European Academy
of Sciences and Arts
V E N I C E D E C L A R A T I O N
Manifesto for Europe
On September 25 th we launched the
“Manifesto for Europe” as Venice
Declaration at the Austrian Pavillon of
the Giardini della Biennale di Venezia.
We welcomed members from many
different countries and would like to
thank everybody for coming to Venice
as well as making the presentation of
the “Manifesto for Europe” a special
event. We are very grateful to our
member Hermann Alexander Beyeler
(Lucerne) who supported this meeting
substantially.
You will find pictures of the event
under
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mqkd15ky2nz1uzl/AABI
McwookYifqzhuSMOrg4na?dl=0
Introduction (Felix Unger)
The Project Next Europe started in 2015 after
consultation of the Royal Society in London,
the Lincei in Rome, the Academies in Warsaw,
Ljubljana followed by meetings of governments
in Berne, Salzburg, Munich, Berlin, and
Budapest.
Academies are based on the concept of Plato,
who founded the Academy in the garden of
Akademos in Athens. The idea was to discuss
and develop ideas by walking and speaking to
each other in a free way without any
distractions. This Academy lasted 900 years.
Later in the Renaissance, Ficino revived the
core idea and founded an Academy in the garden of the
Medici. His concept has lasted until today. After these
cornerstones it was obvoius to release the Manifesto for Europe in a garden. We have chosen
the Giardini della Biennale di Venezia, where the Arts are concentrated. Thus, the manifesto
should be known as Venice Declaration. We considered the great ideas of academies to
develop ideas in a narrative and open minded way. The Giardini reflected the character of an
F.l.t.r.: Felix Unger, Klaus Mainzer, Werner
Weidenfeld, Wolfgang Schmale
Austrian Pavillon in the Giardini della Biennale
di Venezia
original academy: in a natural environment surrounded by trees without any technical means
such as microphones; the way how Plato focused on new ideas in a narrative.
1. Europe in need (Werner Weidenfeld)
Politics degenerates into the staging of power games without a recognizable strategy. This is far
from the great task of designing public space out of convincing ideas, rationally implementing
co-responsibility as a citizen and as its representatives. The election results acknowledge these
oddities. Regarding the traditional parties, they prove the respective leadership dilemma as well
as the loss of authority. The conventional parties are
losing their approval and at the same time voters'
frustration is linking elsewhere. The political set up just
keeps going as if nothing had happened. Legitimation
crisis describes best the crippling mildew that has
spread over Europe. The dream of embarking into a
new historical era looks different.
Politics is facing the major historical challenges - from
the current mass migration, which may lead to a new
migration period, through the terrorist threat to the
current landscape of global political risks - either with
perplexity or situational crisis management. The longing
of citizens for strategic prospects remains unanswered.
Politicians say goodbye to the cultural horizon. The
political elite remains speechless.
A society without orientation is a society in need.
In essence, the process is tangible: Every person and every society must constantly filter and
sort out the almost infinite number of incoming information. This is especially true in times of
dramatic increase in complexity. One thinks of globalization and digitization, of technological
progress and demographic change - the demand for regularity is immense. History and politics
usually provide orientation that places the individual data in understandable contexts. In times of
the East-West conflict, this global political order of worldwide antagonism was a major source of
orientation. As this era of a global political architecture collapsed, this demand for orientation
was more directly and massively addressed towards domestic producers. Since then, the
political artistry is mostly dealing with challenges of political attention solely with technical
finesse.
The premodernity has established its identity through relatively simple, manageable ways of life,
through closed world views, through a stable milieu, through a public consensus about the
everyday significance of man's transcendence reference. In the modern age, these cultural
conditions no longer exist: Growing complexity of social organizations, pluralization, but also
instability through liquefaction of the worlds of life, anonymity of social regulations, mobility and
increasing speed of decay of historical experiences, devaluation of traditional loyalties. In this
context, the sociology of knowledge quite vividly speaks of the suffering of modern man in a
constantly deepening state of homelessness.
If we realize today's political failings in that dramatic way, then we must keep in mind an
existential fact: In the political meaning of our lives, we are not box-office owners who are bored
and relaxed following the salvation drama on stage. No - we are participants, co-responsible,
we are contributors. And we must take that very seriously. Otherwise, we will not succeed in
freeing ourselves from the misery of the state and society. There is no political discourse in the
public domain. A narrative is totally missing, even though the narrative allows to find new ways.
2. Innovation space Europe (Klaus Mainzer)
In the worldwide competition of global markets, Europe
depends on the innovation dynamics of its people.
Innovation requires creativity, which is increasingly
concentrated in interdisciplinary research clusters. Energy
networks, material science, information technology,
environment, climate change, robotics, life science, data
science, medicine and health, cultural studies, identity
research, migration, just to name a few, are problem-
oriented research areas which connect interdisciplinary
disciplines, transcend beyond traditional subject
boundaries and grow together in new research clusters.
Problem-oriented research aims to get to designing new
products and new skills from basic and applied research.
Europe must therefore set the framework conditions and
incentives for innovation centres in which research and
development of universities and colleges cooperate with
companies and public institutions. Innovation thus
becomes a crucial factor in securing future markets and
the quality of life of a society. However, innovation is not only determined by technical and
economic factors, but must also take social, cultural and ecological aspects into account from
the outset. They become factors of sustainable innovation. Only sustainable innovation secures
the future viability of a society.
The increasing complexity of infrastructure tasks today is so vast that we cannot cope without
the support of digitization and intelligent algorithms. Examples are mobility (autonomous
driving), smart cities, energy systems, industry and employment (industry 4.0). At the same
time, algorithms and big data are changing not only science and technology but also economics
and society in an alarming way. The influence of globally operating companies and major
powers shows in their influence over data and algorithms! Europe must prove to be a strong
innovation space for digitization and artificial intelligence to compete globally with the USA and
China for example.
In Europe, however, not only did science and technology emerge, which in the age of
globalization led to global innovation dynamics. Europe has also created a unique cultural
space based on democracy and human rights. This spirit of the European cultural area must be
combined with the dynamism of Europe as an innovation space to remain an attractive living
environment in the future. Specifically, the working and living space will change dramatically
under the influence of artificial intelligence and big data. Europe must therefore create the
framework conditions for education and training systems so that in the age of digitization job
opportunities and zest for life for young people are opened and promoted in Europe. But in the
end, Europe must also ensure the ethical and legal framework conditions (e.g. privacy,
cybersecurity) to shape these future technologies in such a way that freedom, human rights and
democracy are safeguarded as Europe's trademarks.
3. The Europe of young people (Wolfgang Schmale)
Many factors prevent young people from
committing themselves to the European Union.
These include the enormous levels of youth
unemployment in many southern EU countries.
Young people hardly see a professional - and as a
result, no private - perspective. This stops them
from being interested in transnational problems and
issues at the European level. The younger
generation often feels "not understood" and
"ignored by politics". This applies to a Europe,
which seems very far removed from the reality of
life of young people. In addition, in many places in
the EU there is a lack of possibilities for economic
participation in clear offers for political and social
involvement for young people. Only two members
of the EU Parliament are currently under 30 years
of age. Particularly in view of the demographic
change and the resulting colossal challenges facing
the young generation of Europe, the inclusion of
young people in European decision-making bodies and processes in the sense of
democratization and a fair coexistence of ages is indispensable. Important for a young Europe
of the future is a clear commitment to freedom as well as a practice of solidarity and
sustainability. Ultimately, it is both Europe's responsibility and interest to effectively integrate the
existing human capital of the younger generation in order to remain competitive in a global
context through innovation and young ideas.
Every innovative development happens in freedom, which you must trust. There are enough
restrictive criteria, the entire regulatory rage, laws still and bad, details of behaviour down to the
smallest vitality, so that every freedom of the individual is stifled. Today's cancer is called
regulatory administration.
Digitization, with its increasing form, also contains elements that restrict freedom and allow a
total control of people. While this brings efficiency everywhere, there is a danger of political
destabilization due to people's displeasure.
One can say that subsidiarity is essential at all levels, because in everyday life, one can better
assess and appreciate things. Here again a facet of freedom emerges, that the regions and
municipalities develop themselves further, but subsidiary in harmonization with the entire line of
own responsibility and in the context of the competition of the powers of the markets.
Any development in all its facets thrives only in freedom, at a freedom guaranteed in
confidence, which is not restricted.
Due to a good material foundation and a spiritual condition, the development of the whole of
Europe can be carried on in freedom, where art, sciences and religions play a big part and are
also the subject of narrative, talking and developing ideas. The narrative falters. The tensions
between East and South, North and West can only be overcome by an intense narrative, that is,
to overcome the unnecessary differences if they are ideologically substantiated. The narrative
makes you free, laws constrict you.
What to do?
Round table at Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia
Round table convened by: Angjeli Anastas, Bajd Tadej, Beqiraj Gudar, Blechinger Gerhard, Carsetti Arturo, Danca
Wilhelm, Efremov Dimitar, Fioreschy Monika, Horvath Miklos, Jankowitsch Paul, Kakabadse Nada, Kathy-Horvath
Lajos, Kleiber Michał, Leto Alesandro, Madarassy Istvan, Mainzer Klaus, Narkiewicz Urszula, Praet Michel,
Schmale Wolfgang, Branko Stanovnik, Stefenelli Julian, Stih Peter, Toplak Ludvik, Unger Felix, Wallace William,
Weidenfeld Werner
1. Development of a strategy to overcome political stagnation.
Politics must always relate to the citizens of Europe; hence the narrative of what citizens think.
It is about a clear governance of Europe and a strategy with the neighbours, such as Russia,
China and the USA, a positioning as a global player. A reform of the European Council is
needed to make clear, essential decisions. It's about mastering a language for security,
migration, finance and development.
Europe must develop future perspectives, clarify its legitimacy, provide transparency and
identify a clear management structure.
2. Innovation
Innovation and research can and should be done by everyone, not only at the university level
but also by non-university companies. All this contributes to an innovative power to develop a
market for 2050 that is necessary for all. A big topic of the future lies in the digitization with all its
facets, up to the artificial intelligence and robotics, also the human being.
3. Young Europe
The young Europe is the basis of the wider Europe. Here it is necessary to take the concern
and their roots of all seriously. Further, the youth must be included in the political discussion. In
the young generation lies the power of innovation.
Youth strategy means greater involvement of the younger ones. Legislative periods of
representatives should also be shortened to foster a better flow of opinions.
4. Europe of the elderly
The increasing shift of demography shows a significant aging of our European population. This
creates recent problems in the care of the elderly. It is important to emphasize here that people
are in good health to age mentally or physically. The treasure of their experience must not be
lost, and this must be increasingly considered. Here, the dialogue between the elderly and the
younger should be deepened.
5. Confidence in freedom
This is about to further build Europe in freedom and seeing all its cultural achievements in a
tense continent. Europe now has a diversity that is to be welcomed and that is the very charm of
the European profile. Working towards a goal, like 2050.
We live mentally in a tight space, but this one must be designed in such a way that each
regional space contributes to the overall cultural performance. But this is only possible if the
freedom of development is given and the people who develop can assure themselves of the
confidence in freedom.
Europe must not play the role of Greece in the Roman Empire. We cannot become a museum.
6. Considering minorities in different countries to give them space to develop in their own
tradition.
A special focus should be drawn to the 6 million gipsies across Europe as well as other minority
groups.
Commentary by Michał Kleiber
Different questions concerning the pace and nature of the
European integration have been asked over and over again
since the first emergence, more than sixty years ago, of the
idea of a European nations’ formalized, economic and
political rapprochement. After many ups and some downs in
the history of the integration process, and in view of its
complexity we experience today, a relevant and urgent
question appears to be the following – has problems and
occasional malfunctioning of the European Union managed
over years to dominate its still widely acknowledged
achievements and optimistic prospects so that critical
attitudes of Europeans have become a permanent feature of
the Union? Is the current problem real and deeply rooted in
the very construction of the Union or, perhaps, it is only a
result of a misguided perception? Or putting the question yet
another way – is the present situation a right time to continue the implementation of a dream of
a harmonious development of the Union, or should we rather only try to come to terms with the
complicated situation as it is now and give up, hopefully not for ever, the ambitious intention to
build our European future truly together?
Many of us are wondering whether the EU turns out capable of overcoming problems that have
impacted us in recent years. Has the present model of the Union based on achieving a new
state of equilibrium every time after overcoming a crisis become exhausted, bringing the Union
to a state of the permanent crisis? The fact is that the situation today is turning into a
complicated period which in the opinion of many will probably require in the future some
thoughtful modifications in the way the Union operates in both its day-to-day functioning as well
as in setting long-term development priorities.
The critical perception of the situation by many people and growing nationalistic attitudes in
many countries form certainly an important part of the image of Europe today. Here, a
comforting fact may be that individual and often overly emotional opinions turn out as rule to be
more pessimistic than the description of problems in more objective, evidence-based terms. An
interesting observation in this context appears to be that the most severe critique of Europe
comes not from the outside but from within of it. It is truly paradoxical that the rest of the world
looks up to us as an example of a huge historical success story whereas many of us seem to be
so unhappy with ourselves. Again, we may try to console ourselves as it is in a sense easier to
put to order our own house than to change the outside perception of it. However, this
observation would only matter if we had a clear and solid idea how we should now proceed to
change the situation, given the pressing circumstances. No doubts, the way out of the situation
will not to be easy. For decades Europe was the champion of the soft power. With its attractive
economic and social model, it had set standards, attracted migrants and inspired reforms in
post-communist states. Today, European identity becomes more and more difficult to define,
lost in the social unrest and growing national particularism. Many Europeans appear to
increasingly fail to comprehend why they should form a close community. Fortunately, many
more of us still believe that there is no other way but to stand firmly together if only we want to
successfully face the biggest challenges – mass migrations, climate changes, potential
pandemics, religious extremism. Even if Europe consists of communities that are culturally not
identical, we all share common goals and aspirations despite whatever the differences among
ourselves may exist.
A further successful development of the fundamental idea of Common Europe requires
discussions in both political and non-political circles, analysing possible options for a renewed
settlements between citizens, nation-states and EU institutions. A key precondition is a common
desire to kindly explore the European evident strengths and, on the other hand, turn identified
Union’s weaknesses into an instructive lesson and then victorious revival, while never giving in
to an ultimate discouragement.
Given the situation, what could be steps needed to get closer to a solution of the problem with
the consequence, perhaps, of some modification in the way the Union operates?
First, we all need to overcome a serious spiritual crisis. We observe a fast advancing, wider and
wider opening split between the traditional set of values and new social attitudes. How then
should we shape people’s awareness of their European affiliation? Some people would say –
well, it is not that difficult. We simply have to wisely teach history of Europe, let everyone get in
touch with our enormously reach cultural heritage, emphasize the significance of our widely
recognized strengths like human creativity and industrial innovativeness to assure our
development edge. All that is very important but it forms just the beginning of the European
mission today.
The future is extremely demanding. We need not only to understand the past and put to proper
order the present but also – on this basis – to figure out possible scenarios for the future, select
the one which would enjoy the widest support and define the role for each of us in its fulfilment.
To do so we have to identify the critical mega-trends of the world development and address
emerging challenges using the very significant hard and soft power we have at our disposal. We
should not be afraid to come up with far-reaching ideas, using to this aim our political maturity,
economic efficiency, scientific competence and artistic expression, all to address bravely such
pressing issues as immigration, energy security, political and economic relations to global
superpowers, global solidarity hampered today by overwhelming consumerism, preservation of
the environment and effective promotion of the sustainable development, assurance of security
of clean water and energy supplies for everyone, thoughtful reactions to human rights violations,
and many others.
A justified way of looking at things seems to be to say that Europeans are today divided not
according to traditional and sort of natural line separating the left- and right-wing visions of the
future but according to, symbolically speaking, the people’s open and closed mind-sets.
Although I hope it would be probably more correct to see this not as a strictly binary division but
rather as a spectrum of varying views on our common future. In this context, we can mention
some competing scenarios for Europe threatening today to tear the Union apart. Two of the
scenarios are based on the open vison: a neoliberal vison (market discipline, austerity
measures imposed on debtor countries) and Europe that protects (greater solidarity between
citizens and member states). The third scenario is based on a closed vision of a Christian
Union of largely sovereign states.
On the positive side of the current situation we should note such general facts as:
- the significant majority of the European population is still pro-European,
- Europeans (not all of them, but the number is on the rise) still enjoy the highest standard of
living in the whole world,
- Union has recently had over 20 subsequent quarters of economic growth,
- young Europeans take huge advantage of what the European commonwealth has to offer to
them and mostly highly appreciate it, whereas among recent and more specific aspects we can
mention such facts as:
- Greece has left its bail-out programme,
- a new ‘zero-tariffs’ agreement was negotiated with Donald Trump,
- member states are largely united on how to negotiate Brexit conditions,
- EU-Japan partnership agreement is nearly completed, and the list could be long continued.
However, we should rather look beyond the successes and problems trying instead to specify
actual values and interests truly common today to still a great majority of us but which have yet
to become visible in the political agenda of European politicians. Let us face it – the current
crisis has created a sense of dislocation between the EU and its citizens. No doubts, Europe
needs a new settlements between the citizens, nation-states and EU institutions. We need a
more efficient European administration focused on fundamental issues common to all the
member states and not a one which is hyperactive in proposing too many detailed EU laws. In
short, the EU institutions should counter the perception that Brussels is a regulatory machine
that has run out of rational control of the citizens of Europe. However, it is not only politicians
who should be blamed for it – we, the citizens of the member states have so far largely failed to
create a common public opinion absolutely crucial in any attempt to build a strong joint feeling of
commonwealth. Our goal should not be to replace the traditional idea of national patriotism but
to complement it with the idea of the European one – there is nothing wrong in being positively
emotional about the both faces of patriotism so much needed for our common successful future!
Active moves towards this goal could be the encouragement to create pan-European parties to
participate in the European elections, or setting up pan-European programs in public televisions
across the continent so that we can mutually share our joys and sorrows and in this way better
understand each other. Perhaps we should also – I know it is controversial – gradually introduce
Euro-English as a second official language in all the member states – this simply would be an
acceptance of linguistic reality today! Diversity of languages in Europe is an extremely important
cultural treasure – but the ability to easily communicate in everyday activities seems simply to
be `a pragmatic necessity.
Using with pride the attribute of liberal democracy we should not exclude from our vocabulary
another term somehow forgotten these days – a subsidiary democracy, which means a system
ready to delegate problems down to a level at which they can be solved in the most efficient
way, best satisfying those directly affected by it. In other words, we have to anew substantiate
the idea of subsidiarity and apply it to our real-life political decision-making to find a lasting
compromise between all-European universalism and specific interests of particular member
states.
The subsidiarity principle must be so formulated that it is clear what is left to the authorities
in member states and what is delegated on the level of the Union – given the emotions around it
we should not be afraid of giving some decision power to the member states while insisting on
keeping some clearly defined decision power at the Union level. The slogan “More Europe” is
still valid provided we carefully select the areas in which we all want to jointly take decisions and
leave aside those areas which – as for now at least – should be left to the national
governments. Given the complexity of the present world politicians will appreciate, I believe, that
a thoughtful transfer of some decisions on the Union level would simply strengthen also their
national states. We should solve this problem soon – it appears to me that not the matters to
be governed at the Union level are overly controversial – rather, the way of taking decisions
(unanimously or by qualified majority) would be more difficult to decide upon. No one will
seriously object, I believe, to the EU decision making on matters such as major international
policy challenges, defence spending, digital single market, energy union, worker migration
freedom within the Union, quite a few others.
We urgently need to make the public feel its concerns are heard. To this aim we urgently need
to change the election process and then the role of the European Parliament – by moving it
closer to the member states’ parliaments, and also change the role of the European Council,
directly elect the Union president as a symbol of how to involve the public in political processes,
and certainly introduce some other measures aiming at the same.
In spite of, in a sense natural, decreasing of the EU contribution to the global DGP, the Union
needs better capabilities to do world politics in order to continue its role as a strong global actor.
We do not properly exploit promotionally such facts – widely envied elsewhere – that the Union
is by far the world biggest common market, we participate in ¼ of the world trade and contribute
2/3 of the world humanitarian assistance. And that, last but not least, we have proved our ability
by learning from own terrible historical tragedies to be a reliable regional, but also to a
significant degree global guarantor of peace. To be successful in fulfilling our global mission we
need to harmonize among member states our foreign policy, including consistent response to
security challenges and challenges of the future Union expansion. The outer perception of the
Union must be one of a stable and harmonious entity with global ambitions and influence. To
reach this goal the Union needs to
- harmonize its defence activities within NATO to maximize our potential as a guarantor of
peace,
- engage in a new partnership with Africa, following the China example, as the
interdependence of Europe and Africa is clearly growing,
- strengthen the euro and expand its use as an international alternative to dollar,
- come fast to an effective agreement on policies regarding immigrants accompanied by
measures
assuring the citizen of the Union of their safety against terrorist danger,
- increase staffing and powers of the EU’s border and coast control,
- greatly improve the crisis prevention and mitigation measures in view of an increasingly
turbulent Europe neighbourhood,
- to seriously consider unconventional measures such as a demonstration in front of the
world of our European unity by, for instance, replacing 28 (+ 1 European) diplomatic
representations in politically less important countries by just one European embassy.
Furthermore, we need to restore the lustre of the European economic model. In it, innovative
activities should play a much bigger role than it is today – the global population has become
very savvy to creative solutions in everyday life and does not accept things which are not up to
the dynamics of contemporary society. This is a vital prerequisite for us to stay competitive in
the globalised world. I strongly believe a great majority of us are ready to pursue such very
ambitious development goals. Many of us also know, on the basis of a broad world-wide
experience and sophisticated scientific expertise, what is needed to define ambitious objectives
and would be fully committed to work hard towards their realization. Unfortunately, in the last
decades our competence and readiness to act has not been translated into practical steps at a
sufficient rate, the reasons being the policy-makers’ indecisiveness and populists’ exploitation of
citizen’ unease creating the pessimistic mood of a coming doomsday.
To improve the economic performance, the Union has to stick to the promise and policies of
digital single market, energy union, workers’ migration freedom within the Union. It has to
actively promote innovative activities by stimulating collaboration between employers, civil
society, tech entrepreneurs, the wider public and governments at all levels as this is essential
for addressing and then solving many of the integration challenges.
There is clear need to revise and unify social policies – the big questions are whether we can
continue working much shorter hours than Americans or Asians, which benefits should be
offered to not working residents and, more difficult, to immigrants, or how to harmonize social
policies across the whole Union.
Education at all levels must be made more European – let Erasmus be an example of what we
can do in this respect! The joint European budget for research is a mere 5 proc. of the research
budget in all the member states combined – the fact which results in lack of collaboration and
difficulties in carrying out large-scale ambitious projects, limited competitiveness and wasteful
duplication of work, completely different systems of national research funding and difficulties in
doing research for the so-called dual use, i.e. research serving both civilian and defence
purposes. All that is entirely different in the US or China with enormous consequences for the
quality of the whole our and their research systems’ outcome.
Let with all my might express in conclusion that I do not believe the EU is merely a fading phase
in history of Europe as some overly critical people tend to see it. We are too strongly united in
universal values which are and will always stay pivotal for a great majority of us, the Europeans.
The vision of Europe’s elites years ago was probably too ambitious to be fulfilled in a few
decades but that does not mean at all that the age of the European Union is gone. On the
contrary, we have a bright future ahead of us, only that we have to believe in it and hardly work
to achieve it. We have to remember that even a limited and imperfect version of being together
is much better than the break-up of what we believe is so precious. A version of the European
commonwealth is an absolutely natural and irreplaceable idea – should we wait until it is
implemented only by the next generation of European or should we do it ourselves?
Prof.Dr. Michał Kleiber, Propraeses Acad., Warsaw
Prof.em.Dr. Klaus Mainzer, Soc.Acad., Munich
Prof.Dr. Wolfgang Schmale, Soc.Acad., Vienna
Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c. Felix Unger, Praeses Acad., Salzburg
Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c. Werner Weidenfeld, Soc.Acad., Munich
Supported by
We are grateful for the support of
Dr. Verena Konrad, Commissioner and Curator
Austrian Pavilion, Architecture Biennale of Venice 2018
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
St. Peter Bezirk 10, A-5020 Salzburg
Tel: +43 / 662 / 84 13 45
Fax: +43 / 662 / 84 13 43
office@ euro-acad.eu
www.euro-acad.eu