22:36, 19 November 2009
It is rather disheartening that a fairly unknown political leader has been chosen as the first President of the European Council. I have reservations about how well he will able to accomplish the aims of this very new presidential position, created by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty couple of weeks a go. While this post is supposed to represent the EU in other parts of the world, one has expected that the member states would fill this position with a political leader who is inclusive, listening, and appreciating differences.
However, Van Rompuy is someone who believes that the EU represents the fundamental values of Christianity and Islamic-Turkey’s accession to the EU would result in losing its vigour. As far as I am concerned, this shows that he is conservative who is not open to change, and exclusive in terms of differentiating the EU to the other parts of the world. Thus, I do not anticipate that Van Rompuy will be successful in visiting the Middle Eastern or Islamic countries to represent well the EU’s interest to form good relations with them.
Therefore, while we are living in new global age it is rather wrong choice to have Van Rompuy as the first president of European Council. I believe that he will not be taking the EU to forward, but couple of steps backwards.
This is a very important dimension of van Rompuy’s appointment which has not received enough emphasis. According to the Guardian, van Rompuy believes: “The universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are also fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigour with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey.”
This is a disingenuous claim: the whole point about universal values (democracy, human rights and the rule of law) is that they provide the basis on which individuals of all religions and none can feel at home in a Europe characterised by ‘unity in diversity’. And it is not just significant vis-a-vis a future Turkish accession, still some years off in the most optimistic scenarios.
It is critical in the here and now for individual Muslims in the Europe of 27, who are being implicitly told by van Rompuy that their support for universal values is in question. Progressive Muslims recognise that embracing a ‘European Islam’ is not only valuable to promote integration between Muslims and non-Muslims; it is also of value to foster the reform of Islam. Van Rompuy’s is exactly the wrong message to send to them.
Intercultural dialogue has become a key challenge in Europe since the wars of the Yugoslav succession, the riots in the north of England in 2001 and the French banlieues in 2005, and the bombs in Madrid in 2004 and in London in 2005. Van Rompuy has, ironically, been appointed partly because of his capacity to re-establish a government in Belgium including Flemings and Walloons. Yet he has shown no sensitivity whatever to Europe’s newer cultural diversity.
The fact that a man of such views could be appointed to such a critical position betrays once again the fundamental, path-dependent difficulty of the EU, to which the Lisbon treaty is a faute-de-mieux response. The founding fathers of European integration designed an elite-driven project which remains chronically unable adequately to articulate, still less resolve, the collective-action dilemmas faced by Europe’s diverse citizens.
[...] Gulay Icoz has raised a critical aspect of the appointment of Herman von Rompuy as president of the European Council which has not received enough emphasis. [...]
So who would you have chosen instead?
Personally–and I am assuming you are not Tony Blair, whom I would not have recommended–I would have favoured someone who could have come across as an ‘elder statesperson’ with recognition and credibility across the spectrum, an impartial figure with whom the public could identify. Mary Robinson would have been a very good candidate if she had been willing to run.
It is rather too late to talk about who I would have chosen instead. As far as I am concerned anyone with the qualities necessary to accomplish the goals of this post could have been a better choice.
I understand what you mean about it being too late, but I was interested to know who someone from outside of the EU would have seen as a good candidate. Plus, van Rompuy is only in office for a very short time, so they will need someone new soon! I am prepared to accept the merits of Cosmopolitans suggestion of Mary Robinson, but I did wonder if it was a parochial choice. Are we European enough to make nominations beyond from outside our own nation states?
I think you are missing the point, because it is just a coincidence what the main religion in EU is. It is not defined like that, but just an accident because of the history. If the Union would have been established elsewhere, also the people and the main religion would be different. Religion just should be simply forgot in a “materialistic” Union as it is normally done in everyday work. Confusing religion with policy and everyday reality is an error made earlier by christians and, now, especially by muslims. What was stated by the current President is just the pure truth in these circumstances. There are several reasons to be afraid of some other religions, because people are not given the “free will” as they should. As soon as they could live according to their free will and and as soon as they also do live well without being afraid of punishment, then we can unite. Unfortunately, the best most of us can do today, is to tolerate others. But, then the others should the same way appreciate the opinions of others without trying to force them into their own mould. If you at all look around, you can see that some religions are not appearing making people’s life better. Then, it is either the leaders or the religion, which is bad. And, I would think that it almost ever are the previous, because religions almost always are stressing the value a good people (who are thus not wanting to hurt even the smallest species and certainly not the other people). We should little by little grow and become good people. It is waste of time to argue about the needs or requirements of this or that religion in an economic Union. We are after all in the same boat. But, of course you can apply your belief in your life – as long as your not trying to harm some others, no matter of their belief. Personally I think that the one God we believe is not so fragile that he needs us to defend him in any way.