The Federalist Option of Integration

                                                      The Star spangled banner: the symbol of the Fededal Union

If the United States are the first power of the Planet it is largely due to the fact that they discovered a great Constitutional model of integration: the Federal System. Federal comes from Latin “Foedus, foederis” that refers originally to a treaty. Like the ones that the Roman Empire signed from the end of the IVth Century AD with Germanic invaders to have them as allies once they were established in the West. A Federation is a reunion of different groups, in this case “States”. A sort of strong alliance.

The U.S. started after the Treaty of Paris of 1783 as an independent new country integrated by 13 different colonies. It was a loose union under “The Articles of Confederation”, signed in 1777, to deal with the War the colons were fighting against the British Crown. It was provisional and such a weak union, that the Founding fathers of the new country were afraid would not prevent the UK to fight back and reoccupy the United States. As they did in fact in 1812 when the British Troops destroyed Washington D.C.

                                                         Britihs troops burning Washington DC (1812)

In 1786 Daniel Shay, an angry farmer, almost destroyed the State of Massachussets. It was time to make the Union stronger.

                                                             Shay Rebellion (1786) 

So there was a Constitutional debate in order to decide whether the Confederation should turn into a Federation. A stronger Union under a powerful Executive: The President of the United States. This is why the US System is called “Presidential”. The Federal-Antifederal Debate was fierce, but finally the delegates of the States reunited in Congress in Philadelphia agreed on the text of a succinct constitution. The Federal Constitution of 1787.

                                                                Signing the US Constitution (September 1787)

 The Compromise was complex (See pages 216 to 219), but finally the new constitution was sent for ratification to the 13^th States (pages 219 to 220). On June 21 1788, when New Hampshire State became the 9^th state to ratify it, the United States were born. The 4 remaining states will end up ratifying it when the Bill of Rights was approved by the US Congress as a way of legally protecting the small states.

The Federal union was not easy to implement. The relationship between Washington DC and the different states was not a peace of cake. In 1861 some States even secede from the Union creating a Confederation and igniting a terrible Civil war. But finally the Union was preserved. On top of it the Federal Constitution was protected from Legislatures through the Judicial Review principle. And finally they even found a way of expanding to the West adding new States to the Union through the North West Ordinance. In 1959 the 13 original States had become 50 (pages 221-to 230).

Of course, there are still tensions between the States and the Federal Administration (pages 231 to 233) but on the whole the US Federal State has been a success and has  enabled the country to become the most powerful nation in the World.

On the other side of the Atlantic, European Nations States were far more powerful than the new American Nation in the 18^th and 19^th centuries. This is why,  as we have already  seen,  they did not need to get together. On the contrary, after the end of the principle of Universalism in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia, the political history of Europe is dominated by continuous wars among European States searching for imposing their hegemony over the others. Europe is waving from imperialism to coordination from 1789 to 1914 (pages 233 to 234).

 After World War I nevertheless  most of European Nation-States were extremely weakened and the US had become the leading nation in the World. From 1918 to 1939 Europe is in ruins at the mercy of the US and the Communist Soviet Union. 

Europe in 1939

There were some attempts of integration (pages 236 to 240) but limited and unsuccessful. Nationalisms pushed strongly towards disunity. 

                                                                   The ephemeral Franco-British Union (1940)

The result of nationalisms and disunion  was World War II. During the conflict there were some attempts of integration. Besides the ephemeral Franco-British Union (page 241) there was a powerful Hitlerian Europe, reunited mostly by military force (pages 241 to 243) and as a response to it  some attempts of getting together led by  the countries and people resisting the Nazi regime (pages 243-245).

                                                                                          Hitlerian Europe

The German defeat in May 1945 left Europe in ruins. Despite the aid that the US brought through the Marshall Plan to help economically to the European reconstruction (pages 246-247),  the fall of the Iron curtain and the split of Eastern Europe (pages 247 to 248) weakened even more  the European nation-States. Suddenly the European leaders woke up and realised that separated they would not survive in the new World order. So they decided to start searching for a way of getting together. 

Following the Federal American example delegates from the different European Nation-States met at the Congress of the Hague in 1948,  trying to build a Federal Europe (pages 249-250), but  the only result
was the creation of a disappointing  Council of Europe that had no power at all to counteract the power of the Nation States. The failure of the federal way would  open the Communitarian way in 1950. A weird way of integration that we will examine in Teaching Guide number 10 next week. 

   

                                                          The Hague Congress (1948)

GUIDELINES FOR THE CAPITAL BY ROBERT MENASSE

By Inés García Saillard

                                                                Robert Menasse (1954)

An Interview of Robert Menasse, as introduction

Please see first this video where Robert Menasse is talking about The Capital.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqq8Rb5K2TAInterview with Robert Menasse


COMMENTARY AND SUGGESTIONS :


Middle England v. The Capital

We have read Middle England by Jonathan Coe, a deep analysis on the reasons of Brexit success within the UK. It is a very enlightening vision of the perception by British public opinion of the EU. And specially about how the British "Establishment" through individuals like David Cameron or Boris Johnson have been able to control British politics to the advantage of their social class with populists arguments. With The Capital we enter the other side of the relationship between Nation-States and the EU. We discover how work the Brussels Communitarian institutions from within. We have the impression that the EU has no soul,  that a lot of private interests have their way prior to the common ones. A lot of marketing and personal ambitions to have power and influence within the Commission and the other governing bodies of Communitarian Europe.

 From the perspective of the style Menasse´s book is very different. He is a German author and writes in a total different way than British Coe. The former has a much more "heavy" style that makes it a little more difficult to read. A little less appealing from the first approach but when you get there not less thrilling. In part this is also due to the fact that The Capital is a satire.

What is a satire? According to the Oxford Dictionary a satire is “a way of criticizing a person, an idea or an institution in which you use humour to show their faults or weaknesses; a piece of writing that uses this type of criticism”. Being a satire makes The Capital quite a conceptual book. What do I mean by that? We do not have a clear narrative thread as it was the case for Middle England but the characters impersonate either a political issue (Alois Erhardt), or a moral question (Oswiecki) or a current question (Florian and Martin Susman). The chapters’ titles engrave this line connected with time and eternity.

Why have I chosen The Capital despite the fact that it is a more difficult book to read. Because it is the first book in European Literature that presents the EU from the inside. And this is an extraordinary merit, because the EU is still essentially a big market, a reality that has no charisma, as economic interests are extremely boring. To be able to develop a "narrative" on this conditions is undeniably a "tour de force". This is why Menasse's Book is worth to read.

An inside vision of the EU

Of course what we, readers, see is neither very joyful, nor reassuring. A big market is based on interests and not in ideals. Everyone fights for himself. European integration is an empty concept and it is run by cold bureaucrats, by aseptic administrators that have no heart but a brain full of numbers and statistics. For instance, the Head of the Directorate for Culture, Xenia Fenopolou, has never read a novel in her life, and besides deeply despises her current position and only dreams of escaping from it. In fact, practically every character is graduated on Economics, except Martin Susman, the intellectual character in the book.

The Capital seems to convey a sense of uselessness of EU, that make us wonder what sort of organization it is? Ambition seems to be the key word for these civil servants or END (Expert non Détaché – Experts following their Government’s orders). We may wonder what is the use of EU, joining for instance Helena Coleman from Middle England.

If Middle England mixed the intimate and the historical narratives, Menasse is essentially focused on political issues that Europe is currently confronted to. Let's put some examples:

- We know little about the characters’ personal life and when it happens it is just to contextualize their political opinions.

Example: George Moreland ‘s views on EU agricultural policy.

- Characters do not interact between them. They happen to be at the same place at an exact moment.

Example: the prologue where we meet the main characters of the book when watching the pig.

- Economic interests prevail above any human concern:

Example: The pig is a sort of conducting thread for the book. Its rumbling through Brussels starts the book and finishes it but by becoming virtual and only a figure for sensationalist newspapers. Here the Satire point reaches its peak with the contest organized by the newspaper Metro to give a name to the pig which finishes in an abrupt ending when the name given to it is Mohammed, very politically incorrect.

Topics and characters

Let me now suggest some of the topics and characters developed in Menasse's book, that may help you understanding it and broadening your vision of the EU, in a complementary way of what we have seen in Coe's Middle England. 

- IS THE NOTION OF NATION-STATE COMPATIBLE WITH A SUPER STATE STRUCTURE LIKE THE EU?

You perfectly know what a Nation-State is since we have thoroughly seen it in class, its formation and its important cultural stratum. Menasse gives us in his book a practical application of what the concept of Nation-State is.

An Example: The Jubilee Project is intended to better the image of European Commission in front of European Citizens and to enhance the goodness of being European. But this project is soon faced with national interests, no country wants to be deprived of its status of Nation-State and be confronted with a part of History that has many shadows (especially concerning the Shoah). Choosing Auschwitz as the cornerstone of EU creation seems suddenly inappropriate for Austria, Czech Republic and other countries. Revisiting History could reveal some “bad” questions that political elites do not wish to openly discuss and least of all in the context of a structure like EU.

In this sense, the painting exhibition described at the end of the book is very symbolic and poses a very interesting question: what is oblivion? Can we afford to deal into oblivion? The critics the exhibition receives show that historical issues are still polemic. The exhibition is strongly criticized for its parallelism with Auschwitz.

- EU BUREAUCRACY AND LEGISLATION: ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE?

We read in The Capital all the issues concerning pig exportation to China. That is exactly reflected in the character of Florian Susman (Martin Susman’s brother) who considers EU policy on pig exportation is in the hands of vegetarians and animals’ advocates.Every country seeks its own interest and EU does not seem to attend their demands besides having to confront a heavy bureaucracy that slows any initiative.As a matter of fact, pig exportation has to pass three Directorate Generals:

- Alive pig:

Directorate General AGRI (Agriculture and Rural Development).

- Processed pig products:

Directorate General GROW (Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs). According to Frigge, they only care about labelling.

- Pig in containers:

Directorate General TRADE.

This is one of the key points of the book. If you remember, this point was also risen in Middle England and also concerning pigs when Gail Ransome, conservative member of parliament but very Bremain, visits her chairman, Dennis who considers EU regulations for pigs feeding as utterly wrong.

What is your personal sensation when reading The Capital on EU bureaucracy?

- EUROPE HAS A COMMON HISTORY, ESPECIALLY SINCE WORLD WAR I AND WORLD WAR II.

What is Robert Menasse’s message? Europe is an idea. You may think it is a very recent idea but your subject European Union Political History shows you very clearly that the concept of Europe has been extremely difficult to achieve. Wars, need of a strong change of mentality, etc…Even today the notion of Nation-State is very difficult to leave aside.

Example: the cemetery next to the old people’s home where David de Vriend sees all the graves where the inscriptions say “Mort pour la patrie”, “Commonwealth War Graves”. It is very impressive to know how young were these soldiers when they died.

Some characters in the book are examples of the consequences of contemporary European History.

- David de Vriend (Belgian):

Concentration camp survivor. Number tattooed in his forearm.

He dies in the terrorist attacks in Brussels in March 2016.

- Alois Erhart (Austrian):

His parents were nazi supporters, he advocates for a strong European Union following his master Armand Moens.

Alois’ mother used to call him “a Lager’s child”. She referred to the warehouse where his parents stored sport articles they sold in their shop but Lager in German is a concentration camp.

At the Think-tank meeting, Prof. Erhart advocates for a European passport (see that Bohumil and Fenia consider their passports, Austrian and Greek respectively as European) and moving Europe’s capital from Brussels to Auschwitz, where European Union really began.

- Ryszard/Mateusz Oswiecki (Polish):

Member of Vatican Secret Services, his grand-father and his father have fought Nazis and Communists. It is a very interesting reference since Poland has been invaded and its frontiers have changed constantly. His strong Catholicism is the product of these constant polish territorial changes since Catholic Religion stood as a form of nationalism, of being Polish. Poland is described in the book as a country “soaked in blood”.

Oswiecki figths against terrorism and we know that this terrorism is Islamic Fundamentalism.

- Commissar Emile Brunfaut (Belgian):

His grand-father is a Résistance hero. He even has a street under his name.

His investigation of the crime is cancelled by Belgian Government.

BUT, younger characters in the book are also connected with European history.

- Fenia Xenopolou: (Greek Cyprian).

In order to leave DG EAC (Education, Youth, Sport and Culture) which she hates and considers a sort of humiliation, she will have to demand a Cyprian passport since Cyprus is a member of the EU. As a Cyprian, she has the possibility to obtain a position in TRADE.

- Martin Susman (Austrian):

European Commission civil servant, he senses that Jubilee Project should take into account Auschwitz survivors. EU has been created to unite a devastated Europe after World War II (please see the figure of Jean Monnet in your materials).

He is probably the most intellectual character but has personal problems that prevent him from being as brilliant as he could be.

- Kai-Uwe Frigge (German):

He represents the Executive EU, civil servant who has to implement EU policies even if he does not always agree with it.

He leads the average life of a high-ranked civil servant of European Commission. Very practical, his generation is the grand-sons of the Nazi period Germans.

Secondary characters are also representative of the diversity of the people living in current Europe.This mixture is one of the best assets for EU.

:- Grace Atkinson:

Head of DG COMM (Communication). British, she decides to set in motion the Jubilee Project. George Moreland, British and Head of DG AGRI (Agriculture and Rural Environment), considers she obtained this position because of positive discrimination. Grace Atkinson, belonging to British establishment, is aware that EU has given opportunities to many people coming from a different cultural background and more modest social origins. 

- Romolo Augusto Massimo Strozzi:

Italian aristocrat, Cabinet chief of staff of the President of European Commission, he knows how to move in European Commission and who exactly does he have to meet to disrupt Jubilee Project. His training in fencing is a good asset and he understands politics as a game.

- The Salamanders:

Members of the Task Force Ukraine that Bohumil has defined “not as Europeans but as parvenus in European Institutions”. They impersonate EU Foreign Policy which doesn’t seem very solid.

As you see, the book grasps many issues, and not only political but also philosophical as in the case of David de Vriend of Alois Erhart, both old, both lonely. Man faced to eternity. It also shows very different attitudes in life on behalf of the old characters in front of the young ones. The old ones have lived Second World War, the young ones work at the EU.

- WHAT ARE THE NEW ISSUES EUROPE HAS TO COPE WITH?

- Terrorism:

David de Vriend dies in terrorist attacks of March 2016 in Brussels’ underground. In the prologue, we meet with Gouda Mustafa, a Muslim who helps Prof. Erhart after he failed. Gouda Mustafa is outraged an impure animal has touched him, his father has prevented him against Europe. Robert Menasse shows in this character a strong commitment to Islam.

Remember that Molenbeek is an Islamic ghetto in Brussels. As a result of the attacks on March 2016, it was an area practically on a state of siege.

- Xenophobia and “micro racism” inside EU:

The mysterious pig becomes famous and Metro decides to launch a contest to give a name to the pig, almost a symbol for Brussels. The winning name is Mohammed.

Micro racism inside EU is exemplified by Xenia Fenopolou. As a Greek national, she has been punished and exiled to the Culture DG because she belongs to a problematic and ruined country. That implies that EU is ruled by the powerful and rich countries that get all the important DGs and so can have a stronger power to take decisions, a detriment to poorer countries and especially Southern Europe.

- Increasing discontent with EU linked to the perceived incompetence

Bohumil, Martin’s colleague, is devastated since his sister is going to marry what he calls a Fascist and especially a ferocious anti-EU activist.

Florian Susman is not an anti-EU activist but he certainly considers that EU is more an obstacle than a help as far as trading is concerned: too much legislation, and a disconcerting prices policy which in his opinion is harmful to industry.

Maurice Géronnez, responsible for communication of DG ECFIN (Economic and Financial Affairs) is sick at hospital because he had to defend policies he could not agree with at all. He reads a document untitled “The impact of Fiscal Austerity on Suicide Mortality”, a study on the application of austerity programmes for Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Géronnez considers UE as a murderer since it has failed in its protection of European citizens.

- Refugees:

The mobilization present at the airports and in the plane to prevent a dissident chechenian to be deported to Russia where it is very likely he will be tortured.

Florian Susman has a car accident when he is heading to Budapest to attend the European Pig Producers’ meeting. Florian is saved by a refugee woman: “La Pietá” as journalists name her.

We see refugees’ desperation to reach European Union (taxi driver who provokes the accident is exploiting these people’s need by making them extra money on them).

- Think tanks:

American President F.D.Roosevelt was the first head of State and Government to use Think tanks to face critical issues, as the 1929 crisis that lead to the adoption of the revolutionary New Deal. As a matter of fact, think tanks have considerably developed within EU. They a are a kind of laboratory of ideas, aiming to help providing new ideas on economic and political problems.

Robert Menasse does not offer in The Capital a very favourable view on think tanks through Prof. Alois Erhart who is invited to attend one named “New pact for Europe”. The imaginary think tank created by Robert Menasse is a vehicle for advertising European Commission policies. No criticisms is to be found there, no innovative ideas, just repetition of orders given by EU presidency.

And besides that Think tanks are, in some cases, a vehicle for lobbysts to have influence on EU policies.

Finally, I bring you some questions that I would ask you to think about after reading Menasse's book:

 1. The Capital is strongly critic towards EU but on your opinion: is it constructive or  not? Menasse believes in the EU or not?

2. Do you agree with the idea that Auschwitz should be the foundation of European Union? Explain what is the purpose of it. What do you think of Prof. Erhardt’s speech at the meeting of “New Pact for Europe”?

3.  Are we Europeans ready to have a shared view on our recent past? This is a question asked by Robert Menasse. What would be your answer as young European students, having perhaps benefited of an Erasmus scholarship in another European country?

4. In your opinion the European Union would make Nation-States weaker or stronger in the long run? When we come across a huge crisis as the one provoked by the Covid19 virus who do you think will face it in better conditions: the UK or the 27 member States? Give concrete arguments.

Historic Models of European Integration

                                                                              The Europe of the Holy Alliance (1815)

So far we have studied the history of the European kingdoms, states and nation-states. In the last Teaching guide we have seen how today the nation-state model is in crisis, as Internationalism is becoming the rule. The consequence is that there is no a super power over all nation states, or at least not a direct one. And this is why the principle of Government has been replaced by the system of Governance. Authority has given its way to Negotiation. And this is what the European integration process is all about. 

After 1945 European nation-states were at the mercy of Soviet Russia and the United States. This is why they had to unite for regain some presence at the international level. The problem was that they had been independent nation-states for too long, and they ruling classes did not want to give up their sovereignty. How to get together but remaining essentially independent is not an easy thing. In fact European kingdoms and states in their long history tried several times to unite through different models of integration. 

In this teaching Guide we will see some examples of integration taken from European Constitutional history: Starting with something we know: the universal model  (pages 190-192), which in several occasions brought back the old roman idea of the empire, the last time with the Third Reich (1933-1945).

Europe under the Third Reich

 Universalism nevertheless was not the sole way of getting together in order to form a strong union. We will see four more examples in the European Constitutional Tradition. The first the composite monarchies (pages 192-193) which are the origin of two actual nation-states: Spain (193-195) and the United Kingdom (195-196). 

Spain under the Catholic Kings (From 1479)

                                                         The Hispanic Composite Monarchy in 1517

                                                                            Imperial Spain after 1582

Spain in 1833

Spain after 1978

Please note that in this two cases the union is not solid. In the case of Spain there are some regions that want to become independent as the Basque provinces or Catalonia. In the UK as a consequence of the Brexit Referendum Northern Ireland and Scotland feel uneasy as they voted clearly for Bremain. Which means that for the majority of their voters being part of the European Union it is more important than remaining in the United Kingdom. 

                                                                                         The British Empire

 Third we will examine the case of the Swiss Confederation another extremely peculiar nation-state with also a long history that started with the Grutli Oath f 1291 (pages 196-200) and has enabled the Swiss to live in what is perhaps today the most democratic country in the World. Please concentrate in the essence of what is a Confederation. Understand why Switzerland changed its constitution in 1848 moving more towards a "federal" model. Think as well why after the 1861 Secession the Southern American States became a confederation.   

Fourth we will study the Holy Alliance and the Metternich System that lasted from 1815 to 1848, a period in which the Absolutists European states maintained a solid international alliance directed to prevent the Liberal revolution. This is why their sovereigns met regularly in Congresses that decided their Common international policy (pages 200-202). An attempt of solving international conflicts through military intervention, and not through arbitration as was the case with the League of Nations and the UN today. 

NATO Alliance

Military intervention at the international level is still valid in the frame of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  Created in 1949 to protect Europe from a possible Soviet invasion of Stalin's Russia, after the Fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) it has not been dissolved and still intervenes in Afghanistan or Kosovo. 

And fifth, finally we will see a total different approach to unification: the one that concentrates on eliminating the customs rights among different kingdoms in order to favor trade and commerce between them (Zollverein page 202). A system that was invented by Prussia as an attempt to reunite all the German speaking states at the economic level, without diminishing their political independence. A very important precedent that has led to the European Union. 

The Zollverein

EXERCISING: 

Besides reading pages 190 to 202, understanding concepts and answering the questions, you should get familiar with the following dates: 

For Spanish Composite Monarchy: 1137, 1164, 1276, 1479, 1707-1716, 1841 and 1876

For the United Kingdom: 1535-1542, 16u03, 1707, 1800, 1922, 1997 and 2014. 

For the Swiss Confederation: 1291 (August 1), 1648 and 1848.

For the Holy Alliance and Metternich System: 1815-1848

For the Zollverein: 1818-1834. 

EXAM: As it does not seem that on March 26 we are going to have a presential exam, I will put you on that date a Moot test to help you preparing the presential examination, whenever it could take place. So please study all your Teaching guides.  

From the Cold War to the Coronavirus Crisis: The victory of Internationalism (Governance v. Government)

Cartel incitando a los obreros a votar a Hitler en las elecciones de 1932

 ("Trabajador, la frente y el puño, vota al soldado del frente Hitler)

Despite the disaster of World War I, Nationalism was extremely strong still in Europe from 1919 to 1939. International Socialism as defended by Lenin when he created the Komintern for expanding the Communist revolution Worldwide was counteracted by Hitler’s idea that the defense of the poor and weak could be done at the State level through “National-socialism”. The problem was that Nazi politics were not limited to solve the Social Question in Germany. Hitler decided to take revenge of the humiliation of the Versailles Treaty of 1919, which was negotiated exclusively by the victors and considered the defeated the only responsible of the War and therefore imposed extremely onerous War reparations on Germany. This was the Diktat of Versailles that produced enormous resentment in Germany and brought Hitler to power.

La Wehrmacht entrando en Praga (septiembre de 1938)

The Versailles Humiliation led Hitler to adopt the “Lebensraum” (literally “living space”) policy according to which the German Nation did not have enough Territory to support its population. (Please read carefully footnote 340 on page 164 to understand this crucial concept on Hitler’s own words included in Mein Kampf). So the Third Reich decided to expand. In 1936 Hitler ordered the remilitarization of the Rhineland, violating unilaterally the Versailles Treaty with no reaction from the allies. In 1938 Austria was annexed (Anschluss) and then the Sudenten Land (see page 165 of your materials), both “faits accomplis” were again accepted by the French and the British in the Munich Agreement (September 30, 1938). In September 1st of 1939 Hitler invaded Poland, but this time France and the UK declared War, though the fighting did not start before May 1940 (The Phoney War).

World War II was another tragic consequence of Nationalism. Internationalism as established by the League of Nations was completely inoperative. Europe was, again, completely destroyed because the Nation-State principle had prevailed once more. But the creation of the United Nations in 1945 was a second attempt for replacing the nation-states confrontation by a way of arbitrating conflicts internationally.

In fact the Teheran, Yalta and Postdam Conferences had designed a new World order controlled by the two superpowers that had won the war: the US and the USSR. The Liberal model would fight the Socialist model Worldwide for 40 years, during the Cold War (1948-1989), that started with the Stalin’s rejection of the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Blockade and the creation of the new Communist international (Kominform). Communism spread rapidly all over the world (see pages 171-173). Mao won the Chinese civil war in 1949. In the Spring of 1954 France was defeated by Vietnamese Communists in Dien Bien Phu. Castro established a Communist regime in Cuba ten years later. International communism tried to become the World ruling principle over the nation states as showed the Warsaw Pact (1955). 

The symbol of the Cuban Revolution: the mythic photography of Alberto Korda

On the other side Liberal democracies adapted to the new situation since 1949 creating NATO, a military alliance on the initiative of West European Nation-States, that demanded the military protection of the US against Stalin’s threat of invasion beyond the Iron Curtain. Nevertheless the Liberal model was alleviated by the establishment of the Welfare State model, that started with Roosevelt’s New Deal and expanded in Europe after 1945. (See pages 166-170). Democracies became social and therefore “interventionists” through regulation.

                        

Vopo escaping East Berlin

Cold War was finally won by the Liberal democracies. Mao died in 1976 and Den Xiao Ping established from 1978 the principle of Market Socialism. (See pages 173-174). In November 9, 1989 the Berlin Wall, built in 1961, disappeared, and in 1991 the USSR was dissolved.  According to Francis Fukuyama that was the end of history as the Liberal model had prevailed and the US became the supreme World power. In fact, according to Bertrand Badie (page 180) it was the beginning of History. Of a new history because the US –even through the creation of the Group of Seven (G7)- were not in fact the only World power and Cold War had been replaced internationally by a Multilateral equilibrium.

The Fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989

                                                         

Everything started in 1979 in Iran with Jomeiny Revolution and the creation of an Islamic Republic. Russians were finally defeated in Afghanistan in 1992, and had to fight Islamism in the Chechenian War (1999-2009). Radical Islamists declared a war on terror to the West but the World did not realize it until September 11, 2001. In the meantime Communist China had become an Economic World Power and Putin’s Russia became the champion of military intervention in any conflict that could weaken the Western powers as it occurred in Post Ghadafi Lybia, Syria, or even Venezuela. And through Cyber attacks Russians tried to influence liberal democracies in 2016 in crucial events like the Brexit referendum or the Trump presidential elections. Without counting with India, the largest Democracy in the World. 

On the other hand the Liberal model had taken a dramatic turn in the 1980’s because of the “Deregulation” policy started by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Neoliberalism tried to free capitalism from any State control. The result was a disaster with endemic economic crisis like the one that occurred in 2008. The worst part being that deregulation has increased dramatically the inequality and contributed to concentrate World’s wealth in the hands of a few bunch of multi billionaires, that try to rule the world over the nation-states as an international ruling class meet in institutions like the Bilderberg Group or the Davos Forum. In fact this situation has provoked the danger of the disappearance of the middle class and the replacement of Democracy by Oligarchy. A situation that is violently fought by Anti System Activists.  (See pages 174-178).

   

The result of all this is the beginning of a new World order in the Era of Globalization. This is what Bertrand Badie considers the beginning of history. In this new order there is not a Nation-State that could impose its rule Worlwide. Not the US, not China, not India, not Russia. So the new World order would not be imposed by a government but through multilateral negotiations between different Nation-States. The concept of “Government” has been replaced by the idea of “Governance”. Politics are becoming a collaborative and multilateral affair (See pages 178-180).

The idea of European integration that has brought us to the European Union is the result of this principle of Governance. As we will see in the next Teaching guides. 

EXERCISING 

Besides reading pages 162 to 180 according to the order indicated in the introduction text of this entry, understanding the concepts and answering the questions I would like you to forget about the overwhelming number of dates in pages 181-185 and only get familiar with the following: 

Hitler and World War 2

Versailles Treaty 1919

Hitler’s Third Reich (1933-1945)

Remilitarization of Rhineland 1936

Austria’s Anschluss, Sudenten Annexation and Munich Agreement (1938)

World War II (1939-1945)

Phoney War (September 1939 to May 1940)

Stalingrad Battle (August 23, 1942 to February 2, 1943)

Nuremberg Trials (November 1945 to October 1946)

Cold War

Marshall Plan 1947

Berlin Blockade 1948

Mao’s victory 1949

Creation of NATO 1949

Korea’s War (1950-1953)

Stalin’s Death 1953

Dien Bien Phu 1954

Warsaw Pact 1955

Crushing of the Hungarian rebellion 1956

Triumph of Cuban Revolution 1959

Beginning of the construction of the Berlin Wall 1961

Missile Crisis 1962

Vietnam War (1964-1975)

Mao’s Cultural Revolution (1966-1976)

Prague Spring January-August 1968

Military coup against Chilean President Salvador Allende September 11, 1973

Mao’s Death (1976)

Gorbatchev in Power (1985-1991)

Tchernobil Nuclear explosion April 26, 1986. 

Tiananmen Revolt April June 1989

Fall of the Berlin Wall November 9, 1989

German Reunification August-September 1990

Dissolution of the USSR December 1991. 

A Multilateral World

Creation of the League of Nations 1920

Creation of the United Nations 1945

Creation of the Groupe of Seven (G7) 1975

Islamic revolution in Iran (Jomeiny) 1979

Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989)

Margaret Thatcher UK Prime minister (1979-1990)

Ronald Reagan’s Presidency (1981-1989) 

Chechen Wars (1994-1999)

Beginning of Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela (1999)

Vladimir Putin’s first Presidency (2000-2008)

Islamic Terrorist Attack of the US September 11, 2001

Madrid bombing   March 11, 2004

Evo Morales President of Bolivia (2006-2019)

Arab Spring (2010-2012)

Beginning of Syrian Civil War 2011

Assassination of Libyan President Ghadafi 2011 (In power since 1969)

Vladimir Putin’s beginning of Second’s Presidency 2012

Death of Hugo Chavez, Nicolas Maduro becomes Venezuela’s President 2013

Islamic Terrorist attacks in Paris  2015 

If you have any doubts or need any clarifications concerning this Teaching guide feel free to contact me through my email: bruno.aguilera@urjc.es You can also use the blog to make comments. As soon as presential classes would be authorized again it would be a pleasure to answer your questions personally and show you a powerful PPT. 

Relativizando el virus coronado

Un hospital improvisado en Estados Unidos durante la "Gripe española" (1918)

Esperando que ninguno de vosotros se haya topado con el dichoso virus procedente de la China del socialismo de mercado, me gustaría incitaros a que aprovechéis este enclaustramiento por decreto para reflexionar sobre la fragilidad de nuestro sistema de vida. Nos creemos en la cima de la civilización y un virus innegablemente contagioso, pero mucho menos mortífero que la gripe ordinaria, ha puesto nuestro mundo patas arriba y la economía contra las cuerdas, recordándonos que no somos gran cosa, materialmente hablando. Gran argumento a favor de potenciar el desarrollo intelectual y la dimensión espiritual de la vida humana.  

 Pero primero, a lo práctico, que no en vano sois hijas e hijos de vuestro tiempo. 

Por lo que se refiere a las clases, mientras no puedan ser presenciales, os seguiré dando instrucciones a través de este blog. Como he venido haciendo desde el principio. En un rato os "colgaré" la entrada correspondiente a la "Teaching Guide nº 7".

Y en cuanto al examen, en principio se mantiene, ya que el cierre preventivo en principio se acaba precisamente el 26 de marzo. (¡Os juro que no tengo nada que ver!)

 En caso de que la autoridad prolongase la prohibición de las clases presenciales, se retrasaría hasta que estas se reanudasen. Os mantendré al corriente. 

Mientras tanto seguid trabajando las entradas y las "Teaching guides" y leyendo los dos libros que os quedan "La capital" de Robert Menasse y "Sumisión" de Michel Houellebeq. Recordad que de vuestro rendimiento literario dependerá una parte importante de la nota final. 

Para que os deis cuenta de lo importante que es la literatura para comprender nuestra realidad, os voy a traer a colación un texto del siglo XIX donde se describe la sensación de lo que era una epidemia, lo que hoy se llama pandemia. Os recuerdo que las grandes epidemias eran muy mortíferas. La peste negra que asoló Europa entre 1347 y 1353 se llevó al otro barrio a la mitad de la población. 

                                                           Pintura medieval sobre la Peste negra

Y en Florencia, fue aún peor ya que solo sobrevivió un quinto de sus habitantes. Lo que le dió a Bocaccio para escribir su inmortal Decamerón (1353), una serie de cuentos que se inventan unos jóvenes huidos de la capital de la Toscana para escapar de la peste. 

                                            La peste negra en Florencia según el grabador Marcello (1483-1548)

   

 François René de Chateaubriand (1768-1848), uno de los mejores escritores franceses de todos los tiempos, nos describe la epidemia de Cólera morbo que presenció en París en 1832. Una epidemia que tuvo brotes sucesivos y que solo en España, a lo largo del siglo XIX, se llevó por delante a unas 800.000 personas. Lo cual no es nada si tenemos en cuenta que la epidemia llamada "Gripe española" que estalla en 1918 en un solo año mató a varias decenas de millones de personas, por lo que es considerada la pandemia más mortífera de la historia. 

                                 La gripe española de 1918. La pandemia más mortífera de la historia

 Si os traigo a colación a Chateaubriand es por su visión de la enfermedad. Porque como buen romántico se lamenta de que la epidemia no estallase en una época donde la religión era lo que daba sentido a la vida, en vez de propagarse en una época prosaica como la que le había tocado vivir. Os incito a leer el contraste entre las dos reacciones de la gente, en dos épocas diversas, con dos visiones del mundo totalmente diferentes. Y luego os pediría que comparéis con la histeria desatada por el Corona virus, que es una ñoñez comparado con la Peste negra, el Cólera morbo o la Gripe española. Porque solo debe su gravedad extrema a la angustia que provoca el que se haya hecho viral en las redes sociales. Poderoso enemigo es internet.  Os deseo sin embargo que no os afecte y que dentro de unas pocas semanas el tema se reconduzca y se abandone esta impresentable histeria colectiva.  

 Pero leamos a Chateaubriand y cómo enfrenta dos actitudes distintas en una magistral descripción en la que se resume espléndidamente la banalidad de la época moderna, donde prevalece lo material frente a lo espiritual, lo que para él era inasumible. Disfrutad de esta versión libre que he hecho del original francés. 

 “ Si esta plaga hubiese caído en medio de nosotros en un siglo religioso,  habría dejado un cuadro espectacular, acentuado por la poesía de las costumbres y creencias populares. Imaginaos un paño mortuorio flotando a modo de bandera en lo más alto de las torres de Notre Dame, y a intervalos, cañonazos solitarios que advierten al viajero imprudente que debe alejarse. Un cordón de tropas cerca la ciudad sin dejar salir ni entrar a nadie. Las iglesias atestadas por una multitud que gime sollozante. Los sacerdotes día y noche recitan salmos y oraciones en una agonía perpetua, mientras el viático con la extremaunción va de casa en casa acompañado de velas y campanillas, las campanas hacen oír sin cesar su tañido fúnebre y los frailes en las plazas, crucifijo en mano, incitan al pueblo a la penitencia, predicando la cólera y el juicio de Dios evidenciados en los cadáveres ya ennegrecidos por el fuego del infierno.

 El arzobispo, rodeado de su clero, y cada párroco seguido por sus feligreses, atraviesan calles vacías con todas las tiendas cerradas, para sacar la urna de Santa Genoveva (Patrona de Paris), y pasear las santas reliquias alrededor de la ciudad, precedidos por una interminable procesión integrada por diversas órdenes religiosas, gremios y cofradías, congregaciones de penitentes, mujeres cubiertas con velos, miembros de la universidad y de los hospicios, soldados sin armas o con las picas apuntando al suelo. Mientras el Miserere entonado por los sacerdotes se mezcla con los cánticos de doncellas y niños.  Todos, cuando se les indica, se prosternan silenciosos para volver a levantarse de nuevo y proferir nuevos lamentos.

Hoy en cambio no hay nada de eso. El cólera nos ha llegado en un siglo de filantropía, de incredulidad, de periódicos y de administración. Este azote sin imaginación, no ha encontrado ni antiguos claustros, ni religiosos, ni bóvedas, ni tumbas góticas. Se ha paseado con aire burlón, en pleno día, por un mundo completamente nuevo, acompañado de un boletín en el que se describen los remedios empleados contra él, el número de víctimas que ha provocado, la precauciones que deben tomarse para evitar el contagio, lo que conviene comer y qué clase de indumentaria debe usarse preventivamente. Por lo demás todo el mundo hace vida normal y los espectáculos están llenos. He visto a borrachos  sentados en la puerta de la taberna bebiendo sobre una mesita de madera y levantando su copa diciendo en voz alta: “A tu salud, ¡(Cólera) Morbo!” Y Morbo, agradecido, acudía al llamamiento y caían muertos bajo la mesa.“

François René de Chateaubriand "Le choléra" en Mémoires d’Outre tombe . Tomo II, 4,  XXXV, 15. 

                                                 "El triunfo de la Muerte". Brueghel el Viejo (1562)