Expertbase 0.7 [expert-paper, printed]

ghosts
autonomy
go west
new actonomy

download the expertenzeitung [in german] as a pdf file

Go West

The return to Europe - nowadays this phrase is used to refer to becoming a member of the EU - is the crucial goal of transformation within the dominant discourse of Eastern-Middle-Europe (E-M-E) since the end of the Cold War. At the same time, however, Western Europe is transforming as well to become the European Competition-state. We want to roughly sketch its function in order to clarify what kind of society people from Eastern-Middle Europe are about to join; voluntarily or forced.

Economical modernisation is the main goal on the European Agenda. By means of de-regulation, re-regulation, privatisation, as well as the highlightening of the importance of financial stability, it is to be promoted. Furthermore, it is accompanied and supported by the way policies are made within the fields of innovation, information and infrastructure. On the other hand, however, the democratic and social dimensions of the "New Europe" are always only of secondary importance. Measures like the extention of financial support aiming at structural and regional developments in the South European periphery can easily be exposed as means to create a "pro-European" consensus. By promoting selective modernisation, policies of structural and regional developments aim at the construction of a European-wide competition between different locations instead of trying to find a system of solidary compensation and equal opportunities for the regions.

Networks of Experts

Therefore structural and regional policies are no counterweight against neoliberal restructuring but only a campaign to support companies at the periphery that have relative advantages in their business sector, like e.g. software companies in Ireland. The decision-making process in the new de-facto state called EU is dominated by the executive , networks of experts and lobby-groups paid by the industry (European Roundtable of Industrialists). Compared to that, the influence of the European Parliament is only small. There is neither an informed public nor active initiatives (unions, social movements) being able to operate throughout the whole of Europe which makes actions from the grassroot-level almost impossible. The European policies concerning Eastern-Middle Europe can be characterised as a selective integration based on economic power and the insistence on strict political conditions. Eastern-Middle-European countries (have to) adopt the neoliberal policies of deregulations, while at the same time they (are) being denied compensatory measures. This strengthens the process of pushing the potential new members of the EU even further to the periphery. The process itself can be divided into 3 stages:

Stage of Association (1990-93)

By installing programs like PHARE and promoting so-called Europe-agreements, the European Union tried to directly influence the process of transformation in the E-M-E countries. While the dis-integration of the RGW - system is one big factor in explaining why regional industrial relations broke down, one cannot ignore the impact of the construction of a system resembling a bicyclewheel with the EU ( Germany benefitting the most) at the centre. As a consequence, in terms of foreign trade all the countries of that geographical area increasingly depend on the EU; with most of the countries having a trade deficit, i.e. they import more goods from the EU than they can export there. This constellation is also due to protectionistic measures taken by the EU within business sectors E-M-E countries could compete in. Only on this basis the second phase of integration was staged on the EU-summit in Kopenhagen in 1993.

Stage of Approximation

The so-called Kopenhagen-criteria that still determine the negotiations about joining the EU consist of three main fields: (1) "political stability, democracy, rule of law and the implementation of Human Rights ; (2) " a smoothly working market economy and the ability to cope with the economic pressure from the EU" ; (3) adoption of all the laws and directives (this legislative body as a whole is called acquis communnautaire) that have already been passed by the EU. Interestingly enough this legislative body right from the beginning left out the free movement of people and policies concerning agriculture. The forced adoption of the acquis communautaire blocks individual strategies that would allow these countries to catch up with Western European economies. A fourth criterion was rather unsatisfyingly fulfilled only in December 2000 in Nizza, that is the ability of the EU to take new members aboard.

Concrete Perspectives of Joining the Club

At the beginning the co-operations between the EU and the potential new members have been the political instrument that allowed the EU to become the leading actor in the Eastern-European transformation process. When the EU started to negotiate with five countries (later on it was extended to ten ) about joining the "club", it was able to make these countries subscribe to a specific model of reforms that is much more radical concerning changes and consequences than the one the EU applies for itself. During the 90s there was no protest or resistance from the left against this project; neither in Germany nor in the other parts of Europe. Although there has been some protests against the EU-summit in Essen already in 1994, there is no effective resistance beyond rather un-informed and therefore questionable summit-hopping. Even Goteborg, the most recent event is no exception.

Eastern Expansion and Migration

Up to now the only political development left groups have dealt with and resisted (sometimes by inventing new forms of political protest) is the construction of "Fortress Europe". The (mainly technological and ideological) armament of the German (but also for example the Spanish) external EU-borders, the illegalisation of migrants and the practice of deportation (mainly via Lufthansa) have been talked about and criticised even into the liberal left. However, one of the most important issues in the discussion about the extention of the EU at the moment, that is the question of free movement for Eastern European citizens, is widely ignored by the Left. This is a discussion that -at least on the surface- has turned important positions upside down within a year. Should inhabitants of potential new EU-members be allowed to work anywhere in the EU or should this be forbidden for the sake of the Western European labour markets and high wages? Parts of the Left (especially those strongly affiliated with unions) hesitate to support the demand for free movement of Eastern European employees without any temporary restrictions. Only rarely somebody attacks or at least highlights the fact that German decisionmakers want to link this question to the issue of whether or not EU-citizens should immediately be allowed to buy land on the territory of potential new members (a demand that has been formulated especially by interest-groups of German expellees). At the same time Eastern European countries like for example Poland or the Czech Republic discuss the question of free movement in a much less emotional manner because those who want to work in the West already do so, they are called "commuter-migrants". Nonetheless, restrictions in this area would have a devastating impact on the survival in family economies, as the income of a family often depends on several sources and people; one important factor being the wage earned by commuters going West.

Intervention

There are no significant differences between Eastern and Western Europe in the fight against the "neoliberal project". The social elites are pro-EU while only about 50 percent of the population is. Serious resistance is mainly coming from nationalist or conservative groups while left and emancipatory groups struggle to express their differing criticism of the EU. Nevertheless, to be able to criticise and resist the neoliberal project of the EU, groups have to unite and work together. There will be no movement without those presently marginalised groups. The political resistance itself has to consider several issues. It has to include both the fight against the extention of Fortress Europe to the East as well as criticism of growing social differences which are a consequence of EU policies. It is especially women, older folks and people living in rural areas who have to pay the price for their countries joining the EU. Up to now, however, those groups have failed to develop joint political strategies and activities. Last but not least it is important for the Left in Western Europe to realize that the political and geographical area of Eastern Europe might be used as a kind of social laboratory where neoliberal ideas and practices that afterwards could be implemented in the entire Europe are tested. One example is the privatisation of the social security system. In our opinion it is not a question of whether or not we agree with the Eastern expansion of the EU, but of whether or not we succeed in developing a sound and common critique of the EU. Although the exchange and the cooperation between Eastern and Western European groups is quite difficult, due to language barriers, different political upbringing and especially different experiences with and notions of socialist/ communist models of society, it is not impossible. The key is to be able to initiate campaigns and built up structures that leave the still existing oppositions between the East and the West behind and that focus on the general line that the resistance against the EU-project has to combine anti-capitalist and anti-racist positions without forgetting gender issues.

Summer 2001