part 1 - part 2 - part 3 - part 4 - part 5 - part 6 - part 7

Part has been deliberate policy. The EU has spent a lot of effort in trying to get young Europeans to meet each other. Of course a simple meeting does not guarantee anything. It can just reinforce prejudices rather than break them down. But without those meetings, these cross-border friendships at the grass roots level would never have taken off, dragging commerce and ideas behind them in the process.

A more substantial part, however, is just a change in world view. The common points across cultures are now sufficiently strong that they can be identified. I reflect that part of this is thanks to Uncle Sam. For some of the key landmarks for this younger generation are American musical and film icons. But that does not mean that each wishes to be exactly like the other. Rather I get the impression that each of these young people wishes to be free to construct their own culture, which will be unique, and means that yes, they are European and say Estonian, but also many other things too.

Curious to say, just at a time when many are berating the decline of nation, class, or religion, the overwhelming feeling I get is that the number of identity generating attributes is set to multiply. But these attributes are unlikely to be mutually exclusive as were the old ones. For if you are a Protestant, you cannot simultaneously be a Catholic. But if you are a European, you can be English too. There need not be any contradiction.

It seems to me that therein lies the benediction of peace. For identity becomes a serious issue only when the interests of the different identities seem to clash. And as war is no longer an issue, the divisions between states in Europe are often ideological not national. The UK refused to join in legislation on protecting workers rights for many years, not because it was 'the national interest' as the then Conservative government claimed. The next government, with a different political complexion, had no problem in arguing that signing up to such rights were in the national interest.

Interestingly though, as I wander around the boat, the interest in political affairs did not seem any greater for participants than in the broader body politic. Although the highlight of the meeting was a debate between candidates from different countries and parties for the European Parliament elections, a lot of the participants simply found getting to know other people was the most important thing. Yes, the EU took political decisions, yes, they could control these decisions by voting, but no, that was not what made their European identity.

Perhaps, I should correct my sweeping statement. Most of those present did hold certain political causes dear to their hearts. Women's rights, ecology, human rights, and so on and so forth were all issues. Nevertheless, their means of action and expression was not elections. It was direct action at the local, national, European or even global level. The individual meetings were the most political act they could undertake, as they secured friendships with people from other countries who shared their cause, and gave them a space to present their case to somebody else. For some of them, the most important thing one could do was to change the views of another individual. That was far more crucial than changing some amorphous thing called society.

As I come off the boat at the end of the evening, I feel much more at peace than after the violent sentiments I discovered in England. The approach I have found here is about creating something new, something very individual, rather than defending an identity, or reacting to outsiders with fear and loathing.

Revolution into small

Gent is a beautiful town in Flanders, the northern half of Belgium, which has managed to combine modernity and historical beauty, suffusing them with a common spirit. Beyond the beer and good food it is also the heart of a vibrant hi-technology pole, which this region has embraced. Yet in this thriving hub, there is still a question mark hanging in the air.

The question: whether Flanders will declare itself independent, becoming a country in its own right. If it did happen this would neither be the first, nor the last break up of a country. One of the ironies of globalisation has been the phenomenal increase in the number of countries, most of them small.

Irony? Maybe not. The end of the cold war has been the single biggest factor driving this, with three countries - the USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - breaking up to give birth to 23 daughters.

Nevertheless, globalisation and the new economy has given the intellectual underpinning for a revolution into small. In the industrial era, access to natural resources was crucial and large markets were essential to provide economies of scale. Bigger countries could control distribution in their own markets and, if needs be, bend the rules of the game for international markets by sheer force. A small country had to put up or shut up in that kind of world. In the knowledge economy, world rules increasingly constrain the behavior of the big. The EU even shows that smaller sized players can exert enormous pressure by joining together in a trusting alliance. Moreover, as ideas drive wealth, the rules on access to resources and markets are changed: if you are small with dynamic citizens, like Hong Kong or Singapore, you have every chance of becoming rich and successful, and then ensuring a high educational standard - more so than the big states saddled with ill-educated masses.

So is the end of the big nation state nigh? Are countries going to break up into smaller units, each accentuating their own identity?

part 1 - part 2 - part 3 - part 4 - part 5 - part 6 - part 7

Adrian Taylor