The quest for European identities seen from the perspective of a German politician and fan of European culture(s). Euroskop spoke to Bernd Posselt, Member of the European Parliament and President of the Paneuropa Union Deutschland, about remembering history, learning languages and European symbolism.
I would like to show you an edition of the 1988-founded newspaper “The European” with the handwritten words of my grandfather on it: “For my grandsons, from their grandfather, who has seen two world wars and knows that only a unified Europe will be guaranteeing enduring peace.” Does this never-again justification still suffice today?
It is not sufficient, but still important. Many people think that the issue does not have any relevance to the young generation of today and that the argument should not be used to convince people of Europe. But firstly, everyone has a grandfather and has heard something about the war. Secondly, one has to acknowledge: Democracy and Peace are not a matter of course, but an effort of culture and civilisation that each generation has to render anew. As soon as one believes to have it under one’s belt, peace is threatened already. The feeling for peace and the awareness of its fragility is not particular to our grandparents. You have also got it if you witnessed the war in former Yugoslavia. Back then, I went to the front from Munich by train and wrote an article titled “Going to war with the Eurocity”, to show how incredibly close the war was.
How do you put this awareness across to my generation in a time when such wars do not happen anymore in Europe?
There are three things I consider relevant. First: Study history. In order not to repeat it, you have to study history. Second: There are wars happening all over the world, still today and repeatedly. I have just learnt that last year there were more wars than there have been for a long time, twenty in number. As an open-minded young person you should definitely be concerned with that and appreciate that we live on an isle of the blessed. Third: There is not only the war as bloodshed, but also the war of words. Right now, the disrespectful way in which some persons talk about other peoples and the way that red tops often belonging to the same publishing house agitate against one another’s country shows: Even if there is no war, there is always the necessity to build peace between the peoples. Even in the European Parliament a bagatelle is often enough for incredible animosities to break through. You constantly have to fight the battle for this kind of peace.
Does the eruption of such animosities perhaps imply that there is no such thing as a European identity?
I strongly disagree! Of course there is a European identity, the question is, of course, if people always feel it immediately. Everyone who has been outside of Europe has surely responded to the question where he came from by saying: From Europe. Certainly he has then realised that there is more that unites us than separates us. No matter if you are religious or not, it is a fact that every village in Europe has its own church, for example. Helmut Kohl once said that you could blindfold someone and abandon him or her at any spot in Europe, they would know to a 90%-certainty that they were in Europe; and if you would abandon them outside of Europe, they would know, too.
However, it seems to me that there is a lack of enthusiasm for the EU and its institutions beyond such a European identity.
Well, democracy is daily routine and not a permanent party. Thank God! Only dictatorships constantly arrange celebrations, parades and prescribe jubilation. Anyway, the acceptance for the institutions by the majority is given, as the polls show. The deficit is rather that we do not manage to communicate the work of these institutions to the citizens. This is a deficit caused by the media, but also by the political parties.
Do you think that in the current crisis there is the danger that economic issues crowd out questions about European identity and visions?
I do not think so, actually. Since a couple of months ago, interestingly, debates about fundamental questions are finally taking place again, in an incredible dimension! This has not been the case for decades. There are arguments for and against Europe, but the discussion is deep and attracts people of an highly intellectual calibre and of all different shades, such as Jürgen Habermas, the Pope or Hans Magnus Enzensberger. Suddenly, those people start arguing about Europe with passion! Perhaps this does not interest everyone on the street, but in the intellectual community there has not been such a passionate debate about Europe since the 1970s. In the European Parliament, too, we are concerned much more with cultural, political and fundamental question than only with economic issues. In fact, even the currency crisis is a crisis of values since it is also about solidarity, saving and sustainability.
Let us talk about the young once more. Do you think that they identify themselves with Europe based on the tradition of Christianity, Greek philosophy and Roman legal thought, or on EasyJet, Erasmus and the Euro?
Of course, only few ones occupy themselves with such ideological fundaments. However, legal systems, lifestyles, culture and civilisation, in short the things that make everything else possible, arise out of these fundaments. For the average man, the relevance of Christianity, Greek philosophy and Roman legal thought is certainly not clear. But the culture we have, the civilisation we live in, stems from there. You will only notice when you are confronted with entirely different cultural conditions on other continents. An example: The role of the individual, the person in Europe does not exist on some other continents. The person with his dignity and his rights is a European idea. At the end of day it does not matter if each and everyone can derive all that like this. But everyone recognizes it and feels it.
Should we try to make Europeans visit countries outside of Europe to enable them this insight?
First and foremost, people should get to know Europe better. Sometimes I am shocked how few people know our immediate neighbours in Central and Eastern Europe. Here in Munich, our neighbours are the Balkans, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and so on. Who knows these countries anyhow? In our backyard, there are some of the most stunning regions in Europe, yet everyone is going westwards. Apart from that, there is another pitiable thing, which is the development towards English as a dominant language. When I did Interrail in 1974, no one spoke English. We travelled through France, Spain, and Italy and were obliged to try to study these languages in order to survive! Of course English facilitates communication and thus contributes to the opening up of countries. Nevertheless, I see the danger that people do not immerse themselves in other European cultures and their neighbours’ culture anymore.
Is it more important to know European diversity than what we have got in common then?
Of course, it is not sufficient to know Europe in its diversity solely. Only the perspective on Europe from outside demonstrates that we have got much more in common than there are matters that separate us. If you visit Africa or Asia, you will discover that those continents are much more diverse than Europe. Those who duck out of elaborating the ideological fundaments of Europe always say: Europe’s characteristic is diversity. That is humbug. Diversity is much greater in Asia or Africa. Also, I am not ready to accept that Europe is multicultural. I always say, there is one European culture with national, regional and lingual facets. It is like with a diamond, which is one unit, but fluorescing in lots of different colours.
What has to be done to preserve those facets and avoid a dominance of the globalization language English?
I do not want to abolish English, but I would like to awake people’s curiosity about other European countries and languages. A study of the EU commission about the question in which countries leaders of small and medium enterprises exhibit which international competence has shown: The English are those with the least international competence because they know English and do not consider it relevant to learn something else. On the other hand, someone from Luxembourg who grows up with at least two languages is much more able to try to understand other cultures. It is not only the comprehension that matters, but also the ability to understand the other person and to get how he thinks. It is like with the food. Would it not be sad if I travelled all across Europe and only ate at McDonalds saying: It is the same everywhere, I know it, nothing can happen.
Before, you said that there was a debate arising in the European public like seldom before. Don’t you think that there is still a lack of Europe-wide leading media to strengthen this debate?
There will not be any Europe-wide leading media since Europe is fortunately too diverse for that. However, if crucial issues are increasingly discussed across borders, if the media accept their responsibility and do not only work with national clichés against each other, then much can evolve. Take the discussion on ACTA, for example: A Europe-wide discussion is happening! In earlier times, that was often different, if you think for example about the time immediately after Chernobyl. You were not allowed to eat salad in Kehl because it was supposed to be atomically radiated, but across the border in Strasbourg, no one even knew what atomic radiation meant or took it for some German invention. Europe will never become a something like a national media area, but there will be more and more transboundary debates.
If you had to present your understanding of a European narrative in a few words, what would you say?
I think that contrary to Brussels, Strasbourg is capable to put the idea of Europe across to people as a narrative. Look at the main building of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. That is the narrative you are looking for turned into stone. The architects very intentionally pursued a certain programme and cited every cultural era from the beginnings up to today in that building. The courtyard as a medieval castle, the plenary hall as an amphitheatre and so on. The crest of twelve stars as a symbol coming from a picture of the Virgin Mary in the cathedral of Strasbourg is equally fascinating. Both the form of the ring and the number twelve are symbols for perfection. When an official of the council of Europe was charged with designing a European flag, he wandered through Strasbourg, looking for inspiration, and discovered this picture in Strasbourg’s cathedral. The meaning of perfection is not to be misinterpreted as megalomania, but represents the idea that Europe is open for all European peoples. In contrast to the US flag, on which each star represents one state, the European flag tells us: The twelve stars do not stand for twelve countries, but Europe is open to all Europeans. Whenever I have groups visiting in the European Parliament in Strasbourg and tell them about this symbolism, people are fascinated – no matter if it is a protestant parish or Young Socialists’ group.
