THE WORLD PERCEIVED BY THE HEART OF EUROPE

Instead of the Prologue Central Europe - a Victim, Culprit or Both? (The Quest for the Central-European Dimension of Sustainable Life) by Mikuláš Huba The end of a fateful division of Europe by the ”Iron curtain”, which passed right through its middle for forty years, also brought the revival of interest in, and discussion about, the phenomenon of Central Europe. From a geopolitical point of view, Central-Europe disintegrated with the end of Austro-Hungarian monarchy. The Treaty of Versailles made it a part of the so called ”sanitary cordon” which was supposed to protect, and be protected by, the winners of World War I and, at the same time, to separate two potentially dangerous powers - Germany and Russia. As it came out twenty years later, this cordon, or rather fender, did not save anyone, nor did the powers thoroughly defend it. The area served rather as a kind of a laboratory to test a penalty-less violation of state sovereignty, aggression, mass oppression of human rights, and the unreality of security guaranties. The second blow, even more fatal than Versailles, was delivered to Central Europe by the Yalta agreement, which divided Europe between Stalin and others. The dismantling of Central Europe was completed by the establishment of economic and military-political blocks - NATO, Warsaw pact, The Council for Mutual Economic Help (RVHP), EC/EU. The phenomenon of Central Europe, characterized by more than just its location in the middle of the old continent, is evident at least from the times when the Hapsburg monarchy was constituted in this area. Some historians place the origin of classical Central-European state formations in the time of the Czech kingdom - under the reign of Charles IV, the Hungarian Kingdom of Matthias Corvinus or the Polish-Lithuanian Kingdom of the Jagels´. Czechs and Slovaks would probably appreciate if the Great Moravian empire was also listed in this enumeration... However, the history of questioning the concept of Central Europe is no less long than its rediscovering. Some people find this concept just a trick in order to dissociate from allegiance to the eastern Soviet empire in the years 1945 - 1989. This attitude has though, after the fall of the Iron curtain, changed to a ”political kitsch”, or an advantageous marketing operation. In this context, Lajos Grendel (1997) wrote, ”Desire and nostalgia for the West find their expression in the revival of the idea of Central Europe. In this sense, Central Europe lost its topical relevance after 1989, and as integration of western Europe in this area proceeds, Central Europe will be still less necessary until we all forget about it”. According to Grendel and people who think likewise, while allegiance to Central Europe was recently emphasized with the aim of a desirable differentiation from the Russian or Soviet eastern block, now it can function the other way round, counterproductively, as it can slow down or even question integration of this region in European structures. It is also common that most writers find Central Europe to be an illusion or ghetto, unnecessarily restricting exchange of ideas across the whole Europe. This attitude results in the absence of a generally accepted definition of the phenomenon of Central Europe. Nevertheless, when we get on a train e.g. in Lvov and we travel via Krakow, Brno, Bratislava and Gyor to Zagreb, via Budapest to Brasov or via Vienna and Graz to Ljubljana, the view out the window of railway stations or towers of churches will always remind us of being in the same cultural-historical area. The common spirit of this area is still alive in spite of the ending century of wars and revolutions, defined by hectic construction and repeated liquidation of not only political regimes, but also whole state formations. Looking at this issue from the viewpoint of geometry, or the so called geographical middle of Europe, as a point on the map, in which it would be enough to thrust the tip of a compass, set the appropriate radius and make a circle, then the circle would encompass the total area only of Slovakia, Czech Republic, Austria and Hungary. The remaining countries would only belong to this circle partially (north-west Poland would incline to western or northern Europe, and north-east Poland to eastern Europe - depending on the historical sphere of influence of various recent or more distant past powers). Allegiance to Central Europe can apparently be claimed by western Ukraine including Lvov, the very northern part of former Yugoslavia (Voivodina, northern Croatia and most probably Slovenia, though it is situated on the crossing to southern Europe), from Italy then by at least southern Tyrol and the surroundings of Terst, from Germany by Bavaria and perhaps also Saxony and Brandenburg, from Switzerland at least by its eastern, mostly German speaking part and finally, by Transylvania (to the south-east shoved-up peninsula besieged by Balkan). If we considered only state formations as units, then we would probably agree that Central Europe is constituted by the states of Vissegrád Four - Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Poland - plus Austria. Directly after these countries (according to results of a public opinion poll carried out by the AISA agency in both the Czech and Slovak Republics in 1996) follows Ukraine as one among the countries belonging to Central Europe. The authors of the project ”Sustainable Development for Central Europe” gave priority to Germany rather than Ukraine, probably thanks to the fact that the project is, to a considerable measure, based on statistical data which are traced in Germany much more thoroughly than in Ukraine. The last partner which usually actively claims its membership in the family of Central-European states is Slovenia. While membership in the Central European Free Trade Area (CEFTA) is distinguished similarly, the oldest of similar regional associations - Central European Initiative (CEI) - has expanded the number of its members from the original four to the present eleven. Another interesting indicator to determine European west, middle and east, is the sequence of the establishment of universities, and related to that cultural and educational differentiation. A typical period for the establishment of the first universities in western Europe is 11th-12th century, while in central Europe this process went on from 14th-16th century, and in eastern and south-east Europe only two-three centuries later. Similarly to various other phenomena, Central Europe can also be more easily distinguished negatively rather than positively - as a changing area between spheres of influence or threat, represented once in the past by Turks, then by Swedes, Germans or Russians. In the words of Milan Kundera, Central Europe is an ”indefinite area of small nations between Russia and Germany”. In this context, several authors emphasize the fact that the idea of Central European coherence - no matter if perceived as an alliance of destiny, economic solidarity or a commonly shared cultural conception - was always tied to feelings of threat. The most recent initiatives of the so called Pentagonale or Vissegrád Three (later Four) also belong in this category, even though the direct jeopardy of aggression is replaced here by the indirect, though very realistic, threat of lagging behind the more developed West and an absence of a search for ways out. What should the world feel thankful to Central Europe for? Central Europe was always a crossroad of business routes and military expeditions; an area where since long ago several ethnic groups and religions met, fought with each other, and finally assimilated. It was a territory, where raids from the East but also from other cardinal points (the Roman empire, Germans, Tartars, Turks, Swedes, Soviets) were halted or neutralized several times. At the same time, it is an area in which both of the greatest wars up to now became worldwide, where the largest concentration camps existed before and during World War II, and where the greatest forced displacements of inhabitants from their traditional homes were carried out during and after World War II. However, it is also a place of significant anti-feudal (1948) and anti-totalitarian movements in 1956, 1968, and 1989. At the same time, a lot of Nobel-prize winners, famous scientists, artists, architects, philosophers and theologians, or religious representatives (including the current head of the Catholic church) come from this region. And even if they were not directly born here, this region was homeland of their parents, who later escaped from totalitarian regimes to the west, especially to the U.S. On the scale of professions, nuclear physicists and cyberneticists stand out beside biologists, physicians, psychologists or psychoanalysts, civil engineers and philosophers (eco-philosophers included). Revolutionary and creative spirits, ingenious authors of instruments for accomplishment of their plans, and no less ingenious authors of diagnosis and therapists of victims of megalomaniac projects also lived here. However, there were also periods when people, in search for greater tolerance, emigrated from West to East - at the times of anti-reformation or during the Czechoslovak ”normalization” after 1968. If something as a common mentality of such a diverse environment as that of Central Europe exists, then it is probably marked by the phenomenon of continental dimension - something like ”boiling in one’s own gravy”, which, in the 20th century, is even amplified by a syndrome of barbed wire. Other symptomatic features are pogroms, ”ultimate solutions”, forced displacements and mass emigrations (if not physical then at least spiritual), conjoined with worrying nostalgia, and many times, also with tormenting self-reflection. This fact justifies a statement of the French historian A. Mares who said that ”a lot of Central Europeans, brought up with the experience of wars and the Soviet era, do not see Central Europe as a place of circulation, but rather as a ”pot” - a place where one cannot breath, without any openings, encircled by great powers and constantly confronted by them”. Within this space, perception of reality was also influenced by traditionally rampant and commendable bureaucracy. Hungarian writer Layos Grendel, who resides in Slovakia, says that the Central European zone which stretches between the Soviet Union, and the more recent EU, and which consists mainly of small, and at the same time multinational states, has after 1945 moved even more towards the East and found itself in the Soviet interest group. According to the cited author, symptomatic for this area are: multiculturalism, nationalism (somewhere hidden under the surface, elsewhere expressed in bloody conflicts), non-existing modern national and societal self-definition, chronic crisis of identity and related to that value of chaos, or bluntly, a value of nihilism, severance of natural historical development which comes out and adapts to given conditions of the area. The consequences are: liquidation of citizens (as a stratum and also as an attitude) and elimination of civic values from tradition. On the other hand, what also seems symptomatic for Central Europe (maybe thanks to its effort to face threatening absolutism and ”ultimate solutions”) is the constant revival of moral imperatives and canons in contradiction to strengthening moral and epistemological relativism, accompanied by expressions and feelings of absurdity and decadence. Excesses of pure idealism are repeatedly suppressed by raw materialism - whether ”dialectic” or simply consumption-like, so that its opponents again attempt to unify under the flag of ideals, with the help of a myth of common culture, idealization of the past and the heritage of numerous great fellow countrymen. It seems that with the year 1989, the main doctrines which directed the organization of Central Europe in the 20th century are losing their topical relevance. This concerns not only the Yalta system, which divided Europe to West and East, but also the Versailles system. What is going to replace them? What kind of ”organization order” will be applied for a new organization of this part of Europe? What kind of principles will it be established on? To what extent will these principles be in accordance with sustainability principles? A political scientist J. Rupnik said in one interview, in 1993, that Central Europe so far (in comparison to the chaos which exists to the south and east of it) seems to be an oasis of stability. In his opinion, the transition to democracy and market economy has been most successful here out of all post-communist countries. Still, the problems of Central Europe remind him of the situation after 1919, when the Versailles system enabled the establishment of small states with large national minorities on the ruins of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy (based on Wilson’s principles of self-determination of nations). The issue of national minorities not only weakens democratic institutions, but it also causes tensions between neighboring countries. Western Europe considers Central Europe to be a strategic zone endangered by destabilization partly from the Balkans, and partly from the periphery of the former Soviet Union. If that happened, both the Slovak and Czech Republics would harshly pay for that, since nobody would like to import the conflicts of Central Europe. According to Rupnik, replacement of the Yalta and Versailles systems is primarily a safety question. Therefore, the states of Central Europe should be democracies because democracies do not go to war with each other. But, it is impossible to constitute democracy and sustain democratic institutions while considering the economic (or environmental either - note of the author) debacle. The sense of Central European discourse, the search for ways of new political and safety structures, questions of economic integration as well as constantly revived attempts to deepen cultural and societal cooperation, cultivation of mutual solidarity and tolerance, or even the common development strategy can also be seen in the search for a paradigm of pluralism and support to the transition or formation of an evolutionary link in the process of building a common Europe. This perception of Central Europe is also a means of resistance against a revived wave of nationalism. Face to face with Bosnia or Kosovo, it is a challenge enormously topical and important. Central Europe was always close to wars and therefore its countries armed themselves. After World War II, the Soviet empire fastened on to the armament tradition in this area. It went so far that besides factories of heavy or so called special machinery (a code name for manufactures of arms), most activities of the national economy were directly or indirectly related with the interests of ”protection” of the state and the system: from producers of components for ”sewing machines”, which could never be assembled into anything other than machine-guns (a well-known aphorism of the 70-ties - note of the author), to women in cooperative farms, who in periods of bad crops, sewed haversacks for gas masks. In the heavily armed countries, much steel, aluminum and other products of heavy and stained metallurgy, as well as products of heavy chemistry, are needed. Large-volume substrates need to be transported and thus, cargo traffic is developed. Much concrete is also necessary - if for nothing else than at least for construction of roads, airports, barracks and anti-aircraft shelters. Cement for its production, recovered from limestone, is relatively abundant in Central Europe. Everything that has been mentioned is immensely energy intensive. Therefore, power plants are built - classical, nuclear and hydroelectric. The larger they are - the better. Again, cement and steel are utilized for their construction. Countries which build war, communism and at the same time try to ”catch up with America” need a lot of everything. The quality of consumer goods does not really matter, and similarly, the health of the people does not matter much either. What matters even less is the health of the environment and the natural structure of the cultural landscape. Since there are still more people, and competition in armaments is ever more demanding, it is necessary to produce more and more, to draw on more and more natural resources and consequently produce more and more wastes. Moreover, Central European states during most of 20th century are more objects than subjects of history, forced to do business at once for the Third Empire, and other times for the socialist camp. Besides that, the production (and consumption) pattern mentioned above fully corresponds to ideas of the centrally planned and realized economy, which is based much more on ideology and political interests of military-industrial complexes than economic effectiveness, satisfaction of human needs, not even speaking about environmental friendliness. During the totalitarian regime (which dominated most of Central Europe for fifty years), all of this was confronted with: the historical memory of people (reaching prevailingly into the more democratic history in the period between two wars and into orderly old Austria), the acclimatization to displeasure and the survival strategy of (at least) passive resistance, a sound educational level, some flow of information from abroad, contacts with abundant exiles, partially maybe the influence of religious education and folk traditions, the mutual balancing of tendencies towards nationalism and cosmopolitanism, and last but not least, a sense for black humor - so symptomatic for Central Europe. Ecological or environmentally oriented alternative movements - especially in this part of Europe – also became significantly involved in this stream of positively oriented, anti-totalitarian, independent, and non-violent public events. Besides environmental issues, they gradually became engaged in other related issues and activities of social, cultural but also economic and political character. For all of them, let’s mention at least a protest (originally ecological) movement - the Danube Circle - which in the second half of the 80-ties concentrated, in fact, the whole Hungarian emerging political opposition around the issue of opposition to the anti-ecological waterworks on the Danube river between Bratislava and Budapest. In 1968, the situation was yet premature, but in the 80-ties, the Soviet block clearly began to lose breath. For a while, societies still ran somehow - through inertia, so to speak, captured by the idea of mandatory growth. Then however, economics, environment, health conditions of the population and, eventually, also the political system gradually begin to fail. At the same time, more and more analyses and documents which accurately reflected reality became available. In spite of limitations and bans, tabooed facts became clear not only to experts, but also to part of the general public. Initiatives of conservationists and other groups mentioned above played the role of a catalyst in this movement. On the other hand, increasing environmental awareness of the population gave them real authority, strength and influence in society. Objective and subjective reasons resulted in an increased awareness of the necessity for change, readiness to undergo this change, and even to accomplish it. As the environment concerns everyone, as it can hardly be ideologically manipulated, and as it is relatively transparent, it became (as explained above) a more or less tolerated vent of the growing political tension in most Eastern and Central European countries. At the same time, the environmental movement became a platform which - without excessive political risk - associated not only professional environmentalists or dedicated nature conservationists, but also other people who were active in the society and thought independently. In some countries, including Slovakia, the movement of voluntary nature conservationists thus became at least a partial substitution for lacking political opposition. Coincidentally, there was a culmination of the green movement in Germany and a strengthening in Austria. In addition, Austria experienced in the 80-ties two of their largest environmental campaigns: the referendum about nuclear energy and the campaign for the protection of Hainburg forests against the construction of huge waterworks on the Danube. The argument that the environment does not recognize borders is reflected in the fact that international cooperation dealing with its protection gradually develops. Let’s mention several examples of cooperation centered around particular environmental issues: air pollution - e.g. the so called Black triangle, nuclear power plants - mainly after the Chernobyl accident, the Danube - from Hainburg to Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, the Tatras, Krušné hory, the Beskids, pollution of international rivers... With the help of international environmental organizations, the first Eastern European network of conservationists was established - Greenway, and a renowned international organization, Friends of the Earth, began to show more and more interest in this part of Europe. Right away after 1989, significant environmental organizations in this region became member organizations of Friends of the Earth. This fact might also have initiated a belief that it will be exactly the organizational basis of Friends of the Earth - Europe which would enable the realization of an ambitious Europe-wide campaign aimed at spreading knowledge about effective usage of environmental space from western Europe to its central and eastern parts. Since 1994, all Central European countries became gradually successfully involved in fulfillment of this intention, regardless of what criteria is used for territorial definition of Central Europe. The key notion of the whole concept is environmental space (ES) defined as a total quantity (capacity) of resources, including space, available for use by a given subject (a country, community, individual) and in the given space and time, in a sustainable way. The initial reference time horizon was 1990, and the final target horizon is 2010 (for some commodities it is the year 2050). What are the results of a comparison like? Evidently, the largest consumer of ES per inhabitant and country is Ukraine. Then follows Slovakia, just slightly before the Czech Republic. Average values of consumption of ES within the region is illustrated by Austria. Somewhat smaller value shows Poland and clearly the smallest one - Hungary. Naturally, the whole method has numerous shortcomings. Besides other things, it is the fact that indexes, and thus also order of the countries in various indexes, are attributed the same weight but also (and maybe especially) the fact that the choice of indicators is not representative enough to be able to give a complex picture of reality. In spite of these shortcomings, the procedure mentioned above enables the formation of a rough idea about consumption of natural resources, waste-production, land-usage, nature conservation and other aspects of using environmental space in individual Central European countries and the region as a whole. It also provides a means for making some other implications. Generally, we can state that the Central European region in the early 90’s (and we should add that up to now) many times exceeded (and in a limited extent, still exceeds) the limits of consumption of ES. The reason is especially the high consumption of non-renewable resources. While consumption of sources of energy is higher than average for the EU, it is comparable as far as other sources are concerned. Significantly smaller than in the EU was the consumption of renewable sources of energy (with the exception of Austria with a level of consumption of non-renewables almost corresponding to the final recommendations for the year 2010). Much better is the situation in the sector of land-usage, where the acreage of built area in the region was considerably lower, while the acreage of protected landscape areas was considerably higher than the average for the EU. The idea of overall (in)efficiency of national economies in individual countries will become remarkable when indexes of GDP creation will be considered as well. It is a fact though, that Austria with an average consumption of ES within the region had in 1990 a four to six times higher GDP per inhabitant and year in comparison to countries of the former Vissegrád Three (now Four = V-4). On the contrary, Ukraine with the clearly highest rate of consumption of ES, had a GDP per capita and year one category lower than Austria. A significant indicator of the quality of life in a particular country is life expectancy. Similarly to the previous case, also here the countries of V-4 significantly fall behind Austria - by 5-6 years, while life expectancy in Ukraine (using the average from the former Soviet Union) is shorter even by 9 years. How has the region of Central Europe - using the optics mentioned above - developed in recent years? Development trends in our orientation towards or from sustainability are ambiguous. On one hand, most environmental indicators have improved, quite a few environmentally damaging and economic loss – generating operations were closed down, energetic and raw-material efficiency has partially increased, life-expectancy has prolonged and last, but not least, access to information has improved. On the other hand, in connection to adopting patterns of consumerism, compensation of frustration from dozens of years lived through with a feeling of relative material insufficiency, the placing of individuals before societies, gradual dying out of the social state and the like, new threats and risks are on the increase. That relates in the environmental sphere mainly to extensive development of individual automobile transportation and growth of quantity of communal wastes, in the social sphere to the growth of social-pathologic phenomena and also increase in social disparities, and in the economic sphere, for example, to the growth of foreign debts. Even though much has improved ”on paper”, the real situation is worse. The conviction that future positive development is simply impossible without a significant improvement in the state of the environment (which has become a generally accepted axiom and also a strategic intention in western Europe), has not yet become generally accepted in Central Europe. Likewise, Central European countries do not quite recognize that the country or the region which will apply this strategy most effectively in practice, will gain an advantage over the others, not only in the environmental sphere, but also in the economic, social, and political spheres. At the same time, it should become clear to these countries that crucial increase in ”eco-efficiency” is just one side of the coin. The other one is fundamental strengthening of the approach of ”eco-sufficiency”. In conclusion, it can be stated that Central Europe represents - as far as devastation of the environment and measure of inefficiency of utilizing natural resources are concerned - one of the most negative examples on the map of the present world. On the other hand, Central Europe represents certain values, both environmental and cultural, thanks to which orientation towards a more sustainable way of existence is well-founded and can potentially be successful in this region. However, the change in orientation can only be accomplished in the case of a favorable coincidence, and under the condition that all elements of the society in Central European countries intentionally participate, and that strategically oriented international help (see e.g. (quasi)Marshall plan of environmental revival of the region designed by Al Gore) will be provided. The unique life experience of a Central European intellectual interpreted in a specific ”Central European” manner is, and always will be, interesting for the whole world community. This collection of essays of the Czech and Slovak authors aims to be a modest contribution in the mosaic of these (self)reflections. What connects these authors is not only the place of their origin or job, but also the increased sensitivity towards nature, interest in environmental issues and the joint search for ways out in the context of the newly emerging global development paradigm of the 21st century called sustainable living. We believe that this attempt will also positively inspire our colleagues in the surrounding Central European countries, and that in a short time, the view of the world - as seen from the middle of Europe and/or perceived by its heart - will become far more extensive and complex. Bratislava, Olomouc, September 1999