EU Council President Van Rompuy: The Time of the Nation-State is Over

You are of course correct, but besides your argument, it is more than ironic to read a Belgian talking against a nation state. Only a Belgian can be so much lacking self awareness - Belgium is on the verge of falling a part to French and Flemish. Belgium is a disaster. A French speaking Belgian can't apply to a Flemish speaking policeman for a claim. From people from Belgium I heard that the situation there is worse than in Israel between Israelis and Palestinians. The search for ethnic authenticity in Belgium is greater than ever. Let them sort their own problem first before they advise Europe.

Time is not on Israel's side. It will be interesting to see how UK and "Europe" interact. Rompuy is from Belgium and that is a made up tiny country. I doubt a German or French EU official would say the same. For example, Germany is now way more assertive as a nation (ask the Greeks) than before and as economic differentials build so will the strains.

Van Rompuy is an utter fool, who I think actually believes what he is saying. But regardless of whether he actually believes his won words or not, what the man says is divorced from reality for like you say, it was the U.S. that brought peace to Europe, nothing else.

You have come close to the real issue in this Letter. You recognize what you describe as Van Rompuy's ingratitude in ignoring the U.S.'s role in protecting Western Europe from the Soviet threat, etc. You see how his glorification of the Idea of Europe as the motive force for European peace is a distortion, if not a lie. But you still take at face value his belief in the death of the nation state as the crucial idea driving current European elite opinion. The error you make is to take this claim at face value. You fail to see that the claim is made in bad faith. The primary enemy of elite Europe is the U.S. Since the 1950s one justification after another for this antagonism has been advanced. In the 1950s we had the ban the bombers, who proclaimed their opposition to nuclear weapons but, needless to say, did not focus on the Soviet nuclear arsenal. In the 1960s and the 1970s, of course, we had Vietnam and the national liberation movements whose violence, barbarism and destruction were portrayed as the authentic existential response to the human condition. Then in the 1980s hundreds of thousands of Europeans marched in the streets protesting the U.S. deployment of cruise missiles, not in the name of the end of the nation state but once again in the name of the legitimacy of Soviet power and the supposed recklessness of American ideology. The argument put forward by elite Europe is irrelevant; its goal is always consistent. In your earlier Letter you pointed out that Israel was not alone in Europe's condemnation. You named South Africa and Serbia as two other states that were subject to the same moral indignation and disgust as directed at Israel. There is a much longer list that would have shown the true nature of elite Europe's mindset: South Vietnam, Chile, Greece, El Salvador, Columbia were all at one time similarly vilified. It is not that they were allies of the U.S.; it is that the U.S. would be harmed by a threatened take-over by a Soviet ally. You argue that Europe's New Paradigm is not inconsistent with a failure to condemn third world nations whose policies are far worse than those for which Israel is condemned. Putting Chile into the category of a third world country should suggest why this rationale is mistaken. Elite Europe cared about Cambodia while she was fighting a communist insurgency so long as Europe's concern was limited to advocating an American withdrawal. Once the Communists took over, elite Europe turned away while millions were slaughtered. The horror did not involve the U.S. and so had no relevance to Europe's primary goal. Why does elite Europe not care about the Congo or Sudan? Again, it is not that their governments are centuries away from the sophistication of their European betters; it is that the U.S. is not directly involved. Elite Europe has no belief in democracy, that is, self-rule by a free people. She has established a bureaucratic oligarchy which uses the resources of its peoples to bribe the elites of its constituent people. With no defence capability of her own to speak of, she seeks to buy off Russia and the Arab nations and to use international agencies to weaken the U.S. The antagonism to Israel serves this purpose but, naturally, the motifs of Jew-hatred that are part of European culture intensify the hostility. Sadly, some Jews seek to escape being the target of hatred by blaming not the haters but other Jews. The treatment of the 'other' we are told is the measure of morality; well, we should measure Europe's morality by her treatment of the Jewish people, we should insist that Europe's vaunted pluralism embrace the Jewish people before expecting the Jews to be once again more Christian than the Christians. The claim that Israel is failing to live up to the New Paradigm of a higher morality is just another in a long line of arguments made by non-Jews to justify their hatred of Jews. These arguments are all made in bad faith, and their proponents need to be exposed in all their hypocrisy.

Dr. Hazony made some very wise observations regarding EU Council President Van Rompuy's remarks. Simply put, Rompuy's words are based on beliefs from a faith of what has historically happened and what will eschatologicall y happen. This provides the epistemological method and purpose for all behavioral motivations. Having said that, his beliefs are of Darwinian evolution. This means that the past, WW I and WW II etc., can be ignored as irrelevant because mankind is moving or evolving toward a higher ordered state. That state includes humanity having different behavioral options, such as not lying, or stealing, or murdering. The few un-evolved people that do not accept that notion must be dealt with so the elite can evolve societally. This involves the need to end the concept of diverse nation-states so the world can be unified or ordered. The thought process for this view is logical and therefore predictable. What does this then mean? If a person says that it is wrong for political leaders to take all the honest earnings of their citizens, this would be a lie that needs to be punished to achieve peace. Moreover, any beliefs, religious and otherwise, that foster such notions as private property must be targeted and eliminated. The U.S. and Israel have historical beliefs that are at odds with Rompuy's epistemology. Then, it should be expected that the U.S. and Israel would and will become increasingly targeted until one world view wins. Engaging in cogent arguments with the "true believers" as to the futility or evil of their action can not be expected to alter their course, no matter what the sophistication of the evidence. What is the course of those that would disagree? Their behaviors, as in all history, must be physically stopped. That is what could be defined as justified war. Peace or pax, is not the absence of conflict. That situation can be found in a small jail cell. Peace comes from the legal environment where a person(s) can pursue common needs in harmony with others (a sub-game equilibrium). At its core is the requirement of individual freedoms which cannot be tolerated by elitists who must have total behavioral control over their subjects. Notice that elitists speak often of peace but not freedom. Those that support individual freedoms have always had to be vigilant and will need to continue to be watchful of dangers--Vigilia Pretium Libertatis.

We look forward to the day when all of the other nations will be united - although under Hashem nad not Greek culture (Rambam, Laws of Kings Chapter 12). In that time we apparently will be independent. Our job will be to spend all our time learning Tora (ibid). This could mean that we will be a nation of think-tanks giving legal advice for a fee in goods that the other nations will produce (ibid). Our task now is to show how post-nation-state philosophy fits into Tora philosophy (see Rav Kook, Ein Ayah Shabbat 2:6).If we are successful the EU will turn its position on the Arab-Israel conflict around 180 degrees (especially as the threat of radical Islam becomes more and more apparent - as leaders such as Angela Merkel are already daring to say in public). Instead of, in William F. Buckley Jr.'s words, standing against the wave of history yelling "stop" we should direct the wave. Thus we will contribute to the world's advancement towards the Redemption and fiulfilll our task of being a light unto the nations.

Excellent analysis. But it unhappily doesn´t go to the ground of the problem. The way you put it, it sounds as if some idealistic political elite would be obsessed by the idea of dissolving the nation-state for the sake of the simple citizen and it would be based on a philosophical idea, etc. In fact it is an attempt of an ominous bureaucracy to freed itself from responsibility and accountability in front of its electorate. The first generation of politicians sent to Luxembourg and Bruxelles, where such who were not anymore eligible in their countries and were sent to the EU as a means to alimentate them and get them out of the eyes of their electorate, who was still able to judge their incapacity. They discovered this as a means to accumulate power in spite of their imbecility. Can they other than enjoy this new political space without any form of accountability? There is not a bit of idealism behind. They use such idealistic imagery just to blind those who are ready to let themselves be made blind. We are getting here in Europe sooner or later undemocratic circumstances (since peace is more important than personal freedom) and a class of political mandarins. The origin of democracy was in Europe the local splittering into tiny nations or city states. All impersonal mega-structures lead to the empire and dictature: so in Persia, China, etc. They guarantee for a time the internal peace, but at a huge cost. The fact that this failed in the USA is the system of checks and balances and the admission of political lobbyism. I see in the last a very benign aspect of periodically bringing in influences from all parts of the society.

All the more disturbing given the popularity of German Bundesbank board member Thilo Sarrazin's book, "Germany Abolishes Itself" and it's sad popularity there. I think of nation-states as barriers that make this kind of thinking harder to spread, like the human body's skin prevents disease spreading between individuals unless it's compromised. And a European Union controlled by the madness of this... unthinkable.

What makes it even funnier is that Van Rompuy lives in a country where nationalism is taken to an absurd extreme unknown elsewhere. If you live in the officially Flemish part of Belgian you are forbidden to vote for a French-speaking party and vice versa. Exceptionally, in the Brussels area (Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde) French speakers are allowed to vote for French-language parties even though the majority speaks Flemish. Earlier this year, the government collapsed and elections were held because of a long-standing dispute over this exception, which infuriates the Flemish. Since the elections held last June, it has proved impossible to form a new coalition government capable of resolving the issue. So the king has appointed an emergency government in an attempt to get a budget passed. Given all that, a Belgian who claims that the European idea has ovecome nationalism must be a vaudeville comedian. What makes it even funnier is that it was van Rompuy's election to the European presidency, and consequent departure as Belgian PM in 2009, that started off the present crisis. His then coalition was only able to continue under a new PM, Yves Leterme, because of a commitment to solve that simmering dispute. When a solution to the dispute failed to materialize, the government collapsed. So van Rompuy incarnates the refutation of his absurd claim. Details (you have to go to Dutch-language sites to get the whole complex picture): http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regering-Leterme_II#De_zaak-Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde_en_het_aangeboden_ontslag http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeringsformatie_Belgi%C3%AB_2010

A fine and fiery piece. You have probably noticed, though you surely have reasons for not highlighting, that President Obama has given voice to a very similar idea. See for example his Berlin speech of 2008, in which the fall of the Berlin Wall was somehow portrayed as the consequence of "people coming together" -- no mention, I don't believe, of American arms or steadfastness. I've addressed this theme myself -- i.e., contemporary liberalism or progressivism's inordinate love of "unity" -- in a couple of published pieces.

I applaud, once again, your effort to clarify the paradigm behind the growing Western opposition to Zionism. It's an undertaking which calls for more than ordinary courage, humility, and frankness, and if you succeed, you'll do a lot of good.

I'm not, however, as much encouraged by the latest "Jerusalem Letter" as I was by the last two. I think you've misread Van Rompuy's speech in a crucial way--a way which goes to the very heart of the matter.

Van Rompuy says "The time of the homogenous nation-state is over." Each time you refer to this statement, you omit the word "homogenous," as if "homogenous nation-state" and "nation-state" meant more or less the same thing. Thus you take him to mean that it's time to do away with nation-states altogether, as Kant proposed. But the word
"homogenous" is essential to the meaning of the sentence. Many nation-states, including the United States, are far from homogenous. At best a few, such as Norway, can be called so without qualification. Von Rompuy's sentence refers not to nation-states in general, or even to some common kind of nation-state, but to a certain ideal of early nationalism, an ideal rarely realized but still sometimes pursued: the ethnically homogenous nation-state, the state established by and for one ethnic group (one "nation," in early modern usage).

This is made clear in the next sentence: "Each European country has to be open for different cultures." He then names several possible bases other than homogeneity for a sense of unity in "each of our societies." And he proposes that shared political values and virtues should be a basis for /both/ the unity of each individual country /and/ the unity of Europe as a whole. He doesn't say that the countries of Europe should be, or could be, /forced/ to accept cultural diversity. He says they have to, and warns that, because of fear, they may choose to try not to. These concerns only make sense insofar as the countries are autonomous.

Similarly, concerning military force, he doesn't say countries have no right to use it, nor that they should be forbidden to do so; only that it is less effective than it used to be, and that they would be unwise to rely on it. Again, they only have this choice insofar as they are autonomous.

In sum, the EU as he envisions it (at least according to this speech) is not an empire, but a voluntary union of sovereign states whose sense of unity (both within and between themselves) depends on shared political principles and civic virtues, not on ethnic or cultural affinity. And there is a paradigm behind this, all right, but it isn't Kant's universal state. It's the original plan of the United States of America.

I don't mean that Von Rompuy is consciously using the early US as a model, but rather that two foundational values of American politics have come to define just government in the view of most people in the Western world. These values are local self-determination, and universal equality. In the early US, the former was reflected in the federal system, and the latter in the law's neutrality toward religion, nationality and social rank (among free citizens). Since the founding, local self-determination has lost ground, largely because it has been in conflict with the expansion of equality to apply to race. The war of 1865 is understood by Americans mainly in terms of this question: the South stood for the sovereignty of the states, while the North stood for equality without regard to race. Americans think of what we did in WWII in these terms as well: both as defending free states from totalitarian aggression, and as destroying a racist regime. But the latter is the cause which moves us most. Not Germany's imperialism, nor even its totalitarianism , but its extreme ethnic bigotry, is the main reason we tend to consider that war the most just ever fought.

I think the typical American answer to the question "how shall we prevent another Auschwiz?" would be twofold: make sure people have a voice in the government under which they live; and establish equality before the law, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or any other arbitrary distinction. And it looks to me as if that is the "new paradigm," not only here, but also in Europe and Israel.

> The proposal on the table is to go to non-homogenous and non-sovereign in domestic laws and foreign policy.

That may be what's happening, with respect to the EU (though I don't find it in Von Rompuy's speech). It certainly happened in the US--that is, thirteen sovereign states formed a voluntary union which gradually became a single state, while they became something like provinces. We may see the EU become a big state like the US, India, China and Russia.

But this shifting and consolidation of sovereignty is a far cry from the end of sovereignty. And it certainly isn't celebrated as a universal good, or an essential feature of just government.
Indifference to religion and ethnicity, on the other hand, is.

(When Russia recently invaded Georgia, I don't think the general feeling in the West was that the Georgians had no business defending themselves, or that the two countries ought to have remained under a single government.)

This is a hard truth for Israel to face, both for historical reasons and because Israel faces bigoted enemies. Even if Israel ceased to affirm its Jewishness, it would still be hated as Jewish (in the East). But in the West, since Hitler, the rejection of ethnic discrimination is the most sacred political value (though discrimination on behalf of dark-skinned people, unfortunately, tends to be overlooked; the paradigm calls for light-skinned people in the oppressor role).

Yoram Hazony's Jerusalem Letter # 7 aptly exposes EU Council President Van Rompuy, a Belgian, as a politician who intentionally confines his discussion to Europe (actually part of Europe), while threatening to impose the 'EU's present idea' on other countries.

May I stress also that while confining himself to the European scene, Rompuy ignores not just the U.S. and Israel, but also an array of nation-states in Asia, Africa and Latin America. This Euro-chauvinism of Rompuy, alas, reflects also a contempt for the national freedom, cherished cultures and human dignity hard-won by liberation movements all across those continents since the victory over the fascist nexus in 1945.

Rompuy also badly errs when bringing the ills of the modern world to the threshold of nationalism. The most horrible events in the twentieth century happened not as direct, inevitable results of nationalism, but as expressions of communism (Stalinism) and racism (Arian Nazism and its partners). Similarly, nowadays the most hideous danger to humanity – fundamentalist terrorism that includes anti-Semitism-- is not caused by nationalism, but mainly by a non-democratic political culture (i.e., fundamentalist Islam and its appeasers' slavish compromises).

This is not to say that nationalism is free of defects and of dangers to decent civilization. Nationalism in Germany, e.g., eventually bred fascism and Nazism; and basically, fascism was a (continental) European phenomenon. But fascist parties could not succeed where democrats of all shades actively united against them. Sadly, as Yoram Hazony clearly demonstrates, Rompuy now pursues precisely the opposite of the desired strategy – he tries to split the democratic camp and to isolate the U.S. and Israel. We Israelis, threatened today by fundamentalist terrorism and aggressive anti-Semitism, should assertively hold up the banner of democratic solidarity, should lift the democratic flag together not just with the U.S. but also, and emphatically so, with such countries as India -- the largest democracy in the world; India won its independence from Britain at the same time as Israel and thanks to a democratic strategy. Indeed, the democratic states all over the globe should reject Rompuy's narrow-minded, discriminatory and dangerous course.