Values to die for

Kiev, 24/10/2005 – A limited number of principles, preceded by the roots of green thinking and followed by a vision of European democracy will form the outline of the new charter of the European Green Party. But which values qualify and how strong they will be worded, was not decided during the workshop on the issue at the party council in Kiev. And whether the 32 green parties of Europe would find an inspiring common position on the European Union, remains in the dark.

Report by Lin Tabak

Whaling quota
A new charter is needed because the existing text is outdated. It was written in the mid-nineties, when the European Green Party still was a loose federation and the European Union – to which still only a part of the EGP parties belong – consisted of only fifteen members. A first draft was a combination of timeless principles – like sustainable development – and political goals – like the reduction of whaling quota. As many parties found this combination unsatisfactory, these have been replaced by a limited number of principles, to be preceded by a brief sketch of the roots of the parties in the social movements of the 70′s and 80′s, and concluded by their vision on Europe and the EU.
But the real choices, so much became clear in Kiev, still have to be made. One of them: what is a principle and what is not? All agreed that Environmental Responsability qualifies, and so do Freedom, Justice and Democracy. But what about Diversity – should it be a value in itself, as some argue, or a characteristic of Democracy or Justice?

Exit non-violence
And what is a principle? ‘A value you are prepared to die for, if necessary’, stated the German party leader Reiner B�ttikofer. After which he rejected a Greek proposition to include Green Economy, ‘because economy is not a value but a process’. But when the chair of Die Gr�nen tried to incorporate the European Constitution, as ‘the most important contribution to supra national democracy so far’, his definition rapidly lost authority.
A second point of disagreement was : how radical should our principles be? If Greece’s Yannis Tsironis had had his way, each single principle would be so explicit that only greens agree. But a radical choice for non violence found bigger parties like Die Gr�nen and GroenLinks on its path – and was replaced by Peace and Security. A more neutral text probably will be the general tendency – with Environmental rResponsibility as a possible exdception. As EGP-council member Philippe Lamberts (�colo) diplomatically put it : ‘What characterises us is not every principle as such, but the combination.’

Europe: worlds apart
A third dilemma proved to be the status of sustainable development. For some this is so vital that they tended to make it a core value. In doing so you reduce all other principles to a secondary place, objected B�ttikofer. Moreover, all agreed eventually, sustainable development is not a value but a process – which should be resulting from all principles once applied. This definition of sustainable development has two advantages: it obliges the values to really produce this result. And it gives the document a beautiful ending.
The last – and probably biggest – controversy still has to be discussed: how do the green parties see the future European Union? A harmless but not very meaningful statement seems the most probable outcome. Then as heated debates on the constitutional process and the enlargement of the EU made clear, in their vision about the EU the European Green Parties are still worlds apart.