[Translate to French:]

speeches and greetings

 

 

Dario Ergas

GREETINGS FROM LATIN AMERICAN HUMANIST REGIONAL.

 

I am here on behalf of Lía Méndez general secretary of LAHR.

We feel that this launching meeting for the European Humanist Regional, is of the highest importance in the direction of the universal human nation.

I am here, to give a testimony of what happens here and to report the direction European humanism will take.

We feel gratitude for the friendship, bravery and the demonstration you have given to us.

We greet all European humanists with Peace, Force and Joy.

 

 

Loredana Cici, President OF HUMANIST InternaTional

 

First of all, I want to congratulate the organization team for the success in their sustained work, now taken to Europe, which has enabled us to meet today, and to thank our Czech friends, for their excellent and warm welcome to Prague.

 

With regards to our works, I only want to highlight two points that, I believe, characterize this meeting:

1. the importance of a regional view

2. the expansion of the regional into non-political organizations

 

1.With regards to the importance of a regional view:

In the regionalisation process taking place in the world, the mark of this grouping is undoubtedly economic. The aim is to grow economically in order to become powerful and achieve higher political and military control and hegemony.

 

The regionalisation process in Europe has speeded up, in the last years, as a response to the controlled globalisation, propelled by the economic and military expansion of the United States of America all over the planet.

 

Economic and monetary merger is at the core of European Union building project. In order to achieve this goal, policies in budget, privatization and revision of welfare-State have been forced in practice upon its member States, with the objective of eliminating the inefficiency of the State; actually, what is being eliminated is the National State in favor of a Super-State which, through European Union institutions, is only aimed towards economic power. In the last ten years the social attainments achieved through many years of struggle have been cancelled, and advertising makes the poor and the deprived feel, on top of that, accountable, for not being “competitive”.

 

The urgencies of survival make all context for any social action to be lost. A broader vision is needed, beyond the urgencies of locality and nationality matters, which prevent the understanding of social phenomena taking place nowadays, produced by European and global policies intervention.

 

Regional focusing helps us detach from an isolated vision and enables the comprehension of the importance of humanists uniting in the region and in the world.

 

For us, thinking regionally is a step towards building a universal human nation; therefore, it is not about a new regional chauvinism, on the contrary, it is about boosting a look beyond, in search for the universal human nation.

 

2. With regards to broadening the regional to non-political organizations:

 

Even though we live in a globalized world, apparently well interconnected, nevertheless persons and peoples nowadays experience a higher level of incommunication, isolation and a higher social atomization. System destructuring is becoming more apparent every day.

Humanist-inspired fronts of action- and organizations are many, dedicated to work for a specific action, but they are disconnected from a broader vision. Thus they run the risk of getting lost in this destructuring vision of the system, where every organization, absorbed by its own matters, gives priority to its particular tactics without connection with a joint strategy.

It is clearly important to develop specific localized actions, inserting themselves into this destructuring, but we also need to advance towards a broader vision which will give convergence to diversity.

We need to count on mechanisms enabling us to link work of our tools of action and give a body to our joint action.

 

As early as the Humanist International Congress in 1993, it was clear that “the crisis detected in the world not only involves the political arena, but it encompasses all aspects of human life”, and the need was made evident for taking discussion and proposal of a transforming action in a humanist direction to a broader environment than the strictly political.

 

It was there that participation of all organizations who work for the establishment of humanism in the world was introduced. The humanist document, approved in that Congress, which is the common ground to every organization adhering to HI, states at the end:

“With the intention of becoming a broad-based social movement, the vital force of humanism is organizing action fronts in the workplace, neighborhoods, unions, and among social action, political, environmental, and cultural organizations. Such collective action makes it possible for varied progressive forces, groups, and individuals to have greater presence and influence, without losing their own identities or special characteristics.”

 

Humanist friends,

European history has been characterized for many centuries by fratricidal wars, economic exploitation and social oppression, up to the most horrendous crimes: all of this inside Europe and taken far beyond the region. However, there is a parallel history, the history of European peoples, with their struggles, their indignation, their rebellion against dominant powers, were they monarchies, dictatorships, inquisition or formal democracies,

This very history is what we want to enrich with a new chapter in the sign of new humanism.

Our goal is to make European regional raise its foice and proposal as a defense to all inhabitants of Europe and the world and at the same time as a condemnation of all rulers insensitive to the needs of the human being of today.

 

 

 

Maxi Elegido, organisation commission

 

Dear colleagues and friends

 

I would like to share with you a question and an aspiration.

 

Approximately thirty years ago, a current of rebellion and discontent arose in Europe and in the world. Its main characteristic was the agreement among its young participants to reject the proposals of the establishment. This occurred at the end of the ‘60s and beginnings of the ‘70s. It’s what was known then in Europe as the “Spring of Prague,” the “May Revolution” in France, etc.

 

In the present moment, large sectors of society are beginning to mobilise. The youth, women, the unemployed; large populations in search of a country or a place where they can develop.

 

The question is whether in this occasion, in addition to a common disagreement, we will have proposals for organisation: a project that can become a reference in these moments of crisis. Slogans such as “imagination to power” were not developed and implemented in concrete proposals for change.

 

Humanists have seen this situation for a long time and we have always combined our criticisms with our proposals.

 

I will quote a few examples. When the warmongers of the Cold Was placed this planet in danger, we denounced them, but as Humanists we were also present with our flags in Reykjavik as Reagan and Gorbachev met to discuss disarmament. When we prepared the European Book and alerted the public regarding the problems ensuing from millions of people being suddenly forced to emigrate from their countries of origin, we noted that the solution was not to police them, but rather to enhance the rights of immigrants while investing in their countries of origin, because of solidarity and because it was the only way to stop their escape. We not only said this but we organised with them and we went to their countries to build schools, clinics and economic co-operatives so that they may achieve a real autonomy and therefore choose their future.

 

We have given encouragement and we have organised in diverse action fronts—cultural, social and political—in order to give continuity to our grievances and our positions. Political parties that have spoken out without depending on obtaining subsidies. Centres of Cultures that have continued in their actions in an uninterrupted fashion without depending on grants or donations. Student and university fronts that in their search for Knowledge have no placed themselves at the service of money.

 

We can see clearly how in these critical moments, due to a lack of proposals and organisation, a new Law or a few signatures of the government in turn can roll back the accumulated struggle that many generations sustained for many years.

 

The aspiration is for the political parties and action fronts that understand the importance of these decisive times, to organise at the necessary speed. We don’t have three hundred years to wait for our influence to become decisive. Our influence can be taken into account today. This will happen by finding common positions, agreement on common actions and adequate means of outreach. An adequate positioning, the result of the convergence of diverse points of view, becomes an unstoppable force from which the actions fronts will nourish themselves as they go forward.

 

Without any doubt this city, Prague, the heart of Europe, is an incomparable place to hold this meeting. Here we can model our Project, and may these images transform in figures, and with the spirit of Humanism they will shine and give meaning to these needy times of search.

 

My warmest greetings to you all.

 

 

 

Daniel Horowitz, Secretary General of the H.E.R.

 

Dear friends:

 

First of all I want to thank our friends from the Humanist Alliance of the Czech Republic for the excellent work that made it possible for us all to be holding the Humanist Regional meeting here in Prague.

 

The project of a European Regional came to be in a meeting that all the Humanist Parties of Europe held in Milan in February 1999 to define the political programme, which then took the form of a common “Orange Book”, a political campaign and a video for the elections to the European Parliament that same year.

Four years have passed since the first Congress was held in Madrid in 1999, and I would like to profit from this occasion to summarise the activities of the European Regional since then.

 

In October 1999, the Humanist parties of Europe denounced the criminal policy conducted by the Russian government that kept on bombing the people in Chechnya supported by the hypocritical silence of European Governments. We proposed that both countries negotiated with the ONU as mediator. We were paid no heed. The rest is history of the TV and news: rebels occupied the Bolschoi Theatre and many people lost their lives, and all this was accompanied by the world news, while the daily killed victims in Chechnya were not so spectacular to entertain the audience.

Invited by the Humanist Party of Rumania, in April 2000 the Regional met in Bucharest to exchange ideas and forward proposals, defining the humanist path towards a United Europe. Since then, Europe has sealed its doors even more tightly against anything that looks foreign. Today the “European Fortress” is a fact against which demands every time more life’s of immigrants in their failed quest for the supposed paradise.

 

In September 2000, the Regional participated in the Festival of Humanism organised by the Humanists in Prague on the same days that the International World Fund and the World Bank were having their meeting. In several communiqués and activities we denounced their policy that only promote poverty and injustice at a world scale. Since then the devastating policy these institutions sustain has aggravated the economic crisis around the planet.

 

By the end of 2000, the Regional profited from the meeting of the European Union in Nice to present and disseminate the Humanist Chart of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proposing undeniable amendments to the document issued by the Union. Our document demands that human beings be raised as the central value, -the axis around which all actions and thoughts revolve-, and sets as a first priority the observance of the Human Rights of each and every person, whether native or newly arrived. Since then everybody has seen their opportunities become thinner and immigrants –with even less possibilities- are threatened by racists groups that feel free to raise their ruthless voices.

 

The following year, 2001, the Regional participated in the Campaign launched by the Humanist International, promoting the Humanist Declaration for a World Without Wars or Violence. On October 19, 2001, in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, England, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Island, Italy, the Netherlands, Scotland, Spain, Russia and Switzerland the Humanists organised and participated in the various operatives and campaigns against the war in Afghanistan and denounced world powers once again for they had –once again- failed to offer proper solutions to the pressing issues of humankind.

 

We were not surprised when our indignation and our proposals went unheard, when the powerful ignored the will of the majority of the world and unleashed their war machines first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. We went on campaigning for non-violence, for peace, for decent life conditions for each and every human being. Towards this “Gentlemen of Death” we went on affirming our unwavering faith that it is possible to stop the wars, to stop this spiral of violence and to build bridges for a new humanity instead. Like this we participated also in this year 2003 in the rallies and campaigns against the war in Iraq.

 

But that which has mostly characterised these last four years has been the enthusiastic, sustained work of our militants, of all the friends participating or supporting the humanist parties, the action fronts and the several grassroots organisations where everybody gave - and keeps giving - their best to build the future universal human nation. In several countries the Humanists participated in elections, mostly city elections, and in some places they were elected popular representatives to local parliaments, as it happened here in the Czech Republic.

 

In this quick summary of the regional activities we may not fail to mention the efforts that our members and sympathisers have devoted to the dissemination of the New Humanism in other continents, including populations of Africa and Asia in this process of growing humanisation. It’s our hope that the bridges that have been built during these past years will soon lead to the creation of the Humanist African and Asian Regional.

 

But let’s come back in Europe and see what issues have called us here. For us, humanists, the temporary failure of our best aspirations is not a deterrent. On the contrary. Yes, apparently everything is managed by an infinitely powerful and violent system… Yes, apparently success belongs to the corrupt and the inept… But instead of acceptance, this state of affairs instils in us the drive to change the state of public things, gives us even more strength and enthusiasm, even more confidence in our deep belief that the change is not only necessary but possible. And I think I speak on behalf of us all if I say that in these past times, we have felt ever more strongly the need to create or reinforce bridges and the need to co-ordinate our activities and viewpoints at the European level. This is how a small team got together for the preparation of this meeting.

 

In this team we have defined the agenda for the next two days as “setting off a process that will widen the Regional’s influence, by incorporating as new members the highest possible number of organisations within the Humanist Movement and of all those grassroots organisations that find their inspiration in humanism.“

It is our aspiration that these organisations may find their place within specific subject areas, where they may organise initiatives on a European level. It is our aspiration that secretariats be created that will take care of the legal, financial and communication issues for the correct functioning of the Humanist Regional. It is our aspiration to plan a future campaign common to all Europe.

 

All this will constitute the grounds for the Second Congress of the Humanist European Regional scheduled for November 2004.

 

I wish to all of us a good work in this important meeting.

 

Thank you very much.

 

 

 

Giorgio Schultze, President OF THE H.E.R.

The world context: globalisation or regionalisation

In the introduction of this meeting it was affirmed, “the objective of the European Humanist Regional is to humanise Europe”. This means: “the non-violent struggle for the construction of a Europe of human rights, capable of launching these rights and building democracy and freedom of all its inhabitants.”

But, how can all this be done in a world context of “imperial” globalisation? Where the only form of conflict resolution, at all levels, is violence: wars, massive exploitation, marginalisation, new forms of slavery and discrimination (racial, religious, economic, sexual, etc.)?

And above all, where the presentation of the events and of their resolution comes with the sole introduction: “there is no option”.

And this is, among these forms of violence, one of the most sophisticated.

To try to remove from the human being, among all their rights, the “right to choose” as well, to exercise over ever-growing layers of humanity, a constant psychological pressure to make an enemy of all that which is simply different, to close the conscience with the present fear of having one’s future stolen, would have to be judged a “crime against humanity”.

Well the first question which we have to confront, in this historico-epochal landscape is: are we in the presence of the construction of the “global empire” which is going to leave us without choices and in front of this one can only respond in a submissive and unequivocal way?

International context: the imperial intent

The USA has become a military super power. Without the counterweight of the old USSR, the USA walks alone accelerating in an erratic march that leaves in its path an ever-increasing number of disasters.

They try to become an empire even though the conditions for it are not yet observed. They count on military strength, but historically this is not enough to configure an empire. (It is yet to be demonstrated that the USA has a land army capable of maintaining control across the imperial area).

Another necessary element is economic control. This is what they are trying to achieve with their globalisation, but the situation in recent years has varied notably. The USA has moved from being a goods-producing country to a consumer country and highly dependent. The trade deficit of the USA is impressive. It is a country that is practically bankrupt, that lives off world credit and that is loosing strength in the economic field. By, above all else, making a few people richer, the failure of neo-liberalism as an economic option has become apparent.

But as well as the military and economic, aspects that they do not seem to have well consolidated, empires needed to count on other elements. It was necessary to have a certain capacity to integrate and respect the original cultures of the people who were being incorporated into the dominion of the empire. Not only is this not happening but also the USA tries to do the contrary, to impose its own culture and destroy the original ones. The USA of today is not that image that they were trying to give in the 50s and 60s of a country of tolerance, freedom, etc. Today the USA has become extreme and takes an intolerant and aggressive posture.

Also, following the requirements, it is necessary to count on the certain availability or “receptivity” on the part of the subjected people, to accept the USA as an imperial figure. This is what is escaping them so they are experiencing a notable setback. The doubts about whether the USA is going to be a good manager of this “new world order” are growing in governments of almost all countries of the world. If we talk of the feeling of the population, the rejection is much bigger and growing. The previous positions, with different degrees by zones and countries, are generally expressed and not only in the Arab world.

In this context the pressures on Europe from the USA are evident and growing in at least 2 senses: on one side as Europe is finally placed in “resonance” with the North American government and on the other fermenting disunion in the heart of the EU.

Let us continue with the international context. It is Russia, reordering its departure from the soviet era that has clearly given in economically to the postulates of the USA, but in social and international policy it looks to return to having its own certain protagonism, although without entering in clear confrontation with the North Americans. Then there is China, India and the Asian zone, struggling more economically than politico-militarily that has met with certain points of understanding and collaboration with the USA because the Americans are enormously interested in these very populated markets. The Arab world is suffering strong convulsions, propitiated by its fundamentalist side that is feeling activated, by the belligerent policy of the USA that tries at all cost to have access to its oil. Africa and Latin-American on slower paths to integration, although their regional processes could accelerate, especially in the case of the Latin-Americans. In both cases these continents of the centre-south are the pillars of the foreign policy of the big powers more that the generators of international protagonism.

All of this leaves us to think and believe that we are in the presence of a process of “regionalisation” and that the opening of markets and forms of communication interconnection does not translate in the formation of the “global empire”, under the control of only one country (USA) and with one economic-political-cultural model. The direction that events could take, the “culture shocks”, the different visions of the world can be the condition of a process, yes, of “mundialisation”, but in the direction of respect and valuing diversity.

In this context the definition of a “European regional” area can from now play a role of breaking an established scheme in the stock market of New York or in the corners of the Pentagon: a humanist Europe that advances towards the configuration of the “European nation” as the previous step towards the “universal human nation”. This is our challenge. This is “the challenge” of this era that we live in.

 

 

Raffael de la Rubia, Vice president of the H.E.R. europe and its function in the coming years

In this outline we are going to show some lines that could be usefully developed, in the commission that was created, about the function of Europe in relation to other regions and countries from the humanist point of view.

As you all know, in the life of peoples there are important moments. Situations of conjuncture, in which the chosen directions, conditioned the process over long periods. Today the people and the nations of this old continent are found in a crossroads where they are going to have to choose. In reality it is going to be the governments that choose, because today we have formal democracies in Europe that are far removed from the feeling of its citizens.

According to the system of forces to which Europe is subjected. In the present world context, which Giorgio has already expounded, we see three possible options for action. We will explain briefly these variables and their possible consequences. But before that we will give a rapid review of the role that Europe has had in history.

 

The historical inertia of Europe

 

Since its origins, from when it began to configure itself as an approximation to the Europe of today, we go back to the Greek epoch and with more intensity to the Roman epoch, where the first imperial tendencies can be detected. This will be repeated in a few diverse moments throughout the history of Europe, in distinct zones of its geography.

Numerous are the empires what have emerged from these lands, many invading other continents of the planet. There are few regions in Europe that do not have a somewhat imperial past. One of the most notable expressions was European colonialism, when vast zones of the planet, in America, Africa, Asia and Oceania were conquered by force. After that came the costly and bloody process of independence that lasted until the final years of the 20th century.

The role of Europe, that is to say, of the countries of the old continent, has been fairly belligerent. It operated by invading, conquering and/or colonising. In numerous cases entire peoples were exterminated when they opposed the advance of Europe. In the economic field, Europe acted by appropriating by force all the resources and wealth that it came across. The decline of the European empires ended in two world wars, among other things, as the last acts of new imperial aspirations.

Is it that all of Europe’s contribution has been negative? Evidently not. There have also been moments of inspiration, those that we define as “humanist moments”, although certainly there have not been many. The Europe of today is a great human construction realised also through the positive contribution of many peoples throughout history. We are talking of various millennia of work accumulated by many millions of human beings. I believe that part of our work will be to rescue and highlight all the positive things of this past Europe.

At the end of the 20th century Europeans seem to be finding a less conflictive route to integration, than the route of one trying to appropriate the others by force. The EU is consolidating through mechanisms of freedom of inclusion of its members and Russia seems to have abandoned its imperial aspirations. In the EU, the states freely decide to join without being obliged to do so by anyone. This way of working is a good lesson that represents an important jump in the dynamic of historical relations.

This is where we are today. Now let us see.

 

The possible positions of Europe

 

We were saying that we observe three possible alignments that Europe has in this international context. It can, on one hand, position itself clearly in favour of the policy of the United States, it can, on the other hand, try to maintain a certain lack of definition, and finally, it could create its own identity looking for a roll adapted to the route of complementation at an international level. Let us see what this would imply and the consequences of each position.

The first. If Europe positions itself in favour of the United States, it is going to be a sidekick to the North Americans, that is to say, it is going to loose significant autonomy and liberty, as well as entering a military and warmongering future. It will be opting for belligerence. This will have important consequences, as it would definitely help the configuration of the United States as an empire. If this position is taken it will reinforce notably this “new world order” with the United States imposing its ideology and its values across the planet by force. Its consequences would be the militarization of society, the increase of international pressures, the increase of internal disagreements in Europe and conflicts in all fields, including the increase of terrorism. The reduction of economic budgets destined for health and education, lowering of the quality of life through the increase in military spending. All of this would produce a lot of misery and death, increasing the pain in large human groups in magnitudes difficult to quantify.

The second possibility is that Europe tries to maintain itself in a balance and an uncompromised position, without defining a clear position; we think this will only be possible for a certain period. If Europe does not define its own very well structured position in a certain space of time, it is going to be definitively left in the wake of the United States. It is going to be the multinationals and the medium sized private enterprises of European origin that will be the first to be absorbed in this globalising wave and afterwards it will be the weakened political class that comes suffering and helpless to oppose this dynamic.

The other option remaining for Europe, after the lessons of millennia of conflict, is to project in the international arena the best of this process. An independent Europe that championed dialogue, interchange, integration and the resolution of conflicts by peaceful means would be well received by the majority of countries of the world. A Europe that bets clearly on education, health, culture, research, communications, and in general, improves the quality of life of its citizens and collaborates in these themes with other countries of the world. A Europe that pushes the development and the deepening of democracy, the increase in justice and the growth of liberty. A Europe that will develop, giving an example, a dynamic of proportional disarmament and progressive conversion of the military industry to civil use, diverting these resources to improve the quality of life of its citizens. A Europe of solidarity that helps countries with fewer resources to cover their basic needs and to take the road of democratising their political systems. Where employment is distributed and opportunities are guaranteed for all in the area of labour. A diverse and multicultural Europe that integrates its immigrants and respects all peoples and cultures. A Europe that cares for the natural environment, not only in its own territories, but also in those territories where European businesses operate. A Europe that strongly bets for life, for progress, for non-violence as the methodology of political action and that puts the Human Being as the central axis. A humanist Europe that advances towards the integration of all countries of the region.

This would represent a break with the historical process… An excellent opportunity to break with the past of fighting, oppression and suffering.

The European sentiment is emerging little by little among its citizens. We can push its advance reinforcing the idea of the construction of a “European nation”. But for this focus to not give potency to sleepless nationalism, let us make the bigger horizon to reach the “Universal human nation”.

It is evident that I am not going to convince any of you about these themes. But I want to leave you a question: How can we transmit that which we see so clearly, to the rest of the population of this continent? This work could be a task that the European Regional takes on.

 

 

LUIS FELIPE GUERRA, OrganiSING TEAM

Dear companions and friends, humanists of all Europe.

Before all, I wish to greet all who are present, to congratulate for this meeting. In any case, I could not leave out thanking especially our Check friends who agreed to welcome us this weekend to this beautiful city which is situated in the heart of Europe.

Very shortly I would like to share with you some reflections about the european situation:

In first place, to remember that today in the common language there is a tendency to identify the European Union and Europe, although the Union does not yet reach the geographical limits of this continent. This form of expression shows two things: a genuine aspiration to involve all the european peoples in the same future project, sharing a common destiny; but also an expansionist tendency which could degenerate into an imperialist compulsion. The humanists recognize and count on the first and reject the second. And for this reason we are here today, in line with the meaning of History and giving our contribution for the European process of construction. In this sense we understand that this same process could not be left to anyone from outside. This means to construct a Europe that is sufficiently attractive to all the european peoples and, in turn evade discriminations and exclusions for political, cultural or economical reasons. And what does this depend of? According to my judgement this depends on that Europe is based on three pillars: human rights, political and institutional democracy, and economic and social cohesion.

The construction of Europe based on these three pillars sets us before several questions, to which the humanists are to search clearly formed responses. In this way, for example: are the human rights to remain as they are divided in two categories – on one part, civil and political rights, and on the other, the economic, social and cultural rights – with different grades of protection? How to treat the question of migration flows in a way that is compatible with the effective application of the human rights of all persons? What kind of political role and weight should each member State have? The european organs should all be elected by universal and direct vote? How should their architechture and composition be? The European Union should include such countries as Russia and Turkey, and if so, with or without previous conditions for admission? And what kind of relation should be established with the neighboring countries of North Africa, when they display their intention to be integrated, like already is the case with Marocco? Should the common justice prevail over the national laws? How could European Union level the living conditions of the different regions of member states? Which would be the model of human development which should be tried to be implemented in Europe?

In the following times the response that is given to these and other questions will be a determining factor for our future, as it could mean the difference between peace and war, social justice or discrimination, freedom or oppression. Like everyone knows, a new constitutional law of Europe is being discussed. Therefore there are some tendencies which are being designed from now. In my opinion the options that are shaped in this constitutional reform should obligatorily be put subject to the filter of the will of the population. In reality to recognize that the european peoples aspire to move together does not necessarily imply to advance towards a classic centralized or federalist institutional model. Further, the European Union has been since the beginning an original experience of integration. The old juridical models of political integration don’t appear adequate to this multiple reality which Europe is. Europe could only then be a vanguard construction if it finds a political model that is according to its own character, causing a convergence of diversity. Otherwise the disintegrative forces and tendencies that exist in a more or less latent state in this continent emerge virulently like already happened in ex-Yugoslavia in recent times.

For this reason we humanists must protest in all member countries of the European Union, for the realization of a referendum of the project of the Constitution. Because of this we humanists need to denounce the blackmailing and disinformation which surrounds this issue and proclaims falsely the idea that “no” to the European Constitution implies a voluntary or compulsive leaving from the European Union or even its dissolution. And we humanists also need to take stands before this project of Constitution, not for rejecting it globally and unconditionally, but to repudiate some of its aspects which constitute a retreat in the aspiration of Europe as “common house”.

To finish these considerations, I believe that there is a lack of precise definition of what kind of idea of Europe we wish to go constructing. To my judgement it is not enough to get to this idea through the negation of what already exists. In this sense Europe could not start only as a counterpower of US in the world. Neither could Europe be just a historical patrimony, a cultural and religious inheritance which wants to perpetuate itself in time in a more or less hegemonic way. Europe should be a mobilizing image which is chosen just because of itself. In terms of its implementation, it is important to find a rhythm and a form which balances the necessities of regionalization with the national interests and identities. European peoples cannot be forced to unite, but neither can we assume that some certain historical mechanism would do the work of configuring a new political reality. In this context, it needs to be said that we humanists are not apologists of the European Union such as it is known today. Nevertheless, in the following year the European Union will grow to include 25 European countries, leaving very few outside, some of which are already candidates for adhesion. In this way it is not possible talk today about european regionalization without taking in account the European Union. From the start we not are dealing with an ideal process of regionalization, but of taking advantage of this political reality in order to advance towards the humanization of Europe. This does not mean that the Humanist Regional would start to ignore those european countries which do not form part of the European Union. Their peoples also participate in the actual process of regionalization, independently of the situation of the external policy of their States. Because of this our analysis and proposals also take in account what happens in the Europe outside the Union.

In some moments of history, Europe has been a light for humanity. In the close future, the experience of European integration could become a decisive contribution for the establishment of a Universal Human Nation. And we humanists could have an active and important role in this step, if we know how to interpret and express this profound aspiration of brotherhood which makes the european peoples get closer to each other. Let us so start doing it here and now...

Nothing more, many thanks for your attention.