May 4, 2021
Sorin Roșca Stănescu on the Sovereignty Act
“The recent movement in France, initiated by reservists but also by serving officers and strongly supported by Madame Marine Le Pen’s party, obliges us not only to reflect but also to hold a debate as serious as can be. Is sovereigntism an extremist movement? Wholly? Partly? And if so, from what point onwards?
Is globalism a dangerous tendency for states and for the citizens of those states? And, if so, from what point onwards? I feel obliged to answer this challenge. All the more so as a native sovereigntism is taking shape. One that opposes the globalist tendencies, themselves ever more pronounced in Romania.
I admit, the theme is extremely difficult. Because we approach it from within the European Union. After all, what is the European Union? A form of globalism. Even if a partial one. To speak plainly, the European Union is, historically speaking, the latest association of states which, in the name of collective power, have decided to yield — to a greater or lesser degree, but to yield nonetheless — attributes of sovereignty. From this point of view it is the first significant experiment of globalisation at world level, after the successive failures of the Macedonian Empire, of the Roman Empire, of the Third Reich, and of the camp built by Stalin after the Second World War. In fact, it is the first time since the republic of the city-states of ancient Greece that states have associated of their own free will, unforced by anyone, in order gradually to create a larger state, with peoples of the most diverse origin, tradition, cultural and civilisational level, economic level, and with different religions as well. And in certain cases even hostile to one another. Well then, the question must be put, and we are obliged to answer it: to what extent, in order to build and consolidate this European construction, are the states willing to give up their sovereignty? And, from this point of view, let us see to what extent sovereigntism can be branded extremism.
Bearing in mind the particularities of the European Union, we may state without risk of error that many of the features attributed in other states to the concept of patriotism are in the European Union often perceived and treated as extremism. Because, from a certain point onwards, patriotism inevitably turns into sovereigntism. And, likewise from a certain point onwards, sovereigntism puts a brake on globalism, which lies at the foundation of the European Union. That is why, by no means accidentally, we have seen, heard and read in recent years ever more frequent accusations launched against European personalities, movements and parties, to the effect that they are, or have, extremist tendencies.
There exists an extremely fragile balance between European globalism and European sovereigntism. Partial globalism, if such a thing may be said, bounded by the frontiers of the European Union, is indispensable to the functioning and then to the osmosis of this conglomerate of states. Sovereigntism in its turn, which is an expression of patriotism, of healthy nationalism, both of them high moral values, is perfectly justified and absolutely necessary, if it is manifested within certain limits. What are the limits? In a generic sense, they are circumscribed by the idea that, in collaboration with the other European states, each should show the will, have the capacity and have the possibility of affirming and realising its national interest. To put it bluntly: in the name of the collective interest, in the name of those EU values so often invoked, it is inadmissible that, by yielding sovereignty, a people should yield its national riches in favour of another people or of other dominant peoples within this association of states. And national wealth is extremely diverse. In Romania’s case it means deposits of precious metals, deposits of hydrocarbons, deposits of salt, forests, arable land, labour force, market outlet, culture, language, distinctive art and so forth. This globalised mini-planet called the European Union could be all the richer the more each individual state is able to affirm these values of its own, and could be all the poorer the more some of these states sacrifice on the altar of globalisation more sovereignty than is necessary.
From the perspective sketched above, I perceive with sorrow and with stupefaction how a series of expressions or words carrying a great emotional charge are ever more intensely maimed, perverted and condemned. Thus, nationalism in the European Union is ever more often branded as extremism. Or even as neo-fascism. Patriotism is identified by the neo-Marxists with the far right. The parties that uphold sovereigntism suffer ever more visibly attempts at their elimination, by being outlawed and excluded from the democratic game.
I try to be as precise as I can, though the space of this editorial does not allow me to treat this vast theme with a surgeon’s precision. I shall therefore offer the reader a blunt explanation. The most radical party in Romania’s recent history, the Greater Romania Party, led by Corneliu Vadim Tudor, had extremist tendencies and accents, but it was not an extremist party. It was a nationalist party which, unhappily, sometimes — especially in regard to Hungarians, to Roma and, in its early period, to Jews — displayed racist tendencies. Even so, broadly speaking, the Greater Romania Party kept within the limits imposed by the democratic game.
The weak states of the European Union, those that joined more recently and are still marked by the long period in which they could not practise democracy but only dictatorship, are often on the point of being perceived by the powerful EU states, with their consolidated economies, as prey. As territories and populations fit to be conquered by a peaceful offensive, but one no less perverse than a military offensive. That is why, by no means accidentally, in these states — and I hasten to give two examples, Poland and Hungary — sovereigntist tendencies are manifested ever more markedly. For their peoples, these tendencies are beneficial. For the dominant nations at EU level, these tendencies are maleficent. And that is why they are combated. And that is why, in this crucible of the European Union, there exists not only unity in diversity but also battles, at times merciless, between the integrating tendencies and sovereigntist values, perceived by some as disintegrating.
The theme is of great topicality for Romania. Because I observe how, day by day, out of several parties and organisations of civil society, a great movement and perhaps a great political formation of sovereigntist type is beginning to coalesce. The signal is given by a legislative initiative entitled the Sovereignty Law which, after being submitted to public debate, will be signed by citizens and laid, in accordance with the Constitution, as an initiative belonging to them, upon the table of Parliament. It will be a good occasion for the globalists to level accusations of extremist nationalism at this movement, and for its adherents to accuse the neo-Marxists who at present dominate Romanian politics of a form of globalism that sacrifices or even crucifies the national interest. In so far as both sides keep within the limits imposed by dialogue, by a confrontation of ideas and tendencies, this new ideological front will prove constructive in the medium and long term.”
See the post on FacebookThe Facebook archive keeps no permanent addresses for posts. The link above is rebuilt from the identifier of the attached photograph, and some posts are no longer public — Facebook has deleted, restricted or moved them — so it may answer “This page isn’t available”. If that happens, search for the post by its text on the author’s page.
Comments
Have your say. Comments appear once approved.