'Unity is strength, but diversity is wealth'

Some years ago, while working in Brussels, I wrote an article (posted here) looking at the parallels between the European Union and the ecumenical movement. The starting point was the widespread feeling in the early 1990s of stagnation in the European Union, with the Single Market not being able to meet the challenges posed by the disintegration of communism and the end of the Cold War. There were parallels, I argued, with the challenges facing the ecumenical movement, which in its institutional form at least, was, like the EU a product of the post-Second World War era. Again like the EU, the ecumenical movement was predicated on the promotion of unity as a central task, while also having the pragmatic function of representing their still separate members. The article explored the extent to which the "paradigm shift" outlined by ecumenical theologian Konrad Raiser in his book Ecumenism in Transition might be applied also to the European Union based on the "house rules" of self-limitation and the renunciation of violence; dialogue and striving for truth; sharing in solidarity; ecumenical learning; and ecumenical hospitality.

I was reminded of all this when reading a recent blog post by Dan Smith on the "long term view" for the new EU high representative for foreign affairs, Catherine Ashton.
Smith is defending Ashton (with whom he worked in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament three decades ago) against criticism that her profile is too low and that she hasn't made dramatic changes to EU external relations. Smith argues that the EU's external relations are of a different nature to those of its member states, and that the EU offers the qualities of "it staying power, the durability of its consensus-forged policies, its long time-lines and, in short, a capacity for the long game". And that, says Smith, has produced real long-term results in Europe. Against this background,

There are three key issues around which the EAS can develop a long-game role:

• Security and peace, on which the EU has a history and in which it can claim one of its three greatest successes (spreading prosperity and enhancement of democracy being the other two);
• Climate change and, more broadly, the tough environment and resource issues, in which the world badly needs a new input of sustained drive and direction, and where Europe has some good policies on paper that need to be seen through into action (and a few not so good that have to be seriously reworked);
• Equitable international trade relations, on which the vast majority of individual EU member states (25 out of 27) can have no world impact except by working together – and for France and Germany the prospect of individual impact is more apparent than real.

This "long game", says Smith, is not based around immediate statements and grand declarations, but means giving detailed attention to the structure of the new external relations service, a focuson the long game and a strategic approach to these three issues, and preventing a short-sighted combination of narrow national interests and special corporate interests crawling all over EU policy on climate change, the environment and trade.

After reading Smith's post, I stumbled upon the Brussels Blog of the Financial Times which highlighted a recent speech by the newly-appointed president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, who, like Ashton, has come in for criticism for having a low profile and lacking ambitious objectives. The comment by the FT's Tony Barber was that the speech had  "real depth and did not try to conceal the EU’s problems behind a mask of unconvincing optimism", nor did he"paint a superficial picture of an ever more united European foreign policy". Barber highlighted the following quote:

The more the Union deals with foreign affairs, in the coming decade, the more certain differences in attitude between member-states will rise to the surface.  History and geography play an important role in foreign policy…  It is about having historic ties with certain regions in the world, or about being an island versus sharing a border with Russia.  Such differences are real and will not go away like that.

For anyone involved in the ecumenical movement there are passages for Van Rompuy's speech that have a familiar ring, for example, when Van Rompuy asks, "Why are we only able to react instead of developing a strategy together?", or when he states, "Even if our unity is our strength, our diversity remains our wealth". In Dan Smith's terms, Van Rompuy is taking the "long view":

Functions and mechanisms need to be embodied, step by step. For human beings, processes of finding one's place and defining one's role, take time. It is only the goddess Athena who was born in full body armour, from the forehead of her father!

This time, maybe the EU discussion has something to say to the ecumenical movement. As a journalist, and in the 24/7 media world, naturally I look to ecumenical institutions to have a high profile, to focus how they can get into the media agenda this week, if not today. All that is important of course, but maybe it is also important to take the "long view", to look down the line, to embody functions and mechanisms step-by-step, to take seriously the "wealth of diversity" rather than hiding behind a shield of unconvincing optimism - while at the same time identifying the issues and concerns around which the many interests and visions of the ecumenical movement might connect.