The year of China in
France
WHEN THE WIND OF ASIAN CULTURE SWEEPS
OVER FRANCE
Charlotte Pistre
The huge cultural exchange project
"France-China exchange Years" was devised in 1999 by Heads of State Jacques
Chirac and Jinag Zemin. The first part of the event "The Year of China in
France", will run from October 2003 to July 2004, before giving way the following
year to "The Year of France in China".
Organized under the umbrella of "Foreign
Cultural Seasons" run since 1992 under the supervision of the Ministry of Foreign
Affaires, the Ministry of Culture and Communication and the French association for Arts in
Action (AFAA), "The year of Algeria" and precede that of Poland.
This considerable undertaking aims initially
to promote co-operation between the two countries steeped in centuries of different
history, ideas and cultures. The next objective is to update the often simplistic,
erroneous or outdated perceptions that the French have of Chinese Culture, by making them
aware of the richness and dynamism of its sciences, technology and arts. A wide range of
events will thus attempt to present, in as comprehensive a way as possible, the immense
cultural heritage of the middle Empire which has, for the last ten years or so, conducted
an ambitions policy of international openness.
From the august Middle
Empire……
Three themes, covering the key features of
this Far Eastern civilization, will recur as a leitmotif of the festivities. "Eternal
China" will take center stage first, with five major exhibitions, several concerts by
the National Orchestra of China and performances of Chinese opera and local music.
"The China of tradition and
diversity" will then be reflected through numerous events: acrobatic displays,
especially by the famous Canton circus troupe; an exhibition about "Life in China
Today" (at Palaise de la Porte Doree at the end of the year); the Lantern Festival to
celebrate the Chinese New Year (February 2004) at the Jardin des Plantes in Paris, which
will then host a traditional fair with Chinese entertainment and foods. Other events, to
be held in both Paris and the provinces, will then punctuate these festivities, especially
the very popular puppet shows at which the Chinese excel.
..to modern-day China
Lastly, "the China of creative artists
and modernity" will attempt to reflect the vitality of this contemporary art scene.
Even before the start of the festivities, the Center Pompidou will present an exhibition
of contemporary art under the title Alors le Chine?" ["What about China?
"]. A retrospective of Chinese sculpture is scheduled in various parks and gardens
(including the Tuilleries gardens), another will present 20th century painting (Palais de
la Portee Doree), and while works by multimedia artists will be on display at the old
Gaite-Lyriquue theatre in the third arrodissment of Paris.
The public will also be able to sample
numerous "local specialties", especially the flavors of Chinese food, but not
forgetting contemporary dance, literature, film, photographs, architectural works, fashion
parades, scientific and technical symposiums and sporting events (martial arts).
Overall, the hundreds of events all over the
country are designed to establish special links between the Chinese and French cultures,
to arouse mutual interest and develop a lasting partnership. " The year of China in
France" is a modern means of ensuring Franco-Chinese cultural encounters and
coincides with the fortieth anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two states.
(Courtesy: Label France Magazine, Embassy
of France, Kathmandu)
A Continent reinvents
itself
Ulrike Guérot on the future of the
European Union
Fifty-five percent of Europeans have never
heard of the Convention on the European Constitution. This is unfortunate, because Europe
is in the process of making history. At the EU summit in Thessalonica on June 20, 2003,
the convention's president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing handed the European heads of state or
government a draft European constitution - a bundle of papers in four sections totalling
some 300 pages, but it was still a draft. And it is definitely a step forward, at least
compared to the jumble of European treaties which even experts found difficult to wade
through in full. The symbolism should not be underestimated.
For over ten years the European Union had
been working in vain on its reform, dragging itself from one government conference to the
next. Neither the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam nor the Nice Treaty of 2000 was able to deliver
satisfactory answers. But as so often in history, it was the crisis that generated the
opportunity.
The EU's Magna Charta
Less than a year after Nice, the heads of state or government
decided to convene a constitutional convention. This was a radical change in the method of
reform. And the 105 convention members really have achieved some remarkable things,
something that was not necessarily expected in this form from the outset.
Even the word "constitution" or
"constitutional treaty" was controversial to start with, although it was
generally accepted in the end. Two of the constitutional treaty's proposals in particular
are pioneering: first, as from 2009 the Commission is to be reduced to 15 voting
commissioners who will then alternate in rotation with non-voting commissioners from what
will, by then, probably be a 27-member Union. This break with the principle of national
representation should make the Commission significantly more efficient. The majority
decisions in the Council of Ministers have been simplified and expanded. In future, 50% of
the member states and 60% of the EU's population will be enough for a qualified majority,
greatly increasing the number of so-called "winning coalitions" compared to the
Treaty of Nice.
This proposal is the backbone of the
constitutional treaty. Together with the expansion of the European Parliament's influence
on decision-making, it could point the way to an increasingly federal union.
Another new element is that the European
Council will have a president who is elected for a term of two and a half years,
simultaneously abolishing the current rotating presidency. The aim here is to increase the
European Union's continuity and coherency and to raise its external profile. Furthermore,
a European Foreign Minister will be appointed to give the common European foreign policy
both a face and a better hearing in the rest of the world. The two-pronged leadership
system consisting of the two presidents of the Council and Commission really will change
the face of the EU considerably, even if there are still many practicability issues to be
resolved. For example, the borderlines of responsibility between the two presidents are
not clearly defined. The Council president is essentially to be a political,
representative president without executive authority, while the Commission's president
will be in charge of the executive without political authority. At the same time, of
course, this will reduce the Council president's power to actually implement fundamental
political decisions. This will have to sort itself out, and success is likely to depend
largely on the personalities of the people concerned.
The draft constitution has more pleasant
surprises in store, too: the European Charter of Fundamental Rights has become a component
part of the constitutional treaty, together with a canon of European Union values and
goals. The EU will now have its own legal personality. The legislative procedures for the
individual areas of European Union policy – single market, interior and legal
policies, and the common foreign and security policy - have all been largely harmonized. A
newly created Legislative Council will make decision-making processes more stringent and
transparent. Responsibilities have been clearly divided between the European Union and the
nation states according to the subsidiarity principle.
Of course, we will have to wait and see how
the extended Union functions in practice. New rounds of talks on enlargement are not far
away and will require new institutional reforms. And the convention's outcome still has to
be unanimously passed by the next government conference beginning this autumn. Partial
resistance is expected from individual member states, but it is equally clear that the
European Union must not miss out on this historic opportunity for reform.
Europe and its borders
Apart from the constitutional treaty,
important issues of Europe's future remain unsolved, however - particularly the question
of its borders, or rather the abolition of its borders. For Europe is a success history,
with the result that there is a long list of countries wanting to join - although their
entry is controversial. I am not referring to the Balkans, because the accession prospects
of the successor states of the former Yugoslavia can be regarded as secure. The problems
lie more with Turkey, Ukraine and Moldova; and some people even mention Israel and Russia.
Geography is not kind to Europe in this context, because there is no natural frontier, at
least not to the east. This is the more important since, in future, the geographical
criterion will perhaps not even be the decisive one. After all, the EU sees itself
primarily as a legal community that is open on principle to democratic market economies.
The canon of values enshrined in its constitutional treaty, for example, deliberately
omits any specific religious commitment - despite loud protests from some quarters. This
means that cultural and religious arguments are not enough to exclude a country. Turkey is
a prime example of the complex discussion on entry.
Views differ, after all, on whether the
Bosporus is a geographical frontier and whether Turkey historically belongs to Europe; on
the other hand there is no doubt that Turkey is a democracy - with exceptions that are
criticized - and has a healthy free-market economy. It is often overlooked in this context
that the EU which Turkey will presumably join sometime will not be today's EU, so that
today's yardsticks should not be applied. Of course, Turkey's entry would cost the common
agricultural policy about 20 billion euros a year on today's conditions and is therefore
considered unfeasible.
However, Europe is not static. Turkey could only be
incorporated into a fundamentally reformed EU - an EU that has reformed its agricultural
policy in such a way that it no longer accounts for almost 50% of its budget. So Europe
will have to choose between a geo-strategic vision of itself and its desire to hold on to
accustomed structures!]
Strategic partnership with Russia
The situation regarding Russia would seem to
be simpler: Russia cannot and should not become a member of the EU, because continental
Europe simply needs these two poles and synergetic relations between them. Russia needs
European money and investment in order to modernize; Europe needs Russian energy and raw
material reserves. What is on the agenda here is the development of a strategic
partnership whose core element could be a European-Russian free trade zone. Similarly, the
Mediterranean area will have to be stabilized by extensive "neighbourhood
policies." The target is likely to be for the EU to be at the centre of concentric
circles of association and graded cooperation.
The search for post-national identity
There is one aspect that could have even more
serious repercussions for Europe's future understanding of itself: the fact that Europe is
fearful of power and size. This is the only reason why the popular American author Robert
Kagan was able to land the intellectual pinprick that misty-eyed Europe was lost in its
memories of "Kantian world peace," while realistic America had recognized
"Hobbes's Leviathan" and was also willing to fight it with military means:
Europe as Venus, the United States as Mars. Europe was stuck in the dilemma of becoming a
world power against its will. Europe's intellectuals were therefore endeavouring to make
Europe "small" and manageable again, in a kind of anticipatory selfcensorship.
The idea of a "core Europe" was experiencing a renaissance in this context.
The old Carolingian Europe against the new,
extended Europe. Intellectually this is untenable, because during the Iraq crisis the
differences of opinion ran straight down the middle of the "old" Europe of the
EU 15, which should have shared the same convictions, after all. So what should "core
Europe" be the core of, and for what purpose? Certainly, a negative policy of simply
distancing oneself from the US is not the right way to inspire European federalization!
Europe in 2003 is a developing "entité politique" which is still looking for
its intellectual substructure. The European divisions over the Iraq war highlighted the
national hurdles and fissures that have developed over some 2000 years of mostly warlike
history and become embodied in the consciousness of the individual European states as
strands of historical tradition. To follow the philosopher Jürgen Habermas, Europe is
thus searching for a post-national identity with which to fill the constitutional treaty.
It is a matter of terminology: if national identity is defined not by borders or nations,
but - as the French historian Ernest Renan put it in the early 20th century - by a common
view of the future, expressing the fateful nature of solidarity, then Europe is currently
in the process of intellectually cementing its identity.
There has never been more debate on Europe
than there is today among politicians, philosophers and intellectuals, and the issues
involved are more than ever those of Europe's values, borders and structures. Europe is
both Antiquity and Enlightenment. As a project, it is a modern version of stone-rolling
Sisyphus, forever pushing the bolder back up to the summit again and again, perfect in its
imperfection: yet anyone who has read Albert Camus knows that Sisyphus was a happy person!
(Courtesy: Deutschland Magazine, Embassy
of Germany, Kathmandu) |
