Overcoming fatigue

Five years have gone by since May 1st 2004, the historical date marking East European States’ adhesion to the European Union from the Baltic to the Balkans, passing by the Central-Eastern bloc. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria have become full-fledged players of the great challenge of European integration, erected on the ashes of World War II. Apart from the right and duties linked to Community membership, how does coexistence proceed? How do societies and peoples whose past is marked by different experiences and sensitivities and who are bound by Treaties integrate in the light of a common future? To what extent has the past five-year period smoothed out initial differences paving the way to a much-needed common approach, in order jointly address the new project that everyone is called to share? Historia magistra vitae, one would be tempted to say. As happens with modern couples who decide to be united in marriage at a stage of fatigue, the initial enthusiasm which led to believe that the 27 States (and many more potential ones) would relinquish divisions and misunderstandings to the benefit of full-fledged cooperation under the banner of brotherhood and of the common European roots, has now toned down. With hindsight – acknowledging the sadly underestimated political choice of omitting all reference to the Christian roots of Europe from the reform documents, a sacrifice on the altar of economic development and cohesion policy – this was to be expected. The initial project has unquestionably changed, being marked by fewer ideals and more pragmatism. Less cooperation and more “milking”, drawn by slumped State and family budgets’ “struggle for survival”. This adds to the illusion cultivated by most East-European Member States of reaching Western development levels in a few years’ time, as the – mysteriously vanished – upholders of ‘enlargement at all cost’ had promised a few years earlier.Although the picture isn’t positive, it would be wrong and unjust to call it gloomy. East-West rapprochement is per se positive for both institutions and for society as a whole. While diffidence and differences do remain, dialogue is stepped up day by day and the iron curtain is but a memory of the past. Moreover, populations that until twenty years ago had opposed each other to the point of becoming each other’s enemy now share the same Community. Considering historical periods, two decades are record-breaking. Perhaps we ought to refrain from disparaging the fact that Eastern-Europe enlargement hasn’t led to immediate convergence, a kind of political, economic and social absorption of the new on the part of the old. Everyone has something to offer to the common project. Dialogue must never regress into a monologue. Strength must not hinder the harmony of coexistence based on a federal model (despite the different – alas also unequal – points of departure and arrival).If set against traditional economic patterns, the ongoing international economic crisis is far from being the ideal situation to step up dialogue and cooperation among the many European Regions (not only those to the East and to the West but also those to the North and the South). Governments and families focus on their domestic realities, on the month’s wages, and this is more than natural. Precisely because it is critical, the present moment ought to be addressed with a new project, based on true cohesion and “exchange” – of ideas, proposals, commitments, and solutions – and if necessary, it ought to be able to depart from EU’s scarcely flexible tracks. The elimination of contrasting blocs has shown that while Governments don’t communicate, contemporary citizens are free to do so. From this perspective, June’s election is an occasion that cannot be missed.