Schengen - o idee constructiva pentru Romania si Bulgaria (RO)

Sursa imaginii: Hotnews.ro 

Devine tot mai clar zilele acestea ca acceptarea Romaniei si Bulgariei in zona Schengen va fi din nou amanata.

In ciuda eforturilor presedintiei poloneze a UE de a avansa o solutie de compromis (o aderare in etape a celor doua tari), cel putin doua state - Olanda, urmata de Finlanda - se opun chiar si unei aderari partiale a Romaniei si Bulgariei in viitorul apropiat. Au existat chiar relatari ca Franta si Germania ar fi de asemenea impotriva, dar dezmintite ulterior. Cum aderarea la Acordul Schengen necesita acceptul unanim al statelor membre, perspectivele pentru sedinta de maine a Consiliului Justitie si Afaceri Interne (JAI) nu sunt deloc optimiste. In plus, ratarea aderarii in perioada presedintiei poloneze a UE, care a facut din cauza Romaniei si Bulgariei o prioritate a mandatului sau, poate insemna un blocaj pe termen mai lung.

Pozitia guvernelor care se opun admiterii tarii noastre in Schengen nu este usor de acceptat. Ea pare determinata in buna masura de considerente de politica interna, in special de presiunea in crestere a curentelor eurosceptic si xenofob din propriile tari. La fel de adevarat este ca platim si pentru problemele Greciei si Italiei in a controla imigratia ilegala, ca si pentru o deteriorare generala a atmosferei din jurul constructiei europene si a liberei circulatii in particular, despre care am mai scris (aici si aici).

Principalul motiv invocat - lipsa de progrese in combaterea coruptiei - poate fi valabil in absolut, dar nu are legatura cu conditiile initiale, pe care Romania si Bulgaria deja le-au indeplinit (conform avizului Comisiei Europene si votului din Parlamentului European). Impunerea de noi conditii echivaleaza cu o schimbare a regulilor in timpul jocului; in plus, obtinerea de progrese in lupta impotriva coruptiei este un criteriu destul de vag si greu de cuantificat, care poate lasa mult timp de acum incolo decizia la discretia intereselor politice.

Pe de alta parte, reactiile de pana acum ale Romaniei si Bulgariei nu sunt de natura sa le ajute catusi de putin. Blocarea importului de flori olandeze de catre Romania sau amenintarea Bulgariei ca va impiedica reforma Acordului Schengen nu fac decat sa creasca ostilitatea in randul occidentalilor si regretele, deja exprimate ocazional, ca cele doua tari au fost admise prea devreme in UE (este ilustrativa aceasta declaratie). De fapt, este foarte posibil ca ralierea explicita Finlandei la pozitia Olandei sa reprezinte in parte si o reactie de raspuns la incercarea de presiune romano-bulgara, perceputa drept santaj. Initial, a existat o reactie de usurare in unele cancelarii occidentale la vestea ca Olanda a luat asupra sa opozitia explicita fata de extinderea zonei Schengen la Romania si Bulgaria, pentru ca si alte tari aveau reticente, dar preferau sa nu-si exprime atat de clar opozitia; cum acceptarea noilor membre necesita unanimitate, veto-ul olandez scutea alte tari de nevoia de a se expune. Faptul ca, acum, se inmultesc luarile de pozitie impotriva primirii Romaniei si Bulgariei poate fi si semnul unei solidarizari a unor state membre in fata presupusului santaj. Daca are cineva de castigat din asta, in mod sigur nu sunt Romania si Bulgaria, si nici proiectul european.

Si atunci, ce ar fi de facut?
Cum se poate raspunde in mod constructiv intr-o astfel de situatie?

Ideea pe care vreau sa o propun este urmatoarea:
In cazul unei decizii negative la Consiliul JAI de maine (prin care inteleg nefixarea unei date in 2011 la care cele doua tari sa poata adera macar partial la Acordul Schengen), Romania si Bulgaria ar trebui sa desfiinteze, printr-o decizie comuna, granita dintre ele.
Efectul politic al unei astfel de actiuni ar fi benefic pe toate planurile si ar relansa dosarul admiterii celor doua tari in zona Schengen in termeni noi. Sa explic:

Octombrie Song

R.I.P. Johnny Raducanu.

Structure vs. entropy and the EU's slow undoing (EN)

There are many possible readings of history, and one of them is to see it as a continuous struggle to create structure, in the face of the ineluctable forces of entropy.

By structure I mean macro-level order, aggregation, alignment, unification, centralization; the structure is information-rich, the system is more complex than its parts. Think music (not necessarily good music). Think discipline.
By contrast, I use the short name of entropy for the absence (or looseness) of overall organization, for atomization, divergence, fragmentation, dissipation; an entropic system is information-poor (meaning, the system as a whole can be described through simple formulas and statistical randomness), but its different parts may have more intrinsic complexity. Think noise. Think freedom.


This dichotomy is of course over-simplified, and should not be understood as a value judgment; life is made of the duality of these forces. In some cases the macro-structure may be aimed at promoting harmony and stability; but at times it can also become a straitjacket, repressive of individual liberties. And there are several possible levels of aggregation (e.g. in terms of social order: community level, national, international/regional, global) that sometime go against each other: for instance, some people advocate for strong national states and against supra-national integration. Many conspiracy theories are predicated upon the alleged drive by secretive groups (such as the Freemasonry) to control the world and impose a global macro-order.


The story of the Tower of Babel suggests that beyond a certain level God dislikes the human effort towards aggregation; or perhaps - depending on whether you are a believer or not - that there is a natural limitation to how much a structure can extend before it collapses under its own weight. History can be seen as a recurrent attempt to build castles on quicksand; there are many examples of seemingly eternal macro-structures that eventually collapsed - from the Roman Empire to the Third Reich to the Soviet Union.


The last 60 years or so have seen consistent efforts to create macro-structures at the international or supra-national level. In the bipolar world of the Cold War, both the West and the Communist bloc were aiming at the ultimate aggregation of a world order based on their respective ideologies; the United Nations tried (rather successfully) to patch a global governance regime of sorts over the East-West dichotomy while also incorporating the 'non-aligned' nations; the collapse of communism two decades ago seemed at the time to open the way for a unified international system dominated by liberal democracies, and in which regional and global integration processes would converge.

But nowadays the tide has turned.

Syrians are free (EN)

A famous Jewish-Romanian Christian Orthodox theologian and martyr of political persecution under the fascist and communist regimes, Nicolae Steinhardt, famously wrote after years of suffering for his beliefs that the essence of freedom is the physical courage in the face of death.

By this measure, a significant part of the Syrian people have already tasted and achieved freedom in an absolute sense that many in the 'free world' will never come even close to experiencing. Standing up in peaceful protest for months in spite of the Assad regime's murderous crackdown, they show once more that human nature can overcome itself and reach to something higher.

This is what the regime has been doing these days in the city of Homs.
And this is how protesters responded last night in the city center: