European Master’S DEGREE in Human Rights and Democratisation

Perspectives on the challenges and opportunities of the future EU enlargement towards CEEC

by Salomeea Romanescu

Coordinators:

Prof. Antonio Papisca, University of Padua Director of the European Master’s Degree in Human Rights and Democratisation

Dr . George Ulrich, European Inter-University Centre of Human Rights, Venice, Academic Co-ordinator of the European Master’s Degree in Human Rights and Democratisation

Submitted in February 2003

Perspectives on the challenges and opportunities of the future EU enlargement towards CEEC

Abstract

The hypothesis: for all the progress in the construction of the new identity of European Union, the European Civil Society (resistance against the coercive European Political Society) cannot accept “the embedded neo-liberalism” (the EU’s actual hegemonic Project) without finding real solutions for so-called “social fracture” of globalisation and this represents a big threat to the soft security model of Europe. This research is based on the neo-Gramscian integrative theoretical perspective. The question is: could Civil Society from CEEC, as social power participate in the potential anti-hegemonic Project of European Civil Society (in neo-Gramscian terms), able to face the hegemonic project of European Political Society, “embedded neo-liberalism”? After examining CEEC case study the answer is negative because this Civil Society is not yet well organised, even it is ripe to understand their social situation and the possibilities to change it in alliance with other transnational forces of Social and Christian Democracy from Europe. This study of the CEEC’s EU integration was made from two perspectives: as a challenge, but also as an opportunity for the Western European and Eastern European winners and losers: European Round Table of Industrialists, European Civil Society, European Union and CEE Governments and Civil Society, by examining the connections between power in production including social power, power in the state, and power in international relations and proposing a new project by shifting from a paternalistic policy paradigm of “embedded neo-liberalism” towards a new and more enlightened policy paradigm towards integration, in the frame of a comprehensive humane security concept in Europe and humane governance, from a feminine perspective, by adapting the emergent geo-governance to the realization of human rights.

List of Abbreviations

FPO – Austrian People Party (Austria)

AWS – Solidarity Electoral Action (Poland)

CEEC – Central and Eastern European Country

CFSP – Common Foreign and Security Policy

EC – European Commission

EU – European Union

ESC – Economic and Social Committee

EP – European Parliament

EMU – Economic and Monetary Union

ERT – European Round Table of Industrialists

FDI – foreign direct investment

IR – International Relations

MIEP – Party of Hungarian Truth and Life

MP – Worker’s Party

NATO – North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

OSCE – Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe

PSL – Polish Peasant Party

ROP – Movement of Rebuild Poland

SPR-RSC – Republican Party (the Czech Republic)

UN – United Nations

USA – United States of America

Table of contents

Abstract I

List of Abbreviations II

Table of contents III

INTRODUCTION 1

0.0.Challenges and Opportunities for a Humane Security European Order 1

0.1.Method, aim of the research and the importance of choosing the issue 9

0.2.Structure, theoretical approach and the principal question of the research 11

CHAPTER 1 14

Western European perspective on the challenges and opportunities of EU enlargement 14

1.0.Western European Perspectives on the EU enlargement towards CEEC 14

1.1.From ERT perspective as challenge and opportunity for a free market strategy 14

1.2.From EU Perspective: CEEC as a challenge and opportunity for a new strategy 20

1.3.From European Civil Society perspective as potential opportunity for a new project 28

1.4.Conclusions and perspectives 33

CHAPTER 2 35

Eastern European perspective on EU integration as an opportunity and challenge 35

2.0.Eastern European perspective on the EU enlargement towards CEEC 35

2.1.From CEEC governmental perspective as a challenge and opportunity 35

2.2.From the economic, regional, and social winners perspective as an opportunity 38

2.3.From the present and future losers as an opportunity for organising civil society 40

2.4.Conclusions and perspectives 45

CHAPTER 3 47

Challenging prospect for a humane governance for sustainable development opportunity 47

3.1.Humane security paradigm as a common denominator of all European actors against common challenges 47

3.2.Sustainable development as a common denominator for all European Actors and good opportunity 51

3.3.Humane governance for humane security and sustainable human development 54

3.4.Conclusions and perspectives on the future project of the European Civil Society 55

FINAL CONCLUSIONS 57

Annex 1 i

Annex 2 vi

Annex 3 vii

Annex 4 viii

Annex 5 ix

Annex 6 xi

Annex 7 xii

Annex 8 xiii

Annex 9 xiv

Annex 10 xv

Annex 11 xvii

Bibliography xviii

Credo

I hope that my thesis will be a small contribution to the historic necessity of adapting the emergent geo-governance to the realization of human rights.

INTRODUCTION

Challenges and Opportunities for a new European Humane Security Order

This introductory chapter has three sections: first deals with ignored types of threat showing the economic influences on popular disturbance and the link between Globalisation and European integration, the second introduces the common opportunities and challenges of EU enlargement towards CEE space and the third one, proposes the paradigm of cooperation, starting point for a new Model of Global Humane Governance. All three sections present the issues from a feminine perspective: new paradigm of Humane Security taking into account the ignored types of threats, the opportunity of Cooperative relationship instead of Competitive relationship for overcoming the main common challenges of all actors involved on European, humane governance for sustainable development.

This first section of the introductory chapter evaluates how structural change in the international system level, such as Globalisation and the end of the Cold War, have impact on the Security agenda, by looking at those ignored types of threats¹ related to security in post-Cold War Europe, from a feminist point of view; hunger, disease, illiteracy, person abuse and exploitation, pollution of the air and water and especially unemployment.

Comprehensive security concept is a big challenge for state and other existing institutions. This type of challenge consists on new linkages between political, security and economic threats, which have challenged the capacity of the state to perceive and to respond to new challenges and needs for action in one side and on institutional challenge relating to the competence of existing institutions for international action in the other side and finally to the potential for co-ordination between state and other non-state (transnational and subnational) forces.

This first section also explains the relationship between Integration and Globalisation, by warning on the present and future impact of integration on the poor of the most of the CEEC. An analysis of challenges and opportunities of European Enlargement is not an end in itself; it is a useful way of understanding the social and political world in order to change it, in a neo-Gramscian, feminist perception, producing a more “feminine” society and a new model of governance, by adapting the emergent geo-governance to the realization of human rights.

We continue trying to answer what is the relationship between these three simultaneous processes in the most of the CEEC: multilevel and multidimensional process of transformation, the process of integration into the EU and both of these processes are occurring in the larger context of the Globalisation process. All these three macro-processes are strongly interrelated and it is difficult or even impossible to distinguish clearly the transformation, integration and global processes and their impact on the economies and societies of the transition countries because we don’t have a theoretical approach able to explain this simultaneity and existent theory of integration are limited.

We assume that if we would like to find solution in the real life we have to find solution also at the theoretical level, taking into account the power of ideas for change. We need a new theory of integration as a useful instrument for generating alternative models of governance adequate to the reality of European Integration. We need new theory because the old ones are limited and are not able to explain the reality.

Despite the continuing domination of states, multinational corporations, non-governmental organisations, intergovernmental organisations and supranational institutions such as the EU share the stage of global politics affected by economic and political development combined with technological changes. The inability for governments to manage problems arising from trans-border transactions requires co-operation even at the cost of losing autonomy. The first section of the second chapter will demonstrate the impotence of state – the Romanian case study – to guarantee humane security and sustainable development and consequently their priorities of foreign policy to fill this vacuum of security, by the CFPS regime of EU and by integration, potentiality for a win-win game instead of zero-sum game scenarious. We will also demonstrate that state sovereignty and personal sovereignty are myths only, because in reality, multi-national corporations are not subordinated to states and International organisations, such EU and law have superior authority and for this reason states can’t determine their own policies. These actors have different interests and power politics is made less important because they are operating within the societal domain and beyond direct state control. We are summing, in this section, the existent theories of integration pointing out their limits.

Neo-functionalism explains European Integration through an emphasis on the internal dynamics of European Politics, of spill – over, from different sectors of economy to political sector. The wider structure, within European Integration is situated, is completely ignored. It is impossible to take into account structural change such Globalisation and the end of the Cold War.

In contrast to neo-functionalism, which emphasizes the importance of non-governmental interest groups in the process of European integration, inter-governmentalism considers the international structure to be an anarchic system in which states are the only important actors. This approach argues that states pursue rationalist policies of power maximisation and security in order to ensure their survival in the absence of a central power at the International level.

Liberal inter-governmentalism put the predominant emphasis on state as the main actors in international relations neglecting the power of ideas and transnational actors as independent forces behind integration. The behavior of TNCs, after1980s in the EU, is interpreted as rational adaptation of intergovernmental commitment, while policy involvement and ideas of TNCs are view as the result of intergovernmental demands, but not as independent force. ²

Neo-Gramscian alternative gives another answer to this behavior, showing the role and power of influence and control of this transnational capital and financier actors at the European level, being a critical theory which tries to explain the change and treating the human nature and all structures, including the international system, as product of history and consequently subject of change.

The revival of European integration since the mid-1980s has reconciled regional integration with Globalisation. How it was possible? The answer is obviously simple, the same transnational fractions of capi­tal that are behind the current drive of European integration are components of a wider transnational historical bloc, working within high profile fora such as the G-7 meetings (now G8) and including also private organisations such as the Trilateral Commission and the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT). It is this bloc which has generated the ideas, institutions and material capabilities for a global shift towards more neo-liberal forms of state and which influenced the development of European integration making it compatible with Globalisation, not opposed to it. It is correct to agree with Cox, that the task to change World Order begins with the long laborious effort to build new historical blocs and our thesis will try to analyze the potentiality of such occurrence in the post Cold Europe.

Change of the polarity of the international system after the Cold War, reflects the development of new structural variables, as results of trends aiming to revise institutional entities as European Union and state policies. Not all elements of change are causes of conflicts, because it is not polarity but polarisation that can lead to conflicting situations. There is no evidence that such a process will occur in the European subsystem yet, but the coming situations are not predictable, thus this thesis will try to analyze the potential polarisation in Europe, as a product of willingness for change of the losers representing the social power of the European integration process with its both aspects deepening and enlargement, process which is driven by the transnational forces of globalisation, which are the real winners.

What is important to notice is that the states become “a transmission belt” from the global level to the national economy level, “undermining the sovereignty and autonomy in all aspects of security”. This phenomenon “can be called internationalizing of the state”, according to Robert Cox .³ This phenomenon created the so-called “social fracture”, engine of the conflicts of globalisation. (see annex 1,Conflicts of globalisation, first neo-Gramscian analysis of the author of this thesis).

Linked with this social fracture of Globalisation and European enlargement towards CEEC, we have to start our analysis by looking to the ongoing hegemonic project of “embedded-neo-liberalism” synthesis aimed to unify the transnational capitalist actors (TNCs) and first subchapter of the first chapter elaborates on it. This includes the social purpose supporting the emergent European Order. The Maastricht compromise reflects the gradual rise of what can be called an ”embedded neo-liberalism”. This is neo-liberal view as it emphasizes the primacy of global market forces and the freedom of the movement of the transnational capital. So, as a result of such processes, markets become increasingly disconnected from their post-war national social institutions and we risk a shift from a “national dictatorship” to an “international dictatorship” in these so called transition countries. In one side, one may read “embedded neo-liberalism” as the outcome of the transnational struggle between the three projects of neo-liberalism, neo-mercantilism and supranational social democracy. This was a struggle in which the neo-liberal became dominant but still had to accommodate the concern both of the former neo-mercantilist and of the social democrats. The neo-liberal project incorporated these rival concerns in such a manner that they were subordinated to the interests of globalising capital (neglecting the social democratic concerns in this compromise). In the other side, “embedded neo-liberalism” can also be interpreted as the emerging hegemonic project of Europe’s transnational capitalist class. This class has become dominated by- the leadership of a globalist fraction both in terms of financial firms and global industrial TNCs.⁴

This process of assimilation is an extremely attractive and powerful project, which became the basis for expansion towards Central and Eastern Europe. Our thesis would like to argue that European Integration is not a win-win scenarious yet, as it is considered on the theory of integration⁵; even the removal of barriers to free trade and closer integration of national economies, they have the potentiality to enrich every one, especially the poor. What is the reason for this failure? The neglect of the social protection and the denying of the existence of genuine unemployment by the standard model that economists had used for generations could be one explanation; the only reason that unemployment existed was the wages were too high, suggesting the simple remedy: lower wages. They argued that markets worked perfectly and outworn presumption that markets, by themselves lead to efficient outcomes and this failed to allow the desirable intervention of the government in the market for the guidance of economic growth and make everyone better off. Therefore, the second section of the first chapter deals with the existing social cohesion policy and unemployment policy at the EU level, which is not yet prepared to answer to the social challenges. Some hope for the future exists, taking into account the recent proposal of social working group, to include on the draft of the constitution, as objectives on the Art. 3: promotion of full employment and quality of work, together with social justice and sustainable development.

In sum, “embedded neo-liberalism” is here interpreted as a potentially hegemonic project unifying Europe’s “transnational capitalist class” and expressing its collective interests and identities. The discourse and strategy of the ERT continued to play an important role in the evolving regime of European socio-economic governance into the 1990s. The question is who will articulate and defend the public interest against the global reach of private financial and commercial interests, when the latter will go too far? The third subchapter of the both first chapter and second chapter will introduce the Gramsci’s concept of Civil Society in contrast with the actual concept of civil society at the European level. Gramsci’s concept of civil society has the potentiality to advocate the losers of integration, “organic intellectuals” having the noble mission of imagining a counter-hegemonic project – basis for a new building bloc.

It is possible to analyze the history of European integration revival project, as well as we shall discouss future possible scenarious and developments including the opportunities for resistance against the dominant hegemonic projects. The method of understanding historical processes put forward by neo-Gramscian perspectives open the door for alternatives for European Integration.

The second section of the introductory chapter introduces the common challenges and opportunities for a new European security order in the “post-Wall” period, from the winners and losers of EU integration perspective in an aggregated effort of finding the common denominators in a cooperative paradigm and discusses the need for redefinition of security, in a feminist perspective (related to it, the definition of a threat and its perception also it is necessary). A big challenge at the theoretical level is to find an alternative approach of the theories of integration, which could explain the actual reality of European integration and from this theoretical position to find the mechanism of global governance, which could manage the global structural change in a more humane nature. The biggest challenge for the development of human being in our contemporaneous world is unemployment victim of so-called “fragmegration” process. The biggest disruptive force appears to be at first glance, economic in nature. Widespread large-scale unemployment in modern industrial economies, resulting in reduced levels of income, consumption and actual tax revenues needed to pay the generous unemployment that benefit the unemployed demand, have imposed painful fiscal sacrifices, such as a higher level of taxation, that have become increasingly accepted as inescapable features of modern societies. Years of unmitigated unemployment have sapped the pride and self-respect of whole generations and have left workers, business and governments in a state of despair and suspicious about the real costs of integration. Paying for the newly eligible recipients of unemployment benefits, who have not contributed anything in the past and cannot, if unemployed, be expected to contribute anything in the future, has come to be regarded, by some of the richer partner, as too high a price to pay for the luxury of integration. In conclusion disruptive forces like unemployment will challenge the meaning of security and the definition of threat. Any discussion about the common denominators has to start with the opportunity of a new system of col­lective security in Europe – as they have been expressed through the decisions taken in Maastricht, Amsterdam, Berlin, Madrid and Saint. Malo – and also should take account of the constituent elements of change that produced the ”new order”⁶. The elements of Change usually create conflicting relationships; the wisdom and challenge will be to deal creatively with them, transforming these challenges in opportunities for new policy and strategies in an aggregated effort of all European actors involved in building a new Humane Security Order, based on common denominators. This can be an opportunity for the regime-building process, which should draw from states their common interests in redefining the terms of an interstate security com­munity in Europe, recognising non-state actors as “critical supporters” for this process, in a feminist theoretical perspective of cooperation.

The condition for successful security regime building, as an opportunity is the identification and definition of the threat. NATO experience in Kosovo has shown that there is a linear relationship between the internal cohesion of an alliance and the way in which members perceive external threats and challenges. The nature of interstate relations in post-Cold War Europe has changed to such an extent that the definition of a specific threat is very difficult by replacing “ the Soviet threat” with a complex of secondary threats or collective risks. (see annex 2).

The failure of EU states to define the nature and character of post-Cold War threats could not only undermine the attempts to transform the CFSP into ”defense policy”, but could endanger the integration process in other fields. By linking threats to internal security of the EU to the enlargement project by some politicians, the public opinion would be against enlargement project.

Related to this aspect starts the question: ”Is it the real threat for the internal Security of the EU, the enlargement towards CEEC or “social fracture” of Globalisation?”

The answer is not so simple. The more politicians from Western Europe point to international competitive pressures, the EMU, and so to legitimate and push through changes in structures of social policy, the more they run the risk that potential and real losers of such policies will turn against Globalisation and European Integration and demand more control over foreign economic policy, in short protectionism.

The challenge is to explain to the public opinion the real threat for individual security, on one side and to find the principal common denominators of the actors involved on the European affairs, on the other side. Therefore we will try to elaborate on these issues during the journey of our thesis, as an opportunity and challenge at the same time, by looking at the emerging social forces, from Western and Eastern Europe, which potentially have the interest to convert the losers of integration in winners contributing to the emerging project of Humane governance, based on new core values as Humane security and Sustainable development. It is important to challenge the neo–liberal wisdom, which has acquired a status of natural truth during the processes of Globalisation.

The third section of this introductory chapter deals with another question: Can EU neutralise the negative impact of the anarchical international environment by the long-term experience of co-operational and institutional frameworks of normative interaction?

We will argue that the nature of the new systemic reality, contrary to realist and neo-realist predictions, can converge with the efforts of the EU member states to formulate norms and rules which can promote co-operative state and non-state behaviour and advance the integration process, in a feminist perspective, as a positive compromise for a model of humane governance.

The European model represents a fusion between “liberal” and “realist” visions of the international system, states are basic units of analyses, in the view of realist, but contains the security dilemma within a non-violent conflicting – cooperative – relationship, or even culture of cooperation.

The shift from state, as a unit of analysis, to relationship, as unit of analysis of International Politics, it is the important change in International Relations. Building constructive relationships between all the European powers and actors has been a challenge amplified by the existence of military and economic competition. It was a wise paradox and good example, at the same time.

New type of relationship between western great powers and transnational capitalist actors is called geo-governance. In this case geopolitical axis will certainly shift from statist field, balance of power, stability, self-defense, spheres of influence and alliances to global market concerns with competitiveness, financial flows, capital sources, trade expansion, coordinating mechanism of labour market.

The challenge will be to build a common agenda for all actors by a cooperative relationship in short between soft and hard power. The common denominator of all this powers is the struggle for survival and we assume that in a long term only humanistic values like humane security and humane governance for sustainable development can assure the survival for all. The question is could be this struggle transformed in cooperation for survival of the Human being and preservation of the Earth?

In the regulation of power relations, the European system puts constraints on the state behavior and the stability becomes a special vested interest of dominant powers, in the management of the status quo. Despite the continuing domination of states, multinational corporations, nongovernmental organization, intergovernmental organizations and supranational institutions such as European Union share the stage of global politics affected by economic and political development, but on the other hand, non-adversarial problem solving mechanism would not be promoted in a hierarchical order controlled by elitist decision- making. This is the biggest dilemma.

Our hopes must continue to rest on the democratic energies of the peoples of the world, acting in all their diversity, yet conscious both of the threats that confront them and of the historic necessity to adapt the emergent geo-governance to the realization of human rights, transforming it in humane governance for human security and human sustainable development.

0.1. Method, aim and importance of choosing the issue

0.1.1. Method of the research

While a full analysis of this process of enlargement is not feasible in the limited space of our thesis, the application of a neo-Gramscian feminin perspective is a preferable method of investigation such cases of accession and the concepts used by Gramsci can be transferred: like social forces of globalisation, political society, civil society, hegemony, power of ideas for change. This is the instrument with which our thesis will look at the EU’s enlargement towards CEEC by assessing, which project is currently hegemonic and which are the social forces supporting it, by identifying the winners of this hegemonic project and especially, which can be the alternative project and which are the social forces supporting it, starting from the identification of the present and future losers of three macro-processes, which are under way. The research will be limited on time and space, starting with the analysis of the history of strategy for EU enlargement initiated by his engeen, ERT and their actual reports referring to the unemployment, analyzing the social policy available at the EU level before 7 February 2003, presentig the perspective of enlargement with its main challenge, unemployment., of both political society and civil society, in gramscian therms. We will continue with the analyses of the concept of European civil society available on the documents of ESC and CIVICUS in contrast with Gramsci’s concept of civil society. In comparison with the European political society pespective on challenges and opportunities for EU enlargement we will present CEEC’s political society perspective by looking at the governmental documents available dealing with
cost-benefits of European Integration and the present threats for security from their perspective. Civil society perspective from these countries will be examined with the aim of finding the loser’s challenges and opportunities in this context of integration. For this aim we will use primary and secondary sources available for the author, which are limited but relevant for our aim of presenting new model of humane governance, which has the potentiality to change the losers in winners of these three macroprocesses.The methode used will be qualitative analysis of the literature, reviews and articles.

0.1.2. The aim of the research at the surface structure is challenging and consists on explaining to the public opinion the real threat for individual security, on one side and to find the principal common denominators of challenges and opportunities of the actors involved on the European affairs, on the other side, by presenting a prospect of Humane governance for sustainable development. First task is to reveal that an appeal to solidarity, to the European ideal and to the institutional links with CEEC might not be sufficient to sway public opinion⁷, in other words, a successful enlargement will not be possible until Western politicians and civil society are convinced that enlargement will not lead to negative economic consequences and huge budgetary costs. Any calculation of costs should also include those gains to the EU and the costs of prolonging the process of the CEEC’s accession to the EU. In order to be successful, enlargement must be with the approval of the citizens of the Union based on cost and benefits to the EU and his member states and correcting the over-optimism of CEEC concerning the benefits of enlargement of the EU.

0.1.3. The aim of the research at the deeper structure is to argue that established theories of integration – neo-functionalism and intergovernmentalism – are unable to explain the elements of structural change, because they are deterministic and take existing power structures as given and to reveal that trans-national social forces of capital and labour, supported by institutions linked to the global economy such as finance ministries, were behind the drive to membership of the EU, making an important contribution to understanding of European integration and globalisation by using a critical alternative, neo-Gramscian, feminist theory.

0.1.4. Importance of choosing the issue consists in two aspects: the question of membership has not been linked to Globalisation and the related restructuring processes, which applicant countries have undergone since the end of the Cold War in many studies and articles and our approach will help the better understanding of it, equally the perception that enlargement is in general advantageous to all potential new members has to be proved. It is particularly in these two respects that a neo-Gramscian analysis can contribute to the debate. The future enlargement to CEE has generated a large number of academic studies (e.g. Avery and Cameron, 1998; Curzon Price, 1999; Grabbe and Hughes, 2000; Henderson, 1999; Maresceau, 1997; Mayhew, 1998; Preston, 1997). They are mostly state-centric and empiricist. They presume that enlargement is in general advantageous to all potential new members, and concentrate on the issues between the applicants and the EU and among EU members themselves. Modest research has been carried out in relation to the potential conflicts between the losers and winners of EU membership among the applicants and the losers and winners inside the EU member states. Automatically, the potential opponents and their substitute approaches have been neglected and the potentiality for a cooperative paradigm of humane governance for sustainable development of both winners and losers.

Another motivation steams from my personal experience and formation. As political analyst, professor of linguistics, researcher and student on International Relations, I spent a lot of time researching about the economy and social issues and transition from Communist to market economy, being a strong advocate of the gradualist policies adopted by the Chinese, policies that have proven wise over the past two decades, based on principle of balance. Therefore to avoid this conflict between losers and winners would be better to create bridges between them and enable them to communicate in a perspective of balance and wisdom, inspired from the Chinese and oriental philosophy, avoiding the gap between the winners and losers agendas. The red tread could be the Balance between the power of the economic interest and the wisdom of the creative feminine forces of the “organic intellectuals”, aiming to avoid the polarization of social forces, not the polarity.

0.2.Structure, theoretical approach and the principal question of the research is motivated by the aim of this research which is double: surface structure’s on the one side and deeper structure’s on the other side, which were presented after raising the awareness on the issue of the European Humane Security in the context of the EU enlargement towards CEEC. The integrative theoretical approach, neo-Gramscian, is the instrument for understanding at the deeper structure the European Integration. The explanations, from the second annex of the conflicts of globalisation with the regional version European Integration, versus Unity opens the windows for a deeper understanding of the process of globalisation and European integration, which are the engine of the actual “social fracture” and to formulate the principal question; Can Civil Society from CEEC participate on the potential anti-hegemonic project of European Civil Society against the actual “embedded neo-liberalism”, the hegemonic project of European Political Society? (EU as an “integral state” in a neo-Gramscian perspective.) An overwiew of the thesis is necessary for the readers. The EU accession raises economic, social and political issues. Economic dimension, Social dimension and Security dimension are the three issues analysed on the three chapters of our thesis. These three dimensions are interrelated because «people use to organize themselves to make demands on the political and economic system, but when more orthodox avenues are blocked, they will opt for extreme strategies that entail riots, strikes, demonstrations, rebellions, or even civil war to express their grievances»⁸and this represents a big threat for internal security. EU integration will have different effects on social groups and will create losers and winners. The analyses of winners and losers perspective will cover the social dimension of our thesis. A theoretical introductory approach, framework for understanding the European integration and Globalisation processes with three sections; the evaluation of the impact of change on the security concept and the relationship between Globalisation and European Integration, the introduction of the common challenges and opportunities for the disign of a common agenda of all types of powers (political power, economic power and social power). The first chapter presents the hegemonic project of embedded neo-liberalism, the powerful child of ERT, which is a big opportunity for a market strategy, from their perspective. The first subchapter of first chapter deals with the big challenge of Europe, unemployment and ERT’s vision for job creation. The next subchapter of the same chapter evaluates the actual EC social policy and policy for unemployment together with the big opportunity for cooperation for enlargement towards CEEC originated on the Germano- British convergence of attitudes towards enlargement.These arguments show the commitement of the EU for economical interest, dispite the urgent need for a social policy, which is a common concern for both political elites and civil society from Western Europe. The last subchapter of the same chapter makes a comparison between the actual European civil society mission and institutionalisation of it and the old concept of civil society of Gramsci. This comparison demonstrate the impotence of the actual reality of civil society to realise his noble mission of creating a conter-hegemonic project of humane governance, concurent of the present geo-governance, because it is asymetrical and even copies the same model of geogovernance, for lack of imagination, independence and material capabilities. We need new ideas, material capabilities and institutions for the creation of a hegemonic project able to challenge the actual hegemonic project of embedded neo-liberalism. The seconde chapter in a symetrical way presents the CEEC’s political elite perspective on EU integration in term of challenges and opportunities and report cost-benefit of European Integration. CEEC Enlargement from the winners’ and losers’ perspectives forms the second and third subchapter of the second chapter. In this way, we have the views from both sides, Western and Eastern Europe, from the winners’ and losers’ perspective.The third chapter proposes a prospect of Humane governance for sustainable development based on the core value of sustainable development and humane security. A set of chapter’s conclusions and concluding remarks help to identify the common challenges and opportunities in order to establish the common denominators of the common agenda of all actors involed on the Enlargement project in a common effort of survival.This is the structure of the research and the arguments, the case study and the conclusions are useful instruments for the aims of the research, which is made from different perspectives: enlargement as a challenge and opportunity for European Political Society, to expand the “embedded neo-liberalism” towards CEEC, the actual hegemonic project of the European Political Society and governments of CEEC (the present winners of integration) and as a challenge and opportunity for the European Civil Society (the present losers of integration) new potential paradigm of a counter-hegemonic project of “embedded neo-liberalism”. These perspectives form the first and second chapter of the research and it would like to show the intensifying resistance against the social forces of globalisation across Europe within the enlargement towards CEE, including identification of the potential losers of the European integration. These two chapters have in common the socio- economic concerns of the elites and civil society and form the big threat for the new concept of security in Europe, Humane security. The third chapter presents the prospect for a global security humane governance regime in Europe different of the present European governance struggle, based on the collaborative experience of the EU.

In sum this thesis analyzes the challenges of the potential polarisation of different interests in Europe, especially in the post-Wall Europe and to see if exists any possibility for aggregating interests of the old and evolving actors in Europe. In this logic we have to rethink security from a feminist vision and imagine new policies and strategies at European and national level. In the context of the latter, the analysis in the next chapter and in the following chapter is directed towards the examination of (not only) EU institutional response and adaptation to the new structural elements, but also to assessing the development of strategies, both for state actors (EC as an intergovernmental organisation) and non-state actors (as ERT and trade Union and NGO’s) from Eastern and Western Europe, and in the last chapter the opportunity of formu­lation of effective policies dealing with humane security in the frame of Humane global governance, the anti-hegemonic potential approach of the European Civil Society, divergent in a neo-Gramscian perspective but convergent approaches of Global governance from the Commission on Global Governance image⁹.(Though the Commission gives the image that global governance is somehow a sum of the actions of all this participants, the process has actually emerged as a conflict between the “top down “ elite agenda and the” bottom up” popular agenda).

Chapter 1

Western European perspectives on the challenges and opportunities of EU enlargement

1.0.Western European Perspectives on the EU enlargement towards CEEC

Western perspective on the EU enlargement it is not homogeneous, as the interests are different and not all the EU citizens would be the winners of this process.

The analyses will be made from ERT perspective, the EU perspective, and European Civil Society perspective, by looking at the principal challenges and opportunities at the same time and trying to find the common challenges, like for example unemployment, a big threat for the internal security of both the EU space and CEE space. Second section of the first chapter will deal with the anaemic answer of the EC to this ignored threat, unemployment. We will start with the analyses for the ERT strategy for the revival of the European enlargement.

1.1. From ERT perspective as challenge and opportunity for a free market strategy

This first section of this subchapter will focus on a neo-Gramscian analysis of the ERT¹⁰ strategy for the EU enlargement toward CEEC, as announced before, which consists in the actual hegemonic project, of “embedded neo-liberalism”, it is showing the history of such project and his importance for the revival of this integration because the rivalry between the neo-liberal and the neo-mercantilist concepts of a revival of European integration was also visible within the ranks of the ERT. The seconde section of this subchapter will analyse the position of ERT concerning unemployment, starting from their report on «Job creation and competitivness trough innovation» and two positions on elargements towards CEEE prepared by different working groups of ERT.

First section of this chapter, the ERT case study, reflects what constituted the central axis; of intra-capitalist struggle in the Europe of the 1980s. At that time the ERT became dominated by representatives of the Europeanist fraction and thus its strategic orientation in the 1980s tendency towards a “protective regionalism”, at the heart of which was the promotion of a big European home market, in which Europe’s regional TNC’s could grow to resist and challenge the rising global competition. The Internal Market was thus seen by a majority of the ERT members, in neo-mercantilist terms, as the creation of a home market that would enable European industry to reach the all necessary to resist pressure from non-European competitors.¹¹

The ERT’s campaign for a European home market has significantly contributed to the successful launching of the integration process through Europe 1992. The internal Market that was created on the basis of the Commission’s White Paper did not turn out to be the kind of home market that any of the early ERT members of the Europeanist fraction had revised in several respects: a relatively protected home market in which Euro-champion could prosper in order to confront global competition. The more directly protectionist measures met resistance on neo-liberal governments (e.g., Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands) and this reflected in part the dominance of the globalist action of European capital in those countries.¹² For this reason, the regionalisation of the European economy went hand in hand with a further globalisation of the European region.

This struggle had also been present within the positions of Europe’s transnational capitalist class in which the Europeanist fraction gradually abandoned its own earlier neo-mercantilist perspective. This neo-liberal raise on the part of Europe’s capitalist elite was also reflected in the lancing strategic orientation of the ERT at the end of the 1980s and to the 1990s, when a major change in the balance of power of its membership between the Globalist and Europeanist fractions took place, as van Apeldoon points out¹³.

From 1988 onwards, we can notice a change in the composition of ERT’s membership that made the Globalist the dominant group within the ERT. Not only many globalist companies, such as Shell, Unilever, ICI, BP, La Roche, BT and Rover, did rejoin the ERT, older ERT companies, formerly producing primarily for the European market and competing against non-European imports, became more global themselves¹⁴.

These structural changes overcame the earlier opposition between Europeanists and Globalists. The shift in the ideological and strategic orientation of the ERT did not come about without internal struggles, essential element of neo-Gramscian theory, which was in fact a probably necessary phase that preceded the emergence of a new consensus. In 1991 – when the ERT in the context of the Maastricht negotiations published its report, Reshaping Europe¹⁵ – this new consensus was an unstable compromise between the two competing perspectives of protective regionalism and neo-liberal globalism.

The socio-economic content of Maastricht is the reflection of the transnational configuration of social and political forces within the European political economy at the beginning of the 1990s. The ERT here represented important sections of the ruling elite on the political bargaining. Transnational social-democratic forces under the leadership of Delors temporarily gained momentum around the end of the 1980s, also played a significant role in this respect. Next to the social chapter, EMU in fact became an equally important centre-piece of the social democratic project. It was seen as serving the double function of regaining some democratic control over the global financial markets¹⁶, as well as paving the way to a eventually federal political union that could then further advance the cause of ”organising European space”. The social democratic interpretation of Maastricht has largely failed to materialize. The social chapter has not gone much beyond mere symbolic politics, thanks in large part to the lobbying efforts of big business¹⁷. Political union has been indefinitely postponed, and the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997 failed too. The hope that EMU might restore democratic control over policy making continues to be contradicted by the reality of a monetarist consensus among the European elite. In conclusion the weak social chapter didn’t succeed in incorporating European social democracy and the trade unions into the New Europe.

The second section of this subchapter analyses the position of ERT concerning unemployment, starting from their report on «Job creation and competitivness through innovation» prepared by competitivness working group of ERT and the two positions on enlargements towards CEEE.

This Report points out that: “Europe faces a crisis of unemployment. We in industry believe that this crisis can be solved. It will be done by the creation of new jobs based on economic growth, continuous innovation and competitiveness in world markets. It also shows that innovation is not only about new technology, science and research; it is also about attitudes of mind, which should permeate government, businesses, academia, indeed the whole of society. It is therefore neither useful nor helpful to address innovation as a strictly economic issue.”¹⁸

ERT in this report recognizes also the need of innovation but they are not interested to speak about a possible alternative to their project of embedded liberalism, to innovate not only in the material life but also in social life, creating a society more feminine. They continue with the need for innovation:

“The most crucial jobs are those for the future, and people must be ready and willing to take them. A new spirit of enterprise is needed. We can prepare for this by applying innovation now, in human resource management, in R&D strategies, in educational institutions, and in government.” as Daniel Janssen indicated in the Foreword, the priority actions identified here are not comprehensive but, if implemented right across society – by government, public services, businesses and the individual – they would go a long way towards reducing unemployment in Europe. “¹⁹(See also annex 3)

They don’t speak about their eventual willingness to increase wages, to reduce the working -day time by sharing jobs in this manner increasing the number of employees. They don’t speak about the women discrimination and their willingness to stop this social injustice by giving the same salary for the same type of work did by men and ensuring salaries for reproductive sphere of women’s activities. This human – centred logic is in contradiction with their interest – centred logic. Competition is the key word for creating jobs in their vision, also by linking small companies with large companies:

“Links between large and small companies can help them both to compete, to grow and to create new jobs. That is the lesson of this report. It must be an urgent priority for both governments and business leaders to build and strengthen those links.”²⁰

So important challenge is to overcome the unemeployment crises, which faces Europe

On the second position on EU enlargement towards CEEC, ERT makes an analysis of economic and business benefits of enlargement, especially for EU already member states. The first was “The East-West Win-Win Business Experience”²¹ It was made to overcome the exaggerate perception about the threat of enlargement. But this perception has to be taken into account by EU policy-makers who want to convince the public to back enlargement. (As the recent success of Austria’s right-wing extremist FPO has demonstrated)

Thus it will be other challenge to make in evidence that the enlargement gains for the EU have to be communicated to a Western public, strongly biased against immigrants and organized crime and susceptible to aspiring politicians who capitalize on these sentiments by linking threats to internal security to the enlargement project.

ERT expresses his hope “that this study will contribute to a more positive attitude to eastward enlargement, and strengthen political will for rapid accessions.”²²

What it is important in their perspective is the fact that “Expansion of the internal market to nearly 500 million consumers offers major growth opportunities for all Member States. In addition to the gains from trade and investment already benefiting EU Member States, the accessions have the potential to boost economic growth with at least Û 60-80 billion. The experience of Ireland, Portugal and Spain shows how accession can stimulate dynamic long-term growth in relatively poor economies. For existing Member States, the ERT study estimates a gain of around 300,000 new jobs following enlargement.”²³

ERT estimate that “the GDP gains of enlargement will be substantially above Û 10 billion for the EU-15 and some Û 50 billion for the applicant countries. In our view, the additional jobs could reach over 300,000 in the EU-15 and a couple of million in the applicant countries in a 10-15 year time span. A significant delay in enlargement could have major negative consequences, which go far beyond the lost economic opportunities.”²⁴

The next statement of ERT shows their imposing position on EC, originated on their economic power and their economic interests in CEEC, for new market. Their lobby is the most powerful and because of their position papers the enlargement process towards CEEC was speeded: “As business leaders, we focus in this new position paper on the strong and positive economic effects of enlargement in areas like growth and employment. Most ERT members have substantial investments in the applicant countries, and we have seen the positive impact of European integration on growth, trade and employment in both West and East. The ERT calls on EU leaders to explain the benefits of enlargement and put the costs into context so that all of Europe can gain from the business opportunities it offers.”²⁵

Other challenge consists in the prevention of large gaps in socio-economic development of the East and West, which will persist after enlargement, despite the latest reforms of the cohesion policy.

The solution is simple from their perspective, consequently ERT argues that it is in the interest of the EU; “It is in the EU’s own interest to provide more assistance to the countries whose entry is a more distant prospect. They receive little in comparison with both the less well off EU countries and the front – runners for membership. Targeted funds are particularly needed to help them attract more foreign investment, which will spark a virtuous cycle of upgrading technology, industrial restructuring and higher-value exports. The EU needs to provide more funds and work with inter-national financial institutions to ensure adequate financing for meeting development objectives in these countries, not just accession requirements.”²⁶

Having closely looked at these issues, the ERT has concluded that: “the budgetary costs will be modest. Planned transfers to CEE are very small. The EU has earmarked less than 10% of its total budget until 2006 for enlargement – a modest outlay compared with the costs of the southern enlargement of the 1980s and only one tenth of German federal transfers to the eastern Länder after re-unification. Moreover, pre-accession spending is ring-fenced and cannot be boosted by transfers from elsewhere in the budget. The EU will itself suffer if it tries to do enlargement ‘on the cheap’. To make the enlargement of Europe a success, the EU needs to invest much more in the new Member States to improve their infrastructure and environmental standards. The EU should mobilise additional funds by making use of the European Investment Bank and public-private partnerships. The EU will be repaid many times over by the additional economic growth and business opportunities that result.”²⁷

In conclusion the ERT had an important role in unifying European transnational capitalist classes as a big opportunity and in speeding the process of enlargement, by explaining the gains for both sides as an opportunity for creating jobs, and to answer in this manner to the common challenge of unemployment and competition. We agree with Richard Falk that prevailing tendencies “suggest that geo-governance will be achieved by a coalition between leading states in the West and trasnational capital as deployed by managers and banking operatives”²⁸

In sum the big challenges for ERT are the job creation for overcoming the European crises of unemployment and the disparities between East and West, demonstrating on their perspective that integration is win-win scenarious and thus public opinion has to support this process.

The real challenge would be the adaptation of the ongoing geo-governance to the realization of Human Rights. This is a big challenge and opportunity at the same time.

1.2. From EU Perspective: CEEC as a challenge and opportunity

In this section of first chapter we will introduce a great opportunity for EU as a superpower for the International Relations, in the context of European Enlargement and a big challenge for this soft superpower – unemployment – for the production power and for the state power at the same time and at the end we will sum other important challenges. It is important to know that the variety of options accessible to any state or International Institution as EU is inhibited by the international distribution of power.

In this context, we will start with the remarkable opportunity for the European powers of international relations, which consists in the convergence of British and German positions. “In the mid-1990s Britain and Germany shared a similar attitude in supporting EU enlargement and in terms of the EU policies towards the applicant countries, but were frequently at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of EU internal reforms. This is no longer the case, and while differences remain, there appears to be more scope for cooperation between the two countries across a range of EU issues than in the recent history “²⁹

In the context of Agenda 2000³⁰, the most important difference between them was their diverse “positions as net contributors to the budget. Germany’s net contribution is very high in comparison with those of Britain and France. In contrast, Britain has had a refund mechanism since 1984 and has successfully defended the status quo. Britain supported changes that could help Germany’s position without having any major adverse effects on its own” according to the same source³¹. This is the great opportunity for actual enlargement, but what is the main challenge for all three types of power: state power, production and social power and international relations power?

The main challenge for EU regarding the enlargement towards CEEC is common policy against unemployment part of the so-called “social fracture” and the construction of new European order, which can be a good opportunity for all these types of power for co-operation, in order to answer to this tremendous challenging situation, in a longer term and optimistic scenarious.

Development of the social dimension and a common policy against unemployment are presently the most important challenges in the struggle against neo–liberalism at the European level.

The chances for success of a counter neo-liberal strategy at the European level are unclear after a careful examination. In 1989, the Commission put forward an action programme of forty-seven proposed measures, the so–called Social Charter establishing common minimum standards and employee information and consultation procedures. The European Works Councils directive in June 1994 was the most far-reaching result of the Social Charter in that it laid the basis for transnational industrial relations procedures within TNCs operating across the EU. The Social Chapter- Social Policy Protocol of the Treaty of Maastricht – extended the more informal arrangements of the Social Charter and incorporated it into the EU Treaty. It gave the Community direct and extensive legal competence in the social policy field, and provided for direct participation of trade unions and employers’ associations. Nevertheless, how far a common social policy will go remains uncertain. ³² The latest communications from the Commissions are not very optimistic. We will analyze the communication from 30 January 2003, on the second section of this subchapter.

Even less has been achieved in the area of common policies against unemployment. It was the Commission’s White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness, Employment³³, which brought the issue of unemployment on to the agenda of the EU in 1994. Although it still expressed some traditional social democratic values, the paper as such accepted the neo-liberal explanation of unemployment by transnational European capital. Hence, lower unemployment was linked to the notion of higher competitiveness and labour market flexibility³⁴. In June 1997, the French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin has demanded a chapter on employment in the Amsterdam Treaty in exchange for France acceptance of the Stability Pact, which aimed to ensure countries’ compliance with the convergence criteria after the final stage of EMU had started. A compromise was found in the Resolution on Growth and Employment, which provided Union employment guidelines while employment policy as such remained a national competence ³⁵. In contrast to the hopes of transnational labour, the EU has shown little inclination to provide the platform for a successful regulation of neo-liberalism and transnational capital. In the post-war era, it has been at the national level that unions have exercised influence. As Falkner demonstrates, a corporative policy community has emerged in EU social policy since the Treaty of Maastricht in 1991. Capital and labour can negotiate collective agreements and then request the Council of Ministers to implement these agreements without discussing their contents. She also points out, that while the institutional framework for labour’s influence on social policy-making has at least partly been established at the EU level, this does not imply to the outcome is automatically a regulation of neo-liberalism. This is only one possible result of an open–ended struggle.

Continuing we will present briefly three other important challenges for the EU starting from the analysis of ERT recent positions, as we did on the first subchapter of this chapter.

First consists in the uncertainty that the EU has private policy tools to overcome large gaps in socio-economic development of the East and also West, which will persist after enlargement, despite the latest reforms of the cohesion policy³⁶. The European Commission discourse is very cryptic in his latest communication, Second progress report on economic and social cohesion Brussels, 30.01.2003, concerning the Western Countries:“1.3. Employment and social cohesion. So far, the impact of the global economic slowdown seems to have been less than might have been expected in the past. This may be due in part to Structural Fund support and also to reforms in EU labour markets, which have been implemented as part of the European Employment Strategy since 1997, strengthening the ability of the European labour market to resist cyclical shocks.”

EC analyses employment-unemployment report and categorises the actual losers of Integration: as countries, regions and different segments of the population, within the member states:“1.3.1. Slowdown in employment growth in the EU

Following the slowdown in economic growth since the second half of 2000, the rate of net job creation declined in the second quarter of 2001 and the following months. In total, employment grew by 1.3% in 2001, equivalent to a net increase of 2.2 million jobs. Between 1996 and 2001, 10 million jobs were created. In the EU as a whole, 64% of the working age population was in employment in 2001 with rates of over 70% registered in Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the UK, while in Italy and Greece employment rates were far below 60% . Within the Member States, employment gaps persist according to gender, age or level of qualifications and skills. The gaps tend to be more marked where overall the employment rate is relatively low. Accompanying the changes in employment, the unemployment rate increased slightly in the first half of 2002, reaching 7.7% in August from 7.4% a year earlier. Unemployment remains particularly high in Italy, Greece and Spain, especially for women and young people…2001). Long-term unemployment also continued to decline but still affects 3.3% of the labour force.”³⁷

The report continues with the regions’ losers within the actual member states:

“Regional differences remain wide within some Member States. Differences between regions in 2001 were greatest in France, if the outermost regions are taken into consideration, and Italy, where the difference between the highest unemployment rate (in Calabria) and the lowest (Trentino-Alto-Adige), exceeds 21 percentage points”.

The same criteria are used for the evaluation on the CEEC: employment-unemeployment report, identification of losers in terms of country, region, age, sex and skills:“1.3.4. Worsening employment situation in candidate countries Although employment in services has grown substantially, this did not offset the job losses caused by the adjustments in the industrial and agricultural sectors. In 2001, the employment rate for the candidate countries was almost 6 percentage points lower than that of the EU 15. Only Cyprus and Slovenia registered a higher employment rate than the EU average. In most candidate countries, the employment rate for women developed more favourably than for men, either falling more slowly or rising faster. Regional disparities in employment are lower than in the EU, but remain significant. Regional disparities in the employment rate are greatest in Slovakia and Bulgaria and to a lesser extent in Hungary. Countries with large disparities in employment rates also registered substantial variations in unemployment rates.”³⁸

This second progress report presents an update of the analysis of the situation and trends emerging in the regions of candidate countries, concerning unemployment:

“Unemployment has been growing in the candidate countries over the past years and has exceeded EU levels, reaching 13.0% on average in 2001 for the area as a whole. Nevertheless, unemployment rates of more than 16% were registered in Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Bulgaria. A particular concern is the high level of youth unemployment across the area (28.6%), which increased further in 2001 to almost twice the EU level. Simultaneously labour force participation has been falling, which has to some extent limited the increase in the official unemployment rate.”³⁹

A comparison between the EU and member states regions with regard of rate of unemployment is also made:

“Regional disparities in unemployment continued to rise in 2001. In the top 10% of regions in terms of population, the unemployment rate averaged 3.6%, whereas it averaged 24.3% in the bottom 10% of regions. In almost half of the regions in the candidate countries, the unemployment rate was more than twice that of the EU.”⁴⁰

Socio-economic disparities between the EU and CEEC will transform the European Union into an institution mainly concerned with overcoming gaps in socio-economic development. The low level of GDP per capita in the CEEC poses a challenge to the system of cohesion policy, which has not been projected to deal with such large income gaps.

The Committee of the Regions adopted its opinion on the first progress report on 10 October 2002. “It welcomed the positive impact of the regional policy followed in recent years and noted that the Commission regarded the threshold of 0.45% of Community GDP allocated to the cohesion policy as a minimum. It also stated that assistance to regions whose development is lagging behind should be the priority and that eligibility should be defined on the basis of per capita GDP, plus the unemployment rate or level of productivity.”⁴¹

The distribution of structural expenditures does not constitute an appropriate strategy to cover these existing and increasing disparities because the expenditure on structural assistance is inversely related to the level of economic wealth. The higher a country’s GDP per capita, the more resources are available to support economic growth. If structural assistance is granted with respect to the ceiling of 4 percent of GDP⁴², new member states with a higher GDP and higher growth rates will receive more assistance. Also unemployment rate and level of productivity are not helping in the fair distribution of Structural Funds.

“The opinion asked the Commission to simplify the procedures for granting regional aid and to clarify the roles of the Commission, the Member States and the regions, while complying with the principle of subsidiarity. The opinion called for better coordination of all Community policies and financial instruments with the policy on economic and social cohesion.”⁴³

The Commission points out that “The enlargement of Europe to include 25 Member States will present an unprecedented challenge for the competitiveness and internal cohesion of the Union.”⁴⁴

The optimistic aspect in the consultation process is that it has continued to engage the principal parties involved in the regions, in the present and future Member States and in the EU Institutions.

What are the projects of EC for the future on the context of the debate launched by the Commission following the adoption of the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, on the options for future cohesion policy?

“Wide-ranging consultations will take place in 2003, including a major event (in March 2003) in the form of a seminar on ‘The future management of the Structural Funds: how are responsibilities to be shared?” There are also plans to arrange consultations on the proposals for the third report at the start of 2004 as part of a Forum on cohesion. The Commission will present, in good time, its overall proposals for all policies, and a draft financial perspective, for the period after 2006.The Commission would like the legislative instruments to be adopted before the end of 2005. This would mean that 2006 could be devoted to the negotiations with the Member States and the regions on the programming for 2007-13.”⁴⁵

We hope that this future proposal for all policies and draft financial perspective will curb the second challenge related to Enlargement towards CEEC:

Second challenge shows that enlargement and increased market competition will augment the gaps between prosperous and marginalized within the East or the West.

What will be the answer of this challenge for the EU, we will see on the next years. While the economic integration with EU accelerates structural changes in the CEEC, the pre-accession assistance and transfer of acquis communautaire regulations do not provide support to cope with the consequences of the change.

We didn’t find yet such strategies at the Commission level but we hope that new instruments will be invented to answer to this big challenge and the working group on Social Europe will find a way of curbing it by an open debate.

We will continue with the third EU challenge of Enlargement towards CEEC:

Third challenge points out that the enlargement gains for the EU have to be communicated to a Western public, strongly biased against immigrants and organized crime and susceptible to aspiring politi­cians who capitalize on these sentiments by linking threats to internal security to the enlargement project.

This is also a common challenge for the EU and the ERT and the latest strategy and report concerning enlargement, from 9 October 2002, have a separate chapter on this issue:

“1.2. Public opinion and the enlargement process

The major role in explaining enlargement to citizens in candidate countries, as in the Member States, should be played by the national governments. The Commission supports this effort and has developed a communication strategy for that purpose. The clear message, which should be given by all actors responsible for the success of the process, is that enlargement is a win-win game, in which the re-unification of Europe will extend the area of peace, prosperity and security throughout the continent.

Support for enlargement is generally strong in the candidate countries. .More needs to be done to explain the benefits of an enlarged Union both in terms of increased political stability and the prospect for sustained economic growth, and the enormous progress that has been made in economic and political reform in the region since 1989. This will help to dispel perceived problems as to the preparedness of the candidates to join the Union.”⁴⁶

At the same time, the EU is not interested to make public to the EU citizens who are the real winners of Enlargement, the majority of the population doesn’t know and they are not interested to know who are the members of ERT and what is their role within the EU neo-liberal project of enlargement. The European Commission is dominated not only by the wealthiest industrial countries but also by commercial and financial interests in those countries, and the policies of this institution naturally reflect this. Commercial interests and values have outdated concern for the environment, democracy, human rights, and social justice and especially for unemployment.

The anterior subchapter had explained the role of ERT for EU neo-liberal project and the Internal Market within the process of European enlargement towards the East and also on the challenges presented by the reports and positions of ERT.

In the second subchapter we answered to the secondary question implicit from the hypothesis, what is the actual situation of the policy of EC in the social cohesion and inherently the unemployment area and what are the mains threats for the internal security of the EU space in contrast with the great opportunity for the EU Enlargement? This great opportunity of cooperation between German and Britain, across frontiers and within regions would balance the great challenges in the steps for a future more enlightened paradigm of governance for Sustainable Humane Development in Europe in an optimistic scenarious or will confirm the assumptions of Richard Falk that “geo-governance will be achieved by the coalition between the leading states in the West and transnational capital…these states and market forces will, in turn, wire the world for purposes of advertising, indoctrination, and administration”⁴⁷

Who will be the potential promoters of such a challenging paradigm of humane governance for sustainable development and human security? In the next subchapter we will analyze the potentiality of such forces within Western European space.

From European Civil Society perspective as a potential opportunity

This subchapter will introduce the neo-Gramscian concept of Civil Society and his role for the potential anti-hegemonic project in contrast with actual concept of European Union Civil Society within the Economic and Social Committee and Civicus⁴⁸ and his present role. This will cover the first section of this subchapter. In the second section of the same subchapter we will try to answer to the principal question of our thesis: Could European Civil Society starts the anti-hegemonic project of the actual European Political Society hegemonic project of Embedded neo-liberalism?

The high development of civil society and close links to the political state apparatus in Western European countries makes Gramsci’s analysis about the impossibility of a war of movement even more valid in present context.” A counter-hegemonic historical bloc must be prepared and established within civil society before any assault on the state can be successful. Importantly, this has to occur from the bottom up, since if it happens from the top down the hegemonic forces influence the development of the current version of civil society towards making it an agency for stabilising the social and political status quo.” ⁴⁹The position for such a bottom-up strategy is mystified. We agree with Murphy regarding the existence of “an international civil society, which he identifies as public and private institutions such as governmental and non-governmental international organizations” .⁵⁰This would indicate that a counter-hegemonic war of position at the international level could be feasible. Germain and Kenny, however, points out that “Gramsci’s concept of civil society was closely linked to the state and, since there is no international state, there can be no international civil society.” ⁵¹It is therefore correct to agree also in this case with Cox: ”the task of changing world order begins with the long laborious effort to build new historical blocs within national boundaries”⁵². EU can be perceived as emerging structure of geo-governance, a macro-region within the capitalist world economy with its specific, historically determined socio-economic and political structures, where supranational institutions such as the European Parliament and the Commission adopt similar roles to their counterparts within states, and complex policy-making processes link a host of interest groups to decision-making⁵³. As a product, the EU is increasingly considered to be a political system in its own right⁵⁴. A counter-hegemonic movement could, therefore, also be developed at the EU level from within European civil society. Between this neo-Gramscian theory and the actual reality of the European Civic Society it is a big difference, especially on the role and the direction: bottom-up or top-down initiative.

Gramscian concept of Civil Society is contrasting with the European Economic and Social Committee’s perspective, which defines the concept of “civil society organisations” as being “the sum of all organisational structures whose members have objectives and responsibilities that are of general interest and who also act as mediators between the public authorities and citizens”. ⁵⁵This concept includes” all economic, social and occupational organisations, these being a fundamental component of organised civil society and governance within and beyond the borders of the EU. In many cases, they also play an increasingly important role in providing access to a number of collective goods or services (education, social protection, health etc.) as intermediaries between the public authorities (the State and its administration) and the marketplace.”⁵⁶

A discussion is necessary in order to identify the civil society typology for a better understanding.

The self-organizing movements, initiatives, associations and publics, putting the social in motion were different than the either the latent networks of societal autonomy or institutionalized civil society as we know them in the West. In our thesis we distinguish civil society as movement and as institution, the former as a kind of constituent civil society creating the latter, the constituted, institutionalized version. Some forms of institutionalization evidently permit the reappearance of movements and initiatives that in turn may or may not aim at yet another institutional break. This later difference is made by our distinction between revolution and civil disobedience. Civil disobedience, linked to social movements or initiatives represents the outer limits of collective action within civil society, and is significantly different than civil society organized as movement.

We will present what is the situation at the European institutionalized level in a systematical way.

“The First convention of civil society organised at European level which took place at the initiative and under the auspices of the Committee, on 15 and 16 October 1999, confirmed the important role civil society organisations have to play in setting up a form of democratic public discourse in which citizens are fully involved, and hence in the development of a participatory model of civil society and in the formulation and implementation of policies which, by strengthening extra-parliamentary democratic structures, can increase confidence in the democratic process. This Convention of October 1999, which also clarified the role that the European Economic and Social Committee can play as an institutional channel in the decision-making process, aimed at bringing Europe closer to its citizens, the ESC has had two priority aims:

to establish the groundwork for cooperation with all organisations representing civil society at European level, and

to accentuate the Committee’s role of providing a bridge between civil society organisations in the European Union and the applicant states on the one hand and the EU institutions on the other”⁵⁷

Between the role of the Gramsci’s concept of civil society and the actual role of civil society it is a big gap. The actual European civil society is manipulated to preserve the status quo in comparison with the role of Gramsci’s civil society, which is an agent of change for a more feminine society, it is a revolutionary movement not an institution.

In contrast, the actual European Civil Society is institutionalized, it is a permanent forum for dialog: „The Nice Treaty, approved by the Intergovernmental Conference on 10 December 2000, confirmed the ESC’s function in this respect, by making it the institutional representative, at European level, of civil society organisations. Indeed, Article 257 states that ‚the Committee shall consist of representatives of the various economic and social components of organised civil society, (…)’. This treaty thus gives the Committee an additional opportunity to play its full role as a relay between Europe and civil society organisations and act as a permanent, structured forum for dialogue and consultation at Community level.”⁵⁸

The role of Economic and Social Committe is very important for the dialog with civil society:“The ESC has an essential role to play in promoting greater support for and participation by civil society organisations in the European venture. In so doing it helps to develop a society that is more participatory, more inclusive and therefore more democratic, and to facilitate the emergence of such a society in countries or groups of non-EU countries and in particular in the applicant countries.”⁵⁹

Civil society actors today often face the difficulty to define their role and their relationship towards other structures and actors of society and towards each other. At the request of CIVICUS in Europe in his recent exercise civil society expert Andrew Crook explores the roots and nature of civil society in a European setting. The piece has been first made available at the recent CIVICUS in Europe meeting in Zagreb.⁶⁰

The paper is intended to form the basis of a discussion on the nature of European civil society initiated by CIVICUS in Europe.⁶¹

It is hoped that discussions like this will generate firm theoretical basis of nonprofit activity thus resulting in the better recognition of nonprofit work.

For our purpose of defining the European Civil Society, few quotations from this paper ⁶²are relevant:

“… most informal discussion of civil society typically assumes both that there is ‘something’ which can be called civil society in virtually all parts (nations) of the world and that the features of civil society vary considerably from place to place. … the sphere of civil society is present in all European nations but that the characteristics of civil society vary from place to place.”

“The distinguishing feature of civil society is that (unlike those directly involved with politics or the economy i.e. businessmen or politicians) its actors do not seek directly to control either the economy or the state but rather to influence them.”

In recent months new opportunities have risen for civil society in Europe to tighten co-operation with the European Union and its institutions. The Future of Europe debate was started in 2001; the White Paper on European Governance was released (July 2001); and currently – in line with the decisions of the Laeken Summit – a platform of discussion is being set up in the form of a Forum open for NGOs (abreast the Convention with MPs, government officials from member and applicant states discussing the future of the EU).

The last two major documents published by the European Commission are dated from 1997 ⁶³and 2000⁶⁴, thus the above developments seem to mean a new opening of the EU’s intention to co-operate with civil society organisations, and with its citizens.

The further expansion of EU-NGO relations creates the chance for NGOs to be taken even more seriously than before, improve their ability to lobby for their causes and goals they represent, and also to the benefit of the EU. Gaining on the momentum civil society should take these new opportunities seriously and be part of them actively. In this process of co-operation initiatives also come from NGOs. e.g. the European Citizen Action Service, a Brussels-based member of CIVICUS, has been instrumental in commenting the White Paper and argued for a compact or framework agreement between the EU Institutions and NGOs.⁶⁵

The second section of this subchapter looks at the readiness of the western present European Civil Society for initiating a counter hegemonic project. In this context of actual European civil society, the chances of overcoming neo-liberalism at European level are slim, although this should not be read as an support of the slogan of ”there is no alternative” (TINA), but rather than new patterns, supportive of a move away from the discipline of capital. A new synthesis has been established across different state-civil societies in Europe around the concept of a “Third Way”. We would question whether this reflects a rival orientation to the neo-liberal organisation of social relations or merely constitutes a modernisation of capitalist social relations of production and the reconstitution of social cohesion rather than transformation, as we have seen from our analyses in the second subchapter. Therefore, despite trade union mobilization against austerity in the mid-1990s (e.g., in France), and the victory of social democratic parties in Britain, France and Germany, the hegemonic project of ”embedded neo-liberalism” has been hardly challenged. To cite Perry Anderson ⁶⁶”one might say that, by definition, TINA only acquires full force once an alternative regime demonstrates that there truly are no alternative policies”. A recent exception was the temporal opposition represented by Oskar Lafontaine and like-minded people in 1998 and early 1999⁶⁷. To be successful, counter-hegemonic forces must go beyond bordering social policies. Mitigating the accepted policies of neo-liberalism will not prove a solution. We have also to face a dilemma that would be one obstacle for the success of the transnational NGOs, networks, and movements “how to continue to practically pursue their policy agendas at the same time that they work to enhance their own internal democratic practices and the representation and accountability of the transnational network sector. NGOs and networks are informal, asymmetrical, and ad-hoc antidotes to domestic and international representational imperfection.”⁶⁸

Concluding we can say that the European Civil Society is not yet ready to face embedded neo-liberalism from two reasons: external one, which consist in the actual manipulation of civil society by the political society to preserve the status-quo and by institutionalization of civil society and internal one, originated in the lack of an adequate entity for civil society, which could clarify the problems of internal democracy, representation and accountability.

1.4.Conclusions and perspectives

To sum unemployment it is a common challenge for all three perspectives but the perception of it is different. ERT should not see unemployment as just a statistic, an economic body-count, the unintended casualties in the fight against inflation or to ensure that Western banks will get repaid. For the EU the policy for unemployment is not yet a priority on the Enlargement towards CEEC. The all concern of EU on this issue of Enlargement is the conditionality dictated by the ERT strong lobbies. While conditionality did engender resentment, it did not succeed in engendering development and overcome unemployment. One sided negotiations in which all the power is in the hands of the EC, because the CEEC seeking the EU’s help are in desperate needs of funds after the collapse of communism. So the relationship between Production Power, State Power and International Relations Power is one of dependency, of asymmetry, in particular ERT imposing to the EU and EU imposing to the candidate of member states. The intergovernmental explanation of the European Integration is not appropriate because the setting of Agenda of Negotiation is more important than the negotiation process its self. The production powers- TNC-s- are more powerful that state and intergovernmental organisations.

Who will be in charge with such a project, of defending the losers? Gramsci and neo-Gramscian researcher had the inspiration to indicate this so- called actor “civil society”. After the examination of the actual form of European Civil society we have to make one remark: the actual concept of civil society remains inundated by ambiguities. Even after differentiating it from political and economic society, moves that remain controversial, it remains unclear what the dimension of civil society primarily entails. The question is what is the point of referring to the whole complex set of concepts as civil society? Of course we can ask in return the same question about the economy and the state as well. But in these cases the concepts of money and political power do indicate the outlines of differentiation. Can political and economic society; their parliaments and governing boards exclude free communication? Can the associations of civil society exclude money and power? There are evidently many associations of civil society where money and power represents the actual rational, and there are political parties too that behave as social movements.

So the relation between social power and International Relation power is also one of dependency and asymmetry. Civil Society concept doesn’t have a specific difference and a special entity and for this reason the concept is confused and this could be a subject for further research.

The Social Power, so called soft power is manipulated for the preservation of status quo and is not well organised because of lack of financial independence and imagination on dealing with internal democracy, representation and accountability. The concept of civil society needs clarification concerning his role, as agents of transformation and of building blocs. We need to know more about its structure and the relationship to expert publics, as well the publics of the political and economic society.

Chapter 2

Eastern European perspective on EU integration as an opportunity and challenge

2.0. Eastern European perspective on the EU enlargement towards CEEC

This perspective is composed from three other sub-perspectives, we have chosen to look at the official governmental perspective, the actual and potential winners and losers’ perspective on challenges and opportunities of European enlargement towards CEEC. The last section of the third subchapter will present the Civil society from CEEC as a winner of transformation and a potential winner of European Integration within the Globalisation process.

This chapter seeks to identify such groups of winners and losers and see what are the social forces against neo-liberalism in CEEC aiming to design a project able to change the potential and present losers in winners and to make Integration a real win-win scenarious.

2.1 From CEEC governmental perspective as a challenge and opportunity

This subchapter introduce the challenges and opportunities of European Integration from a governmental perspective of the countries from CEE space and also new challenges or lost opportunities. The first section points out the ignored threat of unemployment, on the official discourse of governments. This situation is because are given priority within the country governmental set-up to those institutions, which are linked to the global economy (finance ministries, central banks) over those institution which deal with predominantly national problems (social and labour ministries). In this way we find two voices, in one side, from the institutions wich deals with the national issues, which have a major concern for the increase in number of losers like Ministries of Labor and Social Protection, and Finance Ministries and Central Banks, in the other side, which ignore the concerns of losers in their priority and rush to be part of the European Political Society and finally, Ministries of Foreign Affaires, especially to feel the external security vacuum on this area, by increasing the national security, external security, through the integration in CFSP mechanisms.

Related with the security challenge is the perception of Internal Security that appears to be more important for the European policy makers, than the real threats to Internal security originating from the CEE space and this aspect represents a challenge for the applicant countries and also should be considered by applicant countries trying to negotiate an early introduction of freedom of movement.

The second section of this subchapter makes an overview of the opportunities from those institutions linked with global economy and Ministries of Foreign Affaires and Defence.

General political objectives of the CEEC’s integration with the EU is consolidation of democratic transformation, accelerating economic development, strengthening political stabilization and increasing the security of the region and specially internal security of each country as an important opportunity. Membership in the EU requires fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria and this represents a big challenge for these Governments.

Challenges – opportunities relation is an aggregated approach of the official perspective of the governmental elites from CEEC made after examining the official position of each government, related with the European Integration.

The EU membership will have a major impact and especially the economic implications will be the most significant, though radical mutations will also take place in the political, security, social and cultural domain.

From the political perspective, CEEC will benefit from the possibility to participate, within the Union, to the complex collective decision processes, thus being able to better promote its interests but the decision-making mechanisms will be reconfigured, in the sense of transferring certain competencies towards Community’s institutions.

In annex we can see the Romanian discourse concerning integration from the Ministry of European Integration web.site. (see annex 4)

This official discourse at a deeper structure analysis points out the losers’s concerns, the great challenge of unemployment within the larger framework of “Social fracture” of Globalisation. It is not explicitly but implicitly by overlapping the transition process with the prerequisite for joining the EU. Unemployment in CEEC can be caractherised by as a «stagnant pool» where only few unemployd manage to get employed again, especially in rural areas lacking alternative job opportunities. This group of long-term unemployd – involved, organized crime, in prostitution and other criminal activities- will be the most difficult to convert from losers to winners without a new project of both elites from CEEC and Civil society. This was a strong point for negotiation, which has demonstrated the risks for the Internal security of Western countries if they will not export progress, CEEC will export desintegration.

Strategies for resolving a particular problem or for achieving particular goals are successful only if they flow from an analysis that identifies all the causes of the problem or all the obstacles to that goal. Good will, or individual moral reformation on a global scale, or a new vision is not sufficient in themselves to provide us with world security and social justice. Einstein once said, that humanity needs to invent new systems to resolve the problems unresolved by old ones. In our case it is more difficult to provide security from economic, monetary and resources threats. Because this multiple threats are constant, and because it is not global security system, adequate to deal with them, nations must now be constantly mobilized to ensure their own survival, see the security dilemma. Fuller human development and the realization of the higher human values as social justice, peace, unity, truth etc., are restricted and subverted by dominance of securities priorities. It is a logical responsibility of those in power to provide for the security of their countries when such security is not provided for by institutions beyond national borders.

To acknowledge the logic and power of national security imperatives is not to fatally accept the status quo of corporate power, elite rules and militarization. Quite the contrary! Such acknowledgment is the first necessary step for liberating ourselves from this status quo.

In our case study, of Romania, geopolitical axis shifted from state field, balance of power, stability, self-defense, spheres of influence and alliances to global market concerns with competitiveness, financial flows, capital sources, trade expansion, coordinating mechanism of labour market. Because no global security system exists to provide security vis-a-vis competition over weapons, monetary balance and scarce resources, first priority is given to policies which enhance a nation’s ability to survive such global competition, as we can see from our example of Romania. Constant mobilization for national security drastically limits their ability to adequately respond to the multiple crises, which are threatening domestic stability.

The actual order is one of dependent relationships between allegedly sovereignty, that are dominated by row economic, monetary and military power rather that by law. The operative principle of actual order is national interest and security. The second type envisions an order of relationships determined by law and universal social justice for all persons. The operative principals of such order embrace the centrality and sovereignty of human person. Alienation, addiction, increasing crime and violence, urban decay, inadequate health care, mental illness, education, housing, transportation, environment, racial justice, women’s rights, civil liberties and elite rule are issues that affect and concern the daily life of the average citizen. The resolution of each of these locally problems is largely frustrated by national security priorities.

In conclusion the biggest opportunity for the CEEC’s elite is to be part of the centre or semi-periphery escaping the periphery status of the region by the accession strategies with the EU. Humane security is the concern of national elites and implicitly unemployment, which is a major concern of them also but not a priority in their limited outdated definition of external Security. To answer to this threat, it is a big challenge for them in the actual configuration of international power structure. The third chapter proposes a prospect for a humane security, an embryo for a future project on Humane Governance for Humane security Sustainable Humane Development, capable to challenge the actual hegemonic project of embedded neo-liberalism, and combine a top down strategy produce of elites with a bottom-up strategy, fruit of aggregated effort of European Civil Society. UNDP has such a project in Thayland.⁶⁹

2.2. From the winners’ perspective For our analysis, we rely upon data from the electronic network.⁷⁰(http://euintegration.net), which are posted on the Web site, starting with 2000, including the papers in the volume Winners and Losers of EU Integration edited by Helena Tang.⁷¹

We have chosen to ascribe winner or loser status on this subchapter, on the basis of their socio-economic characteristics, instead of relying on self-assessment, the traditional way of investigation, because not all people are able to understand the reasons of their present and future situation.

To start with the old elites we can notice that in general, the old nomenklatura has remained in top positions, partly because its members possess certain know-how and have closed position and specially because they agreed to change the communist regime, only because before, they had all privileges originated on their controlling position but they didn’t have the right to property. Also they have been prepared since the beginning with better possibilities (economic conditions, financial situation of families, place of residence etc.). These advantages have enabled them to take benefit of the new possibilities opened by the transformation process. It is common thinking that these elites also are the foremost beneficiaries of transformation and integration but a deeper analysis shows that the reality is different that the common thinking. The initial high inflation had wiped out the savings of the most CEE citizens so there were not enough people in the country who had the money to buy the enterprises being privatized. Even if they could afford to buy the enterprises, it would be difficult to revitalize them, given the high interest rates and lack of financial institutions to provide capital.

The biggest winner of transformation is the whole service sector according to Helena Tang⁷² because this sector wasn’t affected by the Association Agrements but in the future winners and losers will emerge in this sector as the CEEC will gradually liberalize their service markets. The personal income in the services segments are the highest, compared with other parts of the economy. To use neo-Gramscian methode of analysis we have to distinguish between the residents and the subsectors dominated by foreign firms ( telecommunications in most countries, banking and insurance). These will become winners and also some sectors which asking for derogation may become a winner because of lower wages.⁷³ Tourism, retail trade and repair may remain winner also for integration only if they will be able to face the competition. For this reason they have to be restructured, which will imply declining jobs opportunities. Companies preparing for conquering the service sector will be the big winner recieving cofinancing from the EU budget. In most cases the big EU compagnies will dominate these proposals.

Special winners are those persecuted for political reasons and minorities, throuth the policy of positive discrimination, or afirmative action and they can contribute to the building of civil society in these vid spaces of CEEC. In Romania civil society is very active but in supporting the integration with the EU. They contributed to a bottom-up strategy for the improvement of the Roma situation in collaboration with the government. First attempt of the Ministry of Public Information to deal with humane security challenges at the initiative of Roma civil society and with the EU instruments support, Phare programme.

Related to EU pre-accession policies, to have a broader view, relatively winners are concentrated in the different sectors and professional groups according to Economic Policy Institute, Sofia. (see annex 5) These winners are relatively winners in comparison with the real winners or absolute winners of all these macro-processes.

In conclusion small groups of residents have benefited, making fortune and this has created a gap of income, envy and social tensions. The absolute winners are the foreign firms like Deutsche Telecom, with higher profitability and a serious concentration of capital, which will imply declining job opportunities. However, it is unclear to what extent the growth of service and private entreprises can absorb unemployment from agriculture, and declining industrial sectors. So unemployment will not be covered by the service sector already privatized or mainly dominated by foreign firm and this is a big challenge to cover the unemployment from the state-owned monopolies, which will be the most important losers.

The main challenge for the winners is how to maintain the gains and the big opportunity is to create a sustainable strategy of humane development together with the losers of transformation and integration processes. They are note very motivated for resistance against neo-liberalism in short term, but the threat to lose their gains at long term would be a good reason for participation to this coalition against poverty, which already exist at the European level EAPN (European Anti-Poverty Network).

2.3. From the present and future losers

In this subchapter we identifies the present and future losers with the aim of discovering these social forces against neo-liberalism able to imagine an alternative project to it. It is more difficult to identify the losers points Andras Inotai,⁷⁴ in the same study cited before, because most of the losers will belong to the group of relative losers in comparison with absolute losers. An analysis of losers should examine the balance of benefits and costs from economic, social and political viewpoints. The economic variable tends to be more objective because it can be measured, while the social variable includes individual perceptions of real processes, attitude that various factors can influence.

According to him absolute losers will include different segments of the population linked by minus skill characteristic: unskilled, immobile, inflexible population with no knowledge of languages, farmers giving up land and ownership and employment without getting anything in compensation and Ethnic minorities unable to cope with the requirements of transformation, integration, and globalisation (mainly the large Roma minorities).⁷⁵

We agree with him that in the case of relative losers despite this relativity, they may consider themselves losers and will be most probably that they will be able to develop stronger resistance than the absolute losers. This last group contains according to same author: people with no entrepreneurial spirit but still benefiting of some gains of Integration, regions unable to absorb large amounts of EU funds; people living in depressed rural aria and small urban settlements; Public administration not related in EU issues; higher educated people with nonconvertible knowledge (humanities outdates engineering combined with no knowledge of foreign languages or basic computer skills; most elder retired people without liquid or convertible assets; short term winners who will not be able to face growing competition, some social groups and movements discredited in the process of transformation (some extremist groups, ultra-nationalistic groups of parts of the church).⁷⁶

He continues his argumentation with regard to any future analysis should distinguish these two types of losers: Well-performing state-owned economic agents that are becoming losers because state budget or other institutional support is withdrawn; and Loss-making state-owned enterprises, whose existence depends on states subsidies, or they otherwise are heavily indebted to the state budget.

The loss of subsidies made losers in the main sectors, according to Economic Policy Institute, Sofia⁷⁷: Industrial sector, metallurgy, chemical industries, machine building, and shipbuilding; State monopolies, especially in the utilities sector; Agriculture and forestry; Fisheries; Primary and secondary education and fundamental research; Culture, arts and the preservation of historical heritage; Social policies, social inclusion policies; and Health and social insurance system.

According to the same sources the preparation for accession now must contribute to: Adoption of policy to close the productivity and income gaps between them and the EU, The concession of medium-term transitional derogations from the Community acquis communautaire to diminish the risks of creating more losers than winners during the accession.

These are two challenges, which are common concerns for all actors from all three perspectives of analysis.

The most important losers will be those who will lose their jobs. Unemployment is the big challenge of losers. Unemployment rose to more than 10 per cent, a level unprecedented in any of the ten countries. The only country in the region to escape this trend was the Czech Republic, where unemployment was kept relatively low until 1996 largely due to state intervention through active labour market policies.⁷⁸ Poor performance in economy has resulted in chronic unemployment and implicitly need for social benefits The official unemployment are rose to 11,4 percent in May 1999, in Romania, for example according to the same source. A third of unemployed are yang, and almost half of those who receive unemployment benefits, which are symbolical, should be considered long-term unemployed. They are the greatest losers of transition.

This outlook is distressing because of the interrelationship between marketisation and democratisation.Stagnating low (or even further declining) living standards are bound to lead to social ten­sions. These tensions will be – or already are – fueled by inequalities in income distribution. The introduction of a market economy has had a negative impact on the majority of the population; the main losers have been low-income groups such as blue-collar workers, farmers and the people forced to sell their land or houses. As a matter of fact, economic failures are likely to jeopardize pluralist democracy and the rule of law and long-term unemployment and living below the poverty line lead to a loss of necessary skills and human degradation, as it was evaluated by UNDP.⁷⁹

Such a response may be politically dangerous because such a negative attitude could erode popular support for democracy and its institutions as we stated already before. Instead, it could play into the hands of right-wing populist “strong men” or even lead to nostalgia for socialism: “In those days, we had little, but we could take it for granted; today, we have even less, and, still worse, we cannot be sure of it.”⁸⁰

To finish this section of our analysis in this aria of losers, we can identify as possible losers people previously involved in executing nondemocratic rules (that is the security service). People which work in the shadow economy, they may not perceive themselves to be the losers but in the long term they will be the losers.

They are absolute and relative losers, depending in financial situation and on the political factors.

Next section of the present subchapter will identify the counter neo–liberal forces in Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, in neo-Gramscian perspective.⁸¹

First Neo-Gramscian perspective focuses on social forces, engendered by the production process. Consequently different fractions of labour and capital may be identified in relation with their place in the production system. This make structural changes such as globalisation accessible, because the social forces engendered by transnationalisation of production and finance can be incorporated. A basic distinction we can make between national forces of capital and labor stemming from national production sectors, engendered by domestic production and transnational capital and labour, endangered by those production sector, which are organized on transnational scale. The first group can be sub-divided into nationally oriented capital and labour, which stems from domestic production sector, which produce for the national market, and internationally-oriented capital, engendered by domestic production sectors, which produces for the international market.

Nationally oriented capital is unlikely to rise “a challenge to membership because It is simply overpowered by foreign TNCs and finance companies. Many of the companies in the nationally oriented sectors of mining and steel are still state-owned and the government may use the EU as an excuse for pushing through restructuring and privatisation. Trade unions in these sectors may oppose membership, but in general they are too fragmented to pose a serious challenge. They have also steadily lost members in recent years. “ Giving one example, in the Czeck Republic, according to the same source,” CMKOS’s membership had declined from 3.5 million in 1993 U 2.7 million in 1994 and unions reported increasing difficulties in organizing members, both because of anti-union employers and the fragmentation of former large state companies into small units” ⁸²also, workers may actually benefit from membership since ”EU standards promise better working conditions, equal opportunities, improvements in living standards and the introduction of means to enforce these rights”⁸³

Cirtautas⁸⁴ shows “that nationalism is gaining in strength throughtout CEE and may rival neo-liberal transformation.“

In Poland, similar to the Austrian FPO, potential project of “nationalist resistance could be led by the ROP, which wants to defend Polish interests against foreign exploitation. It may be supported by the PSL, especially if the negotiation settlement in agriculture is unsatisfactory, and important parts of the AWS, which, contains strong elements of clerical nationalism. The right-wing SPR-RSC may lead resistance in the Czech Republic around a nationalist anti-EU movement. Its overall chance of success, however, looks on considering that it failed to re-enter parliament in the 1998 elections”.⁸⁵

In Hungary, the “right-wing MIEP could develop nationalist resistance. The positions of the ISCM in the Czech Republic and the MP in Hungary are still unclear and it is yet to be seen which type of rejection their programme will take, once the negotiations have been completed and the referenda come closer.”⁸⁶

In conclusion potential resistance to membership is small in all three countries, because the communist systems in CEEC are fully discredited and it has, therefore, been much easier for neo-liberalism to triumph in comparison with Austria and Sweden, where the post-war Keynesian welfare state didn’t lose complete credibility. “Rural solidarity was swept up by anti-government protests in early 1999. The Agricultural lobby led by Andrzej Lepper, an extremely vocal leader of that faction, which blocked roads and orgnanised manifestations in Warsaw. He considers integration a danger and not an opportunity and apparently sides with potential losers.”⁸⁷

Parallel with the creation of parliamentary group in 1998 a tiny anti-integration parliamentary group ”Our Circle”, which “broken for the first time the general support for integration, is the formation of about 30 organisations registered as various associations, whose statutory objectives provide for actions aimed against Poland’s membership in the European structures. This breach probably to a large extent has induced the considerable decrease in public support for Poland’s integration with the EU”⁸⁸

In conclusion at present resistance to “embedded neo-liberalism” is weak at the European level and also in CEEC, as we have seen from our brief analysis of three countries. We can predict that with the increasing exploitation of the production and reproduction spheres at the European and national level, these forces may become stronger in the future and can lead to polarization but not yet to polarity. To be able to form a building bloc these forces need to be well organized and financier independent, in order to be successful and challenge the actual hegemonic project. A progressive and internationalist hegemonic project needs to be formed, around which these forces can rally, because the nationalist, reactionary response to exploitation cannot be the best solution.⁸⁹ For such a project we need an agent of transformation, “organic intellectual, in neo-Gramscian terms” and core values, bases for such a challenging project. The third chapter will present the core values and a prospect for a humane global governance for humane security and sustainable humane development.

2.4.Conclusions and perspectives

The success of all three macroprocesses in CEEC can be measured by quantitative and qualitative distribution of winners and losers of the process. The small number of relative winners and the absence of absolute winners in contrast with the absolute losers and relative losers shows the failure of the market economy model of liberalization and embedded neoliberalism and the need of alternative able to convert losers in winners and to keep the sustainable gains of winners.

In terms of Internal security, as result of the impact of all three processes (Transformation, Regional Integration, Globalisation), all these CEEC countries are losers if they will not take the opportunity to benefit from the Structural funds, Regional Funds and Social Cohesions Funds and CAP funds by pressing for reforms on the EU policy instruments, specially structural funds favor current members, and advanced candidate countries over those further from accession. This will be a big source of crisis for regional disparities, even in the context of Western European Countries according to Helena Tang and implicit Brusis⁹⁰. Common Agricultural Policy would raise agricultural prices for some accession countries and this could have an adverse effect on the poorer part of the population in these countries. The solution would be to allow to have different prices for agricultural products, following a chine’s model, or to reform the CAP.

The attitudes toward integration of these groups may be negative or positive, and further and deeper study should examine their situation. Calin Hay systematized the negative reaction in the CEEC against Globalisation (see annex 6).

This chapter has shown that the logical need for providing for national security priorities has led to an increasing transference of power to national security corporate elites – making a myth for a personal sovereignty that the nation-state was originally designed to protect. The imperatives of nation-state competition in an interdependent world have also made a myth of national sovereignty. This is true not only for developing nations whose dependence upon the industrial West and whose powerlessness to influence international monetary and economic structures de facto truncates the sovereign self-determination that they embrace so passionately in theory. The more affluent nations also find their self-determination truncated. A big challenge for these actors, national elites, losers or winners, would be how to overcome the sovereignty problem: national or personal.

Alienation is a big challenge or threat for the human being and the analysis from this chapter made clear this risk. (see annex 7)

The restructuring of entreprises has accelerated, and the unemployment rate is rising very quickly and as a result social tention is increasing. The worsening economic and social situation has led to radical rumblings in trade union. Some of the potential losers have been organised in influential presure groups (agriculture, trade unions in uncompetitive sectors, and parts of the public administration). A strategy that accurately communicates to the public the actual benefits and costs of CEEC‘ integration with the EU is important for the public opinion. In conclusion the stabilization, liberalization, privatization programme was, of course, not a growth programme. It set the preconditions for decline.

The challenge would be to find the wise alternative, which can create a balance between the power in International Relations, Power in Production including Social Power and Power in State, an innovative mechanism of humane governance and not of geogovernance, based on cooperative relationship instead of competitive relationship for the realization of human rights, in a feminine approach.

Further research could be: how to ensure that short – term winners of transformtion will not turn into a new group of losers of integration. Policies, to convert real losers of transformation and would–be losers of integration process in potential winners starting from an in-depth analysis of standard of living and a comparative study of CEEC could be useful. Standard of living should be evaluated by a whole set of interdisciplinary indicators, both quantitative and qualitative: economic, social and ecological shortly internal security, which is very difficult to quantify.⁹¹

Chapter 3

A Challenging project of Global Humane governance for sustainable development opportunity

This chapter would like to introduce concepts as Humane security, sustainable development and humane governance able to curb the ignored threats, in a feminin perspective.

3.1.New humane security paradigm as a common denominator of all European actors against common challenges

This subchapter deals with the concept of Humane security and his potential positive impact on the quality of life; first section put the security redefinition need in the international context, second tries to define humane security and third shows the importance of humane security in transforming the losers of European Integration in winners, as a potential modality for a positive scenarios of Integration, as win-win game.

“World politics should not be viewed as a historically frozen process of power-hungry states, but rather as a dynamic process of interaction among individuals, groups, states and international institutions, all of which are capable of adapting their sense of self-interest.”⁹²

After the Cold War the militarised conception of security was challenged by multifaceted and holistic conceptions⁹³ like humane security, concept which lacks a clear definition and any agreed upon measures on it. We have to notice that the Military security failed to ensure the territorial security of a nation-state. The collapse of so called communism and of Soviet hegemony in Central and Eastern Europe, removed the immediate military threat. The replacement of the major military threats from the East by the multilevel and multidimensional threats has lent great instability to the European Security System, which was not prepared to deal with it, in term of competences, policies and institutions. (See annex 2 for the collective risks of globalization.)

Because Europeans face so many security challenges and promising opportunities, all of which compete for higher attention and resources, it will be difficult to deal with non-traditional threats. However, some of them will not be ignored for long time. Individual security can no longer be satisfied only through military measures; it needs multidimensional understanding.

Humane Security is difficult to be achieved in actual existing international system mainly dominated by sovereign states. A current state – centred system has been inadequate to provide security and welfare as we have analysed in the first and second chapter. Nation states risk losing their external and internal sovereignty. In our logic of humane security nation states have to reorder priorities, problem is what criteria? These could be: The sovereignty of the Human Person, Participation in decision- making and Response to Unmet Human Needs.

The following issues needs the priority of governments and international organisations:

Hunger, housing, health care, education, employment, environment, war prevention, crime prevention, care of the aged, racial justice, women’s rights, religious freedom, penal reform, urban planning, population, democratic participation, prevention of alienation and addiction.

Most of the leaders would insist that they personally embrace the above agenda. Pragmatically, however, these issues are subordinated to national security priorities. In the present world system, national policies developed primarily around the above criteria would threaten the ability of their nations to survive.

The lights of Humane development will remain out for a majority of humankind until the emergence of a world-order system. It is important to emphasize that we are not advocating constant mobilization for national security. It is rather a question of recognizing the reality that present corporate priorities and elite rule are not primarily due to ideological or personal demons. The world does not need more demonology. What is needed is objectivity – not the rationalize fatalistic acceptance of the status quo, but to identify the all sources of powerlessness: of leaders as well as of citizens. The surest way to entrench the status quo is to focus too exclusively on the powerlessness of the people and to rely on demonology at the cost of a more holistic analysis.

The definition of security issues, the way in which they were analyzed and the policies that resulted were the fruits of the dominant geopolitical and ideological atmosphere during the Cold War period. Security concept has a strong political base and it changes according to it

Security continues to be calculated by the degree of “destructive capacity possessed in relation to an expected enemy. “The achievement of security in a global setting is largely reduced to the management of boundaries of the territorial state- the degree of capacity to keep unwanted persons, ideas, things out, and to keep what is wanted within.

To extent that security is globalised, it is associated with establishing the conditions that best enable the expansion of gross planetary product and stimulate the growth of world trade within a framework stabilized by policies that produce the triple indictment”⁹⁴

What is remarkable about this geopolitical image of security is its durability, one that traverses the distinction drawn earlier between modern, state-centric geopolitics and post-modern market-geared geopolitics. The absence of critical self-reflection is terrible. What needs to be acknowledged here, among other challenging perspectives, is the relevance of feminist voices from around the world in fashioning other possible responses to the actual. The revision of security is crucial to the all enterprises of global civil society and the shaping of the global polity in accordance with the criteria of humane governance.

Subrahmanyam clearly identifies this element of necessity in the following passage:

“Either humanity unites to survive, or it is bound to face a bleak future. The strategy of a non-violent and nuclear free world has no alternative, if future generations are to survive in condition of sustainable development. We of this generation have to stark choice before us. Either we become saviours of our posterity or its executioners. Either we opt for life or shatter the future of mankind.”⁹⁵

This sense of urgency is here affirmed. Also to be underscored in the idea that continued democratisation depends on the establishment of a security, which radically breaks with perceptions and practices that have given substance to geopolitics throughout modern history.

It is obvious that to initiate a discussion of security on this radical note is to highlight the distance separating such a position from the mainstream thought in the North and from the outlook of most governing elites in the South. And it is equally predictable that it will be dismissed thereby as “utopian”. To respond helpfully to the challenge ahead it is necessary to summon the intellectual and political courage to face the depth and extent of the problem that faces humanity.

What, exactly, is meant by the term humane security and why humane security is so important in a optimist scenarious of Integration. What is humane security? «There are two basic aspects to humane security – freedom from fear and freedom from want. Freedom from want is no less important than freedom from fear because his objectives are to ensure the survival and dignity of individuals as human beings. The epoch-making 1994 UNDP Development Report discussed the concept of human security in depth, and identified seven main categories of human security – economic security (or freedom from poverty); food security (freedom from hunger), health security (freedom from disease), environmental security (the availability of clean water and air, for example), personal security (freedom from fear of violence, crimes, drugs), community security (freedom to participate in family life and one’s ethnic group), and political security (freedom to exercise one’s basic human rights)».⁹⁶

Why is humane security important for the optimistic scenarious of Integration? What is the trend in Europe regarding the social fracture of Globalisation? Any balanced view, the Europe success was supported by social settlments that allowed equity and efficiency. Employment relations institutions and process associated with this model of development are under strain. They suffer of crises of economic functionality and out of line with new emerging patterns of economic and social life. Despite the social forces that identify themselfs with values of The European social model (see annex 8a) there is a tendency to defend inherited institutions rather than to construct new forms of social solidarity compatible with the complexity of modern economic life. In his book Paul Teague points out that “any innovations need to address three important themes: the democratization of the EU, the future association between the nation-state and economic citizenship; and the institutional reform of the labour-market governance”.⁹⁷( see annex 8b)

In a stark prediction European Governments will soon have to choose between a free market and free society with the top concern about social justice, by placing the organisation of society secondary to business activity may not be an efficient model of economic competition. The political game between neo-liberal Europe and Social Europe is still on. The key benchmarks, which could test if human security has been revived, would be: lower unemployment, better labour market access and more democratic and participatory work places. Some humane security concerns can no longer be kept hidden from critical scrutiny. The performance of governments and international organisations will be judged increasingly by the extent to which they seriously and effectively deal with humane security concerns. We hope that Europe could marry again, economic efficiency with social justice, in a feminin perspective different of masculin anglo-saxon perspective.⁹⁸

3.2.Sustainable development as a common denominator for all European Actors and new opportunity

First section of this subchapter will make an anthology of the actual trends of defining sustainable development in contrast with development concept used in standard economic theory, actual position of EU concerning sustainable development and the implications of it for the employment in Europe and finally participation as an important aspect of sustainable development. We have chosen to do it by using Internet resources and relevant literature. We will try to make a synthesis of all of them for economic reasons. (see annex 9)

In standard economic theory, Development implies both quantitative change (growth in Gross Domestic Product) and qualitative change (transformation from a pre-capitalist economy based on agriculture to a capitalist industrial economy) etc. Theory of sustainable development involves both a critic of quantitative GDP measure and a different view of qualitative transformation. The goals of sustainable development include a harmonization of economic, social and environmental goals:

Economic – an economically sustainable system must be able to produce goods and services on a continuing basis, to maintain manageable levels of government and external debt, and avoid extreme sector imbalances that damage agriculture or industrial production.

Environmental – an environmentally sustainable system must maintain a stable resource base, avoiding overexploitation of renewable resources systems or environmental sink functions and depleting non renewable resources only to the extent that investment is made in adequate substitutes: this include maintenance of biodiversity, atmospheric stability, and other ecosystem functions not ordinarily classed as economic resources.

Social – a socially sustainable system must achieve fairness in distribution and opportunity, adequate provision of social services, including health, including health and education, gender equality, and political accountability and participation. These three elements of sustainability introduce many potential complications to the original, simple definition of economic development.

This new concerns for development will create new opportunities for job creation in the area of Social and Environment. It could be a good opportunity for CEEC countries to get job in this new domains. Together with sharing job opportunity and highest wages strategy will contribute to bridging the gap between Western and Eastern disparities, following the logic of balance in a chine’s way.

EU has a strategy for sustainable development but specially for sustainable trade and what is relevant for our thesis is the fact that EU recognizes the necessity to work together for achieving this aim, on his declaration at the World Summit for sustainable development from Johannesburg, September 2002.⁹⁹

“Economic growth along side environmental and social concern: Sustainable development demands a fundamental change in the way we live our lives. In a complete break with the past this calls for a major reorientation of public and private behavior and thinking. The challenge is to bond economic growth with social concerns and to decouple economic development from environmental degradation. It calls for creative, long-term policy making, efficient and responsible use of resources, cost-effective environmental policy and cleaner technology. Governments, business, and citizens need to work together to create the conditions in which sustainable development can happen.”

To bridge the gap between the popular agenda and elitist agenda of Global governance we need to find common values upon which a viable future can be built. We start by considering five aspects of sustainable development analized by UNDP: Empowerment, Cooperation, Equity, Sustainability, and Security.¹⁰⁰Related to these aspects are nine principles, which could help political institutions to achieve sustainable development, as suggested by UNDP: Participation, Transparency, Responsivness, Consensus orientation, Equity, Effectivness and Efficiency, Accountability, Strategic vision.¹⁰¹We would prefere to choose to speak on Participation forced by the economy of our thesis.True democracy is characterised by horizontal processes across a broad spectrum of relationships, in contrast with parliamentary democracies based on vertical hierarchies.

The euphoria developed over events in Eastern Europe after the fall of one party political system a decade ago has masked the irreparable inadequacies in the new capitalist democratic system. The fundamental proposition of democracy needs to focus on an ongoing process than the structure of representation. Egalitarian interaction have to be a new democratic principle in considering that development of Western democratic systems in the 19^th century coincided with expansion of European Colonialism. Economic decentralisation is a more appropriate form of integrating nature and society. Sensitivity towards the human subject in economic planning shall overcome foundations laid down by modern economies. It would reduce the widespread global structural violence maintained by the political and economic elites of dominant Western powers.

Next subchapter will try to put light on the concept of global governance and his relevance for curbing the actual “social fracture” of Globalisation, big threat for International security. The conflicting logics of actual actors are dangereous and the problem is how to make them to coexist, what would be the appropiate mechanism and strategy to make them to work together with common agenda, taking into account their conflicting interests. It would not be enough for each state or people to have its own vision of a better future, in our case not only the Countries from CEEC space have to have a strategy for the accession into EU, or ERT a strategy for a free market, but the EU as a whole, as a new political entity able to deal with all these challenges. EU, as an international actor, has the economic and logistic power to do it, to transform its self on an entity dealing with sustainable development using humane governance mechanism, creating the framework of working together for all actors.

3.3.Global humane governance as a counter hegemonic project, from European Civil Society perspective

Global humane governance will be the subject of discussion on this subchapter. First section points out the necessity of creating such a system in order to avoid the blaming and also the prescriptive top-down approach of global governance after analyzing the world order present models. Third section discouses the conflict between long-term interest and short interest, common values of the actual actors involved on international politics. Sustainable development and Humane security transform the global geogovernance concept in Humane geogovernance and the fourth section will try to explain the prospect for Humane governance.

Our thesis will only present general ideas because the discussion needs more space. We give more space to the prospect for humane security, which eventually will be part of the new security identity of Europe, civilian approach (see the non-violent peace force network-making the bridge between USA and Europe).

In order to find a global humane governance system, we need first a constitution developed around the following functions: disarmament, involving the protection of human rights; social justice, environmental protection; economic and social development; and the regulation of international processes such as trade, transportation and communication. What the new world-order models have in common is a commitment to the basic human values as fundamental criteria of world order. They begin with common problems and then formulate functional institutions to cope with those problems. In today’s nation-state competition, those values that conflict with national security goals have little chance to become operative on any significant scale.

The starting point of each Model or governance is the necessity to have as a common denominator but the problem is which one? Sustainable development and Humane security for all actors of international system and the Right to development can be the key words, as integrative concepts of all human needs for the humanity as a whole. In public policy debates, few argue openly in terms of their own self-interest. Everything is couched in terms of general interest.

Fourth section deals with humane governance opposite concept of geo-governance. Humane geo-governance is the preferred variant of geo-governance. Humane geo-governance is not a structure to be blueprinted, but a process of engagement that is guided by a principle of non-violence. Humane governance is a preferred form of governance being a process and a goal, which emphasizes the achievement of comprehensive rights for all peoples on earth. We have to worn that our passivity will ensure the triumph of the G-7 view of the human future. The prospect for human governance is urgency. (see annex 10)

In sum, Humane governance emphasizes people-centered criteria of success, as measured by declines in poverty, violence and pollution and by increasing adherence to human rights and constitutional practices, especially in relation to vulnerable segments of society, as well as by axiological shifts away from materialist/consumerist and patriarchal conceptions of human fulfillment. The perspectives of humane governance stress the accountability of elites and the participation by the peoples of the world and their directly elected representatives. It is necessary to explore the meaning of humane governance in a series of conceptual and policy settings, as well as some implications of counter-projects to shape geo-governance in more beneficial ways than those resulting from global market forces.

The political imaginations of the rich and powerful are still caught up in greed and by efforts to retain short-run advantage. As a consequence, the historical opening at the end of the Cold War has been largely squandered, being treated as one more opportunity to consolidate power and wealth.

If Globalisation brought negative aspects, the positive aspect of Globalisation is that it has brought an active civil society, fighting for more democracy and greater social justice.

3.4.Conclusions and perspectives on the future project of the European Civil Society

We could conclude that a civilization the more it advances in sacrificing ideals and values to interests, the more perverse and degenerate is. A “civilization” that conveniently and unscrupulously subordinates values to interests is not really worthy of being called a civilization. No matter how it may develop its material aspects, it will remain empty at its human core, which is always moral-spiritual based. In this regard, world politics is shifting from a horizontal axis of Right vs. Left, to a vertical axis of economic materialist values vs. ecological, feminist, spiritual values; and the central “struggle” for the next generation.

A hegemonic project should be developed around issues of a humane security system via the OSCE and an economic strategy, which considers good environmental and social standards and full employment to be more important than efficiency, competition and high levels of economic growth. In this respect, it is important to challenge the neo–liberal wisdom, which has acquired a status of natural truth during the processes of globalisation. This will not be easy and requires a long war of position. Institutions should be set up, which could provide the platform for organic intellectuals and for the devel­opment and promotion of an alternative to neo-liberalism. Ministers and representatives stressed the crucial role of NGOs as key non-state actors partners in developing, advocating, building and implementing humane security¹⁰². The question is if these social forces are prepared to face the actual hegemonic ongoing process of embedded neoliberalism. Let’s sum these potential forces of Europe and their input to this coalition already in formation, before answering to this question:

Pressure groups – Redistribution of benefits and losses resulting from lobby activities and these influential pressure groups both in the CEEC and the EU itself can affect the position of losers and winners.

Trade union- Intensified co-operation between trade unions within Europe, including the sector level: on co-ordination in respect of wages, working conditions and social regulation complemented by much closer co–ordination of national economic and social policies, going beyond neo-liberal solutions.

Nation-states – particularly decision-making elites could be ready to participate on this coalition with new ideas able to relegitimise their authority because even the most powerful nation-states – are no longer able to fulfill the purpose for which they were created (elected) consequently not longer legitimate.

The exploitation of the sphere of reproduction may result in either a nationalist, reactionary response led by extreme-right parties such as the Austrian Freedom Party, or a progressive internationalist response as indicated in the programmes of Green parties and a broad array of social movements. Recent demonstrations during the Carnival Against Capitalism (London, June 1999) as well as mobilisation against the World Trade Organisation (Seattle. November 1999) and the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (Washington, April 2000; Prague, September 2000) are examples of progressive internationalist response. An important step in building a more viable human future is to identify all the sources and causes of our present powerlessness. For this purpose we have to examine the report between: Legal justice / Social justice: Legal justice is conformity to laws passed by a legislative body. Such justice may no have relationship to social justice which is conformity to natural laws that do not depend upon human legislation, i.e. inalienable rights to food, dignity and self-determination. In fact, in many cases, legal justice is in direct conflict with social justice. A major task in our days is to develop a process and system in which the criterion of legal justice is social justice. This is a big challenge and opportunity at the same time for lawyers, social scientists and practitioners to help this project of civil society, as noble mission.

What is common to all actors is that the criterion of human development is shelved “for the duration”. The duration here is not the short -term reality. Rather, this duration is here to stay until a global security system with functional institutions capable of dealing with rampant global forces is developed. Some of our friends have counseled us that to speak of the logic of national security mobilization and of corporate elite rules is to furnish “the haves” with the rationale needed to preserve their power just at a time when they are under attack from every side. What is needed, they argue, is even greater pressure from the people. Such advice does not dig deeply enough in its search for a solution. As long as the obsolete world system continues unchanged, the logic of national security mobilization will remain operative as a major obstacle to goals of fuller humane development.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

The theoretical approach of explanation of European Integration is out dated because neo-functionalism and intregovernmentalism can’t take into account the wider structure of Integration, namely the global structural change and the post-Cold War context. Globalisation is characterised by two interlinked processes, the transnationalisation of finance and production at the material level and, a shift from Keynesian to neo-liberalism as a driving force of Globalisation and European integration, from a political economy perspective. The post War international economic order in the Western world was a compromise between the principle of economic liberalism and national interventionism, called “embedded neoliberalism”. Consequently, of equal concern is what globalization does to democracy. Globalisation, as it has been advocated, often seems to replace the old dictatorship of national elites with new dictatorship of international finance and this is big threat for the state and personal sovereignty. To overcome the theoretical impotence, we need a theoretical model able to explain integration and to democratize the actual geo-governance for the realization of human rights. The humane governance prospect is urgency and our thesis has tried to propose an embryo of it.

The focus on class struggle was the heuristic model for under­standing structural change and how CEEC have been affected by global structural change after the Cold War. The structure of the thesis reflects the struggle between transnational actors ERT- power in production, in coalition with EU – as a soft superpower, power in state as a balancer between this two emergent coalitions of hard power, on one side and the coalition of soft power, represented by social power, so called civil society, on the other side. The principal question was if the civil society is ready to form a counter-hegemonic bloc at the European level in alliance with CEE governments, able to face the actual hegemonic bloc driven by embedded neo-liberalism. The answer is negative from two reasons: the actual European Civil society is manipulated by the EU by institutionalization of the civic dialog via the ESC, for the preservation of the status-quo and the other reason is the lack of financier independence, logistic and internal problem of democratization of these civic society entities from both sides Western and Eastern Europe. The creation of counter hegemonic bloc would be possible at the International level and we can’t make any prediction yet. The actual tendency at the European level is for polarization not for polarity and this represents a big threat for the soft security model of Europe. Therefore a marriage between Social Europe and neo-liberalism has to be a priority for the new identity of Europe, to curb the eventual polarization of social forces of all Europe. Europe could be a model of global humane governance for humane security and sustainable development, and the recent White paper on Governance and Strategy for sustainable development shows clear signals of this political will. Europe has humanistic values, material capabilities and institutions to make a difference in the World, as a feminine soft answer to the paradox of Democracy (spreading democracy in very undemocratic way) and Security dilemma. The question is how to make all this actors work together taking into account their divergent interest. The solution is to find the values, which are commons for all actors, as sustainable human development including humane markets and humane security and cooperative behavior and culture. Our continent has tradition in Christian message and this represents an important value, which will transform integration into a real win – win scenarios as peaceful conflict resolution soft model. A shift from horizontal logic of Left and Right to a vertical common logic of ecology, feminism and sustainable, equitable and democratic development is already in process at the theoretical discourse. Development is not about helping a few people get rich or creating a handful of pointless protected industries that only benefit the country’s elite, for the urban rich and leaving the rural poor in their misery. Humane development is about transforming societies, improving the lives of the poor, enabling everyone to have a chance to success and access to health care and education. This sort of development won’t happen if only a few people dictate the policies a country must follow. Making sure that democratic decisions are made means ensuring that a broad range of economists, officials, and experts from CEEC are actively involved in the debate in a new model of global humane governance. It also means that there must be broad participation that goes well beyond the experts and politicians, so the democratization of the actual geo-governance and ESC institutionalized such a civil dialog and this represents a great opportunity. But still the people in Western countries escape their responsibilities stating that transition countries must take charge. We need some time for the reactualization of our humanistic European tradition in new ideology.

In conclusion global mobility capital and production in a world of open economies have made the central policies of European social democracy unworkable¹⁰³. By so doing they have made today’s mass unemployment a problem without a simple solution. The monetarist theories that presently dominate the world’s central banks and transnational financial institutions deny that any trade-off of price stability with full employment can be achieved.

We assumed that a shift on the theoretical discourse could produce a change in real life. This was the motivation of our thesis at the deeper structure. Let’s sum the perspectives on the opportunities and challenges of the European Enlargement.

From the EU perspective the enlargement towards CEEC is evaluated as a challenge for his strategy of Enlargement, for ERT as an opportunity for a free market strategy, from CEEC perspective as an opportunity for filling the vacuum of security and their impotence to assure sustainable development in the actual context, from the Civil Society perspective, European integration can be evaluated as an opportunity for a new counter-hegemonic project, for global governance for humane security and human development oriented, and organic intellectuals have the noble mission of the construction of the anti-hegemonic Project, in a neo-Gramscian terms. All this actors are winners from their perspective.

In sum the big challenges for ERT are the job creation for overcoming the European crises of unemployment and the disparities between East and West, demonstrating on their perspective that integration is win-win scenarious and thus public opinion has to support this process.

The real challenge would be the adaptation of the ongoing geo-governance to the realization of human rights as we stated before. This is a big challenge and opportunity at the same time.

For millions of people from CEEC and Western Europe globalisation has not worked and they are losers. Many have actually been made worse off, as they have seen their jobs destroyed and their lives become more insecure. They have felt increasingly powerless against forces beyond their control. If we fail to learn from our mistakes, globalisation will not only succeed in promoting development but will continue to create poverty and instability. This will be a tragedy for all of us. Unemployment could persist for years, and government intervention would be required. The free market ideology should be replaced with analyses based on economic science, with a more balanced view of the role of government drawn from an understanding of both market and government failures.

These challenges are present at the surface structure but what are the remaining challenges, at the deeper structure? And what new strategies and policies should be formulated to effectively address these challenges? A big issue for actual history is who will be the responsible for the failure of the states? Who will be the guardian of the general interest when the private interest will go too far? Who will be accountable for the Human rights violation when the states are force to give up their sovereignty? These are questions without a proper answer. This thesis cannot provide an answer; it can only invite you on further reflections and research on this field.

We can start by assuming that ”as long as the nation–state system continues to dominate global interaction, the state will continue to be the key provider, or alternatively, the major abuser of human rights towards its citizens.”¹⁰⁴ This paradigm seems to be out-dated because at the deepest structure, the biggest violators of human rights are the Transnationals and some International Intergovernmental organisations as well.

Global Humane Governance is the magic word for the management of the common affaires of the World and European Union is the only International actor having the real material and spiritual potential to do it, because UN doesn’t have the material capabilities for it. (see annex 11) We are very optimistic about the important role of Europe in world politic as a soft superpower able to balance to USA – hard superpower.

Annex 1

To what extent, and in what ways, does globalisation contribute to international and intra-national conflict?

To answer this question a number of questions will guide us in this attempt, which can be summarized as follows: 1.What happens? 2. Why is it happening? 3. How can this be judged?

1.What happens?

Globalisation, as well as the economic regional integration¹⁰⁵ processes, create a gap between powerful economic convergence – simple globalisation¹⁰⁶ (American type of economic integration) and less powerful complex convergence – complex globalisation¹⁰⁷(new European type of complex integration, EU new embryonic structural power¹⁰⁸ which can create unity in diversity at global and regional level, and vertical community), and also create discursive tensions originated on the gap between rhetoric and reality of globalisation. For analytical purposes, the most helpful use of the term globalisation is to clarify this process, within various trends and counter-trends, tendencies and counter-tendencies need to be specified rather the notion of globalisation itself, so we should look for causes and consequences. Individual, State and International System level of analysis, is relevant also for the explanation of the conflicts of globalisation, individual and collective human rights, whose violation gives rise not only to injustice and tension but also to unpredictability and instability and hence to international insecurity.

Globalisation historical, multilevel and multilateral process appears as a new type of relationship between old and new actors of international system, which involves simultaneous trends of integration and fragmentation of solidarity at all levels: individual, community to one side and institutional (local, regional and international) to the other side (so world turbulence). The nature of this relationship can be competitive or cooperative, in an ideal case. The relation became the new unit of analyses of the international system. From the conflicting nature of the relations between these new actors, on the one hand (minorities, public opinion, terrorist movements, nongovernmental organisations, epistemological community, individuals and multinationals – non-state logic or private sector, conflict is present also between these private actors) and old actors on the other hand (nation-states – state logic or public sector– the conflict between groups of states; between centre, periphery and semi-periphery, between the sovereign states and international intergovernmental organisations in search of new identity and legitimacy) and from the conflict between different levels of governance systems including: economic, political, strategic and diplomatic on the one side (the logic of global capital characterised by individualistic and corporate profit and self interest – hegemonic project of globalisation) and social, cultural, communicational, human rights, environmental, so human security and development sector on the other side (the logic of global Civilization designed to provide a good life for humanity – anti-hegemonic project of globalisation) starts three principal types of conflicts of globalisation: structural, functional and legitimacy, at both international and intra-national level, because in this interrelated world the artificial boundaries between international and intra-national conflicts are being erased.

2. Why is it happening?

Globalisation theorists draw attention to extremely important change, which have occurred in the organisation of financial markets. This change reinforces the position of states actors following neo-liberal economic strategies and constrains social democrats, consequentially eliminating existing welfare regimes. To answer this question we have to analyse at two levels: the surface structure and the deeper structure. At the surface structure we have: structural Anarchy, Security Dilemma, Power Politics, Resource Scarcity, Ascriptive Factors (Culture, Nationalism etc.), Interdependence. At the deeper structure we find the discursive lack of a new functional paradigm of theory of knowledge and international relations, which can create solidarity of the actual discursive gap between the process of Integration and Unity. The old paradigm of the theory of knowledge thought as that Human society is fragmented into isolated parts, which are frequently in conflict and this is starting from the axiom of selfish and aggressive human nature fighting for power and survival extended to human society¹⁰⁹. This fragmentation creates different world views based on different conflicting values (religious values generator for cultural values), interests (big finance private interest against national and general public interest, national security competition against evolving cooperative security paradigm so called security dilemma¹¹⁰). Let’s have a look on the classification of the causes and nature of conflict worked by Abduíl-Aziz Said and Charles O. Lerche.¹¹¹

Legitimacy conflict

The paradox of identity and reflexivity¹¹² is related to legitimacy conflict: minorities often see the state as no longer a advocate and guardian of domestic interests¹¹³, but to a certain extent a co-worker with outside forces…and the growth of reflexivity through large access to information, increase the “disobedience” of citizens. Thus, in the 1990’s it can be argued that the principal area of conflict may no longer be originate between states, but between the state and sub-national groups and individuals. Thus, reasons for conflict recline in questions of legitimacy; while its forms and ways of expression are culturally determined and influenced, international conflict is, consequently, no longer easily separated from racial, class or religious problems within the state and can be instrumented by political elites.¹¹⁴ (Authority crises)

Structural conflict

It is obvious on a global scale, where exists a mal-distribution of resources among states and people. Structural elements, such as asymmetrical relationships between states are considered at the core of international conflicts. Structure is described as a process whereby benefits in the system are distributed unequally, structure involves most visibly political and economic exchanges but also cultural, social interaction ¹¹⁵ and environmental aspects, like clean water and air. The actual form of globalisation, driven by economic power, obviously promotes the hegemony of Western culture and economic Model and corporations and creates structural losers and anti-political movements. (Distribution crises)

Functional conflict

Functional theorists have proposed that the states system does not effectively perform necessary global functions. This judgement is based on the hypothesis that an efficient world order must carry out certain tasks to afford a minimum of services to the world’s population. This strength includes such things as an effective communications network, adequate institutions for economic and security cooperation, and basic social welfare. Inefficiency in these areas results in human needs higher than the capacity of the existing structures available to address them; which, in turn, precipitates crises of legitimacy and conflict on both the intra-state and inter-state levels. ¹¹⁶ (Institutional crises)

3. How can this be judged?

In conclusion Globalisation process is evaluated as an “engine” of social conflict¹¹⁷ which creates institutional, authority and distribution crises because the actual global governance can’t accommodate the biggest contradiction between the two logics of globalisation, the logic of global capital characterised by individualistic and corporate profit and self interest, and the logic of global Civilization designed to provide a good life for humanity, so “the continuing gap between Unity and Integration in the contemporary world order foreshadows further tensions and conflicts¹¹⁸ until its institutions and processes of governance can accommodate both the universalising and the localizing effects of globalisation and both logics of globalisation”¹¹⁹, in other words the logic of private sector and the logic of public sector, by democratisation of actual global governance and structural foreign policy¹²⁰. The roots of conflict found in human nature has been proven wrong by current integrative approach of sciences and also the belief of Wilson that you get peace if you have free trade and democratic systems (capitalism is not democratic at all de facto), which in fact created discussed conflicts at international and intra-national level. Conflict arise from the dynamics of inter-state relations, power politics instead of normative politics, anarchy increase the likelihood of war in actual global order governed by death principals, Thanatos and less by life principal, Eros “the engine of unity”, as Freud understood. Let’s hope in the three activities virtues of “globalism” to bring unity trough solidarity: active communication for understanding, sharing of resources and mutual aid in difficult time.¹²¹

Annex 2

There are five interrelated categories of collective risk, uncertainty and instability: economic, armed conflict, political, societal and ecologic.

Five interrelated categories indicate the broad character and implications of collective future risks of globalisation:

• Risks of armed conflict, connected with external military inter­ventions, interstate wars, civil wars, and other forms of large-scale violence, as well as national and international terrorism.

• Risks resulting from the political destabilisation of governments, the sources of which may be internal – like revolutions and uprisings, separatist movements, ethnic problems, and the inefficiency of national and international political institutions – or external – such as unforeseen and unpredictable political actions of governments that adversely affect other states.

• Economic risks, the sources of which are widespread, such as the malfunctioning of the economic system and recessions in key countries; defaults by major debtors; adverse and unexpected consequences of technological changes; errors in major economic decisions; the collapse of international cooperation regimes (especially of those vital to the global economy, like the international financial system); the sudden imposition of limitations on the availability of resources and economic warfare.

• Societal risks caused by such diverse factors as large population increases; mass migrations; large-scale movements of refugees; social developments that overstretch a state’s capacity to provide adequate health and educational services; and ethnic, national, cultural, and religious problems.

• Ecological risks engendered by the general deterioration of the environment, sudden environmental crises, and natural catastrophes.

As well as identifying the sources of collective risk, we must also understand and take into account the sources of risk and instability that affect individual countries. Many of these countries may require international assistance in their risk management efforts. ¹²²

Annex 3

ERT’s PRIORITY ACTIONS for Job Creation and Competitiveness through Innovation

CHANGE ATTITUDES by promoting a European Society open to innovations in science, technology, business, living and working conditions:

Promote the spirit of enterprise throughout society, in industry, government, finance and education.

Ensure that sound and well-researched information on scientific breakthroughs, new products and services always gets through to the public.

CREATING NEW BUSINESSES means fostering entrepreneurship by removing obstacles to initiative and by rewarding risk-taking and success:

Establish supportive fiscal conditions for inventors, entrepreneurs and investors.

Drastically reduce the demands of bureaucracy and ensure that legislation does not penalise failure.

Get more from Europe’s RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT through introducing the Single Market concept to our research and academic communities:

Reform the patent systems in Europe, permitting single filling of a unitary patent for all Europe with non-translation obligations.

Promote biotechnology as one of the key technologies of the new Millennium and provide a more supportive external and regulatory environment.

Improve Europe’s KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS through re-igniting enthusiasm for innovation and entrepreneurship in the educational environment:

Build basic business education into school curricula and provide state of the art education in science and technology.

Promote an Innovation Year to bring the importance of innovation and entrepreneurship into the heart of schools and training colleges.

Free up more FINANCE AND RISK CAPITAL to fund businesses by injecting entrepreneurial attitudes into the world of finance and banking:

Remove restrictions on pension fund investment that hold back risk capital.

Expand access to risk capital markets and encourage the development of pan-European stock markets that target small high-growth companies.

Modernise GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATION through finding the right balance between freedom and rules for running local and global businesses, using a lighter approach to legislation as a positive tool:

Implement Single Market rules fully at national level.

Reform restrictive labour market rules to favour new jobs and types of employment.

1

Annex 4

A stable political and economic climate, able to promote a sustainable development

A greater predictability and stability of the economic environment, the improvement of the competitiveness on the internal market, that will lead to stimulation of the national companies in the spirit of increasing their productivity and efficiency by developing new products and services, the implementation of modern technologies and the diminution of production prices

Trade development, an important stimulus for national economy and labour market

An increased access to European capital and investment markets, to new equipment and informational technologies, to “know-how” management and organisational techniques of developed countries

The presence of Romanian companies on a huge and significant single market

Special opportunities induced by the implementation of Economic and Monetary Union

The increasing of national security through the integration in CFSP mechanisms

The ability to fully participate at the decision-making processes concerning the future structure of Europe

Increasing the prestige and consolidating Romania’s statute in its relations with other states, both political and economic granting to Romania’s citizens several rights deriving from “European citizenship”

The perspectives of further professional specialisation and increased access on European labour market for Romania’s nationals

These direct advantages have to be evaluated, as a correlative, also in terms of “lost opportunities” or new challenges, that would be generated by Romania’s non-integration into the EU:

Isolation and lack of participation at the decision-making processes, at the CFSP mechanisms, that would involve increased difficulties and expenses for an autonomous presentation on the political and economic arena

Romania’s economic isolation, as the EU is a major partner

The diminution of Romania’s goods’ access on community market

Increasing of Romania’s merchandise’s vulnerability in front of protection measures and technical obstacles that are to be found in EU’s policy vis-à-vis third countries

Increasing the economic gap between Romania and the EU member countries, mainly due to the impossibility of taking advantage from the community development funds

The diminution of further chances of alignment at the “acquis”, taking into account the permanent evolution of intra-community integration

Lack of agricultural competitiveness, due to non-participation at Common Agricultural Policy

The costs that have to be paid for bringing Romania’s economy and society at European standards must not be considered arbitrarily imposed through EU exigencies; such efforts and sacrifices are inherent in actual transition stage, as they do constitute the price for an inevitable reform“.

Annex 5

Public administration and some public services that are beneficiary of EU support for institutional building and training;

State monopolisies subsidized in the state budget or using restructuring funds from EU sources (electricity companies, railways, utilities and water supply);

Oil and gas industries;

Infrastructure and its rehabilitation, renovation, and restructuring;

Market institutions, including stock exchanges and commodity exchanges;

Beneficiary of EU regional cooperation funding at the municipality and regional level;

Small and medium-size enterprises supported by different schemes;

University education, research, and development (only for the beneficiary of EU funds; otherwise, state budget-funded entities are under strict budget constraints) More highly educated people involved on EU related issues (mainly international low, economics, engineering, high-quality services, banking and finance etc)

People speaking Major foreign languages;

Urban population;

Dynamic regions able to absorb resources efficiently;

All consumers benefiting from competition affecting prices, quality of products and services;

NGO able to be involve in International Cooperation;

Makers of foreign business policy;

All National minorities establishing a bridge to the mother country not yet member of the EU (Slovak, Croatian, ping process, Romanian minorities in Hungary)

All political parties or movements that get a better chance to become part of the decision-making or the public opinion shaping process, irrespective of weather they are supporting the integration of their country or opposing it (in the pre-accession period the anti-EU groups may substantially benefit in political terms, since not everybody will be enthusiastic about accession).¹²³

Annex 6

Calin Hay¹²⁴ in a very synthetically manner presented all these negative reaction to Globalisation in CEEC in four aspects:

Globalisation of economies as loss of jobs, with collapse of some industries producing structural unemployment for a rather high percentage of the population of blue collar workers producing an anti-political movement of the newly emerging parties of the extreme right

Globalisation of communication as a cultural shock, leading to attempts at the re-formation and re-assertion of national or ethnic-religious self-identity, even in its extreme forms of fundamentalisms – a clear adverse reaction to the demonstrative effect of Western consumption societies

Globalisation of World institutions as their activisation in crisis management reflected in success and failures of UN and/or NATO missions or those of the global monetary institutions, and leading with the demonisation of the IMF and other global actors

Globalisation of democratisation as both positive and negative responses, i.e. promotions of democracy or Reverse Waves (in Huntington’s term), Authoritarian renewals or façade democracies.

Annex 7

Alienation content

Alienation is a state of deprivation where human needs and potentialities at basic and higher levels of meaning are frustrated and unrealized. Persons become alienated from their own true being, when the choices are determined by external forces rather than internal conscious direction. As personal sovereignty is lost, he is losing his identity. Some find their identity in their national citizenship. When citizens lose power over the central decisions that determines their lives, this national identity becoming increasingly shallow. The rising incidence of violence, crime, drug addiction, alcoholism, family breakdown, mental illness, suicides and other symptoms of dehumanization and alienation are critical signs of the growing severity of this problem. Aggregate goals of nation state competition have subordinated human persons to serve as anonymous pawns of national and international policy making. Alienation, defined as a powerlessness of individual human persons to participate in the shaping of their own destinies, is the dominant characteristic of today national security societies.

Annex 8a

The maximalist solution: an alternative Social Europe

What are the possibilities for a more positive agenda designed to make more compatible monetary union and Social Europe compatible. One proposal is what Lipietz¹²⁵calls “ An alternative Social Europe” This regime would have four key functions but we will speak only about lowering high unemployment through the launch of the Europe-wide plan of recovery, similar to a traditional Keynesian recovery initiative, involving the state loose monetary and fiscal policy. This regime would involve the reorganizing of European labour market in the way that the social equity, ecological demands and economic performance are made compatible.

EU centre has to help the national and regional efforts at developing a third economic sector that would be heavily focused on ecological and social matters. EU centre has to innovate on the employment policy area: one example given by Lipietz is job-sharing. Without supranational Europe it is hard to see how this Social Europe could be democratically controlled. This plan paces big economic demands on the member states and they have to transfer a huge areas of economic and social governance from the national to European level.

Pragmatic reform

Three key reforms would be:

1. ensuring that Maastricht does not dismantle Europe’s automatic stabilizers

2. making it permissible for member states to spend a certain share of GDP on welfare matters

3. preventing of wage undercutting as a form of social dumping

Eichengreen ¹²⁶sets out a possible way in which this could be done. EU centre has to peg member states to a 3 per cent budget deficit rule should be replace by a new benchmark: the constant employment budget. Such proposal makes the question of unemployment policy a more central policy matter.¹²⁷

Annex 8b

Other interesting reform proposals have been put forward by Scharpf:¹²⁸

Member state should commit themselves to EU level regulations that establish multi-level social standards in order to check the slide into Hobbesian forms of competition between different national social rules. Member states should adopt a European directive that binds them not to push total welfare expenditure below a mutually agreed share of GDP. Embedding this informal consensus within an explicit EU regulation would send an important signal to the citizen of the member states that national governments are acting in defense of Social Europe. It would limit the opportunities for any member state to pursue an aggressive social dumping strategy.

The aim is to ensure that European Integration operates in a way conducive to the modernizing of Social Europe and economic citizenship, rather than in a way that threatens its very existence. At the Amsterdam European Council a specific chapter on employment was introduced into the Treaty, including a clause that commits the member states to attaining a high level of employment in the EU. The new British Government has signed the Social Chapter, thereby allowing its incorporation into the main body of the New Treaty. The political context for Social Europe has improved, with the return of left of centre governments in Britain, France and Germany. These are favourable trends, but they have to be translated into EU-wide policy reforms that would prove beneficial to national welfare and employment systems.

In conclusion. by deepening market interdependence between the member states it has placed further constraints on the region’s already ailing brand of welfare capitalism. MS find difficult to manage national welfare systems yet being unable to launch compensating initiatives at the EU level.

Annex 9

Sustainable development is an intuitively powerful concept that, as commonly understood, provides a useful guide for development practitioners. It involves trade-offs between biological, economic, and social systems and is found in the interactive zone between these systems. There are a number of international factors that may be necessary, but insufficient, conditions for sustainable development on a national level, including peace, debt reduction, more propitious terms of trade and non-declining foreign aid. There are also several dilemmas related to the concept, including the role of growth as the unquestioned objective of economic policy, techniques for measuring sustainable development, the trade-offs between conflicting environmental goals and the limited time and distance horizons of elected politicians. ¹²⁹

„The World Commission does not believe that a dismal scenario of mounting destruction of national global potential for development – indeed, of earth’s capacity to support life – is an inescapable destiny. The problems are planetary – but they are not insoluble. I believe that history will record that in this crisis the two greatest resources, land and people, will redeem the promise of development. If we take care of nature, nature will take care of us. Conservation has truly of age when it acknowledges that if we want to save part of the system, we have to save the system itself. This is the essence of what we call sustainable development. There are many dimensions to sustainability. First it requires the elimination of poverty and deprivation. Second, it requires the conservation and enhancement of the resources base which alone can ensure that the elimination of poverty is permanent. Third, it requires a broadening of the concept of development so that it covers not only economic growth, but also social and cultural development. Forth, and most important, it requires unification of economics and ecology in decision-making at all levels.“¹³⁰

„A major challenge of the coming decades is to learn how long-term large-scale interactions between environment and development can be better managed to increase the prospects for ecologically sustainable improvements in human well-being.“¹³¹

„Sustainable development: The ability of humanity to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.“¹³²

„We take development to be a vector of desirable social objectives. Elements include:

increases in real income per capita;

improvements in health and nutritional status;

education achievement;

access to resources;

a “fairer” distribution of income;

increases in basic freedoms.

Sustainable development is then a situation in which the development vector increases monotonically over time. We summarize the necessary conditions for sustainable development as “constancy of the natural capital stock.”¹³³

„A sustainable society is one that can persist over generations, one that is far-seeing enough, flexible enough, and wise enough not to undermine either its physical or its social systems of support.“¹³⁴

„Sustainability: A new way of life and approach to social and economic activities for all societies, rich and poor, which is compatible with the preservation of the environment.“¹³⁵

Annex 10

The Prospect for Humane Governance

Our hopes must continue to rest on the democratic energies of the peoples of the world, acting in all their diversity, yet conscious both of the threats that confront them and of the historic necessity to adapt emergent geo-governance to the realization of human rights.

Can humane governance become a reality, or is it merely a cry in the wilderness that is partly sentimental, partly utopian? What is known is that some totally unexpected turns of realty recently confounded the “experts” whose conventional wisdom have been allowed to delimit the horizon of plausible hope.

Geopolitics is being subordinated to the globalizing requirements of the world economy.

Avoidance of war and civil strife, relief of poverty, protection of neighborhoods against crime, control of ethnic, and cultural relations, of the human-centered struggle for security in the world. War itself is a profound source of acute insecurity, as evidenced by the large and rising number of refugees and internally displaced that result, as well as by casualty figures. The human impact is underscored by the realization that 80 per cent of the refugee population of women and children.

The perspectives of humane governance stress the accountability of elites and the participation by the peoples of the world and their directly elected representatives. It is necessary to explore the meaning of humane governance in a series of conceptual and policy settings, as well as some implications of conterprojects to shape geogovernance in more beneficial ways than those resulting from global market forces.

PARAGON’s mission is to promote an integrated, holistic policy framework that facilitates humane governance for human security and sustainable human development.

Human security reduces risks. PARAGON sees human security as composed of elements and analytical tools. The elements are freedom from fear, want and humiliation through safety, well-being and dignity. All of these elements are supported by rights, justice, services and sustainable human development. The analytical tools of human security include psycho-social analysis to measure the subjective elements (fear, want, humiliation, etc) and developmental indicators to measure the objective ones (rights, justice, etc).

Sustainable human development increases choice. Sustainable human development is the means and the process and end of expanding human capabilities for empowerment, inclusion in social processes and benefits through equal access to rights and services, and protecting future generations through sustainable resource and responsible debt management. This leads to poverty reduction.

Humane governance incorporates the concepts of governance, good governance and democratic governance. Thus, it is ‘the social capacity to set and achieve objectives’ [governance] with values of rule of law, legitimacy, efficacy and efficiency [good governance] and added values of representation, majority rule, minority rights and equality before the law [democratic governance]. Humane governance incorporates all these and adds the further values of being rights-based, pro-poor, pro-women’s equality, and pro-inclusion in general.

In sum, humane governance can be advanced through culture, policies and institutions that form an enabling environment for human security that reduces risk and sustainable human development that increases choice within an integrated, holistic policy framework”.¹³⁶

Annex 11

The United States and EU should launch a global « Marshall Plan» to provide evreyone on earth with a decent standard of living. We can already hear the cries of people that such global plan would cost too much. But let’s look at the numbers!

The cost of it was estimated to tens of billions of dollars, on top of an already large proposed defense budget of 342.7 billion $. A 1998 report of UNDP estimated the anual cost to achieve universal access to a number of basic social services in all developing countries: 9 billion $ would provide sanitation for all, 12 billion $ would cover reproductive health for all women; 13 billion would give every person on Earth basic health and nutrition; and 6 billion would provide basic education for all. Only a fraction of tens of billion of $, we are already spending. (780 bilion dolars every year)

Bibliography

Primary sources

Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995, pp.2-3

Communication from the Commission of the European Communities on Promoting the Role of Voluntary Organisations and Foundations in Europe, ref.: COM(97) 241 final

Commission Discussion Paper: The Commission and Non-Governmental Organisations: Building a Stronger Partnership, ref.: COM(2000) 11 final

Communication from the Commission, Second progress report on economic and social cohesion, Brussels, 30.01.2003COM(2003)/4, http://europe.org.ro/euroatlantic_club/,

ERT, Foundation for the Future of European Industry, Memorandum to EC Commission Davignon, mimec.1983

ERT, Reshaping Europe, A report from The European Round Table of Industrialists, Brussels,

1991

ERT, Opening up the business opportunities of EU enlargement, ERT Position paper and Analysis of the Economic Cost and Benefits of EU, http://www.ert.be pp.1-16

ERT report, How the business link to job creation, 1996, http://www.ert.be, pp. 1-16

ERT Enlargement Working Group chaired by Percy Barnevik, Research and analysis was provided by Heather Grabbe of the Centre for European Reform (CER) in London. The work was directed by Eric Vaes., May, 2001

European Commission, Growth, Competitiveness, Employment: The challenges and Ways Forward into the 21st Century. White Paper, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities., 1994

European Commission, First progress report on economic and social cohesion, COM (2002) 46 final of 30 January 2002.

European Commission, Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, COM (2001), 24 final of 31 January 2001.

European Commission, Towards the Enlarged Union, Strategy Paper and Report of the European Commission on the progress towards accession by each of the candidate countries {SEC (2002) 1400 – 1412}, Brussels, 9.10.2002 COM(2002) 700 final, p.7

European Commission, Strategy for Sustainability, Trade sustainability, World Summit on Sustainable development, Johanesbourg , 8 September, 2002, p.1

CESlink
http://www.esc.eu.int/CESlink/en/ceslink_e.htm
http://www.esc.eu.int/CESLink/en/activi_e.htm

Enlargement : Joint Consultative Committees
http://www.esc.eu.int/pages/en/enlarg.htm
http://www.esc.eu.int/pages/Enlarg/ccm/ELA_ccm_en.htm

ESC partners
http://www.esc.eu.int/pages/en/org/partners.htm

UNDP Governance for Sustainable Human development: A UNDP Policy Document, http://magnet.undp.org/policy/

UNDPParagon, http://www.undpparagon.org/rgp/29_center_files/humane_governance_for_human_security.htm

Secondary sources

Albert, M., Capitalism versus Capitalism, New York, Four Walls Eight Windows, 1993

Avery, G. Cameron, F. The Enlargement of the European Union, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1998;

Bell, J., and Mickiewicz, T., EU Accession and labour Markets in the Visegrad Countries, in K Henderson(ed) Back to Europe: Central and Eastern Europe and the European Union, London, UCL.Press, 1999,pp. 129-50

Bieler, A.,Globalisation and the Enlargement of the European Union, Austrian and Swedish Social forces in the struggle over membership, Routledge, London and New York, 2000,
pp.1-18, pp.138-165

Booth, K., Security and Emancipation, Review of International Studies, 17, 1991, pp.313-326,

Booth, K., World Security: Challenges for a new Century, New York, St.Martin’s Press, 1994.

Burgess, M., Federalism and European Union: the building of Europe, 1950-2000, Routlegde, London, 2000

Ceglowski, J., Has Globalization created a Bordless World ? in Globalization and New Challenges of New Century, ED. Mattheuw Krain, Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 2000, pp.101-112

Cerny, D., Globalization and other stories: the search for new paradigm of international relations, in International Journal, 2000, p.51

Christopher, L., Democracy in The European Union, Sheffield Academic Press, England, 1998

Cirtautas, A.M., In Pursuit of the Democratic Inters, The Institutionalization of Parties and Interest in Eastern Europe, in C.G.A. Bryand and E. Mokrzycki (ds) The New Great Transformation? Change and Continuity in Eastern Central Europe, London/New York, Routledge, 1994, pp.36-57

Clark, W. and R. Munn. Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Colin, H. and David Marsh, Demystifying Globalization, 2000, Polis University of Birmingham, p.133

Cox, R., Approaches to World Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. especially Chapter 6. For a historico-sociological approach,

Cox, R., Civil Society at the Turn of Millenium: Prospects for an Alternative World Order, Review of International Studies, 1999, pp. 3-28

Cox, R., Global Restructuring: Making Sense of the Changing International Political Economy, in Richard Stubbs and Geoffrey R. D. Underhill (eds), Political Economy and the Changing Global Order, London: Macmillan, 1994, p. 49.

Cox, R., Gramsci Hegemony, and International Relations, An Essay in Method, Millenium, 1983, pp.162-175.

Curzon Price, V. Reintegrating Europe, Economic Aspects in the Enlargement of European Union: Issues and Strategies, London? New York: Routledge,1999

Curzon, P., Landau A. V. and G.Whitman, Richard The Enlargement of the European Union Issues and Strategies, Routledge, London, 1999

David, B. Dewitt, Introduction: The New Global Order and the Challenges of International Security’, in David Dewitt, David Haglund and John Kirton (eds), Building a New Global Order: Emerging Trends in International Security, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1993, p.1.

Deudney, D. and G.John Ikenberry, the Logic of the West, World Policy Journal, Winter 1993-4

Devuyst, Y. Treaty reform in the EU: the Amsterdam Process, Journal of European Public Policy, 5(4), 1998, p.624

Dimitris N. Chryssochoou, Michael J. Tsinisizelis, Stelios Stavridis & Kostas Ifantis, Europe in Change, Geopolitical imperatives of system change order and security in post-Cold War Europe, Theory and reform in the European Union, Manchester University Press, 1999, New York, pp.83-104

Economist, 27 June 1998

Eichengreen, B., Saving Europe’s automatic stabililisers, National Institute Economic Review.nr.159

Eide, A. and Jan Helgesen, The future of Human rights protection in a changing world, Norwegian University Press, Oslo, 1991, pp.46-57

Falk, R., On humane Governance, Toward a New Global Politics, A report to the World Worder Models Project, chapter 1, From Geopolitics to Humane Governance, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995, p.10

Falkner, G, EU Social Policy in the 1990’s: Towards a corporatist Policy Community, London, Routledge, 1999

Germain, R.D. and M. Kenny, Engaging Gramsci, International Relations Theory and the New Gramscians’, Review of International Studies, 1998: pp.14-17

Grabbe, L., Hughes and Becker, British and German Interests in EU Enlargement, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, New York, 2001, p.111

Graham, A., The impact of Globalization on National and International Security, Governance in a Globalizing World, Ed J.D. Donahue, Harrisonburg: Brookings Institution Press, 2000, pp.72-85

Gramsci, A., Selection from the Prison Notebooks, ed. and trs Q. Hoare, London/ New York, Columbia University Press, 1971, pp.257-264

Gray,J., monograph, After Social Democracy, London, Demos, 1996

Gro Brundtland, H. “Sir Peter Scott Lecture,” Bristol, 8 October, 1986

Hanon, B., What Happened to Fortress Europe? External Trade Policy, Liberalisation in the European Union, International Organisation, 1998, pp.55-85

Hay, C. and Marsh, D., Demystifying Globalization, Polis University of Birmingham, 1999, p.32

Henderson, K. (ed) Back to Europe: Central and Eastern Europe and the European Union, London: UCL Press,1999

Hix, S., The Political System of European Union, London. Macmillan, 1999

Hix, S., The Study of European Community: The Challenge to Comparative Politics, West European Politics, 1994, pp1-30

Hoffmann, Obstinate or Absolite, The fate of the Nation State and the case of Western Europe’, Daedalus 95, 1966, p.910

Holland, S., Squaring the Circle, European Labour Forum, Summer, 15, 1995, pp.12- 23

Interview with an artist from Hungary, Kalman Ballog, 2000, Budapest

Interview with Angela Kocze, 2 July 2000, ex-director for Human Rights at ERCC

Kato, S., “Salzburg Seminar on Environment and Diplomacy.” September 3-10, 1994. Working Group on Sustainable Development. Manuscript on file at Salzburg Seminar, Salzburg Austria.

Kenneth Booth, Security and Emancipation, Review of International Studies, 17, 1991, pp.313-326; World Security: Challenges for a new Century, New York, St.Martin’s Press, 1994

Khagram, S., James V.Riker, Katrin Sikkink, Restructuring World Politics, Transnational Social Movements, Networks and Norms, University of Minisota Press, Minneapolis, London, 316

Lacher, H., Embedded Liberalism, Disembedded Markets, Reconceptualising Pax-Americana, New Political Economy, 1999,pp.343-360

Lerche, C. O. III, The conflicts of globalization, in International Journal of Peace Studies, Vol.3, No. 1, January 1998, pp. 7-11

Lerche, C.O.III, Economic Influence on Popular Disturbance in Nigeria, Journal of Asian and African Studies XV, 3-4, 1980, p.193

Lindberg, L.N The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1963, p.294

Lipietz, A., Social Europe the post Mastricht Challenge, Review of International Political Economy, vol.3, nr.3, 1996, p.374)

Lloyd, Axworthy, «Human Security and Global Governance: Puting people first in Global Governnace», V.1,issue 1, 2001, pp.19-23

Maresceau, M. (ed), Enlarging the Europe Union: Relations between the EU and CEE, London, 1997

Mayhew, A. Recreating Europe, The European Union’s Policy Towards Central and Eastern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998, p. 202

Mayhew, A., Recreating Europe: The European Union’s Policy towards CEE, Cambridge: Cambredge University Press, 1998

Meadows, D., et.al. Beyond the Limits. Post Mills, Vt: Chelsea Green Pub. Co., 1992

Murphy, C. N., International Organizations and Industrial Change, Cambridge Polity Press, 1994, p. 14

Pearce, D. , Barbier, E., Markandya, A.. “Sustainable Development and Cost- Benefit Analysis.” London Environmental Economics Centre, Paper 88-01.

Pollert, A., The transformation of Trade Unionism in the Capitalist and the Democratic Restructuring of the Czech Republic, European Journal of Industrial Relations 3,1997, pp.203-208, pp.208–9

Preston, C., Enlargement and the Integration in the European Union, London/New Yor: Routledge,1997

Rhodes, M. The future of the Social Dimension: Labour Market regulation in Post-1992 Europe, Journal of Common Market Studies, 1992, pp.23-51

Ritchie, M., Globalization vs. Globalism: Giving Internationalism a Bad Name, in Conference trade- strategy, 26 February, 1996

Rosenau, James N. Governance in the Twenty- first Century, Global Governance, 1 , 1995 13 –34

Said, A.A., Lerche, C.O.jr, C.O.Lerche III, chapter 7, Conflict and Conflict Resolution, Nature of Conflict, In Concepts of International Politics in Global Perspective, Englewood Cliffs N.J. Prentice Hall, 1995, pp.119-126

Sandholtz, Wayne and Stone Sweet, Alec European Integration and supranational governance Edited by, Oxford University Press 1998, New York

Scharpf, F., European Integration and welfare state, in Journal of European Public Policy,1977, vol.3, nr.2

Sinai, M., The future of Global Governance, United States Institute of Peace, 1994, p.259

Subrahmanyam, K., Alternative Security Doctrines, Bulletin of Peace Proposals 21, 1990, p85

Tang, H., Winners and losers of EU Integration, Policy issues for Central and Eastern Europe, IBRD, World Bank, Washington, D.C.20433, 2000

Teague, P. European Public Policy, Economic Citizenship in the European Union, Employment relation in the new Europe, Routledge, 1999, pp.185-210

Telo, M., European Union and New Regionalism, Brussels, PUB, 2001, pp.260- 266

Van Apeldoon, B., Transnationalism and the restructuring of of Europe’s Socio-Economic Order, in Internationl Jurnal of Political Economy, pp.12-35 1998

Van Apeldoorn, B. The Political Economy of Conflicting Capitalisms in the European Integration Process: A transnational perspective, RIES Research Paper, 31 November, 1996, p. 19

Van Apeldoorn, B., European Unemployment and Trasnational Capitalist Class Strategy: The Rise of Neoliberal Competitivness Discourss, Paper prepared for the workshop The Political Economy of Europe Unemployment, 23-27 March, ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops (University of Warwick) 1998, pp. 25-30

Van Den Berg, D.J, Opening Address by the Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affaires of the Netherlands, Report of the Conference Enlargement of the European Union with Central European Countries; Challenges and Constraints, The Hague, 17-18 March, 1995, p.2

Van der Pijl, K., What Happened to the European option for Eastern Europe?, in (eds.) A.Bieler, A.D.Morton Social forces in the Making of new Europe, The restructuring of European Social Relations in the Global Political Economy, 2001, pp.161-185

Warleigh, Alex, Flexible Integration, Which Model for the European Union? Sheffield Academic Press, England, 2002

Weis, Th., Governance, Good Governance, and Global Governance : Conceptual and actual challenges, Third World Quarterly, V 21, no 5, 2000, pp.795-814

World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987