We publish selected excerpts from the article by Professor Vincent Dujardin, “Europe: A Political Project Based on Values?” Vincent Dujardin is Professor of Contemporary History at the Catholic University of Leuven. His research focuses on the history of Belgian and European institutions. He is also President of the Institute of European Studies at UCL.
1. Europe is not a geographical concept
Yes, Europe is in crisis — a serious, profound crisis. But the first step is to pay attention to the word “value” and to examine the foundations of the European Union, returning to those “pillars” that were the source of the European project. It should be noted from the outset that Europe is not a concept that can be reduced to its geographical boundaries.
The word “Europe”, which itself comes to us from ancient Greece, in Herodotus denotes “civilization”. Europe was built at the intersection of several heritages. The French thinker Paul Valéry noted: “We are speaking of Europe in which at once the influence of Rome on governance, of Greece on thought, and of Christianity on inner life is visible.” Therefore, the 4th century appears absolutely decisive. It witnessed the reconciliation between Antiquity and Christianity, which, under the Edict of Milan, becomes a tolerated, even privileged, and later state religion. It will expand by using the already existing structure of Roman administration, as well as by borrowing elements of ancient culture in the fields of art, religion, or philosophy. Here we already find three heritages that will permanently define the European continent, namely Greece, Rome, and Christianity.
The Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, the socialist Paul-Henri Spaak, recalls the Greek and Christian heritage. Of course, other heritages have also left a lasting mark on Europe — for example, the legacy of the Enlightenment or of Ancient Rome. It is through Rome that the Greek heritage came to us, and the Roman period also left a lasting imprint in the fields of governance, Roman law, and art, deeply rooted in political life. But what is most central in Christianity for Spaak, the great architect of European integration, is the general respect for the human person.
2. The Fathers of Europe and values
First of all, it should be noted that this project could not have taken place had a whole series of statesmen capable of long-term vision not come to power simultaneously in several major countries: Adenauer in Germany, Schuman in France, De Gasperi in Italy, etc. Without wishing to engage in a “complex typology” of the “Fathers of Europe,” we may nevertheless note that all of them had significant international experience.
All knew war, and most were physically affected by it: the Belgians Paul van Zeeland and Paul-Henri Spaak were deported to Germany during the First World War. Robert Schuman was imprisoned by the Gestapo but escaped; a reward (100,000 marks) was offered for his capture. Adenauer was arrested by the Nazis at the age of 68 and suffered until the end of his life from insomnia caused by memories of torture he heard in his cell. Alcide De Gasperi was imprisoned by Italian fascists.
In addition, all the Fathers of Europe were patriots. “They love their country and have shown that they are ready to defend it, but for them patriotism and internationalism are not incompatible.” Love for one’s country “does not mean that they place it above others; they respect the patriotism of other peoples.” Therefore, their patriotism stands in opposition to militant nationalism. All, except Jean Monnet, could be called “men of the border” (“hommes de frontières”). And borders in the history of their countries often carried threats.
All the Fathers of Europe experienced the “syndrome of defeat of 1940, 1943 in the case of Italy, or 1945 in the case of Germany.” Thus, this is a continental consciousness which, unlike British consciousness at the time, felt a strong need for changes in international relations.
All of them were either humanists and socialists (Spaak) or Christians (Schuman, Adenauer, De Gasperi, van Zeeland, Beyen, etc.). Many of the founding fathers were indeed Christians and even Catholics; this led some to speak of a “Vatican Europe,” which, however, is a myth. The fact remains that the religious convictions of the three Fathers of Europe mentioned are reflected in numerous declarations, letters, or speeches.
Spaak shows that the concept of “solidarity” actually refers to the concept of “brotherhood,” which is more appealing because it expresses the view of the other as a brother or sister. Duty becomes more personal than the notion of “solidarity” suggests. This is reminded by Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
3. Values and the European Union in times of crisis of European thought
The Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, speaking in Brussels in 2007 on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, pointed out what distinguishes Europe from the rest of the world, and in some respects also from Americans. He mentioned five achievements characteristic of Europe: democracy, social justice and solidarity, respect for human dignity, the search for the common good in the exercise of public functions, and the Enlightenment heritage that encourages a critical approach.
The five values listed by Stiglitz are also found in the preamble of the Treaty on European Union. However, social justice and solidarity are precisely what have been called into question in the contemporary EU.
The European Union constantly faces serious and immediate challenges, from the refugee and migration crisis to the sovereign debt crisis — not forgetting the prospect of Brexit, the Ukrainian crisis, or the fight against international terrorism.
However, when we speak of the current crisis of European thought or the crisis of the European idea, we must not idealize the past. Europe has grown despite crises, or even through crises.
As Jacques Delors noted, a large market does not inspire dreams. It may seem that the threats to peace and democracy no longer exist. Political Europe is the product of a post-war utopia, the utopia of perpetual peace, at least for Europe. But this utopia has become, in the eyes of citizens, a reality. Therefore, it is important to find new sources of motivation around the European idea. At the core of this motivation must undoubtedly be the value of solidarity.
Moreover, as Herman Van Rompuy notes, proximity often leads to the predominance of one identity over another. The European idea suffers from tension between space and locality, place, home, and location. In times of crisis, the European citizen tends to imagine that the European Union represents a space reserved for greater mobility of the most privileged strata, for the development of a large internal market, or for the movement of irregular migrants from east to west or from south to north within the Schengen area. But for citizens this space is not sufficiently protected; people do not feel safe. It is important to balance this tension between space and place, knowing that protection does not mean protectionism.
The eurozone crisis revealed the cultural diversity of the Union. It also demonstrated once again, as did all European construction, that reconciling democracy, Europe, and national sensitivities is very difficult, especially when it concerns 28 countries. We were able to see on a more universal scale that certain decisions are only made possible through solidarity. But Europe can only move onto a stable path when we are able, through democratic means, to find a point of convergence between European and national interests.
The project of a new narrative for Europe is likely to contribute to solving the urgent problems outlined above. “United in diversity” is the motto of the European Union. But for its realization, Europeans must first agree on a common set of values. A European project based solely on “interests” is doomed to fail. This is not easy, because most of the values that enabled the construction of the European political project are now the subject of debate. This will certainly be a difficult path, but it is the only path.