Everybody seems happy with the outcomes of Pittsburgh: more regulation, more control, more bureaucracy. Thomas Paine wrote that the State is a necessary evil, I add, because human beings are not able to take responsibility their own freedom.
Do we want to add evil to evil or turn it into good? Do we really want increase international regulation, control and bureaucracy or do we need to educate individuals and change their behavior?
I was in conversation with James Show-Hamilton, CEO, Humanitarian Forum, illustrating our new leadership development programme for civil society in Middle East and Northern Africa. I explained the rational behind this further development of our European network is the conviction the European Union mustn’t be limited to the historical borders of Europe – whatever they are – but is an enterprise which could be expanded globally. When I ended “Europe is just the cradle” James promptly replied smiling “you are a Neocon“.
By the way, Stephen launched our strategy at Clinton Global Initiative conference last week and yesterday I got a message from the Deparetment of State with a funding opportunity. Does it mean anything?
Few weeks earlier I has a similar exchange with a member of my board: John Low, CEO, Charity Aid Foundation. After I illustrated the new vision and strategy of our European Network which is based on the same vision of the EU, he looked at me, smiled and asked me sarcastically: “Is this Neo-Imperialism?”
Dear readers, when I read about the outcomes of the G20 I’m annoyed by the excitement for a new spreading of rules and another international organisations.
First of all we need professional ethics if we want to curb excesses in the financial markets. Secondly we need to reform the existing international organisations before establishing new ones = more bureaucrats and expenses for their salaries.
An example: Ali Abdussalam Treki, the newly appointed President of the UN General Assembly, has come out defining homosexuality “not acceptable in the majority of the world” in the day of his opening address. Don’t you think that we have a problem with the UN?
I would start with the reform of the UN and the G20 could just replace the G8. no, now we have an homophobe leading the General Assembly, G8 and G20. it’s a mess.. a very expensive mess!
At the moment I can’t see what I could do with the UN and Gs but know what kind of reform we need for the EU. let’s start with deregulation in funding and a global mission. Does is it sound Neocon? Perhaps, but I rather calling it realist Kantism rephrasing the realist Wilsonianism of Fukuyama.
I want a European Union as an open space where citizens create, share, live and promote universal principles – my list include freedom, democracy, free market (a bit too American so far!) peace, social justice and sustianable development (if there are social and sustainable it’s very European!)… perhaps champagne and fois gras as well (this is truly European!). It’s an open space which grows progressively as new peoples decide to join sharing the same rules of the game.
Would Kant – who is a German philosopher and not an insult in English language referring to anatomic part of female body highly valued worldwide – subscribe for this Europe?
