I am delighted that Le Monde diplomatique at 50 is, ever more internationally, a key reference point for social movements grouped under the banner of counter-globalisation. That doesn’t mean that any grand revolution is about to remove the power centres that emerged victorious from the cold war (represented by all those sinister acronyms: IMF, OECD, WTO). But constant pressure from the counter-globalisation movement and ordinary people the world over cannot fail to weaken these institutions and force them to reform. It’s already beginning to happen. The same pressure will also force reform upon the institutions created by the victors of the second world war: the United Nations and its Security Council.
In Le Monde diplomatique’s first editorial, in May 1954, Hubert Beuve-Méry said something that may have seemed conventional, patriotic, even nationalistic. Given our shared mission “to work for the peaceful development of international relations,” he said, “everything points to Paris as the natural home of such a paper and to French as its natural language”.
Le Monde diplomatique has since become a truly international publication, translated into 18 languages and seen as a paper of reference all over the world. But it is still firmly based in Paris. To me, that shows the paper’s deep-rooted Europeanness. I cannot imagine such a paper thriving in the same way, with the same degree of liberty and the same high standards, in a different country or a different continent. That implies that we, as Europeans, have a unique political consciousness and sense of duty. It doesn’t mean the paper and the movements it champions are limited to a Eurocentric or Franco-centric perspective. Rather, it should serve as a reminder of Europe’s role in the counter-globalisation movement.
Caught between US hegemony and the rising power of China and Arab/Muslim theocracy, Europe has a unique responsibility. I am hardly thought of as a Eurocentric intellectual; these past 40 years, I have more often been accused of the opposite. But I do believe, without the slightest sense of European nationalism or much confidence in the European Union as we currently know it, that we must fight for what the word Europe means today. This includes our Enlightenment heritage, and also an awareness and regretful acceptance of the totalitarian, genocidal and colonialist crimes of the past. Europe’s heritage is irreplaceable and vital for the future of the world. We must fight to hold on to it. We should not allow Europe to be reduced to the status of a common market, or a common currency, or a neo-nationalist conglomerate, or a military power. Though, on that last point, I am tempted to agree with those who argue that the EU needs a common defence force and foreign policy. Such a force could help to support a transformed UN, based in Europe and given the means to enact its own resolutions without having to negotiate with vested interests, or with unilateralist opportunism from that technological, economic and military bully, the United States of America.
Also read Ignacio Ramonet, “Resistance”, Le Monde diplomatique, May 2004.
I would like to cite Ignacio Ramonet’s “Resistance”, an editorial written for the 50th anniversary issue in May. I agree with every no and yes in that piece, but I would like to single out one yes for special emphasis: the yes to a less market-dominated Europe.
To me, that means a Europe that is neither content merely to compete with other
superpowers, nor prepared to let them do as they please. A Europe whose constitution and political stance would make it the cradle of counter-globalisation, its driving force, the way alternative ideas reach the world stage, for example in Iraq or Israel-Palestine.
This Europe, as a proud descendant of the Enlightenment past and a harbinger of the new Enlightenment to come, would show the world what it means to base politics on something more sophisticated than simplistic binary oppositions. In this Europe it would be possible to criticise Israeli policy, especially that pursued by Ariel Sharon and backed by George Bush, without being accused of anti-semitism. In this Europe, supporting the Palestinians in their legitimate struggle for rights, land and a state would not mean supporting suicide bombing or agreeing with the anti-semitic propaganda that is rehabilitating (with sad success) the outrageous lie that is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In this Europe it would be usual to worry both about rising anti-semitism and rising Islamophobia. Sharon and his policies are not directly responsible for the rise of anti-semitism in Europe. But we must defend our right to believe that he does have something to do with it, and that he has used it as an excuse to call European Jews to Israel.
In this Europe it would be possible to criticise the policies of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz without being accused of sympathy for Saddam Hussein and his regime. In this Europe no one would be called anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Palestinian or Islamophobic for allying himself with those Americans, Israelis or Palestinians who bravely speak out against their own leaders, often far more vehemently than we do in Europe.
That is my dream. I am grateful to all those who help me to dream it; not only to dream, as Ramonet says, that another world is possible, but to muster the strength to do all that is needed to make it possible. This dream is shared by billions of men and women all over the world. Some day, though the work may be long and painful, a new world will be born.
