NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.
October, 1991
The European Greens Coordination
By Mike Feinstein, International Working Group of the Greens
appearing in Green Letter, Fall, 1991
There is an organization of national Green Parties in Europe called
the European Green Coordination (EGC). At present, it consists of 24 member and 2 observer Green
Parties from Western and Eastern Europe. Six International Working
Group (IWG) authorized correspondents have attended EGC meetings
(Ross Mirkarimi, Mindy Lorenz, Mike Feinstein, Mark Sharron, Kendra
Ellis, and Mitch Chanellis). As invited guests these U.S. Greens
have actively participated in EGC political discussion. The following
report is based upon IWG attendance at meetings in Brussels (12/90
& 6/91), Bonn (10/90), and Zurich (6/91), along with minutes and
other reports we’ve received from the meetings in Budapest (3/90),
and Venice (4/91).
In 1984 the EGC began with five Western European Green Parties.
Its original purpose, according to current EGC political secretary
Leo Cox (Agalev, Flanders, Belgium) and EGC co-secretary Paolo
Bergamashi (Federazione dei Verdi, Italy), was to “stimulate the
process of Green Parties coming into being in Europe through the
exchange of information and political ideas, and through supporting
each others’ campaigns.” By mid-1989 this had been largely accomplished.
Green Parties were firmly established throughout Western Europe,
EGC membership had grown to 18, and 29 Greens from 7 countries
were elected to the European Platform drawn up by the EGC.
Then came the two great changes of post-Cold War Europe -- the
opening of Eastern Europe and the acceleration towards economic,
political and military union in the European Community (EC). Both
of these changes have dramatically reshaped the purpose, practice,
and membership of the EGC. From opposition to Cold War bloc structures
and nuclear threats, the political focus of the EGC has shifted
to the battle for the economic and political institutional future
of Europe. While the Cold War was a period of rapid and fundamental
transition. As a result, the Greens feel great pressure to affect
the process now, or else be left behind. Complicating their efforts
is that at the same time, the EGC has undergone internal transformation
because it is trying to integrate with the new Green Parties from
Eastern Europe.
From the East
Since December, 1989, representatives from Green Parties in Estonia,
East Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Georgia, Rumania, Slovenia,
Serbia, Czechoslovakia, Moscow, and Leningrad have attended EGC
meetings and seminars. This has had its effects on the EGC structurally
and politically.
Structurally, the wave of new membership applications has been
a bit overwhelming. Eastern Greens have been eager to participate
in the EGC. But for Western Greens, granting recognition can be
problematic. Prior to 1990, there was limited contact between
Eastern and Western Greens. When the new Eastern Green Parties
were formed following the Eastern European revolutions, the East
Greens often had internal problems that made it difficult to know
who was who. For example, as has often been the case with many
of the new parties across the political spectrum in the East,
ex-Communist Party “apparatchicks” have found their way into the
ranks of the Greens, sometimes taking control, as has been claimed
in Hungary. In other cases, most notably Poland and Romania, two
or more groups are claiming the Green Party identity. In these
situations, especially given the newness of the Eastern European
political situations, the political validity that come with EGC
recognition is great. All this puts a lot of pressure on the EGC
process. The result has been that a lot of time has been spent
on the Eastern applications, often without determinate result.
The Estonian Greens (12/89) were the first Eastern Green Party
to be accepted into the EGC, in part because they had already
been in existence as a movement, but also as a gesture of solidarity
with their struggle for autonomy in the Baltic nations. Next accepted
were the East German Greens (3/90), both because of their contacts
with Die Grunen and to help them with their upcoming elections.
Another year then passed before the Bulgarian and Georgian Greens
were accepted in Venice. From 12/90 to 4/91 Greece, Malta, and
Norway also became members.
As far as the other Eastern Green Parties go, there is the feeling
within the EGC that it is better not to move ahead on any more
applications until the political situations there sort themselves
out. In the meantime, some of the EGC meetings will shift to “seminar
style” instead of the “resolution and voting” style of the past
few years, because at this point, the East and West Greens really
need to spend some time getting to know each other better.
Politically, integration with the East has brought about some
interesting debates, especially over the concept of “nationalism”.
Many Eastern Greens argue that after years of subordination to
the USSR, some sort of national identity is necessary for there
lands. At first, Western Greens didn’t tend to hear this, because
Western Greens have come from countries that have enjoyed years
of domestic affluence and “relative” democracy, together with
international “first world” political and economic dominance.
This experience has sobered them to the limitations of the nation-state
and moved them to conclude that some national powers need be delegated
to both local and supra-national levels.
To many Eastern Greens, some of this is a bit far off in the future.
In the East they’ve come from forty or more years of economic
stagnation and political oppression. As Estonian Green Party speaker
and parliamentarian Vello Pohla argues, while the nation-state
has its problems, the East needs to go through its own political
evolution before it can take the next step beyond it, whatever
it may be. The Georgian Greens add that the type of nationalism
they envision would be bioregional and multicultural and would
not impede upon the rights of minorities, a concern heard often
now as Yugoslavia and the USSR both break apart.
The debate about nationalism and the nation-state is but one part
of the larger EGC debate about the institutional future of Europe.
There is already widespread agreement among Greens (see “The European
Community, Eastern Europe, and the European Greens,” M. Feinstein,
in the Summer ‘91 issue of “Green Synthesis” available from P.O.
Box 1858, San Pedro CA, 90733) that the manner in which the EC
is being advanced is undemocratic and unecological. It is essentially
creating a club for the rich at the expense of environmental,
health, and labor standards of the average EC citizen, as well
as at the expense of economic sovereignty in Eastern Europe and
the Third World. In place of this sort of Europe, the Greens hope
to see a “Europe of Regions,” with ecologically self-reliant and
democratically-oriented communities and regions becoming the base
for society. The Greens also advocate a delegation of power from
the nation-state to the supra-national level, so that minimum
(but not maximum) pan-European agreements on environment, human
rights, and security/disarmament could be enforced.
The Greens see such a political body as possibly coming out of
a combination of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe (CSCE), which contains 34 European nations and the Council
of Europe, which contains 23 and meets on human rights. Agreeing
on a process to actually achieve this, however, has frustrated
the EGC. Beginning with the Budapest meeting, and continuing in
Brussels and Bonn, the EGC debated a “Helsinki II” memorandum
that would be used as a common document regarding European institutions
(“Helsinki II” refers to the 1975 Helsinki meeting that established
the CSCE). Disagreement often came between those who favor a federative
process (Italians, French, and Belgians) and those who favor a
looser confederation (Irish, Austrians, Swiss, Norwegians, Danes,
and the Swedes). The former group, who also come from EC countries,
seem more resigned to trying to modify the EC, while the latter
(most of whom are from non-EC countries) reject the EC and are
fighting to keep their countries out -- hence a much different
focus of energy between them.
Complicating matters is that the Green Group in the European Parliament
(EP) consists mainly of members from the former group (along with
the Germans, who are not anti-federation so much as anti-EC).
The EGC-drafted Common Statement of the European Greens for the
1989 European Parliamentary Elections took a strong stand against
the EC. Now the parties that did not receive representation in
the EP feel that they are not being represented by those that
did. For their part, the “pro-federalists” claim that the others
are blurring the issue, by confusing a critique of the present
EC (which the “pro-federalists” would agree with) with a critique
of federalism per se.
Complicating the situation even more is the position of the East
Greens. In many Eastern Countries, the feeling exists that if
a country is not willing to tailor its economy towards the desires
of the EC and U.S., it risks not receiving necessary foreign investment
to avoid economic catastrophe. Thus some Eastern Green Parties,
like the Bulgarians, want to join the EC.
After the last year and a half, many in the EGC feel that the
European Green movement is at a crossroads. During the 80’s European
Green Parties helped raise a decade of environmental concern.
But now political fortunes seem to be tied to the political and
economic restructuring of Europe. It was one thing for the public
to sympathize with the Greens on the environment. It’s another
with economics, security issues, and the institutional future
of Europe.
European Greens are being severely tested to refine and communicate
their politics. Ideas like decentralization and bioregionalism
and a plausible Green economics have to be translated into reality.
And this has to happen at the same time East Greens and West Greens
get to know each other. The next EGC meeting is scheduled for
3 days in Sofia, Bulgaria in late November, including a single
day being planned solely by the Eastern Europeans. The emphasis
is on discussion, rather than having to come to an agreement.
Look for a report in a future Green Letter.