But Still, What's Identity?

            American civil rights activist, Andrew Goodman, stated that, “a people must have dignity and identity.” This leads me to pose the hypothetical question that my blog subconsciously was always leading up to: what makes an identity? Is identity a fluid concept that cannot defined? Should identity fit into the confines of a box? If there is no identity then what does this mean for the people?

           A theme examined during my time in Brussels was that of pan-Europeanism and what this meant to the overall identity of Europe. Is this good or bad? I easily think of the United States as an example and it makes perfect sense. I am fault for this, because it is far from even being close. Europe is not a single country like the United States. The European Union is made up of twenty-eight separate member states. There are multiple languages and cultures. How does one even begin to condense this? In the European project there are no European-wide holidays that countries are encouraged to celebrate. Actually, there were no European-wide initiatives promoted to try to help solidify this identity. Statistics show that current strategies are having successful results.

            A recent controversy that began to make me really assess how I personally felt towards pan-Europeanism came from Malta. Malta’s government has passed a law that allows one to buy aMaltese passport for 650,000 euros, which in turn would make this person an EU citizen. No tests are required, no applications must be filled, you simply spend 650,000 big ones and you’re officially a citizen. This caused an outrage among the Parliament.

            In the original legislation, Malta had created a privacy clause. People who came in and bought citizenship could do so, and no one would even know. It would be as if their citizenship had existed all along. Fortunately, this part of the clause has been dropped. Though I still wonder if that’s fair to the person who is purchasing the citizenship. Shouldn’t they just have the freedom to do so peace? Regardless, the whole situation is disheartening.

            This creation of a European-wide identity would be taking a major blow. Firstly, what would happen to the culture of Malta? Where is the dignity if someone can come in and buy rights that should be a unique privilege? Where is the identity if people unfamiliar to this identity flood Malta? Will its values start to transform? Anyone who is rich can just buy their way onto the island. What’s next? The commission has no power to stop the passing of this legislation. Malta, along with any other European member state, has the authority to pass this sort of law.

            My supervisor and fellow intern were not happy about this at all. They considered it classist and to make Malta look bad to the rest of Europe as well as the rest of the world who found out about the new law. They saw it as a way for wealthy criminals flee their own country and make residence in Malta and avoid persecution. I never thought of it in those terms, but that too was an excellent point. The magnitude of a law such as this passing had so manynegative repercussions attached to it. These wouldn’t only affect Malta, but the twenty-eight member states these pseudo-Maltese are now a member of. Europe is already in the midst of an identity crisis, and when others from all over the world can now buy their place in Europe, has does that aid in creating a ‘united’ Europe?

            I know that component of the blogs is to include a link to every paragraph, but I would like to use the last words of this post for internal reflection, something I cannot cite.

            I had a lot of trouble deciding how I would sum up my experience, how I would conclude my posts, and if I would walk away understanding pan-Europeanism. In my internship, the experience was such an amazing opportunity. I learned so much about Europe as a whole. That was one of the wonderful part of working for the press. Where with working for an MEP, I would be focused on the issues of a particular nation and only through the lens of the MEP. With the press, I was able to learn about all the member states. Maybe that’s why I see them in such an individual light?

            As to pan-Europeanism, I initially liked the idea. It seemed to be this prototype that could be taken into the future. It was successful in ending war on the continent of Europe, but that was on economic grounds. I often find myself wondering if in the beginning anyone could have ever imagined that it would turn into this. Did they have the foresight to know it would become this union that surpassed economic alliances? What if the founding fathers of the European Economic Community wanted it to be nothing more than purely economic? Of course, it’s too late to truly ponder on this now, the member states are too interconnected, it just serves as excellent food for thought.

            I left Europe with a sense of bettered identity. I had never felt more connected and at one with the United States or South Carolina in my whole entire life. Identity is important. We all have multiple identities that come into our being, and then we are left with the age-old question of “who are we?” As in, we have to choose the identity in which we feel fully defines us the most. To me, European is far too broad. There’s no way to capture twenty-eight member states’ and morph them into one. So what is a European? I could not even begin to tell you.

Disappearing Act: British Identity in Danger?

            Singer/Songwriter, Steven PatrickMorrissey, from the popular eighties band The Smith’s commented on Britain that, “although I don’t have anything against people from other countries, the higher influx into England the more British identity disappears.” The quote comes from a 2007 interview where the singer discussed the hot topic of migration into Britain. At the time, the comment was taken as offensive. Currently, comments like these are heard all over the island.

            Britain is a popular destination for migration. Anyone who has gone through the British customs has experienced how hard it is to enter into the country. There’s a reason for this, and that is cracking down on the influx of people who migrate there. Britain has social benefits that make it an advantageous location. On top of that, most who migrate to Britain are able to find good work.

            Britain has been able to avoid a massive amount of in and out into the country due to it not being a part of the European Union created Schengen zone. The Schengen Zone allows for mobility between all members of the zone without the use of a passport or the worry of border patrolling. The Schengen Agreement is yet another vehicle used to further cement the pan-European identity. If people can freely travel to another country with the hassle of passports and customs, why wouldn’t they?

            A new proposal by the European Union will change all of this for the UK. There has always been a large amount of Bulgarian and Romanian migrants, but starting in January of 2014, these two groups will have unrestricted access into the UK. These two groups will be free to gain employment and live in the country with the same rights as citizens of the UK. As one can imagine, this is causing a huge uproar.

            From the very beginning, the UK has always been on the fence with its relationship concerning the European Union. Winston Churchill famously referred to the European Community as the ‘United States of Europe’ and never included Britain as one of the states. It would take until the seventies before the country would join. Even with joining, the UK is not in the Eurozone and it is not a part of the Schengen Agreement. It’s a member without any of the commitment.

            The UK is one of the most Eurosceptic nations in the entire Union. It is very against European integration and doesn’t even believe that the European Union will exist into the future. It sees it as the downfall of Europe, boasting how the economic crisis didn’t affect the UK as much due to its use of the pound instead of the euro.

            It all makes one wonder why the UKwould even bother being a part of the Union? Many would love to exit the Union, but it is not a simple process, a large reason as to why it’s still a member. An interesting identity the UK must have within the group. Its image is to be the entity that demeans the very Union that it is a member of. Perhaps this the only way the UK knows how to carve an identity for itself when it sees its self slowly being overcome by migration?

            Whether an influx of Bulgarian and Romanians to the UK is a positive move is up for much debate. Many in the European Union argue that it will boost the UK’s economy and is good for its job sector as it will fill the positions that Brits are not taking. Counter to this, many argue that it is opening the door for benefits tourism and that in actuality the jobs filled by Bulgarian and Romanians will not actually make a positive impact. Regardless of the debate, it is happening. The UK has no choice but to accept it as a member of the European Union.

            As much as I don’t understand the presence of the UK in the European Union, I do understand the animosity that has been built regarding forcing the UK to accept Romanians and Bulgarians with no restrictions. These are two cultures that differ very much from that of the UK. Back in the United States where I am very much in the support of immigration, but I find myself questioning it in Europe. How far can pan-Europeanism go before infringes on a country’s right to individuality? Does pan-Europeanism mean that individuality has to be sacrificed? What happens to a country’s identity when some outside body has the power to make such impactful decisions?

When You Are

            Ever since I was a young child, my Papa would always say, “when you are the very best there is.” Now, a little over two years after his passing, I find this phrase still coming into my thoughts. Honestly, it’s one of my favorite sayings. It’s due to the ambiguity of it. It’s an incomplete phrase. When you are the very best there is, well then what? What does being the very best there is lead to? Unfortunately, I have no exact answer, but I had a bit of a revelation. Excuse the post for starting at media res.

            I was standing awkwardly outside of one of the major conference rooms. There was an NSA hearing taking place. To make a very long and complicated story short, the United States was in hot water. Not too longer after whistleblower Edward Snowden exposed that the NSA had been spying on citizens, the cat was out of the bag that the United States had been spying on Europe as well.

         As one could have guessed, this was not taken well in the Europe. The United States and the European Union were on the verge of brokering a momentous trade agreement when the news was released. With this news coming into the limelight, the deal was put on hold. To make matters worse, it was exposed that the personal phone of German chancellor, Angela Merkel, had been tapped for as long as ten years. The United States had become a bit of a villain in the eyes of many Europeans.

            This was the first European Parliament NSA hearing I had ever attended. Mr. Stellini usually requested that Pauline attended while I worked on other tasks. Each week a different American would attend and be interrogated by a panel of MEPs on the subject of spying. They always took place on Thursdays from 4pm until 6pm.

            I stood outside of the conference room nervous due to the only entrance being at the very front of the room. I was going to have to walk in front of everyone in order to find a seat. I didn’t want to do it. I was nervous. I felt awkward. I also hated being the center of any sort of attention; it made me feel uncomfortable. Fortunately, I found a familiar face on the outside of the conference room. It was the blunt German from the foreign affairs meeting. I crept up to him. He could definitely sense my awkwardness. “Hey, is there any other way I can enter the conference room? The hearing has started so I don’t want to interrupt by walking in through the front.” He started to laugh. Well, I kind of felt like an idiot. The other entrance was probably in a very obvious place. “Just go in,” he said. “Actually, you can come in with me. The trick is just to walk in and look important.” I tried to put on my most important looking face and trailed behind him into the conference room where I scurried to a seat in the back.

            It was then that it all kind of hit me. My Papa’s phrase and looking important. The European Parliament was one big building of people walking around trying to look important. It could be an intern simply going to grab a cup of coffee, but they fetched that cup like a pro. Maybe that was part of being the very best there is? It was just another way of saying have confidence in yourself? I’m not quite sure, but at that moment walking into the conference, I channeled every ounce of ‘when you are the very best there is’ I could and took my seat. It wasn’t nearly as nerve-wracking as I thought it would be. If everyone else can have the façade of being important why couldn’t I?

            This post also includes another important realization. It can probably best be described in the French theorist’s, Jean Baudrillard, assumption that, “Americans have no identity, but they do have wonderful teeth.” The latter half of Baudrillard’s quote was quite valid. I had been in Europe long enough to notice that Americans cared far more about teeth than our European counterparts. There’s a greater point to made from this comment, the part about Americans not having an identity.

            Many times on the trip I had found myself really trying to decipher how I identified. Was I Black or American first? Am I a South Carolinian before being an American? I had never given much thought, because in the United States there had never been a need. However in the NSA hearing, I felt myself feeling overwhelmingly American.

            The hearing that day featured United States Senator, Jim Sensenbrenner, who helped draft the now controversial Patriot Act. Despite how I may feel towards this politician back home (he is a Republican senator) I felt extremely connected to him. It was nice to see a fellow American in Brussels. I felt this common bond. While the MEPs of the dayinterrogated him, I could feel myself quietly rooting for him and feeling a sense of good ol’ American pride. I, Jayde Barton, was getting patriotic. This was a rare feeling. That non-existent American identity was building itself inside of me.

            At the end of this day, I stepped away realizing that being taken out of your element can make you see who you really are and that confidence is key. In a world where everyone knows their place, you can’t flourish if you don’t know or aren’t proud of your identity.

Deprivation of National Identity

            The guiding quote for this post comes from a bit of a controversial figure. I may not personally agree with this person’s political ideology, but they provide a certain wisdom that in our more globalized society tends to overlook. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former president of Iran, proclaimed, “the system of domination is founded on depriving nations of their true identity. It seeks to deprive nations of their culture, identity, self-confidence and in this way dominate them.” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In today’s current climate, there is the promotion of the ‘West is the best.’ Societies are adopting their countries to fit more western ideals. If a country decides to not take this route then it is labeled as an ‘enemy’ or ‘backwards.’

           An assignment my supervisor gave me to investigate for him during the week was the role that Malta played in the United Nation’s International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. The conference was held almost ten years ago in 1994, but it served as an agreement for nations on how to view population growth and what development would be considered. Nations all over the world participated including Malta. The reason that the investigation even became relevant was due to a colleague of my supervisor, wanting to know if Malta signed the agreement.

            In Cairo, the conference advocated for the use of abortion and it solely being up to the discretion of the women. In a country as religious as Malta, this is unheard of. You will routinely see Malta fight any legislation that comes before the Parliament involving abortion. It is a staunchly Roman Catholic society. I knew that Malta was a small conservative island, and that in general the EPP did not support pro-choice, but I was able to get an eye opener into the world of Malta’s strong religious ties. For this reason, Malta was not in full support of the conference.

            Personally, I feel that the separation of church and state is essential to any country. Laws should be made that have no religious bias, but is one that holistically beneficial to all citizens. In Malta, I cannot comment on whether their system is inclusive or not, because it appears the nation is united on these issues. A large majority of the population identify to be Roman Catholic. This is made apparent throughout the culture and the government of the Island. It also has the highest rate of religion of all the European Union Member States where the average is around fifty percent.

            The support of religion did not simply end with the support of pro-life. While working on what Malta’s exact stance was, Pauline informed me that divorce was recently made legal in Malta. Yes, you read that correctly. Divorce was not legal in Malta until 2011. Before that year, citizens could get separations, but the marriage could never be terminated. It would just remain in limbo. Now divorce may be legalized, but the couple has to remain separated for FOUR years before the divorce will be finalized. Divorce is not looked favorably upon in the island and goes against God’s plan, so any way it can prevented is what the nation aims towards.

            All of this was just so much for me to wrap my mind around! Perhaps this is attributed to the fact that I belong to country built on the concept of church and state being separated. America is arguably a Christian nation, but it for the most part does not determine legislation. A person from Malta coming to the United States would view it as a secular cesspool. Like many of the other nations in the European Union, the United States is seen to be progressive in being secular. Supposedly not relying on religion points towards a society that has advanced and is in the modern age.

            All of this provoked a question that had died off from the European circuit: what about Turkey? Turkey, a country that lies in both Europe and the Middle East, has been seeking accession into the European Union. It is a nation of Europe with heavy Middle Eastern influence. When becoming a part of the European Union, there is a sort of checklist that must be complete before becoming a member. For poor Turkey, completing this checklist just hasn’t been working out. The Achilles heel of it all: Islam.

            Like Malta, Turkey is a nation whose laws are highly dominated by the religion of Islam. It has an affect on the overall culture that is Turkey. To the European Union, this does not represent the religion neutrality that it promotes. Turkey needs to become less of an Islamic state, but how can the entire culture of a nation be altered? It was all hypocrisy in a sense. Malta was far from being a religious neutral state. It was highly dominated by Catholicism. This did not harm Malta joining the European Union in any way, shape, or form. These religious sentiments are even seen on the floor of the Parliament as Malta always fights against the issue of legalized abortion.

            Is this a double standard of the European Union? Is it threatened by the Islamic identity? Is Islam not a factor in the pan-European identity lawmakers wish to create? It is an inevitable reality as more and more Muslims migrate into the EU, but it can be kept at bay if an Islamic state is not allowed to be a member. The European Union has said if Turkey can alter this then it can join, but how is that all close to fair?

Link on turkey problems with joining

            Perhaps Ahmadinejad was on to something. A valid point had been made. ‘Europe’ was looking to change the identity of Turkey. Seems like a bit of a contradiction to have a united Europe if parts of Europe are excluded.