UNITED STATES OF EUROPE? – April 8, 2007

On March 25, 2007, the leaders of 27 member states of the European Union adopted the Berlin Declaration setting forth the political goals of the EU for the near future. The Declaration was adopted on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Rome Treaties by France, Germany, Italy and the three Benelux nations, establishing the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) – the precursors of the modern European Union.
 
The Berlin Declaration was intended to resolve the integration crisis the EU found itself in when French and Dutch voters rejected the European Constitution in national referendums two years before. The Declaration states that by 2009 the EU will create a new common basis for the Union. German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that her government would put together a plan to revive the Euro-constitution by June of this year.
 
The European Union has made remarkable progress since the signing of the Rome Treaties, nevertheless its present form is exhausted. Europe continues close economic cooperation and territorial expansion, for example, Bulgaria and Romania were recently admitted, but political integration still remains largely a fiction.
 
When one examines the current state of European integration, a question arises. Why would Europeans want further integration, if the current system is satisfactory and has made them one of the most affluent, successful and culturally advanced peoples in the world?
 
The standard of living in the major EU member states is now extraordinarily high, much higher than in other parts of the globe. Germany’s GDP, measured in purchasing power parity, was $2.585 trillion in 2006, making Germany the fifth largest economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $31,400. France’s GDP was $1.871 trillion with a per capita GDP of $30,100. Great Britain had a GDP of $1.903 trillion and a per capita GDP of $31,400, with Italy having respectively $1.727 trillion and $29,700. When measured against other major powers the European community has been very strong economically and extraordinarily successful. Russia’s GDP in 2006 merely approximates that of Italy’s at $1.723 trillion, but with a far lower per capita GDP, of $12,100. China’s GDP stood at nearly $10 trillion but the Chinese standard of living is still extremely low, with a per capita GDP of only $7,600, less than Mexico’s $10,600. [1]

In a poll in 2006, 90% of Europeans considered themselves “happy” in their family life, and 84% considered themselves happy with their current occupation. 90% of Europeans declared themselves to be confident in their own country, although this index differed slightly in various member states. [2]

The above data shows that as far as economic integration goes, the EU has fulfilled its purpose. The Union has even attempted to optimize its economic efforts by adopting the Lisbon Agenda, although it has yet to fully realize its aims. Europeans consider themselves a successful, happy, fulfilled people, enjoying their current social and economic status. This comfortable view echoes the rapidly aging demographic structure of today’s Europe.

One can see why the French and the Dutch rejected the Euro-constitution. The level of their economic advancement has risen to the point where further integration with less developed countries would require sacrificing their current economic status and standard of living in order to benefit the poorer states. In other words, further political and legal integration does not appear justified by the kind of rational economic calculations that influence how Western Europe’s affluent and aging population votes. The resistance among the European populace toward one, politically united Europe is amply demonstrated by the fact that although the Berlin Declaration speaks of the renewal of the common basis of the Union, it does not once mention the word “Constitution” in its text. Therefore a second question arises. If the European experiment has failed when put to the test, and lacks the support of European voters, why do European leaders try to resuscitate a failed idea?
 

When the Rome Treaties were signed 50 years ago, the reasons for creating the European Economic Community were obvious: to avoid future military conflicts between European states by integrating their economies so that acts of aggression would be unprofitable; and to rebuild Europe economically after the devastating cataclysm of World War II. Today these reasons no longer hold. Europe is a peaceful continent with a very strong economy. It does not face external threats. The Soviet Union has been dismantled, and currently Russia is treated as a strategic partner. Islamic terrorism may pose danger to several European countries; however considered in terms of continent’s security it is not enough factor to form a sufficient reason for accelerating Europe’s integration.

But two significant developments have made closer political integration necessary in the eyes of many European leaders. The first was the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which shocked Europe and made the transatlantic divide a stark reality. America’s unilateral foreign policy proved two things: a) that Europe has lost its leverage and influence over the U.S., and b) that the United States has entered a new imperial stage, with European and American foreign policies taking different paths. Europe was suddenly left behind, divided, and isolated from the levers of world power politics. Europe can be said to be one of the geopolitical losers of the Iraq invasion, in that the global balance of power has substantially changed. Europe is locked out of the decision-making process in the Middle East, and is reduced to opposing America, its greatest and most important ally, and ineffectively at that. The United States no longer needs Europe to conduct a major military intervention in a distant part of the globe and can not count on her political support in such a situation. George W. Bush may be blamed for conducting a unilateral foreign policy; but in fact he was left with no other real option. Accepting deteriorating political relations with Western Europe in order to achieve U.S. aims in the Middle East is a price that even the Democrats were willing to pay. Hillary Clinton, a major Democratic leader and a presidential contender, voted for the invasion in Iraq, even though she knew that major European powers fiercely opposed it. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was justified because Iraq was believed to possess weapons of mass destruction and refused to cooperate with international institutions in disclosing and controlling them. While the invasion was certainly legitimate around that time, Europeans opposed it as doubtful or irrational.
   

Another stimulus to further European integration is the emergence of China and India as new world powers, and America’s response to this shift in the global distribution of power. The emergence of the Asian powers has lessened the importance of Europe on the world scene. To successfully compete with China, India, and the U.S., for global political and economic power, Europe needs to become a more united, efficient, quasi-federal, or fully federal state. The rapid rise of the Asian states on the international scene has sparked a worldwide debate about the over-representation of Europe in such key international institutions as the U.N. Security Council, where the United Kingdom and France are two permanent members, although they represent the votes of roughly 120 million people. Moreover, the U.S. has adjusted to the new geopolitical situation by pragmatically reorienting its foreign policy toward the new powers, again underscoring Europe’s declining importance. In her January 2006 address at Georgetown University, Condoleeza Rice said: “It is clear that America must begin to reposition our diplomatic forces around the world… to new critical posts for the twenty first century”. The “critical posts” she named were India, China, Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia and South Africa. In this context, she mentioned Europe only to discuss a plan to shift a hundred State Department employees from Europe to China and India by 2007. While the U.S. more or less accepts the worsening of transatlantic relations, it has strengthened bilateral ties with both India and China. [3] As Joshka Fisher, the former German Minister of Foreign Affairs and presently a professor at Princeton University, put it: “here in the United States I here ‘who is Europe, where is Europe?’. They are looking for China and India. Europe is increasingly fading away beyond the horizon of the Atlantic”. [4]  

One may argue that Europe still has a great deal of importance and influence over the U.S.; that the deterioration of transatlantic relations is only temporary, and will be healed. This view is wrong. The Bush Administration is willing to conduct a multilateral foreign policy in dealing with Iran because this administration currently has little domestic support from Americans. This limits President Bush’s options – diplomatic cooperation with Europe being one of them. President George W. Bush simply lacks the domestic political capital to start another unilateral military intervention. This should not however be interpreted as a reversal of the ongoing trend towards a permanent transatlantic split.
 

Thus Europe is now responsible for her own political future. Its leaders need to actively promote the adoption of the Euro-constitution and seek closer integration. It may seem remarkable that endeavors to create a new “roadmap” are being undertaken just two years after the original constitutional treaty was rejected by voters. Not much has changed since then that would persuade the French and the Dutch to vote otherwise. That the idea is still being discussed reflects the seriousness of the situation in which Europe finds herself.
 

It is still unclear what it will take to make Europe speak with one voice on foreign affairs and defense policy. On Saturday, March 24, one day before signing of the Berlin Declaration, Angela Merkel openly called for further institutional reforms, and for uniting the European Union’s member states behind one coherent foreign policy. But she did not sound credible: the EU’s member states clearly differ so widely in their national interests that a common foreign policy remains a utopian vision. How will staunchly anti-American and anti-integration France cooperate with the pro-American United Kingdom? How will pro-Russian Germany be able to reach agreement with anti-Russian Poland? That there is no foreign policy consensus among the European Union’s member states is evidenced by the fact that while Great Britain, Spain, Italy and Poland backed the U.S. led invasion of Iraq in 2003, France and Germany condemned it.

This crisis in leadership and bilateral trust drives some European countries toward closer cooperation with the United States, which still provides a sense of military security, significant investment capital, and is a font of democratic ideas.
 
In an interview with Bild magazine [6] Angela Merkel expressed her support for establishing a European army, but went on to say that Europe would not become a federal state even in 50 years, and that the concept of national states would remain. In this much she is correct: converging political and economic interests alone are not enough to persuade the nations of Europe to establish a true federation. But if a federal state is not to be established, a common foreign and defense policy will remain a fantasy. Two factors would have to come into play for the European Union to evolve into a United States of Europe. The first would be a rejection of the concept of national states. This could happen if enough Europeans from different countries migrate, settle, and intermarry into other member states’ societies in large numbers. This process would have to go on for decades for a pan-European ideology to take hold among the majority of Europeans. The second factor would be a response to an external threat under circumstances that would force closer European integration and cooperation. However such external factors do not seem likely to appear in the near future, therefore any incentive for closer integration will not come from abroad. The threat of terrorism is not great enough to speed up real integration. Another Cold War is highly unlikely, while a major confrontation between the West and countries like China or India is improbable under present circumstances.

Thus for now further political integration remains a goal for European leaders who see Europe losing its global influence and importance. It is a response to deteriorating transatlantic relations and an effort to transform Europe into a universal state comparable to that of the United States of America. But doing so may take a very long time.

Sebastian Aulich

-------------------------------

Author of the article holds Master of Laws degree in EU and Polish law from Lazarski School of Commerce and Law in Warsaw, Poland.

-------------------------------

Footnotes:

1. ‘CIA World Fact Book’ for the year of 2006.

2. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_251_en.pdf - Page 5

3. “New New World Order’ by Daniel W. Drezner in “Foreign Affairs”, March/April 2007: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86203/daniel-w-drezner/the-new-new-world-order.html

4. Interview with Joshka Fisher, “EU Observer”, March 30, 2007: http://euobserver.com/9/23803

5. “Guardian”, May 1, 2006: http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,1765054,00.html 

6. “Bild”, March 23, 2007.

Related Articles:

Transatlantic Catharsis - January 5, 2007

USA-EU: Good cop - bad cop? - December 3, 2006

USA-EU: Rivarly or Cooperation? (The European View.) - October 14, 2006

USA-EU: Future of Transatlantic Economic Relations - September 3, 2006