Preface

It may surprise our readers that “Peace and Security” publishes the contents of an international panel discussion about the US/GB model in comparison to the Continental European model of a social market economy, held in December 2000 in Vienna, Austria.  The reason is as simple as it is evident: on the doorstep of the entrance of twelve new members to the EU it is politically indispensable to clarify which ways and means are used in the old and new EU member states to achieve the targets set up by the EU-institutions.

Sometimes there is a feeling that neither the Council nor the Commission of the EU concerns itself much with what the people in the member states are thinking about Europe’s development and enlargement.  The political responsibility is delegated to the governments and parliaments of the member-states.  Even the partly upgraded EU Parliament can only control EU institutions and participate in EU budgeting.  But this is a marginal quantity compared with the lump sum of national budgets.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the participation rate in EU elections is significantly lower than in national elections.  People think - right or wrong - that the EU Parliament is a mixture of pensioned-off and apprentices of national parliaments.

The more problems arise to achieve the economic targets of the EU, especially the reduction of budget deficits, restrictive depth management and extensive liberalism, the less people are willing to accept the prescriptions to achieve these targets: a still  high unemployment rate and dismantling of the obligatory state welfare institutions.

Having no ambition to authentically interpret the result of the Irish vote on the EU’s Nizza decisions, we can conclude that it was doubtless an expression of protest.  EU enlargement endangers the flow of finances to the “receivers,” the increase of majority decisions is going mainly on account of the “small” and the militarization of the EU before clarification on how the EU comes to binding decisions about its foreign policy are all additional shocks for a small neutral country’s people. More and more people in the EU feel insecure in their daily life, uncertain about the future perspective of an enlarged and intensified integrated EU.

This explains partly the vote for a center-right coalition in Italy.  Strong men are wanted.  We have not the situation in 1930 but less than we had in 1990.  The outset for a new era of peace and prosperity after the Cold War has not been used properly.  Even rich Germany has tremendous psychological problems in absorbing the former GDR.

For at least one third of the people in EU countries the tension between beatification of the global market economy and their anxiety and uncertainty to manage their personal future is an open door for an increasing influence of political and religious sectarians.  When comparing their sorrows with what the leadership is discussing and deciding about, they must be frustrated.  In such situations people tend towards refusal.

Even if the various EU authorities, national governments and parliaments were aware of this situation and ready to change their priorities they would have to know what their priorities are.

The industrialized countries have developed different models, the US, Canada and the United Kingdom on the one hand and western Europe on the other.

Are the global players in our economy the rulers or is there still space left for political regulation--more than just to supply the companies with basic trade laws?

Is social security still guaranteed by a state-based and financed system left over from the social welfare state or does it tend to re-privatization of risks for the individual citizen?

These problems affect only some 15% of the world population.  What does the present global finance-market dominated system mean to the countries at the doorstep of becoming industrially organized countries?  What do the regimes of the IMF, WB and WTO mean to them?  How about India, China and Brazil?  And what is the impact on the less and least developed countries?

Which model can be recommended to all groups of nations given the variety of national and cultural preconditions?  Huntington’s is no recipe; it’s the pre-rectification of new wars inside and between states.

Therefore the “Austria Association of public and community economy (VÖWG)” and the “Austrian Association for Economic and Financial Policy” invited experts to discuss and value the presently existing models.  It is up to our readers to judge if the participants to this penal-discussion have verified their expectations.

Without leading off this discussion and achieving results in good time the potential for conflicts, inside and between states will increase.  But what most urgently is needed is not conflict escalation, but de-escalation because without peace there is no chance for a better life of mankind of whatever culture.