European Union

Plenary sessions : Ensaf Haidar accepted the 2015 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought on Wednesday on behalf of her husband Raif Badawi, a Saudi human rights activist who remains in prison. A day earlier, Eurogroup President Jeroen Dijsselbloem attended plenary for the first time to discuss the euro, while the European Commission presented its plan for reinforcing the EU's external borders.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

If you are not European enough but nevertheless have been living in Europe, and especially in Western Europe, for a while, it is almost impossible not to hear the following statement: “Europeans are racist.” It is an echo of Palestine-born American literary critic Edward Said’s famous conclusion that he arrived in his classic book Orientalism: “Every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.” In a more globalized, polymorphous, fluid world where the borders are becoming more and more porous, this echo consequently sounds higher than its original; now, the Orient can be replaced by not only any non-European identity, but also some Europeans that are not European enough such as East Europeans.

Therefore, the statement that “Europeans are racist” constitutes a basic fact, a state of affairs, for millions of people living in Europe. When one grasps the gravity of this staggering situation, it takes only one step to understand the current crises in Europe, how some certain cities in Europe could have become a home for jihadists who hate Europe, how people who grew up in Europe could commit such barbaric crimes towards their “own” people?

However, the problem is that that one step is usually taken too hastily by ignoring the tremendously complex and novel aspects of these phenomena. That is, that enormously heavy statement passes before us too fast, too unreflectively. It seems to me that we take for granted too easily the “fact” that “Europeans are racist” without clearly knowing what we mean by “racism.” Rather than paying attention to the peculiarity of what is happening before us, we are still trying to fit current phenomena to previous schema; and hence, we conclude, “Europeans are racist” and that is precisely the reason why these are happening today, the reason behind Europe’s failure. But then I wonder: By repeating this reasoning over and over again, are we doing justice to Europe that has changed enormously after Second World War, which has now entirely new generations who have grown up in a Europe without internal borders, in a Europe that is becoming gradually intercultural? Are taking into consideration these facts when we accuse Europeans of being racist?

Having lived in three different Western European countries, to be sure, I would not argue that Europeans are not racist. I felt and am still feeling that I do not belong here, there are existential walls hidden behind kind smiles. I am aware of this. But still, I do not believe that the image of the racist that pops up in our mind (which still has strong connotations from cold-war era) when we accuse Europeans of being such, corresponds to the racism that we have in contemporary Europe. To be sure, there are still people, for example, who thinks that just because they are white, they are superior; but I do not believe that they constitute the majority of Western Europe, that they reflect the genuine ideas of an ordinary “white man” in the streets of Western Europe.

Then if we ask “What is this new racism? What distinguishes it from its preceding forms?”, I would answer by proposing a notion round which contemporary racism articulates itself – namely, ambivalence.

Let me try to explain what I mean by ambivalence.

As a non-European living in Europe for almost six years, it has been quite rare that I could make a Western European friend. But what is even more surprising is that I could never make a friend who was from the country I currently was living in. Absurdity of this might make you think that, it is a personal issue, but I assure you that these are quite common phenomena, as you can also see in the compartmentalization within cities amongst different cultures.

What I have noticed in this absurd reality was that I could only become friends with a certain type of a European and the condition that made our friendship possible was not that they were “open to the Other” – as it is commonly assumed. The discourse of the Other, by setting an impossible ideal for itself (namely, unconditional openness to the other), in fact impaired its own possibility. It was, in other words, too demanding to expect from someone to be open to such an extent that that very openness results in devouring his/her own singularity. Neither was it fair. What I have noticed therefore was that, rather than to the Other, they were open to ambivalence. They did not leave their singularity behind, that which makes them what they are, but nevertheless they were okay with the possibility of contamination. They were aware of the fact that ambivalence was the very ground on which different cultures meet. They were neither absolutely open, nor unconditionally closed. Rather, they were not quite sure, as the word ambivalence itself beautifully conveys, they had “mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about” what was going on. It was precisely the uncertainty, unsureness that comes with ambivalence which they were open to. Of course, we were making “racist jokes”, mocking each other; that is to say, there was no “political correctness”, no “discourse of the Other” between us; rather we were negotiating our differences, and this was precisely the way we could get to know each other. It was both the price and the gift of accepting ambivalence, that is, of not being afraid of contamination – the very acceptance that there can be no pure, untouched cultures.

On the other hand, there were the majority of Europeans beyond whose kind smiles I could not take a single step further. They were always gentle and kind, so incessantly were they smiling that, sooner or later, it lost its meaning. It did not matter anymore if they were smiling at me, or if it was the default setting of their character towards the Other. They were taught to respect the Other; no matter what, they had to respect the Other – which means, first of all, that they needed to have the Other. As Sartre put years ago, if there were no Other, they would have to invent it indeed – but with a slight difference this time, not to dehumanize but to respect him or her! So they invented me. Whenever we encountered, it was not me who they saw, it was rather a general figure, a category, of their own imagination which they invented to respect. The question if they really had any sympathy, admiration, interest, or knowledge about that which they respected was of no importance at all. The Other, on this account, was just an undifferentiated, blank face who was put into distance and hindered from any possibility of touching their singularity; and this was done precisely by respecting his or her otherness. What they really wanted was thus “un-contamination”; and they had the strongest tool for building insuperable walls between “them” and “us”, to keep “themselves” safe from people like me, from the Other. That tool was “political correctness:” an indifferent respect, a desolate smile. What they deny was precisely ambivalence that ensues from the cultural encounters. They did not want it. That equivocation scared them. They rather insisted on their conformity and security with which they were endowed by the alleged purity of their singularity, call it, whiteness, Dutchness, Germanness, or Flemishness. And furthermore, they asked themselves, “Why on earth would we leave the safe borders of our singularity while everything outside is falling apart? Why would we really open ourselves to them while we could still enjoy the privileges of being white, European, and wealthy? Why would we welcome ambivalence and become not so sure about our own singularities, while millions of people waiting behind our borders to become one of us?” They thought that they had enough reasons to be the way they are, they acted as if they knew what they are, what whiteness, Dutchness, Germanness, or Flemishness essentially consists in. As such essences returned to us in a new fashion which demanded un-contamination precisely by respecting the Other.

Hence, when you face this smiling racism, you know that everything has been decided for you at the very moment when you say where you are from – at that very moment you become a blank face that has to be respected. No doubt that he or she will tell you how beautiful your country was when they visited it, after all what is the non-European world but, as it were, an enormous zoo for the European. They pay the entrance fee (for them it it cheap), walk around the world, look at us who are dwelling behind the fences, feed us, and leave. And when they encounter one of “us” beyond those fences, of course, they would say how beautiful our cage was, which is a “politically correct” way of saying “You are not one of us! Remember your place!” Liberal multiculturalism and political correctness are perfect tools to keep “them” outside even when “they” are inside, keep “our” cultures un-contaminated by draining others of any significant singularity.

What I have tried to reveal with the latter type is precisely what I meant by the new form of racism that took hold of contemporary Europe today. What is important to notice there is that this new form of racism is not a reactive hate, not a projection of our own wickedness. It is rather a peculiar, insidious defense mechanism, a selfish nihilism that is trying to cling onto the very last piece of privilege and joy before the world collapses. It is a consoling lie that Europeans tell themselves in order to remain blind to the atrocities around the world. It is not simply lacking consideration for the other people, rather it is a stubborn attempt to deny that they do not care about other people. It is a generous way of becoming selfish.

Though essences returned, European racism is no longer a form of Nazism. It has also learned from its mistakes. Therefore, it has a very idiosyncratic, self-agonizing structure, for deep inside it knows very well that it has to acknowledge ambivalence, that what it is doing is selfish and hypocritical, that it cannot remain pure and un-contaminated — nothing can! Its explicit denial (i.e., respect for the Other) indicates the hope trapped behind its nihilist surface. Put differently, political correctness and teh stubborn attempts to live together show that contemporary racism in Europe does not derive any longer from prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against some certain people, rather it derives from nihilism. By nihilism, I am referring to the last man of Nietzsche, to quote from Slovaj Zizek’s article on Charlie Hebdo massacre:

Long ago Friedrich Nietzsche perceived how Western civilisation was moving in the direction of the Last Man, an apathetic creature with no great passion or commitment. Unable to dream, tired of life, he takes no risks, seeking only comfort and security, an expression of tolerance with one another: “A little poison now and then: that makes for pleasant dreams. And much poison at the end, for a pleasant death. They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health. ‘We have discovered happiness,’ – say the Last Men, and they blink.

The contemporary racism in Europe no longer consists in the alleged superiority of the racist. To the contrary, the racist no longer cares about the Other. The Other is a blank face that he respects. The less the racist knows about the Other and his culture (though he knows all the stereotypes and cliches about it), the better for him, for then he can wallow in his comfort and security and enjoy his life that he loves so much without having have to think about the Other. Beyond that blank face, there is a risk for him, there is ambivalence. Why would he care? If you force him, if you insist on having a face before him, if you insist on existing, he would shout in distress and pain:

“I respect you whoever you are, is this not enough?”

I venture to say, no, it is not.

I can easily find substantial reasons to join the chorus and repeat that “Europeans are racist”, for many years I have been living in countries where I have been treated as if I am one of those TV channels which do not have any signal. Countless times I experienced that abrupt and brutal transformation into an undifferentiated, blank face, that sudden collapse into nothingness accompanied by kind, politically correct, gestures of the Europeans. Yet, I do believe that there is something peculiar about this attitude which, instead of being dismissed, if it can be understood properly, maybe, can be transformed into a new form where ambivalence is slowly being accepted so that we can finally in the genuine sense of the word begin living together.

The post Are Europeans racist? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/e6b8880e-a330-11e5-b1a5-bc764e084e2e_4.3_thumb_169_1450187498_1450187498_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU leaders are expected to decide further measures to reinforce  EU action against terrorism and discuss migration topics, the Five presidents' report on the Economic and Monetary Union, the completion of the single market and a forward-looking climate policy following a historic climate deal at the COP21 in Paris. The European Council also discusses the state of play on the referendum in the UK over EU membership and is expected to adopt conclusions on Syria.

Download this video here.

Good evening. Today, leaders discussed the handling of the migration crisis. All the elements of a strategy are there, but there is still a delivery deficit when it comes to hotspots, relocation, resettlement and returns. Above all, we are failing to protect our external borders. That is why leaders have decided to speed up on all these issues.

In my view, the most important discussion today was on the EU's external borders. Not only because I have been advocating external border control from the very beginning of this crisis, but also because without it we will fail as a political community. And by that I mean potentially more serious consequences than dismantling Schengen. Tonight, we can be a bit more optimistic, because all leaders have agreed to protect Schengen. In this context, we agreed to rapidly examine the European Commission's proposal of strengthening the EU's external borders, including the European Border Guard idea. Ministers should adopt their position by July, but the leaders' broad acceptance means that in the future Europe will not remain vulnerable because the Schengen border is insufficiently protected.

This evening I have also received good news from Frontex about an agreement with Greece on deploying a Rapid Border Intervention Team already in December. This is yet another indication that we have started to move in the right direction when it comes to the protection of the external border.

On the UK, we had a substantive and constructive discussion over dinner. I didn't want to sound too dramatic before the meeting but I do believe that tonight was a make-or-break moment. Prime Minister Cameron set out in detail his position, in particular regarding benefits and free movement. He explained his request for a model based on four years and reiterated the openness to alternative solutions only if they could achieve the same objective. Leaders voiced their concerns, but also demonstrated willingness to look for compromises. Building on this positive debate, we agreed to work together to find solutions in all four baskets raised by PM Cameron. Hard work on all baskets is still ahead of us. First, we will work closely with the UK and the Commission. And in the run-up to the February European Council, I will table a concrete text to all the leaders.

The European Council will reconvene tomorrow at 10 to discuss strengthening the Economic and Monetary Union and the Energy Union, as well as the fight against terrorism. Thank you

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/e1f8a368-a4ec-11e5-bd9d-bc764e08d9b2_308.14_thumb_169_1450378061_1450378060_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU leaders are expected to decide further measures to reinforce  EU action against terrorism and discuss migration topics, the Five presidents' report on the Economic and Monetary Union, the completion of the single market and a forward-looking climate policy following a historic climate deal at the COP21 in Paris. The European Council also discusses the state of play on the referendum in the UK over EU membership and is expected to adopt conclusions on Syria.

Download this video here.

The European Union welcomes the signature of the Libya Political Agreement, and pledges support to the upcoming Government of National Accord. 

A historic step has been taken today towards restoring peace and stability for the Libyan people. The signature of the Libya Political Agreement by representatives of the members of the House of Representatives and General National Congress, Independents, Municipalities, political parties and civil society paves the way to a peaceful solution to a terrible crisis that has divided, impoverished, and inflicted so much suffering on the Libyan people, and which poses a growing threat not just to Libya itself but also its neighbours, including the EU. 

The EU pledges its support to the upcoming Government of National Accord, and will no longer have official contacts with individuals claiming to be part of institutions which are not validated by the Libya political agreement. 

The EU stands ready to offer immediate and substantial support in a number of different areas that will be prioritised together with the Libyan authorities: a 100 million euro aid package is already available including for the delivery of services the Libyan population urgently needs. 

The EU underlines the Libyan ownership of this process and the importance of continuing to keep it open and inclusive. The responsibility lies with the Libyans for the successful implementation of the agreement and the EU, and the international community stand ready to support them in this endeavour. The EU expresses its gratitude to UNSMIL and the UNSGSR Martin Kobler for the dedication and skill they have shown in bringing Libyan parties together for this important step.

OPINION on the prevention of radicalisation and recruitment of European citizens by terrorist organisations
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Charles Tannock

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

OPINION on Private sector and development
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Sabine Lösing

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

OPINION on the recommendations to the European Commission on the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Francisco José Millán Mon

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

OPINION on the European Energy Security Strategy
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Arne Lietz

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 introducing exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union's Stabilisation and Association process and suspending its application with regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Cristian Dan Preda

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

OPINION on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council providing macro-financial assistance to Ukraine
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Jacek Saryusz-Wolski

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, Section III – Commission and executive agencies
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Anneli Jäätteenmäki

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP