The Myth of the European peace project
The open Europe does not seem to fit everyone today when people from Europe's backyards
turn up as beggars with cardboard cups in our streets and living in miserable makeshift tent
camps. If the politicians ever meant that the European Union (EU) was a peace project,
beyond the fear of conventional military conflict, it is probably time to redefine what this
project should be.
A Swedish version of this article was published in Västerbottens Kuriren 2014-10-23
The beggars we see in my hometown Umeå has become a public topic recently. Those of us,
who share the documentations in different media, support the efforts by the NGOs, dare to
talk with single beggars, give some money, something to eat, and some cloths to keep the
coldness out, have in different ways created an understanding of the beggars’ situation.
At the same time, we hear a lament that echoes xenophobia. The other day we read the
following in the local newspaper: One cannot go around town without anyone pushing up a
mug in the face and begging – we cannot take care of all the poor citizens of the European
Union in this country – what happens if there are 200, 300, or 400 beggars in this town – these
beggars have the right to a decent existence, but in their respective home countries.
Are these expressions signs of fears? Or is there a historical heritage that shows its
face at times when we feel that our collective self-image of goodness and security are
threatened?
When Sweden joined the EU, the propaganda said that it was a peace project, which is also
highlighted by various political leaders since then when it suits as a counter argument in the
EU-critical debate.
An earlier wave of indignation over the effects of the EU membership was linked to
the Europeans who came to Sweden and threatened many Swedish workers by doing the same
job for lower pay by ignoring the Swedish model of employment contracts.
Then the Conservative Alliance Government introduced income tax credit, tax
reductions for repairs of houses, and lower taxes for youth employments. These measures
worked like smokescreens for the injustice that the so-called peace project created by making
the "real" Swedes satisfied with their lot. Neither these measures nor the call to open our
hearts changed the situation. The negative reactions have been very strong ever since the
beggars found their ways to Sweden.
The open Europe does not seem to fit all today when also people from Europe's back
yards show up with their cardboard cups outside shops and shopping centres and live in
makeshift tent camps that threaten our proud view of the Swedish welfare system.
It is perhaps time to remind us of what this peace project should actually encompass, if we
ever were serious about the European peace project beyond the fear of conventional and lethal
military conflicts that also disrupt the daily businesses. A peace project is not merely the
absence of war. Peace is also to create coexistence and solidarity, an understanding of
injustices and to support those affected by these injustices. At this time it is the NGOs and
individuals, who have led the way with their support to the beggars in different ways.
At the same time the expression of fears and racism that we hear have another effect
which encourages xenophobia. Our membership in the EU has created the right of free
movement that beggars use in the same way as others do when travelling within Europe.
Therefore, many people need to broaden their views and understand that we cannot just pick
the raisins out of the EU cake. Or as the culture editor of the same newspaper wrote (2014-1015) referring to the occasion of a video clip on two beggars pretending to be disabled: We
have a situation where the lies that are feeding the system passes unnoticed, while the lies that
show society's shortcomings are those that become targets of anger and hatred.
The myth of EU as a European peace project is falling into pieces as its inability to
solve the internal conflicts amplifies. This myth is further eroded by the increase of external
conflicts, some of which are reminiscent of colonial coercions but which is now called Fort
Europe, Mos Maiorum or super-REVA.
The EU begins to resemble a classic Swedish Lorry sketch where the innovator comes
to the Patent Office with his invention but is rebutted by the officer and ends the dialogue
with "didn’t think about that" as a result of a lack of consequential analysis. The EU,
commonly marketed as a peace project, has the same flaws as the innovator in the Lorry
sketch. Therefore, those of us who look at peace as a broader project of solidarity have to
repair the mistakes by the European political establishment and their naïve politicians.
Lars Dahlström