Europeans preferred to use the concepts of "national identity" or "national patriotism" as acceptable ones. During one of his visits to Germany, President of the United States announced the list of European territories, whose population, according to him, is characterized by extraordinary "national patriotism" but at the same time refrain from separatist aspirations. Catalonia, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Piedmont, Lombardy, Ruthenia, Silesia and Transylvania have appeared in this list. It was noted that each of these so different geographical, political and cultural entities has its own past and its special present, but they all share the unwillingness to lose their national identity. In the meantime among the approved by the European Union guidelines to be followed by the countries entering into the alliance was the requirement “to reject nationalism in favor of the diverse identities of citizens.”
Now the situation has changed, and very much. This is indicated by many facts. For example, the famous speeches of leaders of three countries - Germany, France and Britain, who has strongly condemned the migrants who do not want to assimilate into the new national environment. They talked about the complete failure of the idea of multiculturalism, i.e. in their view, different peoples living together in one state while preserving the identity of each is fundamentally impossible. Anyway this is now the opposite of "diverse identities of citizens" and they are not the boys writing on subway cars slogans such as France for the French. The book by Thilo Sarrazin Germany Abolishes Itself dedicated to the same problem has defiantly sounded. First, the author was assailed with criticism and even had to resign from the bank but it turned out that the popular majority supports him. However, the main evidence of change in the minds of Europeans - inhibition or even suspension of the process of European unification after the vote on the European constitution in France and Holland, the countries that were among the initiators of the process of building a United Europe.
Why suddenly the Europeans began to doubt that they could safely reach a new level of unity? Things seemed to go swimmingly after all...
The United Europe has been formed long and with difficulty. However, until it was a union of sovereign states which joined efforts in building the economy, even the common defense system, there were no particularly painful problems threatening catastrophe. When the process of consolidation began to acquire the features of forming of a unified European power, when increasingly greater scope of authority in all spheres of life began to be delegated from the national to the supranational level, at this national level some resistance to the process was found, and in general "high spheres" management problems occurred.
The situation was complicated by the massive reception in the EU of new members. Ambitious and sometimes even aggressive newcomers, pretending to many things, but having little, avid for influence, but being not enough equipped for that, invaded the decorous European Salon ... However, the other thing is more serious: the process of conciliation of the interests within the union will be difficult due to collision of multitude of points of view. Helmut Schmidt, even before the reception wrote that he could not imagine how it would be possible to discuss one or another difficult issue in the European Commission with such a multitude of countries representatives. There is every likelihood that in numerous cases they will differ in opinion, dead ends will occur, and this may lead to the fact that key decisions will be taken at the national level again.
Others are considering essentially the same problem from a slightly different angle. One notes the increasingly stronger role of the international bureaucracy. Basic, important for the destiny of peoples decisions are now adopted on the supranational level, they are taken e.g. by officials of the Brussels Commission, which are not elected but are simply designated by other officials, whereas national elections are becoming in many ways meaningless, because the parliaments do not solve those major issues any longer, all national power structures are only implementing the strategic decisions. Supra-national bureaucracy that has lost touch with the national soil is more uncontrollable, and it is growing. Historian and writer Diana Pinto writes about another important observation: If you ask any European, who represents him in the European Parliament, he mostly will not respond, he can not remember. It means that the citizens" alienation from the disposal of all vital affairs is increasing.
Has Europe in general ripened to be able to live by the laws and regulations single for all nations? The French are afraid of losing their outstanding social achievements in the process of standardization of European life. The Dutch are afraid of the eastern Europeans" influence and even dominance in some areas. Their mentality was even influenced by the Eurovision Song Contest that was held the day before the plebiscite on the EU Constitution, where their favorite was blackballed by the Eastern Europeans voting for each other. Say, Vaclav Klaus, the Czech President perhaps is not alone in his thoughts and views; he believes that the only acceptable option is validity of the current European Union Treaty, because “the foundations of democracy are a nation state”. An attempt to place all the lives of diverse peoples of Europe under common standards, including traditional political ones, with a single constitution, president, flag and anthem, was obviously premature.
This stage of building a common European Home is similar to the creation of a record large technical structures or vehicles. I do not know whether such a law exists in theory, but in reality it is found that "the greatest thing" very often proves to be the most nonviable, especially at first, when being developed. For example, the largest for its time Maxim Gorky aircraft wrecked, as well as the biggest airship and the classic example – "Titanic". By its example it may be the simplest to demonstrate the cause of such catastrophes. Experts believe that this ship has appeared before the conditions are matured for its use, namely, before radar was invented. Or some other device that allows to detect obstacles, hazards at a great distance, at least, at such when a gigantic ship having a huge mass, and consequently, inertia, has time to slow down or perform a desired maneuver.
"The greatest thing" in general should be created on equally varied or different to a large extent principles, because it behaves in the environment and operates internally differently than a small thing. So if science had not had time to establish these principles, even in some particular elements, troubles threaten such new creation of the human mind and hands.
I think that approximately the same law applies in the socio-political sphere too, and in nation-building in particular. Maybe Europe, like Titanic, has not got yet the full maturation of all principles of organization and existence of this kind of large-scale human societies? And this factor has undoubtedly played a significant role in animating nationalist sentiments seemingly condemned and rejected by the European Community. Beyond all doubt, they were a reaction to the globalization processes, seemingly objectively necessary, but, unfortunately, very unpleasant by the fact that they negate national peculiarities of each country, cultural, economic, political ones concerning the state structure, all other customary principles of society, its age-old traditions. As a result, we agree that Europe is now dealing not only with "national patriotism" of individual local areas, individual nations, but also with political nationalism at the state level. It is manifested differently and not to the same extent in different countries, but it does exist.
What do we, Russians, in whose consciousness nationalism has always had a negative connotation, have to think about it? Moreover, it has been seen as a danger to the country"s territorial integrity, even for its existence. And considered as such with reason. The issue is rather difficult, multifaceted, and for sure deserves enhancing the discourse on this topic. I"ll note so far two points only. The first one is to treat it as a reality, i.e. to take it constantly into account in our international policy. The second one is to learn lessons for our multi-ethnic country"s internal arrangement, above all exploring the causes of negative events in the neighbors" life. And also for cooperation with the CIS countries and the already formed various alliances.
