1

JOUR 616: Media, European Integration and Globalisation

Lecturer: Obrad Savic
MA candidate: Faton Raçi

30 September 2009

Why Europe became EU-rope?

(The rise of nationalism in EU member-states, what went
wrong, and how the movement towards future Europe might be
restored?)

Introduction

We all remember the Cold War era and the collapse of Eastern Communist Block
in 1989. The fall of the Berlin Wall represented a symbolic step towards liberty for all
Eastern European states. Hence, the soft blanket of euphoria soon after covered the Old
Continent; Europe was finally united!
Twenty years later, instead of 12 of the then European Community the nowadays
European Union (EU) has 27 member-states, not to mention plans for further extension
of its borders. Majority of ex-Eastern European states are integrated within the EU,
except six new states derived from ex-Yugoslavia (as Slovenia has already entered the
EU) and few problematic ones, mostly bordering Russia, as Moldova, Ukraine and
Georgia, for instance. Even though the delay in integration of ex-Yugoslav countries is
often credited to their unsolved national relations as well as to un-fulfillment of
 2

numerous EU standards and procedures, integration of the quite distant eastern

countries caused by evident lack of compliance between Union’s member-states. Hence,
one of the main reasons for hesitation towards further enlargement of the EU, besides
global financial crises being main Union’s excuse, is internal discrepancy among the EU
member-states concerning its perspective and form. Consequently, some of the EU
member-states failed to ratify the EU constitution, although it was signed in 2004.
On the other hand, the rise of nationalistic feelings toward ‘the Others’ within the
EU countries may, in my opinion, is the other important reason for interruption of
further enlargement of the EU. One may found this argument as inconsistent, knowing
that the EU is primarily built over the principles of cosmopolitanism. However the
problem itself is not hiding within those cosmopolitan regulations and principles, but in
quite heterogeneous societies which are part of the EU, and in the fear of native citizens
of its member-states from losing their traditions, national identity and status due to ‘the
Others’ – mostly represented by inflowing immigrants from other continents, and by the
newcomers entering the EU from new member-states. As a result of this xenophobia,
even in the most democratic EU countries the populist feelings and the antagonism
towards all kind of foreigners are rising rapidly. In fact nowadays common Westerners
viewpoint is that immigration needs to be prohibited, or at least limited, in order to save
their economic prosperity, jobs, and, even worst, to protect the safety, law and order in
respective EU countries.
Thus, although the EU aim remains the actual finalization of its federalization,
some of member-states are, in parallel, fearful of their future status within that
federation. Such perceptions are often coupled with the rise of nationalistic feelings
toward ‘the Others’ within those communities. Furthermore, although signed by all
Union member-states in 2004, the Constitution of the EU has failed to be ratified by the
citizens of couple of important EU states.1
Why is this happening? Why the EU now faces this mixed form of fear, panic, and
new nationalisms? What has triggered the appearance of xenophobia and neo-
nationalism in modern Europe? Do the disintegration of Eastern Europe and the inflow
of cheap working force from there have to do with this? Is it the fear from the unknown
or it is something else?
This essay aims to provide few arguments and answers linked to these dilemmas.

1
Europe, The European Union Online, <http://europa.eu/abc/12lessons/index_en.htm>
[Accessed on 20 July 2009]
 3

Initial hopes transformed into disappointment and nationalism

The ratification of the Treaty for the European Union, on 7 February 1992 in
Maastricht (Netherlands) was indeed a historical event for European integration. It
transformed the European Community into the European Union (EU), prompting its
member-states to create a time-schedule for full integration of their economies and
monetary systems. The Treaty also expanded the influence of the EU toward joint foreign
policy and defense, and it created collaboration in the fields of criminal prosecution and
law enforcement. Soon after a numerous other conventions and agreements were signed
between the EU member-states; such as the establishment of the Joint European
Market, on 1 January 1993 - which introduced the freedom to trade goods, services,
labor, and money; the Schengen Agreement, in 1995 – which enabled the travelers to
travel among participating states,2 without presenting their passports at formal border
crossings; the Treaty of Amsterdam – whose aim was “to create the political and
institutional conditions to enable the European Union to meet the challenges of the
future such as the rapid evolution of the international situation, the globalization of the
economy and its impact on jobs, the fight against terrorism, international crime and
drug trafficking, ecological problems and threats to public health”;3 Finally, in January
1999, the EU introduced its common currency – Euro. The EU market was thus united.
In parallel, the EU has constantly expanded its borders by accepting new
members, mostly from the Central and Eastern Europe. Logical consequence of such
move, in the economical sphere, was further expansion of the Euro-market, which was a
good news for all Union’s member-states. The ‘Bad news’ was that by accepting new
member-states from ex-Eastern Block the internal EU market suddenly became full of
cheap working force. ‘Old Europe’ suddenly felt panicked. When on the top of all this we
add an increased inflow of the illegal immigrants from the peripheral zones of Africa and
Asia, and the proclaimed ‘War on Terror’ by U.S. President George W. Bush, it’s clear
that somewhat multi-dynamic events are happening at once - in a continent not so
familiar with such dramatic changes.

2
Although initially singed by France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, 24 states has
signed the Schengen Agreement until know, including some none EU states, such as Iceland, Norway, and
Switzerland
3
See Europe, The European Union Online
 4

Paradoxically, the beginning of the 21 century marks a rapid emergence of the

radical right and neo-nationalism movements in the majority of EU countries.
Dr. Zagorka Golubovic4 in her text concerning ‘The Implications of the Conflict in
Ex-Yugoslavia for the European Security’, emphasis: “I think that both Western and
Eastern Europe believed that once the communist regimes have been eliminated, the
question of a democratic transformation and integration of the countries of “real
socialism” into the European Community would be more or less automatic - but
developments proved them wrong.”5 And she was right since, although unexpected after
the wars in ex-Yugoslavia, radical right parties of Jean-Marie LePen’s Front National
(France), Silvio Belusconi’s coalition North Alliance and Forza-Italia (Italy), Joerg
Heider’s Freie Democratiche Partei (Austria), and other similar right-wing parties
suddenly emerged strong within the EU. They all promised to their compatriots’
protection from the unemployment and protection of their national interests. These were
two biggest concerns that in fact most of the EU citizens had after the latest enlargement
of the Union in 2004, when ten new countries entered the Union 6 at once. Hereto, the
main disturbance is not the appearance of radical parties as such, but the tactics that
neo-nationalists chose for achieving those goals. Their main focus was/is promotion of
totally opposite standards compared to Union’s policy, mostly in a form of Euro-
skepticism which includes defense of national interests and traditions, and promotion of
strong anti-immigration policy.
“The left's idea is of a multi-ethnic Italy. That’s not our idea, ours is to welcome
only those who meet the conditions for political asylum,”7 Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian
Prime Minister, argued quite recently. It’s easy to find lots of similar pronouncements
from LePen, Heider, etc, but when such a thing is being said by the current Prime
Minister of an EU member-state it certainly weights differently. Thought, it seems ironic
how neo-nationalists persistently forget a very important element, that “it is nationalism
which engenders nations, and not the other way round.”8

4
Dr. Zagorka Golubovic is Serbia's veteran dissident from the Communist era and former professor of
Sociology and Anthropology at University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia
5
Zagorka Golubovic, ‘Implikacije Konflikta u Bivsoj Jugoslaviji za Evropsku Sigurnost’, Web-Source:
<http://147.91.230.48/ifdt/izdanja/casopisi/ifdt/IX-X/D32/document> [Accessed on 10 September 2009]
6
In 2004 ten new countries has joined the EU: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia
7
Deepa Babington, ‘Berlusconi's Anti-immigration Comments Spur Outcry’, Reuters, (Rome: 10 May 2009),
Web-Source: <http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5491CC20090510?
pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0>
[Accessed on 25 July 2009]
8
Ernest Gellner, ‘Nations and Nationalism’, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), p.55
 5

Nevertheless, even though it was thought that the EU is moving confidently

toward the realization of its final goals: federalization of Europe and creation of new
European identity, the appearance of neo-nationalism, supported by a numerous
European citizens, proved that something needs to be changed. So, even though the
European market was united in 1999 by the introduction of its common currency, it
seems that political Europe is still not. Moreover, it seems more divided then twenty
years ago. Ironically this time it is divided within itself. Current neo-nationalism at an
institutionalized level (political parties, NGOs, lobby groups, etc.) represents a direct
threat for Union itself, as it directly attacks its most valid values, through organizing
anti-EU campaigns and anti-immigrant movements. Or, as Marcus Banks and Andre
Gingrich define:

“By opening up new discursive fields of conflict, and of radical

redefinition, these ne-nationalist leaderships were capable of creating new
forms of public awareness about the nation’s allegedly insecure presence
and future.”9

Some seventy years ago, before the World War II, similar rampant fueling of
nationalism and ethnic hatred led to creation of fascist regimes, invasions, and genocide,
and to ethnic cleansing during 1990s in ex-Yugoslavia. Hence it’s not surprising that
many Europeans fear from the repetition of such scenario, even though some prominent
thinkers don’t share that opinion, as they think that there’s no reason for panic. For Eric
Hobsbawm10, for instance, “it is not the threat from the extreme right..., though clearly
there is a shift to the right, and centre-right governments are likely to make more
concessions to the far right. The real story is the crisis of the left.”11 That is to say,
Hobsbawm’s main concern today in not the similarity of situation to the one of 1930s,
but the European leftists need for reorganization. Hobsbawm’s argument may be
reasonable as leftists totally oppose to the neo-nationalists, by propagating equality
among citizens, regardless of any kind of their descent. But, according to a workshop of

9
Andre Gingrich, Marcus Banks, ‘Neo-nationalism in Europe and Beyond, (Berghahn Books, 2006), p.16,
Web-source: <http://books.google.com/books?
id=zScJs9HjixQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false>
[Accessed on 25 August 2009]
10
Among many other books, Eric Hobsbawm is the author of ‘The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth
Century (1914-1991)’.
11
Stephen Moss and John Crace, ‘Is fascism on the march again?’, The Guardian, (London: 9 June 2009),
Web-source: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/09/bnp-fascism-meps-far-right>[Accessed on
20 July 2009]
 6

Networking European Citizenship Education, “Even extreme nationalists are still mostly
at least nominally committed to Europe, which gives the European Union some power
over their policies.”12 This claim is clearly emphasizing further urgent need for action by
the EU, because current inactivity in fulfilling its goals has created a fertile ground for
neo-nationalists to enter EU and act from inside. The epistemologist and Professor of
Philosophy at the University of Tilburg in the Netherlands, Herman de Regt, couple of
days before last elections for the European Parliament (held on 4 June 2009) raised
further skepticism, by claiming that “to believe that we can move the Union forward by
thinking on the question of Europe’s identity could well be a disastrous mistake.”13
Dutchman De Regt in fact doesn’t negate the European Union as such, but he is arguing
that:

“National politicians should see about finding new ways to explain

the importance of the European Union to its citizens. For no-one can
blame us for leaving the club if it has nothing to offer us.”14

Hereupon, it seems that European citizens somewhat feel that they’ve gave
something to the EU (their nationality) and they didn’t get nothing back. One may thus
ask how come that after 20 years of its existence the EU citizens are facing such
dilemmas and contradictions? What might be the solution?
It is obvious that current form of the EU, initially designed just for 12 member-
states, is suffering under the heavy weight of the new 15 newcomers, with quite diverse
15

political, cultural and historical backgrounds. If we add to these the discordance between
firm market integration and loose political integration of national governments, then
current structural problems, combined with, as Jurgen Habermas states, “a
corresponding deficit in the democratic legitimatization of EU decisions”,16 are certainly

12
Stefan Auer, ‘The Culture of Memory in Europe – the Foundation
for the Integration of Europe’, workshop of Networking European Citizenship Education: ‘The Impacts of
National Identities for European Integration as a Focus of Citizenship Education’, (Melbourne: Innovative
Universities European Union (IUEU) Centre,
La Trobe University, 11 September 2007), p.4, Web-source: <http://www.bpb.de/files/8GCANP.pdf>
[Accessed on 1 September 2009]
13
Herman de Regt, ‘Europe Doesn’t Exists’, Press Europe, (Brussels: 1 June 2009), Web-Source:
<http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/12011-europe-doesnt-exist> [Accessed on 25 July 2009]
14
Ibid
15
European Council declarations, ‘Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union, (Brussels: 28
February 2002, The Convention meeting chaired by Mr. Valery Giscard d’Estaing) Web-Source:
<http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/unit/charte/en/declarations-laeken.html> [Accessed on 27 July 2009]
16
Jurgen Habermas, ‘Why Europe Needs a Constitution’, New Left Review 11 (September-October 2001) p.
13, Web- Source: <http://www.newleftreview.org/A2343> [Accessed on 2 September 2009]
 7

not so unexpected. In fact many citizens of diverse EU states are not feeling that they’re
part of the ‘European project’ anymore. Habermas hence considers that for the EU to
remain a stable and lasting political community, it is essential that citizens identify
themselves with the organization.17
Meanwhile, the EU seemed to have underestimated Europe’s radical right and
the possible awakening of nationalist consciousness among its citizens. Consequently,
the European rightists have used somewhat distant interrelation between the EU
bureaucracy and its citizens, as well as the panic and xenophobia that embraced them by
EU enlargement towards Central and Eastern Europe, to enter ‘the stage’.
Many citizens were also critical about the increased powers of EU institutions, as
they perceive them being beyond control of any national government of the member-
states. Thus they felt somewhat left aside and betrayed by the EU. This gap was soon
after filled by the Euro-rightists, who, with the motto of “protection of national interests”
from ‘the Others’ achieved to benefit from such situation. If we carefully analyze the
events, it is easy to observe that the latest result, and probably the strongest effect, of
such “protection” was refusal to ratify the EU Constitution by France and the
Netherlands, in 2005. Since then the EU is, instead of concentrating into further
enlargement and development, mostly trying to reunify itself.

Conclusion

What might be then the strongest blow in the faces of the Euro-neo-nationalists?
The answer may be hiding in swift ratification of the EU constitution. Jurgen
Habermas argues that “a European constitution would not only make manifest the shift
in powers that has already taken place. It would also release and foster further shifts.”18
Bearing this in mind, it’s realistic to expect the re-establishment of ties between the EU
bureaucracy and the citizens. This would for sure release current ‘EU-rope’ and open
further perspectives for the Union. The subsequent execution of the Lisbon Treaty would
for sure leave the Euro-rightists and the Euro-skeptics without their main Joker: that the
vision of United Europe is just an utopist dream.
Furthermore, the eventual continuation and completion of the membership
negotiations with the Western Balkans and Turkey would represent an extra kick for the
neo-nationalist concept of Europe, as it would for sure reconfirm the cosmopolitanism of
17
Ibid, p. 6
18
Ibid
 8

the EU as well the restoration of confidence of its citizens with the non-European
cultural or ethnical background. Only then would Europe become united politically.
Besides, the constitution would create a possibility for the EU to have its President and
its Prime Minister, as well as to, probably, limit its citizens in bearing just European
nationality, instead of two (the EU and national) as they do now.
When being asked about his vision of Europe’s political structure after 50 years,
in an interview for Signandsight.com,19 Habermas replied:

“A bold vision for 50 years down the line will not help us get on
right now. I am content with a vision for the period leading up to the
European elections in 2009. Those elections should be coupled with a
Europe-wide referendum on three questions: whether the Union, beyond
effective decision-making procedures, should have a directly elected
president, its own foreign minister, and its own financial base. That is
what Belgium's Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt advocates. Such a
proposal would pass muster if it won a "double majority" of EU member-
states and of individual citizens' votes. At the same time, the referendum
would be binding only on those EU member-nations in which a majority
of citizens had voted for the reforms. If the referendum were to succeed, it
would mean the abandonment of the model of Europe as a convoy in
which the slowest vehicle sets the pace for all. But even in a Europe
consisting of a core and a periphery, those countries which prefer to
remain on the periphery for the time being would of course retain the
option of becoming part of the core at any time.”20

Hence, if the EU achieves to create its aim, a strong and cosmopolitan ‘United
States of Europe’ 21
within which its citizens will feel being its part and identified as
Europeans, the neo-nationalists will certainly loose the groundwork. Certainly, this is
not a new discovery as it functions perfectly in the U.S. Nobody there identifies himself
as a Californian, Texasian, Arizonian, etc. They’re all Americans, including those with a
19
Signandsight.com is the English language service of perlentaucher.de, the largest cultural online magazine
in German language. Jurgen Habermas gave the interview in 2007.
20
Matthias Hoenig, ‘What Europe Needs Now’, signandsight.com, (Berlin: 23 March 2007),
<http://www.signandsight.com/features/1265.html> [Accessed on 14 September 2009]

21
Ibid
 9

totally different cultural and ethnical background/descent - similar with nowadays

desperate immigrants who’re, despite all of this hatred, perseveringly trying to enter the
EU.
 10

List of References:

- Andre Gingrich, Marcus Banks, ‘Neo-nationalism in Europe and Beyond, (Oxford, New York:
Berghahn Books, 2006), p.16, Web-source: <http://books.google.com/books?
id=zScJs9HjixQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=
false>

- Deepa Babington, ‘Berlusconi's Anti-immigration Comments Spur Outcry’, Reuters, (Rome: 10

May 2009), Web-Source: <http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5491CC20090510?
pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChanel=0>

- Ernest Gellner, ‘Nations and Nationalism’, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), p.55

- European Council Declarations, ‘Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union,
(Brussels: 28 February 2002, The Convention meeting chaired by Mr Valery Giscard d’Estaing)
Web-Source: <http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/unit/charte/en/declarations-laeken.html>

- Europe, The European Union Online, <http://europa.eu/abc/12lessons/index_en.htm>

- Herman de Regt, ‘Europe Doesn’t Exists’, Press Europe, (Brussels: 1 June 2009), Web-Source:
<http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/12011-europe-doesnt-exist>

- Jurgen Habermas, ‘Why Europe Needs a Constitution’, New Left Review 11 (September-October
2001) p. 13, Web- Source: <http://www.newleftreview.org/A2343>

- Matthias Hoenig, ‘What Europe Needs Now’, signandsight.com, (Berlin: 23 March 2007),
<http://www.signandsight.com/features/1265.html>

- Stefan Auer, ‘The Culture of Memory in Europe – the Foundation for the Integration of Europe’,
Workshop of Networking European Citizenship Education: ‘The Impacts of National Identities
for European Integration as a Focus of Citizenship Education’, (Melbourne: Innovative
Universities European Union (IUEU) Centre, La Trobe University, 11 September 2007), p.4, Web-
source: <http://www.bpb.de/files/8GCANP.pdf>

- Stephen Moss and John Crace, ‘Is fascism on the march again?’, The Guardian, (London: 9 June
2009), Web-source: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/09/bnp-fascism-meps-far-
right>

- Zagorka Golubovic, ‘Implikacije Konflikta u Bivsoj Jugoslaviji za Evropsku Sigurnost’, Web-

Source: <http://147.91.230.48/ifdt/izdanja/casopisi/ifdt/IX-X/D32/document>