresight method, ‘backcasting’ (as opposed to forecasting), participants are asked to identify a mutually desirable future, and are then asked to try to identify what policy decisions are necessary in order to reach that one future. These two methods provide different ways of envisioning the future, with the intention of changing the present.

In different ways, both exercises have been carried out by the European Commission in recent years. In late 1999, amidst worries about the ‘millennium bug’ and other fanciful stories about the end of the world, the European Commission’s Forward Studies Unit published an in-depth exercise on ‘Five possible scenarios for Europe’. It is not without irony that it is noted the Unit was disbanded shortly after, with members of the team going to work on more tangible

23

issues like ‘European Governance’. These five scenarios presented the reader with a variety of different interpretations of what the European Union would look like in 2010.

They gave these scenarios different names: ‘Triumphant Markets’, ‘The Hundred Flowers’, ‘Shared responsibilities’, ‘Creative Societies’, and ‘Turbulent Neighbourhoods’. The 121 pages of the document provide insight into the various scenarios, how they were constructed and what are the different benefits and disadvantages of each of the scenarios.

This exercise was carried out entirely within the European Commission, with minimal input from external actors.

A similar exercise was carried out 18 years later, in March 2017. The President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker presented the ‘White Paper on the future of Europe’. This paper, which was almost exclusively written by the members of the President’s cabinet, also developed five scenarios. This time they were about the EU in 2025. The scenarios were also given

names: ‘Carrying On’, ‘Nothing But The Single Market’, ‘Those Who Want More Do More’, ‘Doing Less More Efficiently’, and ‘Doing Much More Together’. The following table shows how these scenarios play out.These scenarios were presented to the European Parliament and to the European Council, as part of the preparations for the celebration of 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaties of Rome. They have also been discussed by various European Commission Delegations to Member States. It became very clear in the debates that have taken place, that there is only one scenario that is actually desirable to the authors of the white paper, and that is the scenario on a multi-speed Europe (scenario #3). The idea was for the scenarios to provide a basis for discussion during the lead up to the European Parliament elections, taking place in May 2019, but it is likely that the European Parliament election campaign will be more concerned with issues of today (increased Euroscepticism, Brexit, migration) rather than tomorrow. It remains to be seen whether these scenarios will serve as the

(Source: Shahin/Davesa, 2018)

24

foundation for any meaningful discussion. As statements of a new imaginary for Europe, they do not capture the imagination of the average citizen, even the debate that took place in the European Parliament seemed rather staid! The scenarios firmly stick within the parameters of today’s EU, rather than thinking about how politics and society will evolve over the coming years. For example, no mention of (un)organised civil society is made in the entire document. In a sense, the scenarios all present slightly different variations on “carrying on”. It appears that each scenario was designed to appease each of the major EU institutions.

It is interesting to look at both scenario exercises together. Both exercises have rather curious approaches to understanding the future of the European Union from a methodological point of view. Not one single scenario sees a future in which there is no European Union.

They both identify Europe’s future as synonymous with progress and growth, and identify instability as emerging from Europe’s borders as opposed to from within the EU itself. By identifying future turbulence as a threat from outside, it becomes easy and logical to continue to justify border management policies.

In the latter scenario exercise, the drivers are not even identified in the different scenarios.

People who spend their life thinking about European integration, however, find the future a problematic place to put themselves and their ideas. When it comes to talking about the future, we get stuck, because the tools we traditionally used to explain European integration lead us to extremes - a federal super-state Europe or an intergovernmental European Union of nations. Many of the more recent theories of European integration do not explicitly describe the telos of the European Union, and cannot then go beyond tomorrow or the day after.

Next to understanding the past and explaining the present, our task as scholars is to share how these reflections from past and

present point to the future. There is a fine balance to be made between these three tenses: as a lecturer of European Studies, I have found myself torn between past, present and future when it comes to designing courses. It is a challenge to know what blend of the three should be delivered to the student. They are generally eager to learn about the EU and also keen to be able to shape it once they have graduated. They cannot do that without being able to communicate the Europe they want. This is why, in one of the BA courses in the European Studies programme, we confronted the students with their own understanding of what the EU is to them. We tried to show that it is possible to critique the functioning of the EU without being labelled a Eurosceptic. They carried out two exercises in ‘explaining’ the EU. The first one was to national politicians, and the second to citizens. In the first exercise, they were requested to advise a national politician on whether or not to hold a referendum on EU membership. The results were not surprising, given the mess that Brexit has generated, but it was fascinating to read the rationales given to the national politicians. In the second exercise, the students were asked to devise some way to communicate the EU to a broader audience. In both the policy advice and the communications exercise, networks, socialisation, transnational issues, diverse identities and a return to the local level as well as national interests were all apparent.

Learning to understand and explain the EU in terms that go beyond the simple dichotomy of clashing national governments and supranational authorities is the first step to being able to see how we can shape the future, by making the imaginary become real. Here’s to the future of Europe in whichever form it takes!

For more information about the White Paper on the Future of Europe, see: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/future-europe/white-paper-future-europe-and-way-forward_en

25

DE

VALK

O ASKIN G

S

LUMNI - GIL A LE UR

A

new edition and therefore a new Alumni interview! Currently living in Brussels for an internship, Gilles is a well-known face around Bushuis. Whilst in his 5th year, so not yet strictly an Alumni, Gilles has spent the last year living and working abroad in both Russia and Ukraine. With only the thesis to hand in, he talks about his time in European Studies and what he’s gotten involved in.

Starting in 2014 at 17, he moved from his home city Groningen to a place in Amsterdam’s Nieuw-west. The first year courses that introduced him to the programme were very much the same as those now. Before starting the bachelors, Gilles was particularly interested in Eastern Europe. He had spent time in Romania, Hungary, Ukraine, Poland and Latvia. Sometimes with his parents or his sister and sometimes with friends… ‘some inspiration definitely came from those travels I did before’. He was pretty sure that he was going to do the Eastern European Studies Major.

Come Christmas time in the first year and it was time to select a language. Gilles picked Russian - ‘it is definitely useful if you are interested in international politics or want to do something in that field, its also just a really interesting language to learn.’ The language course gave a good foundation but of course it was only for a year. Two years later Gilles would pick Russian back up with conversation classes whilst in St. Petersburg.

In the second year Gilles started his major. ‘One of my favourite courses was Nena Tromp’s Yugoslav wars and transitional justice’. During this year Gilles was also the

26

The KES is the Alumni circle for European Studies. It aims to promote and maintain contacts between alumni. The circle regularly organizes meetings where alumni meet and network. This makes it the perfect place to follow developments in European studies. You can contact the KES through mail: kes-auv@uva.nl

Secretary of the 15/16 SES Board. With all the Eastern Europe electives, Philosophy of Humanities and the Study Association the second year went by quickly. In the 3rd year Gilles did European Culture as the second major elective, though it did not pull his interest far from his specialisation in Eastern European Studies. He decided not to do his thesis in the third year. ‘I wanted to broaden my options.’ Starting to think about masters degrees and the type he was interested in, he took up classes in statistics and other methodology courses from the social sciences faculty. Alongside this he did a minor in conflict studies which he really enjoyed. ‘It gives a great mix of the social sciences and the humanities.’ Also wanting to stay very involved in the European Studies programme, Gilles was a member of the Board of Studies, working on the content of the programme.

The fourth year started with an exchange to the State University of St. Petersburg.

There he followed courses from the faculty of International Relations which were similar to those of his major, as well as Russian language classes. ‘There was one really good one about the colours revolutions […] though it was probably most interesting to see how they taught there rather than what.’ Alongside the studies, he played football there in a student league. ‘It was really awesome to live there - though I am not sure for the rest of my life’. He applied to several embassies for internships whilst still in St Petersburg.

‘I tried almost all the embassies in Eastern Europe […] Ukraine was the one I was most interested in given the current political climate there.’ Nearing the end of his ex-

change, Gilles was very happy to receive the message that he had been accepted for an internship at the Dutch Embassy in Kiev.

Having finished the exchange, he came back for a short time to see some friends and go to the Career Dinner, then flew to Kiev.

‘The embassy was a great first experience of what I wanted to do in working life […] given the timing especially, it was super interesting to see how the relations had been developing between the Netherlands and Ukraine, since 2014 with the MH17 Flight Shooting for example or the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement.” For half the internship Gilles worked for the political department which was focused on the fighting in the Donbass.

For the other half he worked for the Economics department, which was producing pieces on Dutch actives in the Ukraine business sector. Gilles found the political work particularily interesting as it suited his background studies more. ‘Halfway through February was one of the most interesting moments […] the Dutch Foreign Minister had at the time lied saying the he had been present at Putin’s vacation house and had heard Putin say he wanted to create a greater Russia. Early February an article came out in a big Dutch newspaper revealing that the stay and Putin’s quotes had been made up by the Minister.

He resigned two days later following massive public pressure. […] I was at a meeting later that week with representatives from many other embassies. I was accidentally there one hour early as the meeting time had changed.

The rep of the Russian embassy had made the same mistake, so we were just standing there together.’ To kill some time they got coffee together. ‘The conversation was quite nice, though in the background there was the issue of the Dutch foreign minister making false stories about the Russian president. It was a big elephant in the room, super awkward.’ To fill the conversation he spoke about his time on exchange in Russia. ‘It was my first realisation though then that I was not speaking on behalf of myself anymore but as the Netherlands.’ After Kiev,

Gilles came back to Amsterdam and stayed for a couple of months. ‘It was great to be back with friends here and to get back into Amsterdam and the Association for a bit.’

Not long after, Gilles was accepted for an internship in Brussels at the Netherlands House for Education and Research, which he is currently still doing. As a policy intern, his task is to keep the Dutch education sector informed about updates in EU legislation in the field of education, research and innovation, whilst also lobbying for the interests of the sector in the development of the new Erasmus programme that is currently going around the European Parliament. ‘It’s a great way to see how the EU functions as it gives a very different insight than from the courses […] I was happy to know about the Council, Commission, etc. and what they do already, but I have learnt a lot here as well.’

The internship will end in January. ‘I definitely want to do a masters next. I’m now applying for ones in the areas of conflict, security and peace, as I find that field really interesting.’

‘During the studies I was really hoping to do an internship so I am happy that I was able to do that. [..] It was a great experience and works well on your CV. There are many people that end up with a degree in politics etc. so it can be very difficult to find a job that is challenging and that lives up to your expectations. To some extent you need to think about the future but also pick things you are interested - trying to finding a balance is important. […] I enjoyed that I could diversify with the social sciences whilst also specialising with Russian etc. You can take time with your bachelors degree. There are so many opportunities - interesting minors, internships, exchanges, learn languages.’

And now? ‘Now I’m looking forward to writing the thesis, diving into a topic that you’re super interested in - I’m thinking something about Ukraine or Geopolitics - doing it properly and fun to really try to make something of it. Also looking forward to being back in Amsterdam of course.”

27

SES Calendar Christmas Gala - 21st December

Exams may be over but it’s not home time yet. To end the year well there’s time for one more celebration. Check the Facebook event for more details!

Back to School Party - 15th January

After a good two weeks off it’s time to emerge from the holiday coma and kick-start the year. Take a drink with the friends you’ve missed and dance off the winter chills. More details to be announced.

Model United Nations - 18th January

Get a taste of how an international institution works as the future of migration policy comes under question. Sign up now at ses-uva.nl/ses-mun-2019/

Career Dinner - 23rd January

Time to look to the future and life after university! Enjoy an evening of delicious food and great conversation with professional guests from the fields of law, economics, politics, culture, eastern europe, and journalism! Reserve your space now at www.ses-uva.nl/career/

WANT TO WRITE FOR EUROVISIE? SEND YOUR ARTICLE TO EUROVISIE@SES-UVA.NL

(c) studievereniging europese studies 2018