Robert Menasse was born in Vienna in 1954 and grew up there. He studied German, philosophy and political science in Vienna, Salzburg and Messina and received his doctorate in 1980 with a thesis on the "type of outsider in the literary world". Menasse then taught at the University of São Paulo for six years - first as a lecturer for Austrian literature, then as a guest lecturer at the Institute for Literary Theory. There, he mainly taught courses on philosophical and aesthetic theories, including Hegel, Lukács, Hegel, Lukács, Lukács, Hegel and Lukács: Hegel, Lukács, Benjamin and Adorno. Since his return from Brazil in 1988, Robert Menasse has lived mainly in Vienna as a writer and cultural critic.

With his book title The World of Tomorrow: A Sovereign Democratic Europe - and its Enemies, the Austrian writer and essayist Robert Menasse is raising high expectations, deliberately following as he is in the footsteps of a great fellow Austrian. Stefan Zweig wrote The World of Yesterday. Memoirs of a European, his memoirs of the Belle Époque, in which he grew up, in the last years of his life; the book was published posthumously in 1942. It is about Europe before the First World War, with a focus on Vienna and the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy, a multi-ethnic state that Robert Menasse surprisingly regards as exemplary in many respects. At that time, Europe was at the height of its power. As late as 1922, the year of its greatest expansion, Great Britain alone is said to have ruled over a quarter of all people and a quarter of all land masses. Europe had not yet recognised that since 1900, the United States had been on the verge of becoming the most powerful nation on earth (See also: Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, 1988)

Stefan Zweig wrote The World of Yesterday from the perspective of a writer who was part of the social elite. Roughly speaking, perhaps ten percent of the European population were able to enjoy the Belle Époque at the time, while the remaining 90 percent were in their service in one way or another. This world came to an end with the outbreak of the First World War. Mainly because the top ten percent of all warring parties had no qualms whatsoever about cold-bloodedly sacrificing the lives of millions upon millions of people for a few metres of ground gained.

Robert Menasse deliberately wants to provide a counterpoint to this. The world of tomorrow. A free, sovereign, democratic Europe capable of asserting itself with confidence in the 21st century. For him - as for me - it is a matter close to his heart. Unfortunately, he does not live up to the high expectations he raises. He writes about the European Union of today. Tomorrow only appears on page 153 (of 192 pages) and is not really elaborated on there or later, with the exception of a few stock phrases. In his book, he mainly vents his frustration about the current state of the European Union, the national elites of its member states and their limited national attitudes. He is so worried that he simply has to get it off his chest or it's going to choke him. And rightly so!

The writer calls his text an essay. This is not quite the case. The form alone makes this clear. The book consists of 38 paragraphs, each beginning with keywords, questions or short sentences in bold; there are no real chapters, which is only logical. Because in his 38 paragraphs, Robert Menasse throws at us what is on his mind as a passionate European. He does not achieve the rigor of an essay. His thought pieces are much more like diatribe-like pamphlets. The book feels like a cleansing thunderstorm, and therein lies its strength. When the air clears again, Europeans will finally be free to think about their Europe from the ground up. Nothing is more necessary.

Suhrkamp

Robert Menasse | Die Welt von morgen: Ein souveränes demokratisches Europa - und seine Feinde | Suhrkamp | 192 pages | 23 EUR

Robert Menasse fears that the European Union will break apart as a result of the resurgence of nationalism. This fear is justified. As a German and a die-hard European, I am always amazed at how ignorant of European thinking is a large part of the German elite. The situation is no less parlous in other countries. French President Emmanuel Macron is now a lone voice in the wilderness of his own country when it comes to the development of the European Union. Prosperity, peace and freedom, which the European Union has guaranteed to an unprecedented level, are taken so much for granted by Europeans that their foundations have been forgotten. Robert Menasse describes all this very clearly. He considers the nation and nationalism to be the great dangers of our time. In essence, he is right, but nevertheless he takes the easy option.

Firstly, he over-glorifies the beginnings of European integration. After the Second World War, there was only a small window of time in which the seeds could be sown. The triggers were coal and steel. At the beginning of the 1950s, it was still generally believed that whoever could mine the most coal and produce the most steel would win the next war. The USA wanted to help (West) Germany get back on its feet economically quickly after 1945. Mainly because of its experience with the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, which was intended to prevent precisely this and thus contributed in no small part to the outbreak of the Second World War. The USA had no wish to experience this again. After the Berlin Blockade of 1948/1949 by the Soviet Union, the Americans also needed German industry and German support for the Cold War conflict with the Soviet Union.

For France, it was bad news that the USA wanted to give the Germans back exclusive control of the best coal reserves in Europe and openly spoke of the need to rearm (West) Germany. France's own efforts to overtake the Germans in steel production had definitively failed at the beginning of the 1950s. After the lost war of 1870/71, the First World War that was only won with the help of the USA (from March 23 to August 9, 1918, German forces shelled Paris with the Dicken Berta) and the defeat after six weeks of war in 1940, they never again wanted to see Germany capable of waging a war of aggression on their country. Only in this context can the beginning of European integration be understood.

The first step was the communisation of the coal and steel industries of France and Germany. Italy and the Benelux countries then joined this coal and steel union. This was very much to Germany's advantage: after the terrible crimes committed by the German people, it was once again accepted as a partner by its European neighbours. Incidentally, during the negotiations of 1951, the German coal and steel industry had been strictly opposed to communisation. A few years later, when Germany was once again regarded as a major economic power, Konrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of West Germany, would probably not have been able to push through communisation. Importantly, after the catastrophes of two world wars, a relatively large proportion of the elites of the six countries involved were open to any kind of institutional cooperation between their countries in order to prevent future intra-European wars. The remedy of choice: to embrace Germany so tightly that it could no longer attack any country.

But no matter, a little glorification is good for the soul - I don't begrudge Robert Menasse that. However, I have to disagree with his opinion that the European Council of EU heads of state and government has only recently assumed powers that were not granted to it by the treaties. It is also simply wrong to say that the European Council now legislates. It was de Gaulle who, in the early 1960s, prevented the transition from unanimity to qualified majority voting within the European Economic Community (EEC) as provided for in the treaties. In the mid-1960s, he banned his ministers from attending meetings of the EEC's (specialised) Councils of Ministers. In order not to jeopardize the entire European integration, the five other countries agreed, in the "Luxembourg Compromise," to continue to reach agreements only by unanimous decision. De Gaulle pushed through the Europe of the Fatherlands because it was inconceivable for him (and his country) that others should be able to make decisions over him. A permanent right of veto was thus introduced through the back door. It still exists today in areas that the member states regard as their main prerogatives. A Europe of nations needs a Council of European heads of state and government. It has existed de facto since 1969.

The right of veto prevents the urgently needed development of the European Union that Robert Menasse so emphatically calls for. In his book, he repeatedly points out that in our globalized world, with its numerous problems that can only be solved at a global level, the European Union is the smallest conceivable entity that gives Europeans a weighty voice in the 21st century and enables them to preserve and improve their prosperity, freedom and peace.

What does Robert Menasse propose for the future? He wants a Europe of regions; he rejects a federal European state. At the same time, he aspires to such far-reaching harmonisation of all political areas that there is no longer any discernible difference to a federal state. His Europe of the regions is idealised. His conception of nations and people's sense of belonging to them is naive. My friendly advice: he should do a little research into the history of mentalities. This can explain why the English (not the British!) voted to leave the EU in 2016 because they believed that their empire would still exist in one way or another. The same goes for France. De Gaulle was convinced that France only existed if it had some form of global significance. He favoured the military, but explicitly included culture. France's self-image still suffers from this claim. And the Germans? They still feel like world champions at every opportunity. And a world champion is of course better than everyone else... It doesn't take decades, but centuries for people's fundamental attitudes to change. But nobody has that much time at their disposal in a world that is changing so rapidly. This is the great challenge for all Europeans.

So what to do? It is only on the penultimate page of his book that Robert Menasse addresses what really matters. To the people, referred to here as demos, a people. There will be no federal state capable of acting without Europeans who demand precisely this. On the last page, he writes: "We must allow the people of Europe to become a demos, in a common European democracy, in a common state of law based on human rights, equal conditions and opportunities for all who live in Europe and try to make their fortune."

This approach comes from above ("we must allow"), but it cannot work. It has to come from below. It is up to Europeans to decide whether they turn the Europe of the fatherlands into their motherland Europe. With around 30 percent of voters in all EU countries seeing themselves as right-wing populist or even far-right, this looks unlikely as things currently stand. But the cause is not entirely lost. In its 2012 edition, the Atlas of European Values, published by Tilburg University, recorded only very small variations in whether people see themselves as European citizens (almost all countries were below 20 percent; the UK below 10 percent and only Luxembourg above 30 percent, followed by Belgium and the non-EU country Switzerland (!) with 20-30 percent). In its 2020 edition, the Atlas no longer explicitly asks about citizenship, but only whether people feel European. Here, the approval rate in EU countries is between 50 and 59 percent, whereas in most countries it would be between 60 and 80 percent. So the glass is half full. Europeans are not yet lost, they just have to believe in their own strength and act together. No nation can make it alone. Robert Manesse is right about that. That is why his book is so important. In October 2024, the publisher Suhrkamp was already preparing the fourth edition.