This is what I wrote yesterday evening:
...
I am sitting in front of the TV and watching the live concert from Belgium which is a part of the celebrations for the 50th anniversary of the European Union. I'm watching and I have the strange feeling that there's something wrong about it.
The idea was to show performers from all of the 27 member countries. And the fact is that for two hours only a few countries have been presented: Italy, Belgium, Germany, UK, Spain and France. I'm wondering where the diversity is.
I can understand: it's a show and there is competition. In order to win against the competitors it has to show something familiar, something easy to be "sold". So the other countries - "eaten by dogs" as we say in Bulgaria.
Is this the entertainment reflection of the economic attitude? If the market laws are viable everywhere, then I guess the answer of my question is obvious.
But probably the more important question is whether this policy should continue? Let's forget about entertainment, let's talk about geopolitics.
It's clear enough that nowadays the European Union is suffering from an illness for which a cure hasn't been invented yet. While the Union was initially established for the purposes of free trade and cooperation between country members, and with the vision for peace in Europe after the hard years during the WW II, 50 years later there's a need for refreshment.
Europe today is not quite different from what it's always been: an area with smaller or bigger patches of nations, mixed ethnic origins and common history with sometimes opposite perceptions in neighbouring countries.
Once perceived as the centre of the known world, today the continent is struggling to remain on the top. With the dawn of the industrial revolution and the rise of the information technology revolution, the continent's problems have turned into only a small part of the huge information flows crossing the world.
After the "reunification" of Europe in 1989, the polarized two parts of the continent have officially become "one". And while the unification of the geographic definition of Europe has never happened - as Europe as a continent has always been one, it is mostly considered that the impact is mainly on the economical/political definition of Europe - or the European Union.
Facing the fact that Eastern European countries could be and already are members of the Union, the past divide of "us" and "them" and the belief that being "us" is better than being "them" is no longer a fact.
But till now there probably hasn't been much improvement in the mindset of the "old" members. I agree, major changes happen in the long run, but this may include changes both in the positive and the negative direction.
Being together means having identical values and a common vision. No common vision and values - no existence in the long run. Or at least no meaningful existence. Thrown in the backyard of the world by the BRIC or reaching a synergy growth - the choice is clear.
And the path…?
Labels: eu, Europe