Europe – Pike & Hurricane

One country, many borders – an attempt to define Georgia

Nina Kolarzik — Sun, 19 Apr 2020 13:48:01 +0000

“Borders” imply one clear line. You are either in front of it or behind it. But in reality, borders are not that simple. They change throughout time. They follow different ways, depending on who you ask. They are multidimensional: cultural, physical, religious and linguistic. A web of borders can be found in the South Caucasus region. By looking at Georgia’s relation to Europe, this article shows that borders and identities are constructed.

One question to start: On which continent do you think is Georgia? On the Georgian tourist website the country is presented as European, based on the Caucasus as a European mountain range. At the airport of the capital Tbilisi you are welcomed to a European country. However, in the Central and West European public consciousness few would name Georgia as European. This question is not as easy to answer as it sounds at first and it is an issue that questions the nature of borders.

Considering Georgia

Georgia is a country located in the South Caucasus next to the Black Sea. Like other countries in the region between the European and the Asian continent, it faces the question of belonging and orientation. And this question is not simple to answer, since it depends on many different factors: politics and alliances, cultural influence and traditions and the will of the citizens.

Historically, Georgia was under both European and Asian rule. Geographically, the Caucasus Mountains are commonly seen as the Southeastern border of Europe, which means that Georgia is topographically located in Asia. Politically, Georgia orients itself on Western democracies. It is among others a member of the Council of Europe and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and is seeking to join the European Union (EU) and NATO. It also is part of the Asian Development Bank, but the ties to European states are closer. That counts also for the military sphere. The Rose Revolution 2003 marked the turn to a more pro-Western, Euro-Atlantic foreign policy. Culturally the country is closer to Europe and most Georgians identify themselves with Europe, not Asia.

I asked Georgians about how they feel about Georgia and Europe, and a man from Tbilisi told me: “Geographically speaking, the border of Europe goes on the south Caucasus. Historically speaking, few centuries ago we had strong connection with the European countries, even assigning their ambassadors; based on the ideology and Identity values, we are much more similar to Europe, rather than Asia. So yea, Georgia was as far as possible a part of Europe before and nowadays, indeed.”

However, Georgia’s culture has Asian origins as well and its music, architecture and food are a sign of this heritage. As it can be seen, Georgia is hanging in several dimension between the two continents.

Considering Europe

To know if Georgia belongs to Europe, we can turn around and ask where Europe ends. There is no universal definition of Europe but multiple interpretations. In geographical terms, we read about the Caucasus Mountains as its border earlier. In another understanding it is the river Aras, which would make Georgia part of Europe- which interpretation is the right one? When searching the history of Europe, it can be defined as building on the law of the Roman Empire and on Christianity. The Caucasus region was once part of the Roman Empire and they are some of the oldest Christian nations in the world. This again would imply the inclusion of Georgia to Europe.

After the Reformation, when Christianity, that served as a common ground for all the nations of the continent, became fragile, the name “Europe” became a diplomatic term. A term that did not include Georgia. The 17th century was a time of massive political changes on the continent: The Thirty Years’ War and the Peace of Westphalia arguably define our political system until today. The new concert of European nation states had the chance to defend and prove itself in the continuous Ottoman wars. While at times, the Ottoman Empire was seen as a European power, increasingly a border was drawn by the European states to its “Eastern neighbours”. The absence of natural borders made Europe feel the need of differentiating itself from others, be it in cultures or religions. This made up over time an European identity in contrast to others, especially Asian and Arabian identities.

In the 20th century a political idea emerged that is still upheld in the contemporary EU nations. Two aspects made up a new European consciousness: “‘Europeanism’, the sense of belonging to a centuries-old civilisation, and ‘Europeism’, the perception of an urgent need to ‘build Europe’ to end war.” Out of this the European Union was eventually formed. Often, when people talk about “Europe” they mean the EU, which does not make things easier. However, even this clear defined political organization carries a similar struggle as does the continent: an unfixed territory and constantly shifting borders. How can Europe be seen as one entity, when its political borders have been changed several times and through expansion its former neighbours are becoming a part of it?

Contemporary Europe is strongly connected to values: “Europe ends where the perception of the values are different from the European ones.” These values can be adopted, which means that the European territory is still up to change and growth: “Every state of this region […] is also able to add something new to the idea of European values and is somewhat connected to those shared ideas.”

So what do we learn from this about Georgia? It does not explain why Georgia is often not seen as European in Central Europe.

Who is making borders and why?

When constructs, for example borders, are made, it needs to be asked who is behind the construction and for what purpose. The uncertainty of defining Europe is at least also an advantage for the nations that determine the “European identity” and the norms that others have to comply with. It makes the definition of borders a strongly political question, since it is the basis for the inclusion or exclusion of countries. This is visible in frequent debates about European expansion, especially in the debates about a potential EU membership for Turkey. The uncertainties about Europe also mean uncertainty for the South Caucasus countries. Projects like the Eastern Partnership develop European values and build strong economic connections between EU institutions and Eastern countries like Georgia or Moldova, which are both backed by Romania as potential future EU member states.

Another citizen from Georgia’s capital said about his country: “I guess it’s more Europe than anything else and the main indicator, I would say, is culture, which is deeply rooted in Christianity and it matters. As [a] counter argument, one could say that Ethiopia is also [a] Christian nation but the country is in Africa. But that is more aberration. And of course it’s [a] matter of politics – Georgians want to be Europeans (mostly) and as it is on the edge of the Europa, there is [a] chance that they will build up [a] European nation and state one day”.

Why decide? Say yes to Eurasia

Georgia can be seen as having a dual identity. Georgia “could fit into either Europe or Asia, depending on which definition you use.” But why is there the need to put it into one of the two boxes, why Europe or Asia? “Like all other Caucasian people, the Georgians do not fit into any of the major categories of Asia or Europe. The Georgian language is not Semitic, indo-European, nor Turkic.” We can also see it as Eurasian or Caucasian, as one of its own kind.

Many borders exist- in our minds, on paper, or even in the physical world. But do we need them? What do they mean in everyday life? Who makes the borders? Who profits from them? Which one is the right one? Are there natural borders? … The question of Georgia opened up more questions about borders than it answered.

by Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credits

European connections, TheAndrasBarta

borderland, Free-Photos

The post One country, many borders – an attempt to define Georgia appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

“The European Union wants to kill our cuppa”: How Euromyths and fake news affected the Brexit vote

Isa Tiilikainen — Sat, 22 Feb 2020 15:26:00 +0000

On 31 January 2020, Britain became the first country ever to leave the European Union. The Leave campaign leading up to Brexit was, to the surprise of many, a success. But how did they manage to do it?

Britain’s relationship with the EU has always been a problematic one. Their accession to the European Union, then EEC, in 1973 was preceded by two previous attempts, both denied by the French. Then, only two years after joining, a referendum was held in 1975 asking the British people: “Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community?”. With two thirds of the population voting yes, the country continued to be a member, but the suspicion and mistrust towards the Union always accompanied the 47 years of British membership.

Scepticism appears to stem from this belief of British exceptionalism: they are fundamentally different, and superior to, other nations. In a similar manner, the thought of personal exceptionalism led David Cameron to believe that he could win the referendum on Brexit. The imperial myth of Britain as a superpower leads to the nation approaching the EU from a standpoint that their country deserves a special status and preferential treatment.

To this idea of exceptionalism, the Leave campaign built its narrative. On one hand, the sense of superiority, and on the other hand the myth of being the underdog of the EU facing unfair treatment. Their strategy can be broken down to three parts: (1) simple messaging appealing to people’s emotions, (2) massive social media campaign by micro-targeting, and (3) controlling the debate framing with falsehoods.

False narratives

“We send the EU £350 million a week: let’s fund our NHS instead”, read the side of the infamous Brexit Battle Bus we can all remember. To suggest that such an amount of money would be available for extra spending when the UK leaves the EU was both misleading, as well as a straight up lie. According to different estimates, the actual amount of net payment, after deductions, agriculture subsidies and regional grants, comes down to about £160-190 million a week. And even this amount of money is surely not going to be fully budgeted for the NHS, as post-Brexit customs and legal institutions, among other things, will take up a large part. But the facts didn’t matter. What was important was to build a strong Eurosceptic narrative and appeal to the already existing cynicism of the population.

During the last 25 years or so, British newspapers like the Daily Mail and the Daily Express have been whipping up paranoia related to all kinds of things the EU allegedly wants to ban. Whether it’s curvy bananas, vacuums, kettle pots, lawnmowers or double-decker buses, the EU is about to ban it and Britishness is being severely threatened. These false narratives about the EU are called Euromyths and there have been so many of them circling around, that the European Commission has its own web page dedicated to addressing them. The openly EU-critical news coverage has been widely spread in the British media over the last few decades and that, without a doubt, contributed to the Euroscepticism among the nation. The seed of Brexit has therefore been developing for years before the actual referendum took place.

Social media targeting

A key component in winning the Brexit vote was the massive social media campaign spreading false narratives. The Leave campaign spent 40% of it’s campaign finances on one single technology firm: AggregateIQ. In pounds, this sums up to about 2,7 million, which translates to about 3,2 million euros. AggregateIQ is essentially referred to as a ’’department’’ within Cambridge Analytica; the company that many associate with the ’’fake news’’ around Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign. The same methods of micro-targeting in social media were substantially used in the Brexit campaign. What this microtargeting essentially boils down to, is targeting individuals based on specific information gathered about them online. Cambridge Analytica is, for example, legally able to buy consumer data sets from airlines and magazine subscriptions and then connect this information with people’s personal data. The aim is to find persuadable voters and target them with suitable triggers. Facebook has proven to be a great source of psychological insights to millions of voters and fundamentally make all of this targeting possible.

While some of the Leave campaign’s ads run on Facebook maintained that new trade deals outside of EU would create 300 000 new jobs in Britain, others included claims ranging from the EU wanting to “kill our cuppa”, banning tea kettles, complaining about “5 million immigrants coming to the UK by 2030” and “Turkey’s 76 million people are granted visa-free travel by the EU”. So the message was not only focused on “costs and control”, but also based on the nationalist and even xenophobic sentiments. Thus, the campaign was successfully able to target a vast amount of people with a diverse set of values. The way in which the falsities were spread, not only through social media but also through mainstream media, was systematic and strategically intelligent.

Controlling the framing

As was established later on, the Leave campaign’s political message was in many ways built on lies, but initially the lies were not intended to be believed; that just came as a bonus. The intention was to frame and warp the debate. Vote Leave’s strategy was to constantly put out misleading information that would then distract the Remain campaign from having to interfere. By this, the Leave campaign managed to set the stage in their own benefit and get the opposite side to play into their hands.

As the Remainers were forced to correct the falsehoods the Leave campaign was actively repeating, they ended up just reinforcing the myths. You see, even though the claim of sending 350 million pounds a week to the EU was false, it impelled the Remain campaign to talk about the fact that Britain does send money to the EU, and that is exactly the subject that the Leave campaign wanted to talk about. Remain’s efforts to concentrate on the single market, economic affairs and all the benefits EU brings to Britain, went to waste. As Dominic Cummings, the campaign director and mastermind behind the Leave campaign, said: “Would we have won by spending our time talking about trade and the single market? No way.”

by Isa Tiilikainen

Photo credits

Banksy does Brexit (detail), Duncan Hull, CC BY 2.0

UK News Brexit Headlines 22nd June 2016, Jeff Djevdet, CC BY 2.0

Vote-leave-misleading-headlines, Abi Begum, CC BY 2.0

The post “The European Union wants to kill our cuppa”: How Euromyths and fake news affected the Brexit vote appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Combining the best of both worlds or hurting either system?

Clara Bieler — Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:24:11 +0000

The European Union–an economically integrated region that covers 4 million km² and has 508 million inhabitants. Wave by wave countries joined the union, adding to the socio-economic heterogeneity, uniting unequally developed economies and countries with different demographics. Currently, wages vary widely across the European Union: hourly pay averages €41.30 in Denmark, €39.10 in Belgium, €37.40 in Sweden, €6.80 in Lithuania, €5.00 in Romania and €4.10 in Bulgaria (according to Eurostat data for 2015). Similarly, social welfare and benefits range from abundant to non existent giving people the opportunity to benefit from the gray zones of the diverse system.

Swiss-German “Grenzgänger”

Switzerland may not formally be in the EU, but has still one of the closest trading relationships with the bloc, having signed free-trade agreements and pegged its currency. Linguistic similarity, attractive commuting routes and clearly regulated bureaucratic procedures allow Germans living in the area of Lake Constance and Breisgau region to become ‘cross border’ workers. Now in 2018 up to 300,000 workers cross the country’s borders every day for employment, benefitting from the cheaper rents and cost of living on the German side. Salaries are higher in Switzerland, whilst taxes and social security contributions are lower. Whilst there are provisions in place for Double Taxation, there is still an imbalance created by this arrangement. Germans work in Switzerland, but spend the majority of the money earned in another country. It’s an unintended imbalance.

Austria’s child benefits outflows

Austria’s newly elected conservative People’s Party has recently made its intentions public to cut benefits from children of Austrian residents not living in the country. A similar move had been debated by Germany the year before. The narrative is that children, whose parents work in Austria (which makes them residents and eligible to apply for benefits), living in low-wage countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia, should not be entitled to the same amount as Austrian children (114€ per month per child). In 2016, Austria transferred a total of 273 million € to EU and European Economic Area countries, supporting 132,000 children, whose parents work in Austria. Undoubtedly it benefits the children receiving it, even more so, than children living in Austria, given the differing purchase parities. It however adds to the inequality of the countries and systems.

Medical tourism, i.e. fertility and dental

In 2016, 488,000 foreign patients sought dental treatment in Polish clinics, according to the Polish Association of Medical Tourism. This trend is mirrored by other Central European countries: Hungary attracts patients hoping to save money on their dental treatments, whilst Czech Republic is now renowned for cataract surgery. Patients from the UK, Germany and Nordic countries can save up three times the cost by going abroad. In 2013, an EU directive further reinforced this by allowing patients to get refunds for medical treatments in other member states, if said procedures are covered by the national health scheme. However, this practice reinforced a divide.

Spotting the differences between European countries is far from rocket science. Jumping the systems has become easier with the European Union framework enabling unprecedented mobility of workers and capital. Yet, the subject keeps returning to imbalance of welfare systems, cost of labor and cost of living between countries. The free mobility of labor and capital creates a potential for arbitrage. In an Adam Smithian fashion, individuals act on self interest–trying to improve their status quo. That is just natural survival instinct. But who bares the cost?

It is an opportunity for many citizens of countries, that have not recovered as quickly from their past, be it communism, economic collapse or exodus. It is a challenge for countries, whose welfare systems were not built with newcomers in mind, and who experience an outflow of money to other economies, rather than seeing it re-invested. It is an issue that should have been tackled the same way ‘Bologna’ (finding a way of transferring credits across different universities and equalizing diplomas) or ‘Schengen’ (finding a way to allow non-EU citizens to access all member-countries with one type of visa) were approached. Acknowledging differences and finding workarounds.

Photo credits:

Image 1 by andreame, ‘europe-eu-collapse-broken-european‘, CC0 Creative Commons

Image 2 by Etching created by Cadell and Davies (1811), John Horsburgh (1828) or R.C. Bell (1872), ‘Profile of Adam Smith’, Public Domain

The post Combining the best of both worlds or hurting either system? appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.