FORUM MAASTRICHT 2007: “If I call up Europe, who answers the phone?”

“While it’s a time to celebrate, it’s also a time to reflect on Europe’s missed opportunities,” said Maastricht University president Jo Ritzen last week in his introductory address to Forum Maastricht, the university’s annual conference on European affairs.

This year is a significant European milestone, as it marks the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which formed the foundation for the European Union, as well as the 15th anniversary of the Maastricht Treaty, which led to the creation of the Euro as a common European currency.

Yet, as Ritzen reminded his audience, a high percentage of Europe’s citizens do not support the European Union and while Europe is excelling economically, its member states are still not able to come together as a world political power – on issues of peace, the environment and social cohesion.

With these issues in mind, Forum Maastricht 2007, entitled: “Europe, the Big Absentee? Striving to realize its potential,” wanted to examine whether there is still hope for the European Union and if and how it can be reconnected with its citizens.

The three day event, sponsored by the University Maastricht, Studium Generale and the city of Maastricht, started with the Schuman lecture on the evening of 9 May. The two following days began with impressive keynote lectures which were followed by parallel lecture panels. The forum’s delegates came from across Europe, Africa and America and comprised a varied mix of professions, diplomats, academics and students.

“The European Dream” by Jeremy Rifkin

Forum Maastricht was launched with the highly anticipated Schuman Lecture on 9 May. The prestigious annual lecture organized by Studium Generale is named after Robert Schuman, the French minister for Foreign Affairs who co-founded the European Community of Coal and Steel, which the European Union descends from.

This year’s guest lecturer was American economist and author Jeremy Rifkin. The charismatic scholar delivered an intelligent and accessible presentation on Europe’s international presence. Europe is facing a social and political crisis. Or is it? Unlike the many experts who speak of the doom and gloom of the European Union’s future, Rifkin argues that Europeans don’t realise how good things are here.

Rifkin is president of the Foundation on Economic Trends and author of seventeen books on the impact of scientific and technological changes on the economy, the workforce, society, and the environment. In his newest book, The European Dream: How Europe’s Vision of the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, Rifkin claims that the American Dream has passed its due date and is fading fast. Meanwhile a powerful new “European Dream” has emerged and the world is watching. According to Rifkin, the rising European Dream is the mirror opposite of the American Dream, but far more appropriate to tackle the challenges of our globalised world.

“I grew up on the American dream,” says Rifkin, explaining the concept: “America is a tough country but it has also been the land of opportunity. In the 1960s it was the most egalitarian OECD country.” But, Rifkin adds, there has been a drastic shift and today the US ranks 24th in income disparity – the gap between the rich and poor. Even with this abysmal situation, the American Dream stays alive – “for now”.

Rifkin reminded his packed audience - the largest of the entire Forum - that the European Union is an amazing accomplishment with 500 million people joining together across 26 countries in less than three generations – “This is the first transnational space and it takes my breath away when I think about it,” he said.

Rifkin, who was born into a Jewish family on 26 January 1945 at a time when Europe was feeling the burden of centuries of internal turmoil, explained that Europeans had had enough and that the EU was formed out of “peace, reciprocity and trust”.

The scholar calls Europe a “political experiment”. He likes how power is “flat and distributed equally, and is not hierarchical” as it is in nation-states. “The EU is totally counter-intuitive and no one can dominate the game in Europe,” he said, adding jokingly: “If I call up Europe, who answers the phone?”

In the European model, state sovereignty is diminished and ‘network politics’ have emerged. “Everyone is in total confusion about the EU, even those in charge,” Rifkin quipped, but in his opinion, as frustrating and awkward this structure is, it actually works.

Europe and the USA
“For the past 20 years I misread Europeans,” confessed Rifkin. “I thought we were the same but we actually think differently.” Taking the definition of freedom as an example, Rifkin said that in the US, freedom is about autonomy and mobility. “It’s all about self sufficiency and no one takes care of you in America but yourself”. In Europe however freedom is about the collective experience and proportional to the relationships one has in their community. Freedom is having a good quality of life.

Market model vs. social model?
According to Rifkin, economies shouldn’t strictly follow a market model or a social model. These models should be combined. In the US, the pure market model has meant that the winners take all at the expense of the working class and poor. As a consequence, 40 million people in the US live without health care.

Who has safer communities? While the US talks the big talk with fighting crime, their aggressive and punitive approach doesn’t appear to be working. Around 2 per cent of the male population are in prison and the homicide rate in the US is four times bigger than in Europe.

If the social model is incorporated, solidarity and sharing come into play and there are far more winners. And interestingly Europeans live one year longer than Americans on average.

“Americans work to live and European live to work”
The American dream is based on growth. But “not literally”, said Rifkin, “even though we are getting fatter and fatter”. He explained that consumption was originally a negative word and historically was used to describe tuberculosis. Marketers made it a positive term in the 1920s. Along with consumption comes a strong work ethic so money can be made and spent. Americans only have 10 days of holiday per year whereas Europeans get 4-6 weeks! Europeans like to have a drink and relax and even take a stroll down a promenade. Rifkin joked that “Americans don’t stroll”.

The Hydrogen Economy: “Dreams are what you want to be, not what you are”
Halfway through the lecture, Rifkin’s focus took a sudden turn from a European/US comparison to Rifkin’s dream of a new energy economy powered by hydrogen. At first the new topic seemed like a whole new lecture, but I came to see the connection: unless we can bypass the current geopolitical situation whereby oil wealthy countries hold far too much unwarranted social and political power, there is no way we can move forward achieving the European Dream.

And to build a more just and healthier world, we need to clean up the planet first. In this respect Rifkin is deeply concerned about global warming. While contentious in the scientific community, renewable resources hold the key to the future, says the scholar. Rifkin urges the world to go “beyond carbon” and sees the widespread use of hydrogen leading us to a third industrial revolution.

“Hydrogen is the most basic and ubiquitous element in the universe. It is the stuff of the stars and of our sun and, when properly harnessed, it is the forever fuel.” Hydrogen never runs out and doesn’t emit harmful CO2 emissions. There would be no superpowers and energy would be spread evenly around the world. All communities would be connected to a giant power grid whereby energy is inputted via various renewable sources (wind, solar, etc) and the power is stored in hydrogen power chips.

Rifkin says micro fuel-cells powered by hydrogen will replace traditional batteries and provide mobile power for laptop computers, cell phones and other digital devices. Even automobile companies are developing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and currently test-driving hydrogen cars, buses and trucks.

Anyone and everyone – “power to the people” - can take what they need from the grid. This is what Rifkin foresees as “just, distributed power” and takes out the oil power houses of the world which seem to constantly destabilise geopolitics.

Lecturing… “American” style
I enjoyed the talk and was more captivated by it than anything I have heard all year in Maastricht. It was quite surprising to hear from four European students as well as a Maastricht professor that they didn’t enjoy the style of the lecture. They felt Rifkin was too entertaining: like an “American evangelist,” one student said. I couldn’t believe it but then I realized why I liked the style of the lecture so much. Rifkin was animated and obviously passionate about his arguments. I enjoyed his personal anecdotes, maybe because I’m Canadian and don’t mind being entertained even during a serious lecture. But it sounds like this can come across as too colloquial in Europe. This is interesting considering the topic of the lecture was comparing European and American beliefs and attitudes. Perhaps a more seriously tempered European speaker making the same speech would have more credibility with this audience. I know I’m in the minority but I just felt like saying “lighten up” to my European co-delegates.

While some of the audience had trouble with Rifkin’s presentation style, he is someone to watch out for. Jeremy Rifkin serves as an advisor to heads of state, governments, and political parties around the world. He currently advises the European Commission and the European Parliament on economic, political, energy and environmental policy and recently advised German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi on economic and energy related issues.

Key Note Speeches

Former Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Bernard Bot was introduced by Maastricht Mayor Gerd Leers as the first Key Note speaker of the forum. Bot is an open and direct ambassador. University president Ritzen even quipped in his own introductory address that Bot “isn’t a typical diplomat”, representing the new genuine diplomacy of today.

As a matter of fact, Bot is quite optimistic and doesn’t agree Europe is a “big absentee”. He says it’s more of “a vulnerable front”: “Europe is a complex entity, with several organisations, that doesn’t see exactly what to do next.”

Bot says the EU, which was founded on three main pillars, is doing quite well under the first (community and economic matters) and third (police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters) pillars. He agrees however that the union has a less impressive record under the second pillar which deals with a common foreign and security policy. Europe’s political and military might is weak. Common foreign policy would require all 27 countries to agree on issues, and Bot admits we are a far way off from this happening. The greatest challenge for the EU is its internal weakness and “getting its own house in order”. Bot therefore calls for increased involvement by state parliaments in the EU decision making process as a way to increase citizen involvement.

On the last day of the forum, participants listened to a razor sharp keynote speech by senior correspondent for the International Herald Tribune, John Vinocur. Vinocur’s presentation focused on Europe’s lack of leadership. No European politician wants to represent all 27 member states and take political risks that may isolate him/her from their country of origin. Vinocur argued that Europe has incoherent and fragmented foreign policies (i.e. on the war in Iraq and on the environment) and controversially called the EU “dismembered and shattered but real all the same.” His lecture raised some eyebrows and got the debate rolling.

The keynote speeches had different tones, with Bot’s tempered optimism countered by Vinocur’s bold pessimism. This was a good balance and after each keynote address, plenty of time for Q&As was allocated for delegates to challenge each speaker on their opposing views.

Forum Maastricht parallel sessions

Forum Maastricht additionally offered a total of three parallel discussion sessions. Below is a summary of the three sessions I attended. The sessions I didn’t attend were called “Europe as a global player”, “Perspectives from beyond: non-Europeans about Europe” and “The politics of sustainability and the politics of Europe”.

The European Citizen: between nationalism and cosmopolitism
Moderator Professor Hildegard Schneider (Maastricht University) and speakers Rainer Bauböck (European University Institute) and Richard Bellamy (University College London)

Is EU citizenship based on nationalism or cosmopolitism? Can and does it exist beyond the borders of nation-states?

The panel discussed how on its surface Europe appears to promote global citizenship but in reality EU nationality remains intrinsically linked to nation-state citizenship. This is a hindrance to the union and to migrant rights. According to Schneider who led the discussion, the “introduction of the citizenship provisions into the European Treaty framework was an important step in the democratisation path of the EU.” But this has also led to “controversial discussions concerning its precise content as well as the political, economic and social dimension of the status of being a European citizen.”

Who is a European citizen? According to Article 17 of the Treaty of Rome, citizenship is acquired via and in conjunction with national citizenship of a Member State. That means there are 27 ways to acquire EU citizenship because each nation has its own immigration rules. The professors agreed EU citizenship with its rights and duties should be extended to long term EU residents. Established third-country nationals (i.e. Turkish and Moroccan long-term residents) should have the same status of EU nationals. They deserve to have voting and political rights.

But this isn’t the case. Several member states have strict naturalisation laws which have only gotten tighter since 9/11. Since the New York attacks, popular debate focuses more on security and fighting terrorism than on migrant or human rights. On the other hand many EU states have opened up citizenship on an ethnic basis – offering nationality to people whose ancestors come from that country. Countries like Spain, Italy and Germany offer nationality not based on the reality of people’s lives but on their bloodline. This means some newcomers live for years in Germany without having any local rights whereas others who have never set foot in the country can immediately receive a full set of citizenship rights.

There was some time for questions at the end. One question from the audience led to debate over whether EU citizenship ought to be offered to European residents regardless of whether they already hold a European passport from one of the 27 member states. This could automatically grant employment and social rights to newcomers. The panel disagreed, saying that migrants wouldn’t feel integrated in their new country because they wouldn’t have political rights, namely local voting rights. Unless EU citizenship could provide equal rights to that of their countrymen, different types of citizens living in the same country could prove detrimental.

The Future of transatlantic relations
Moderator: Professor Maarten Brands (Council of the Institute for the Human Sciences in Vienna) and speakers Josef Janning (Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich) and Robert Kagan (American neoconservative scholar and political commentator)

This discussion focused mainly on US/EU relations and how these superpowers are not only allies but also competitors. The world has changed and the US is no longer the principle stabiliser as it once was in Europe, but rather the primary destabiliser. The American uni-polar moment has come and gone – the rise of Europe and other economic hopefuls like China, Russia and India are minimising the American stronghold in the world. We’re living in a multi-polar world.

Following Jeremy Rifkin’s observations, American speaker Josef Janning said Europeans and Americans have different psychologies and a different understanding on economics, democracy and use of force. “I cannot reassure you about the United States”, said Janning. There isn’t an American strategist on the left or right that doesn’t prioritise the war on terror. Janning added that the US is out of touch and “one really can’t say America is the leader of the free world anymore”.

The panel pointed out that there are two competing trends rising in today’s geopolitics. Janning sees a re-emergence of the Cold War era with the open liberalism of many western countries versus the autocracy of others like China and Russia. The later are promoting the old Westphalian notion of nation-states whereas the US and Europe call for international cooperation in the name of a higher good. Janning is curious to see how this ideological struggle will play out.

This session had a lot of American content. Even though the topic was transatlantic relations, it ought to have been called Europe/US relations since it dealt with how these two regions fare in the world politically in relation to other growing economic powerhouses. If it had been really ‘transatlantic’ then Canada and Latin America should have at least been mentioned, but as per usual they weren’t.

Does Europe need a social model?
Moderator Professor Jelle Visser (University of Amsterdam) and speakers Jos Berghman (Leuven University) and Michael Burda (Humboldt University Berlin)

The speakers of this panel asked if we need a common European social model and what should it look like. Should there be minimum rules on health and safety and workers rights for example? Who will pay for it? Visser spoke of the usefulness of a European minimum wage which could lead to social integration and alleviate fears of mass migration from poorer states to the states with higher wages.

Berghman showed some interesting statistics comparing Dutch and American expenditures on social protection. In both countries, roughly 30 per cent of total expenditures are spent on social programmes. Usually, before social spending, around 40 per cent of a developed country’s population lives under the poverty line. Once social spending is offered this percentage drops sharply.

In the Netherlands, after social spending is received, 6-7 per cent of the population lives in poverty. However in the US, even after massive social expenditures, 25 per cent of Americans remain poor. Why is this? Berghman says it’s because only some Americans are insured and almost half of all social expenditures come from private companies rather than the government: “If you’re not insured, you don’t receive assistance.” In the Netherlands however most of the spending is done through the government, so the majority can benefit. This example echoed Jeremy Rifkin’s proposition that the pure market model in the US hasn’t benefited the people and Americans ought to look to Europe for economic advice. And once again delegates got the impression that the speakers wanted to show that things in Europe aren’t so bad after all, when compared to the US that is.

Montesquieu Institute opens in Maastricht

Forum participants were lucky to witness the official opening of the Maastricht branch of the Montesquieu Institute by former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers. The institute focuses on education and research on the role of parliaments in the EU.

Four universities came together to form the institute which has two branches. The Maastricht branch will look at comparative constitutional developments. The other branch has already opened in The Hague and focuses on a historical perspective of European parliaments. Both branches hope their findings will lead to an exchange of best practices between EU member states.

Researchers hope that the institute will lead to more cooperation and integration among parliamentarians who usually know more about their own system than about their neighbours’. The new research institute will also help answer why the EU has suffered from a democratic deficit and bring its citizens closer to decision making processes.

Tremendous headway
Overall Forum Maastricht was a well-organised event filled with impressive speakers and mostly optimistic discussions on Europe’s future. The one problem I had (perhaps as a Canadian who grew up in the American shadow) was the recurrent emphasis on the US and constant comparisons to American culture, economics and global reputation. This is obviously an important analysis but I would have liked to hear more concrete recommendations on how to strengthen Europe rather than theorising about Europe’s international ranking – which came down to whether it’s doing better or worse than the US.

Participants, who were actively involved with discussions, concluded that Europe has made tremendous headway in just three generations, but that it is capable of much more. For someone new to these issues, Forum Maastricht met all my expectations and as a delegate I was exposed to a good overview of contemporary thought on Europe’s geopolitical position.

By Danya Chaikel

Danya Chaikel is from Vancouver, Canada and recently graduated from law school. She has a background of working with migrants and promoting human rights. Danya recently moved to Maastricht to be with her Dutch partner.

More information:
Forum Maastricht 2007
Watch the video film of the Schuman lecture: Jeremy Rifkin on the European Dream