20 Years After the Fall of the Berlin Wall 9.11.2009
The fall of the Berlin Wall– that in many ways symbolizes all the good things about Europe – has been engraved in our collective memory and it has shaped world history.
It was truly a transformative moment and one cannot forget the happiness on the people’s faces when they crossed the remains of the wall to shake hands, hug each other and simply to rejoice together so full of joy and optimism for the unification. In that hopeful atmosphere, ethics, social justice and transparency seemed in our reach. But where are we twenty years after?
This year is an important moment in the evolution of the European Union. We have the Treaty reform prepared and ready to go, and we have completed rounds of citizen consultations to guide us in the post-Lisbon strategy, the post-Kyoto climate treaty and the budget reform of 2012. The European Union will now, for the first time, have a bill of rights. But how far do these instruments reflect the optimism of Berlin 1989?
Let me quote from a European citizen (from a European citizen consultation website). He wrote:
“I have been a fervent supporter of Europe since the mid-60s. I still remain committed, although I sometimes feel frustrated and wavering in my support. Here is why: In the early days, we were told — and believed — that bureaucracy would be kept to the bare minimum, that transparency would be the order of the day, and economy would be strong etc. Instead, we have a growing bureaucracy, countless lobby groups reigning in Brussels, key meetings still held behind closed doors, and a seemingly endless list of directives issued with incomprehensible frequency. The latter may seem unimportant, but — certainly in some cases — they have created a growing army of EU-standards “inspectors” intent on applying with alarming alacrity the new rules whatever the circumstances – even now when some companies are going with the smallest imposition of an EU fine. Instead of this I would like to see: More openness,?less bureaucracy, transparency?documents in plain English and Europe speaking with one voice!” (end of quote)
It seems that transparency remains a major issue. The modern globalised and regionalized world is complicated for the citizen. In embarking on an ever larger and ever more deeply integrated European Union, have we really done our best to decrease complexity and make governance transparent to citizens in the ways and terms that our citizens expect? Or has the European layer in some instances made even the national decision-making less transparent? Each one of us having served in high public office must reflect on these questions carefully.
At the end of the cold war government secrecy and intelligence services faced a new era of freedom of information and of the protection of personal data and privacy. A cultural change in the field of information has swept across Europe and it has been forceful. The European Union has opened up, effective dissemination of information has become a priority, the direct representation of the citizens through the European Parliament has gained an important place in the decision-making of the Union. The national governments have also been subjected to a whole new level of scrutiny by the citizens and the media, who demand accountability and transparency even for pacts that have traditionally been made as “gentlemen’s agreements”.
The increase of openness and transparency in governance took a few steps back in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the ensuing global anti-terrorist policies. Throughout the world security policies were quickly redrafted and intelligence was stepped up.
The terror and horror of the attacks – including in London and Madrid – made many of us feel frustrated, pessimistic and disappointed. As a consequence of the shocking events, certain policy reactions were not fully contemplated and went overboard both in the United States and in Europe.
It was sometimes sadly forgotten that we cannot fight terrorism with measures that compromise human rights. After at least 50 years of building up human rights law, it was forgotten that they are the basis of any socially sustainable future for Europe, therefore, compromising them even in individual cases will have a negative effect on our common security.
On the positive side, we saw how quickly and vocally the citizens’ groups, the media, the European Parliament and the Council of Europe reacted to the excesses with investigations, reports and outcries.
It was a stark reminder that our core values and principles of openness, due process, access to justice, and democratic decision-making can come under challenge and that we must defend them every day.
It is not an accident that transparency became the key word when we prepared the reform of the European Union and the charter of the fundamental rights and freedoms. The unquestionable fact was that our common European future needed a solid and transparent basis in individual rights that should not only be tacitly understood, but should be listed openly in a European constitution.
The European citizen that I just quoted was an Irishman – his quote points at the reasons why so many Europeans voted against the Constitution: although they wanted openness and clarity, they were not sure how much of these they were getting from the European Union. In other words, the Constitution seemed to give either too little or too late – or in too complicated and non-transparent terms. It now remains our challenge on both national and European levels to do away with the doubts, uncertainties, the remaining closed doors, the walls of non-transparency and the lack of accountability – those things that are quite legitimate grounds for opposition.
The current reform of the European Union up to now aims at stronger human rights and social justice at the European level. Social justice is something that we have been used to debating on the national level and in the national context. It seems that we all have our specific circumstances, our traditions and issues. In the Europe of today we cannot think only nationally. The futures of the European citizens are entwined with each other.
The current economic and market situation demonstrates it very well. Our national governments did not know how to prevent the credit crisis. The complexity of the global financial market has increased enormously. No-one was able to see the whole picture before it was too late. The financial crisis that begun in the United States quickly spread around the entire world. The economic interdependence forced the global economy into a recession. Similarly, the way to an upturn must proceed through interdependent and mutually co-ordinated measures.
We need to work together to revise the rules of transparency and standards of accountability in our common market, in particular the financial market. And we must articulate our ethics because ethics are what we must hold on to when we face unprecedented events and phenomena. Ethics tell us, for instance, that just because something is not forbidden doesn’t mean it is permitted. In another field — in food and environmental safety — we Europeans have called it “the precautionary principle”. We have fought for our right to apply precaution to, for instance, genetically manipulated organisms and other innovations when our ethical selves tell us that we must reflect carefully before acting and that we cannot rely on any ready-made rule. We have fought for this principle in the World Trade Organization in order to qualify the absolute freedom of trade. We may now regret that we had not been equally influenced by our ethics and applied the precautionary principle to the international financial trade that spun completely out of control.
Be that as it may, the consequences of the financial crisis have hit our economies and caused a lot of social insecurity. People have lost their jobs, companies have lost their business, many are struggling to keep their homes and their hopes. On the public side, most European states have been protected from the fate of Iceland but, for instance, our municipalities and regions are suffering deeply. It was suggested before the downturn that European solidarity had been exhausted with the ambitious enlargement of the previous decade. That never happened. European solidarity has not been exhausted. It still lives on. We have shown that we can go together. Most of us see now that our common market is a network of companies, credit institutions and public organizations in all of these 27 member states and their more numerous regions. (We cannot cure each economy individually.) We must think in European terms about the drivers of the next upturn. When in the 90s we found the upward spin in our IT- and other advanced technologies and their new markets, this time we shall need something more sophisticated and even more unique.
It seems to me that the strength of our interdependent Europe is precisely our ability to come together: To include each other in our plans and future goals and show trust and solidarity across the borders. Social justice is about the same principle of inclusion – we do not leave each other out and we give consideration to each other’s needs on an equal footing.
Today we face unemployment, migration of European companies outside the Union, we question our subsidies, seek ways to foster small businesses and increase enterprise, secure pensions and welfare and make sure that the supply and demand of labor meet — these are the issues that we must address on the European level.
To some extent we already have done so but it seems that our efforts have not been enough. I admire the spirit of the German people following the unification. It seemed that everyone knew the goals and contributed to the social and economic strategies. It was not easy but the German people did manage to pull off this immense challenge. How can we see something similar at the European level?
History shows us that walls come and go – it shows us that exclusion and closure is not a sustainable policy. The ethical essence of the European Union lies in its inclusiveness and openness. We are taking down the internal walls and we are reaching out to our neighbors. We work together to achieve internal social justice – equality and wellbeing in addition to prosperity.
Externally, we have the same goals. We have created the Transatlantic pact, the Mediterranean Union, partnerships along our Eastern borders, and conventions for development. It is fair to say that the social and human capital that is at the disposal of our European project is the richest in the world when we count together our members and our partners. These huge resources can be harvested with co-operative policies that are based on our key values. With the current crisis it has become evident that the future cannot be built on a shortsighted economic game.
Our citizens also demand sustainable futures rather than quick wins; they emphasize reformed labor market policies including occupational health and wellbeing and social justice.
It is clear that these will not be built on economic or political quicksand, and they are issues that transcend national borders. We must begin to focus on mid- and longterm structures and planning to lay the groundwork for economic and social justice and sustainability. This is the way to get out of the recession and maintain prosperity long into the future.
Since plans are always only plans and no-one has the crystal ball, our ultimate decisions will always have to be checked against our personal and social ethics. The private sector has long been developing corporate social and ethical responsibility, and it seems that this year we have also witnessed a wake-up call for ethics in many national policy arenas.
Notwithstanding the need to develop funding standards at national and European levels, there will always be situations that the rules do not cover and where we must rely on our ethics – Ethics must kick in when there is no law and when we do not know how to act. But ethics are not easily tested or verified: How do we know who has ethics and who only talks about them? Our ethics exist only as far as we are clear and firm about it.
Our globalized Europe is a complex network of people and issues – and all possible futures can never be predicted nor regulated for. Thus, ethical and open governance is indispensable.
I have a great trust in European institutions and people, and their capacity to change and desire for progress.
The fall of the Berlin Wall– that in many ways symbolizes all the good things about Europe – has been engraved in our collective memory and it has shaped world history.
It was truly a transformative moment and one cannot forget the happiness on the people’s faces when they crossed the remains of the wall to shake hands, hug each other and simply to rejoice together so full of joy and optimism for the unification. In that hopeful atmosphere, ethics, social justice and transparency seemed in our reach. But where are we twenty years?
This year is an important moment in the evolution of the European Union. We have the Treaty reform prepared and ready to go, and we have completed rounds of citizen consultations to guide us in the post-Lisbon strategy, the post-Kyoto climate treaty and the budget reform of 2012. The European Union will now, for the first time, have a bill of rights. But how far do these instruments reflect the optimism of Berlin 1989?
Let me quote from a European citizen (from a European citizen consultation website). He wrote:
“I have been a fervent supporter of Europe since the mid-60s. I still remain committed, although I sometimes feel frustrated and wavering in my support. Here is why: In the early days, we were told — and believed — that bureaucracy would be kept to the bare minimum, that transparency would be the order of the day, and economy would be strong etc. Instead, we have a growing bureaucracy, countless lobby groups reigning in Brussels, key meetings still held behind closed doors, and a seemingly endless list of directives issued with incomprehensible frequency. The latter may seem unimportant, but — certainly in some cases — they have created a growing army of EU-standards “inspectors” intent on applying with alarming alacrity the new rules whatever the circumstances – even now when some companies are going with the smallest imposition of an EU fine. Instead of this I would like to see: More openness,?less bureaucracy, transparency?documents in plain English and Europe speaking with one voice!” (end of quote)
It seems that transparency remains a major issue. The modern globalised and regionalized world is complicated for the citizen. In embarking on an ever larger and ever more deeply integrated European Union, have we really done our best to decrease complexity and make governance transparent to citizens in the ways and terms that our citizens expect? Or has the European layer in some instances made even the national decision-making less transparent? Each one of us having served in high public office must reflect on these questions carefully.
At the end of the cold war government secrecy and intelligence services faced a new era of freedom of information and of the protection of personal data and privacy. A cultural change in the field of information has swept across Europe and it has been forceful. The European Union has opened up, effective dissemination of information has become a priority, the direct representation of the citizens through the European Parliament has gained an important place in the decision-making of the Union. The national governments have also been subjected to a whole new level of scrutiny by the citizens and the media, who demand accountability and transparency even for pacts that have traditionally been made as “gentlemen’s agreements”.
The increase of openness and transparency in governance took a few steps back in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the ensuing global anti-terrorist policies. Throughout the world security policies were quickly redrafted and intelligence was stepped up.
The terror and horror of the attacks – including in London and Madrid – made many of us feel frustrated, pessimistic and disappointed. As a consequence of the shocking events, certain policy reactions were not fully contemplated and went overboard both in the United States and in Europe.
It was sometimes sadly forgotten that we cannot fight terrorism with measures that compromise human rights. After at least 50 years of building up human rights law, it was forgotten that they are the basis of any socially sustainable future for Europe, therefore, compromising them even in individual cases will have a negative effect on our common security.
On the positive side, we saw how quickly and vocally the citizens’ groups, the media, the European Parliament and the Council of Europe reacted to the excesses with investigations, reports and outcries.
It was a stark reminder that our core values and principles of openness, due process, access to justice, and democratic decision-making can come under challenge and that we must defend them every day.
It is not an accident that transparency became the key word when we prepared the reform of the European Union and the charter of the fundamental rights and freedoms. The unquestionable fact was that our common European future needed a solid and transparent basis in individual rights that should not only be tacitly understood, but should be listed openly in a European constitution.
The European citizen that I just quoted was an Irishman – his quote points at the reasons why so many Europeans voted against the Constitution: although they wanted openness and clarity, they were not sure how much of these they were getting from the European Union. In other words, the Constitution seemed to give either too little or too late – or in too complicated and non-transparent terms. It now remains our challenge on both national and European levels to do away with the doubts, uncertainties, the remaining closed doors, the walls of non-transparency and the lack of accountability – those things that are quite legitimate grounds for opposition.
The current reform of the European Union up to now aims at stronger human rights and social justice at the European level. Social justice is something that we have been used to debating on the national level and in the national context. It seems that we all have our specific circumstances, our traditions and issues. In the Europe of today we cannot think only nationally. The futures of the European citizens are entwined with each other.
The current economic and market situation demonstrates it very well. Our national governments did not know how to prevent the credit crisis. The complexity of the global financial market has increased enormously. No-one was able to see the whole picture before it was too late. The financial crisis that begun in the United States quickly spread around the entire world. The economic interdependence forced the global economy into a recession. Similarly, the way to an upturn must proceed through interdependent and mutually co-ordinated measures.
We need to work together to revise the rules of transparency and standards of accountability in our common market, in particular the financial market. And we must articulate our ethics because ethics are what we must hold on to when we face unprecedented events and phenomena. Ethics tell us, for instance, that just because something is not forbidden doesn’t mean it is permitted. In another field — in food and environmental safety — we Europeans have called it “the precautionary principle”. We have fought for our right to apply precaution to, for instance, genetically manipulated organisms and other innovations when our ethical selves tell us that we must reflect carefully before acting and that we cannot rely on any ready-made rule. We have fought for this principle in the World Trade Organization in order to qualify the absolute freedom of trade. We may now regret that we had not been equally influenced by our ethics and applied the precautionary principle to the international financial trade that spun completely out of control.
Be that as it may, the consequences of the financial crisis have hit our economies and caused a lot of social insecurity. People have lost their jobs, companies have lost their business, many are struggling to keep their homes and their hopes. On the public side, most European states have been protected from the fate of Iceland but, for instance, our municipalities and regions are suffering deeply. It was suggested before the downturn that European solidarity had been exhausted with the ambitious enlargement of the previous decade. That never happened. European solidarity has not been exhausted. It still lives on. We have shown that we can go together. Most of us see now that our common market is a network of companies, credit institutions and public organizations in all of these 27 member states and their more numerous regions. (We cannot cure each economy individually.) We must think in European terms about the drivers of the next upturn. When in the 90s we found the upward spin in our IT- and other advanced technologies and their new markets, this time we shall need something more sophisticated and even more unique.
It seems to me that the strength of our interdependent Europe is precisely our ability to come together: To include each other in our plans and future goals and show trust and solidarity across the borders. Social justice is about the same principle of inclusion – we do not leave each other out and we give consideration to each other’s needs on an equal footing.
Today we face unemployment, migration of European companies outside the Union, we question our subsidies, seek ways to foster small businesses and increase enterprise, secure pensions and welfare and make sure that the supply and demand of labor meet — these are the issues that we must address on the European level.
To some extent we already have done so but it seems that our efforts have not been enough. I admire the spirit of the German people following the unification. It seemed that everyone knew the goals and contributed to the social and economic strategies. It was not easy but the German people did manage to pull off this immense challenge. How can we see something similar at the European level?
History shows us that walls come and go – it shows us that exclusion and closure is not a sustainable policy. The ethical essence of the European Union lies in its inclusiveness and openness. We are taking down the internal walls and we are reaching out to our neighbors. We work together to achieve internal social justice – equality and wellbeing in addition to prosperity.
Externally, we have the same goals. We have created the Transatlantic pact, the Mediterranean Union, partnerships along our Eastern borders, and conventions for development. It is fair to say that the social and human capital that is at the disposal of our European project is the richest in the world when we count together our members and our partners. These huge resources can be harvested with co-operative policies that are based on our key values. With the current crisis it has become evident that the future cannot be built on a shortsighted economic game.
Our citizens also demand sustainable futures rather than quick wins; they emphasize reformed labor market policies including occupational health and wellbeing and social justice.
It is clear that these will not be built on economic or political quicksand, and they are issues that transcend national borders. We must begin to focus on mid- and longterm structures and planning to lay the groundwork for economic and social justice and sustainability. This is the way to get out of the recession and maintain prosperity long into the future.
Since plans are always only plans and no-one has the crystal ball, our ultimate decisions will always have to be checked against our personal and social ethics. The private sector has long been developing corporate social and ethical responsibility, and it seems that this year we have also witnessed a wake-up call for ethics in many national policy arenas.
Notwithstanding the need to develop funding standards at national and European levels, there will always be situations that the rules do not cover and where we must rely on our ethics – Ethics must kick in when there is no law and when we do not know how to act. But ethics are not easily tested or verified: How do we know who has ethics and who only talks about them? Our ethics exist only as far as we are clear and firm about it.
Our globalized Europe is a complex network of people and issues – and all possible futures can never be predicted nor regulated for. Thus, ethical and open governance is indispensable.
I have a great trust in European institutions and people, and their capacity to change and desire for progress.
