(Photo: Rusty Stewwat/Flickr) It is time for the EU to move away from its inegalitarian policies towards the countries of the South. A revived European left cannot limit itself to the merely national or even European sphere, but must be open to the world and come up with a plan for restructuring a profoundly unjust global economic system. We are constantly reminded of the inescapable supranational interconnection of contemporary economical reality – as recent buzzwords such as ‘delocalisation’, ‘debt crisis’ or‘the China factor’ have served to describe. We are also aware of the increasingly cosmopolitan feel of European cities, which provides a very tangible representation of the global migrations of the new century. At the same time, however, if we turn our gaze to the political landscape we still see a centuries-old pattern of competition between states, and a tribal conception of the national interest. The panoramic view is of gated communities, all racing to reap the world’s harvest – little seems to have changed since the advent of the modern Westphalian state. This means that arguments for truly ‘internationalist’ behaviour on the part of the richer countries – few on the ground as they are – are usually understood either in terms of sheer benevolence, or as leading to unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of other societies that very frequently become acts of self-interest or profit-seeking (as so many IMF and World Bank interventions have led us to believe). But both these approaches are based on a crucial lack of awareness: that we are actively responsible for the harm perpetuated in our name though the maintenance of an unjust global system that is directly sustained by the governments that represent us. It is crucial to tackle this lack of awareness, for the two positions outlined above are symptomatic of a mystification that allows the false thesis that the problem of world poverty does not concern us, as citizens of the first world, aside from the charitable aid that we can offer (in all our generosity). Current discourse on migration serves as an excellent example of this denial of responsibility. Europeans often act as if ‘migrants’ were being pushed towards our lands by baffling gravitational forces. The state is inclined to view itself as a neutral actor that has nothing to do with migration: it can respond either brutally or with sympathy (with charity), through more or less strict regulation on asylum-seeking procedures, more or less tight internal controls, etc. But this hides the connection between the phenomenon of migration and the economic and military actions of the ‘receiving’ countries or their prime economic actors. Without wanting in any way to deny the crucial importance of the fight for the incorporation of migrant populations into Europe (the treatment of whom has been a disgrace for which many have begun employing the term ‘European Apartheid’), it is perhaps also worthwhile to raise the question of why, in the twenty-first century, we are faced with such baffling, monstrous and unacceptable levels of disparity across the planet. And perhaps we should be look for answers at the terms of WTO agreements, at Europe’s trade policy and its effect on third-world produce, or at the real moral implications of our own delocalised companies that force the lowest wage consistent with survival on citizens of the third world. Examples abound – from the role of European fisheries policy in increasing unemployment in Senegal, to the unequal partnership agreements with African and Caribbean states, and the effects of the common agricultural policy on farmers from third-world countries. An intervention that goes beyond the merely humanitarian – one that aims instead at the very core of the global interpenetration of economic, technological and cultural processes – is evidently outside the capacity of any individual nation state. But all the existing international organisations, beginning with the UN, the IMF, and the World Bank, have thus far proved totally ineffective in addressing the problem of global poverty and inequality. As the world’s largest economy, is this not what a reinvigorated transnational left should ask the European Union to do? Let us not forget that trade – which is one of the most powerful weapons for addressing the current global economic imbalance, one that is a far more powerful instrument than aid or any ‘structural funds’ can ever be – is currently managed by the EU on behalf of its member states. Should we not actively push for this tool to be used in new ways, and call for a review of existing trade agreements, so that they are consistent with UN conventions on human, social, and environmental rights? Could we not regulate the actions of European multinationals abroad, ensuring the respect of labour rights and environmental standards regardless of local situations? The list could be extended. Common sense prescribes profound scepticism towards the current capacities of the European Union to truly enact an alternative global politics. But hasn’t this always been the condition faced by emerging political alternatives? And isn’t the role of a transnational left to make these alternatives a reality?