Lukes Transcript. OY: Olya Yordanyan TR: Toria Rainey IL: Igor Lukes

Transcription

1 Lukes Transcript OY: Olya Yordanyan TR: Toria Rainey IL: Igor Lukes OY: Welcome to the EU Futures Podcast, exploring the emerging future in Europe. I am Olya Yordanyan, an Outreach Coordinator at the BU Center for the Study of Europe. Today is April 22 nd and my colleague Toria Rainey talks to Igor Lukes, a Professor of Practice of International Relations and History at Boston University and Honorary Consul General of the Czech Republic in New England. IL: Well, that s a very tall order, so many questions, I've already forgotten all of them. I was born in in Prague. I am a historian by training. I work on a project that has to do with the early stages of the Cold Car. And I'm a professor at Boston university. TR: Alright, we re just going to jump right in and talk a little bit about the European Union today. How do you see the European Union today? What do you see as the main policy areas that are problematic? Are there things that you think are working well? And what is wrong with the current political systems? IL: Well, I need to start with an admission that this is not my field of research. I am a historian as I said and I spend most of my time working with archival documents, and to tell you the truth, I don't think very highly of this kind of talk about, you know, European Union. It's all a matter of opinion, right? There is so many, the scale of legitimate opinions is so wide that I just can t really distinguish between those who speak as informed scholars, those who speak as fans or critics of the European Union, and, indeed, even those who are sworn enemies because such creatures also exist. So, my opinions are really opinions. Like if we were to talk about the interwar period In Europe, I would have some firm opinions, and I would argue vigorously from my point of view rather than somebody else's on the basis of some evidence. If we were to talk about World War II, or the Post-war, or Cold War eras, again, I would have some specific documents to refer to or I would have some evidence in mind. If you ask me such questions, I think you're only asking for my opinion, and as we know, everybody can have an opinion. Some people like the Red Sox, some people like the Yankees, but they all sort of like baseball, right? So, I think the conversation about the European Union needs to be rich and varied because one can approach it from many different points of view. So, for some people, the European Union is about government. It's about management. It's about economic matters. How to rationalize, how to streamline decision-making, how to make Europe more free, how to make Europe more prosperous. For me, the European Union and, again, I speak not as a scholar of the European Union, but rather than as an observer for me, the European Union is about civilization. To me the most important role of the European Union has is the role of civilizing the countries into which it enters or, rather, which enter into the European Union. It's actually both ways, right? The European Union expands into a country and the country enters the European Union. So, I think to me the most important role of the EU has is civilizing its members. And if there is

2 something that's truly admirable it is the manner in which European Union and all its predecessors obviously before the European Union we had the European Community, before the European Community we had the European Economic Community, etc. all of these institutions including the present European Union I think have done an admirable job in dealing with some of the most in entrenched problems of European history. For instance, the hatred between German speaking lands in Europe and France. So all these horrific, tragic wars of the 20th century, First and Second which ultimately drew many other countries into it and therefore are properly known as World Wars I think those are now much less likely, if not completely unlikely, because of the admirable job that the European Union and its predecessors have done. So right there, I could just stop and say it's a great institution, and I admire it. It achieved what nobody else achieved before it. You know, the League of Nations didn't succeed, the United Nations didn't succeed as well. So, the European Union has civilized the Germans, it has civilized the French, it has civilized its Western European members. And now, speaking of civilization, once the European Union advanced into Central Europe and hopefully further Eastern Europe and the Balkans, I think as well there it has played a civilizing role in that it has made or will have made at some point in the future it much less likely that traditional enemies will remain with their daggers drawn and at each other's throat. One can only look at, let s say, the Slovaks and the Hungarians, who I think, thanks to the European Union, really no longer hate and despise one another. And of course, the Balkans is a notorious area for ethnic tensions, and I think the prospect of joining the European Union has made those tensions much less visible. TR: So, you mentioned that you are a historian by trade. One thing that we talked about when we were thinking about this project was the notion of democracy, and how democracy has the potential to keep open possibilities of choice, so I think that your lens would be incredibly fascinating. Thinking about the history of European democracy if you want to just give a little it's a very large topic but if you want to just give an overview of where you think maybe European democracy has grown and where it's come from to where it is today? IL: What do you mean by European Democracy? TR: By that, just to clarify, it seems as though in the European Union there are sometimes dangerous to democracy at either at national or personal citizen level. So, I think they kind of furthering that to what extent do European citizens have true Democracy? IL: But again, I'm not entirely sure I understand the question 100%, but from what I do understand, I think you seem to be saying that they're many who complain about the so-called democracy deficit in Brussels, right? Well obviously, whenever you join an organization if it's a figure skating club or if it's the European Union, you must by definition or accept certain rules. You will skate on certain kinds of skates, and you will play by certain rules and it means less freedom for you, but, obviously, the Europeans prior to all these different European the different forms of the present-day, European Union they had lots of sovereignty. They had lots of so-called freedom. And it produced two World Wars and the Holocaust and all the other tragedies of the 20th century. So, if it means that one takes away from some sovereign so-

3 called freedom. If it means that one makes another war between Germany and France less likely well, I'm all for it to tell you the truth. And I think those who complained about the lack or other so-called democracy deficit in the European Union are often, in my book, neo-fascists who use this label, who use this complaint about democracy deficit, because they want more freedom for their vile ideas, typically racist, or some other fascist, neo-fascist ideas. It is no coincidence that the sworn enemies of the European Union are people like Marine le Pen of the National Front in France, Pegida in Germany, at least two political parties in Britain the, what do you call it, the UK Independence Party and the other I think British National Party? There all kinds of similar parties in Central-Eastern Europe, especially Jobbik in Hungary, in the Czech Republic there are anti-european Union voices. And all of these people mask themselves of course in Greece too, the Golden Dawn they all mask themselves as great fighters for freedom, and sovereignty, and democracy. In reality, they want freedom for their vileness. And if we limit their freedom or if we set their so-called rights to be vile aside in favor of doing something positive for Europe, I'm all for it. TR: That's a very interesting perspective. Can you talk a little bit more, I guess I think I'm just fascinated by the notion of benefiting Europe in a way that doesn't mean that clear democracy in the way that you mean freedom to be vile? Now, when you say that these people, are these neo-fascists looking for almost an excuse to air out their views what do you think do you think that those are people in power or do you think that those are just citizens? IL: Well, obviously it s both. Some of them are in power, some of them a very powerful. Marine le Pen I'm no expert on France but some people say she could, she's going to run for the presidency, and it's been predicted that she could conceivably win the first round. She will not be elected, but she might do well in a showing. The so-called euro skeptics in my opinion, neo-fascists in Britain are also well-known and very influential and, in fact, have brought about the present situation where Britain seems to be sitting on the fence ready to leave Europe with I think disastrous consequences for itself all under the rubric of defending sovereignty in defending freedom. But, in reality, the people who advanced these views are neo-fascists. So am I eager to give more freedom to neo-fascists? Of course not. Now, is there a legitimate reason for being skeptical about the European Union? Of course there is. If the European Union, I don't know if that's true, but I hear from people who despise the European Union, when I challenge them and say why do you despise it? they told me that the European Union has prescribed how long the dog leash can be, it can be no longer than certain lengths. Well, if it's in fact true that they're bureaucrats in Brussels who spend time designing these socalled rules and regulations, then of course it's laughable and somebody should put an end to it. If it's in fact true that the European Union spends time prescribing the shape of beer bottles that are allowed within the European Union or the shape of bananas, the size of bananas all of this - if that's true, then of course, it's laughable and it should be stopped simply stopped. Is it true that the bureaucracy has grown perversely? Yes, it has. Is it true that many members of the European Parliament are corrupt through and through, that they show up in the morning, pick up their check, and then fly home immediately because they have a business somewhere on the side? Of course, it's true, and it's despicable and it should be more policed, and I hope as time progresses this will happen. But as I said at the very beginning I see the European Union

4 as a rampart of democracy and freedom and a force of civilization, and I would readily surrender all these obsolete concerns, such as national sovereignty, in favor of the European Union. Of course, if some insane bureaucrat takes over the decision-making in Brussels, then I shouldn't ever surrender my sovereignty. On the other hand, do I think the people are, in Brussels, are dishonest? Absolutely not. I think that their well-meaning people. Some of them are probably lazy, some of them are not brilliant, some of them are corrupt but I think that ultimately, they are well-meaning people. And I think they have done remarkably well just compare it with all the other previous centuries, excluding, of course, the luckiest century of all the Nineteenth Century, when we had something pretty similar like the European Union. You know, when Metternich the great organizer of the Congress of Vienna conducted his negotiations after the defeat of Napoleon in Vienna, , he said that the Congress was Europe without distances. Because only needed to cross the street and could talk to the British, who then could cross the square and see the French delegation, who could then speak with the Spanish or the Portuguese or the Holy See, and all the other delegations that were in Vienna in And for me, Brussels is essentially a replica of the Congress of Vienna. Only it's not just the short-lived conference it is a permanent institution. And, as I said, I'm a great supporter. TR: So, thinking again about parallels between how Europe runs now and things in the past, I know that a lot of people are saying that the immigrant crisis is something that is entirely unprecedented. People are talking about the economic crisis that are plaguing Europe and saying that those are also unprecedented. As a historian, have you seen any parallels between what's going on now and anything that's happened in the past? IL: Well, I mean there are obviously many parallels. You know, nothing that happens now is new under the sun, as the Romans knew and had a great saying to that effect. I think that what is happening is just well at the moment what is happening within the world of Islam is something that happened in the world of Christianity with incredibly tragic consequences from the 15th century onward. From about there was a split or a schism developing in the world of Christianity that ultimately led to the outbreak of the Thirty Years War in 1618 which, by the time it was over in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia, left Central Europe the Holy Roman Empire essentially a barren, devastated land. If you just looked at the statistics that are readily available, you would appreciate what a large percentage of even you know cities just ceased to exist having been destroyed by the violence that one faction of Christianity wished upon the other faction of Christianity. Well, not surprisingly, there are factions within the world of Islam billion people are unlikely to share one in the same interpretation of the holy book - and so they have factions, and like the Christians a done before them, these fractions in the world of Islam they fight with one another. It is very tragic, and I don't know what to do about it. I don't think one can. One can only result to diplomacy and voices of reason, but as we know, we're not only rational creatures we are also creatures seeking self-interests at the expense of others, often with tragic results. So, the present crisis I think is, to me, are reminiscent of these events, such as the 7 th century Thirty Years War, except that it doesn't certainly not know now it doesn't have the violent dimension. And that's another thing that one could credit to the European Union that it's been handled so far just well. And I must say, I am a great admirer of

5 the Chancellor. I think Mrs. Merkel proved to be the biggest man in Europe- to use an obsolete male chauvinistic term. She, I think, is the one politician who's shown some real guts and courage in the saying quite openly that if somebody cannot live in their native country they should be welcomed, received with open arms in Europe. No matter what religion they have. Of course, provided that they don't then attempt to impose their customs upon others. So, for instance, if your life is at stake in Afghanistan you should be able to seek political asylum anywhere in Europe, but that doesn't mean that you can then turn around in Europe and say girls mustn t go to schools, or girls must cover you know their faces because if they don't then that's offensive to me. Well, you've chosen to come here, you must accept it. So, with this kind of caveat I would say that I'm a great admirer of the way, especially Mrs. Merkel reacted to the to the crisis, and I hope very much that she will find like-minded partners, however reluctant they might be in in welcoming these truly needy human beings. It also has shown the civilization deficit in Eastern Europe because, whereas the Germans and others reacted even the Austrians, initially reacted in a positive way. Of course, I know that I t's not that there are other sides of both the German society in Austrian as well, but, initially, the most positive reaction was in Western Europe, whereas the most negative reactions one could see in Eastern Europe. And that, to me, shows how desperately needed is the civilizing role of the European Union to persuade these people who, a few decades ago themselves, lived under horrific totalitarian systems, and now they have forgotten it and now they want to deny the right to live without fear of war and so on to others. TR: So, we have one more question for you, and that is kind of thinking back to the future this is entirely your own opinion but what is your vision for Europe going forward? If you could see Europe change in anyway, what would you hope to see? IL: Well, to tell you the truth, I sort of try to be an optimist, and I think that if I were to look only at the European Union, then I would probably find grounds for optimism. I think, as I said already, it's a fine institution that is obviously designed by humans, and it's therefore flawed. Its leaders are not gods, but flawed human beings, so they too make mistakes and so on, but I think it's just fine and on the right track. What worries me greatly is the way the European Union is being manipulated by Putin and several other perhaps people that did I know much less about. But I do know that Putin has a long time ago discovered that he will never be able to compete with the European Union, he will never be able to offer the degree of prosperity, the degree of freedom that is taken for granted within the European Union, to his own people. And therefore, he always feels vulnerable because the people within his jurisdiction can see and, in the globalized world, see instantly that life is in fact better on the other side. And that makes him weak. And because he cannot make Russia stronger, he can level the field by making European Union weaker in other words bring it down to his level. And this is why he actively finances the hard-right neo-fascist parties in Britain, and France, in Denmark, in the Netherlands, in Germany, in Poland, in the Czech Republic, in Slovakia, in Hungary, in Greece all these parties and in Italy, I should not forget that Lega Nord financially profits from its relationships with the Kremlin all these parties are financed or assisted in some way by the Russians because they hate the European Union. And well, it's like in American politics, if you take money from sponsors, the sponsors of course expect that if you succeed you will make

6 decisions that will favor their business interests, and Putin is doing exactly the same thing. Only he plays at a much larger scale. His canvas is Eurasia, and he knows that his Eurasian Union will never be as as desirable as the European Union, as evidenced in Ukraine or even in Belarus these days where you can see even in Belarus you can see that there is much less willingness to continue this kind of kneejerk support of Russia. And Putin understands it. And I think he has been deliberately, step-by-step, weakening the European Union. And I'm not entirely sure that the European Union understands how dangerous it is, and I think it would be a great mistake to underestimate the Russian threat. TR: Well, that concludes our interview, but thank you so much. IL: Thank you.