July 11, 2011
As the euro crisis deepens and may engulf Italy, many would agree that a deep shake up of the EU is needed, if it wants to survive.
If unreformed, the EU will face the same fate as the Soviet bloc, argues James K. Galbraith.
Communism was once a powerful threat to its capitalist rivals, and Europe too was a bright political project, its purpose being not so much power as peace, he writes. But in the unfolding adverse events, the EU seeks ways to plug the leak with anything but a honest examination of what is at the heart of the problem, he adds.
The answer to the crisis should be the assumption of common responsibilities for sustained convergence, based on a new economics of mutual support, Galbraith argues. He stops short of mentioning federalism, but apparently the choice is indeed between a leap forward based on a further revolutionary abandon of sovereignty, or a return to the Common market of the 1960s.
Jean Quatremer quotes Ulrike Guérot saying basically that Germany has to chose between the Old Testament, preaching “eye for eye”, and the New Testament, which speaks about pardon between people who have all sinned together. But as Ulrike Guérot points, no Messiah is in sight in Germany these days.
From my window facing the Berlaymont, I see no Messiah among the heads of the EU institutions either. But I don’t expect anyone like Gorbachev to lead the EU Perestroika. By the way, Perestroika was a success only because it allowed the transition of democracy without bloodshed. Gorbachev did not save the Soviet bloc, nor the USSR. From the perspective of its main author, Perestroika has probably failed. Some even say Gorbachev didn’t realise what he had unleashed.
But Gorbachev had a huge support of millions of citizens, especially in the Soviet bloc. What in fact happened was the Perestroika THEY wanted.
Does anyone have a clue what kind of EU shake up do the Union’s citizens want?