RSS

Europe today stands at a crossroads, and how Europe resolves its current crises will determine its role as a major player on the global political scene, in Asia and elsewhere. Up until the financial meltdown of 2008, the European Union enjoyed the spoils of a common currency while member states still had economic sovereignty. Now, the debt of poorer EU nations has the Euro on the brink of collapse, smaller nations hold the possibility of derailing any resolutions, and austerity measures shrink member nations abilities to spread their influence, both domestically and abroad. European leaders now need to step up and decide whether they want a stronger more centralized Europe, or to go it alone and keep their sovereignties intact.

If Europe believes that sovereignty trumps centralization, the Euro would cease to exist, and the EU would become a defunct entity. Economic growth would wither away due to increasing deficits. Austerity measures would cripple governments. Cash strapped, these nations would look out for relief. Some would go to countries on the rise like China with its vast cash reserves, others to the United States, still the largest economy and most powerful military. In time the larger powers would have divided the continent and the nations of Europe would be vassal states to nations they once colonized. Global economics, especially among the 21^st Century Pacific powers, would work against Europe.

The future is not totally bleak however. There is still a chance for EU nations to set up a stronger and more centralized union. With a common currency must come a common economy; debts must be centralized and the 17 Eurozone economies must enter a full federal union. Only then could the Euro be a strong international currency, and set the EU to be a major player in the 21^st century.

Europe could then represent a third option, after a US or China dominated hegemony, in the scramble for Asia. The EU could make a stand for maintaining good relations between the US and China; for instance, it could help mediate such issues as climate change to help both curb their pollution levels. The EU could support US claims on such issues as human rights and currency manipulation and a strong EU would help maintain economic openness in the region with China, its largest trading partner. A strong Europe would also help preventing the Asian-Pacific region from falling into two camps between the US and China much as Europe did in the Cold War. In short, the EU could become a balancer in Asia while maintaining its strong standing at home. While EU nations would lose some independence, the benefits would outweigh the losses with gains on two continents.

Centralization would bring about some harsh times in the beginning, but with wise planning and a forward-thinking outlook, it would lead to an inclusive “Pacific Century” of opportunity for Europe, as opposed to one of infighting.

Benjamin Brower is a freelance writer currently based in Southern New Jersey. He is a recent graduate of Gettysburg College with degrees in History and French who wants to pursue a career in international relations.

November 22, 2011

Paul-Robert Lookman, http://geopolitiek-in-perspectief.blogspot.com/, Platinum Contributor (295)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

An interesting op-ed, with a realistic view of Europe’s current challenges. The piece, however, seems to be geared too much to fit the “Atlantic.Community.org goes Pacific” theme. The real challenge for Europe is to decide if it wants to be a world power. To fulfill such ambitions, it takes more than a strong common economy with a single currency. It would also take a common foreign policy and a combined military of more than symbolic power, both operating independently from the US, with obvious consequences for NATO. Only a bold, independent United Europe can project enough power in the world arena to be a credible player in the struggle for a new balance of power in the 21st century. It will take long for mindsets to be ready for such a development, if they ever will be.

November 22, 2011

Benjamin Newton Brower, Independent, Bronze Contributor (22)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Thank you for the comments Mr. Lookman. While the piece is skewed towards the "Atlantic.Community.org goes Pacific" theme, I do believe the major actions of the 21st century will take place in Asia. If Europe still wants to have a major role in international affairs, it will have to have a bigger role in Asia than it has now. While the views I expressed in the piece do seem real world to you, it is very sensitive to EU nations because it means a loss of power. This is not like the United States just after The Revolutionary War where the government tried to function under the Articles of Confederation where the member states had more power than the central government. The former colonies had just gained independence, realized the shortcomings of its form of government quickly, and then came out with a better form of government than has been intact for over 200 years. The major member nations in the EU have centuries of independence and international prestige where it would be an insult to lose their power to a federal EU. Smaller nations were once controlled by more centralized governments before, and have made it part of their national ethos to never let others be masters of their fate. This is why there has been no consensus on major integration issues in EU. The rest of the world world is going past the 20th century, whether or not Europe will depends.

November 22, 2011

Regina Bakhteeva, University of Bologna, Silver Contributor (52)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Indeed there is no lack in challenges besetting Europe but, as it is often said, a crisis presents an opportunity. For the EU it seems certainly to be the case. I would say that actually an economic crisis is pushing the EU for more centralization. The turmoil in some of the EU economies has revealed that member-states are unable to cope on their own. In this respect the calls for solidarity and actions on the ground in the spirit of solidarity should be welcomed. If anything, the crisis has further shown that European countries cannot stick to rhetoric and pursue policies characteristic of nation-states without bringing disastrous consequences on the EU as an entity.

However, so far some positive signs in the direction of the EU federalization have mainly taken place in economic dimension. My question would be how this process could be translated into a political sphere. The author states that 17 eurozone economies must form a full federal union but what about the rest ten countries?

November 22, 2011

Jason Naselli, University of Essex, Platinum Contributor (208)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

That is an excellent point... federalization is a double-edged sword that risks alienating those states that are against it and causes them to leave the EU altogether. I certainly think a push for political unity would spell the end of Britain's membership. The question is, are you willing to take that tradeoff? Do you accept that you will not get all of Europe together and push forward with a majority and leave those who opt-out to their own fate?

Certainly, there is already a bit of a two-speed Europe now, notably with Switzerland and Norway not in the EU club. So such an arrangement isn't necessarily terrible, and doesn't preclude working out close ties with those European nations on the outside. But it's a decision you would have to make before pushing for united Europe.

November 22, 2011

Benjamin Newton Brower, Independent, Bronze Contributor (22)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

2 questions arise about the UK. Would the EU and the UK be better off with the UK out? And Who would the UK turn to if it left the EU?

November 23, 2011

Franco Pedroni, University of Durham, Bronze Contributor (16)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I agree with this article; economic integration is hardly possible without political integration. The United States is a great illustrative example in this sense: the 1775 Second Continental Congress and the political formation thereby formed among the 13 American colonies led to economic integration, which would have otherwise hardly been possible. The Founding Fathers declared their political independence from the British and with that, they formed a formal, strong, economic alliance that lasts to this day.
The EU seems to be doing the opposite: First, it integrated economically. Now, however, times call for political integration as well.
Still, one may asks himself whether relinquishing state sovereignty to form a great federalist project of regional dimensions may lead to a democratic deficit - one that is already noticeable, as many top-level EU directors are not voted by the Europeans.

Tags: | United Europe | history |

November 23, 2011

Jason Naselli, University of Essex, Platinum Contributor (208)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

@ Benjamin

1. As currently constituted, there is no question everyone benefits from having a major economy like the UK as part of the common European market. However, a UK constantly locked in political battles over EU policy and perhaps turning into a harsh veto player that attempts to block everything helps no one, and if the UK (or any other country) determines it does not want to be part of a fully federal Europe, it should not be forced to stay.

2. The UK's top trading partner is still the US and politically they would still be locked in with alliances to both the US and European countries. Furthermore, as we have seen numerous times, countries have been able to negotiate their own deals with the EU to access the common market without being a part of it... there is no doubt the UK would still be a huge European trading partner, they would just have to bilaterally negotiate the rules. Lastly, the UK has unique vestigial relationships with its Commonwealth countries, both politically and in trade, that it could exploit. So while leaving the EU might not be the ideal situation, the UK has more than enough options to stand firmly on its own.

November 23, 2011

Benjamin Newton Brower, Independent, Bronze Contributor (22)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

@ Jason

I do agree with the first answer, while both parties have benefitted from British participation in the EU, it will probably come to a point where the UK will form bilateral agreements and step out of the union should the EU move more towards federalization. While it would be nice to have the economic clout of the UK in the EU, its stubbornness could do more harm than good.

As for the second one, while the UK still has close connections with the Commonwealth and the US, I am not so sure. While the UK could certainly survive economically without being in the EU, its role in the international affairs could be severely limited. While the UK still has special relationships with other nations, economic, military, and demographics all point towards the UK having a secondary role abroad than remaining with the EU.

November 27, 2011

Carmine Finelli, none, Silver Contributor (34)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I agree with the author. I would like to ask Benajmin: What do you think about a Confederal Union? In my own view, only moving toward federalism could give Europe a chance to compete in 21st century. It is worth noting, however, that the istitutional architecture of the Eu doesn't allow leaders to intervene rapidly to adapt Eu at new world order. Lisbon Treaty worsens the Eu penetration in the International System. We claim a more effective Union and we have a more ineffective one. Perhaps it depends on the persons chosen to lead european istitution (Von Rompuy and Catherine Ashton are unfit for the role), but it also depends on the variety of veto players attending Eu institutions including states' leaders who pay more attention to internal issues. And that brings us to the point: confederal union, i guess, it's more sustainable for European States. With a certain definition of powers and same rules for everyone not giving up entire sovereignty To realize this, it's important to extend te monetary union to other ten countries going forward step by step up to a complete political and economic union.

November 30, 2011

Benjamin Newton Brower, Independent, Bronze Contributor (22)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

@ Carmine,

I think a confederation could work, but it falls under the same issues. What powers would the nations be willing to give up towards a central EU government? At minimum, economics, defense, and foreign policy. I do not see that happening unless the crisis bottoms out to where it is the only option.

December 1, 2011

Jack Bicker, University of London, Silver Contributor (36)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I'm an avowed EU integrationist, truly, but I can't help thinking that the statement that "ONLY a federal Europe can be an influence in Asia" a little wide of the mark. GDP for 2010 is ranked as follows

* - EU $16, 242, 256*
- US $14,526,550
- China $5,878,257
- Japan $5,458,797
- Germany $3,286,451
- France $2,562,742
- UK $2,250,209
- Brazil $2,090,314
- Italy $2,055,114

There are a good few EU countries in there who, in their own right, have the economic firepower to have (and who do have) a seat around the economic decision making table.

Therefore I don't believe EU member states run the risk of becoming "vassal" in the near future. Also, the Eurozone crisis isn't one of productivity, it is instead a crisis of finance: for example, a recent New York Times article suggested that if Greece, notionally, defaulted 100% of its debts and produced a similar output (which may be mutually exclusive), it would run a budgetary surplus next year. It's the finance that's the problem! In addition, the IMF recently reported its concerns about the Chinese banking system, noting that "China's banks and financial sector are healthy, but there are vulnerabilities that should be addressed…While the existing structure fosters high savings and high levels of liquidity, it also creates the risk of capital misallocation and formation of bubbles, especially in real estate". No one's safe! The economic crisis has indeed shone a stark light on current financial realities and geopolitical shifts, but it is certainly not a reason for EU member states to give up any hope of holding sway.

The points that you raise concern domination: namely, who is going to best position themselves to dominate Asia in the near future? Unlike the US, domination isn't really the EU's working style. Therefore, if we're talking about economic colonisation, then yes, maybe a united Europe will best compete for this. However, if we were to talk about the ability to build strategic trading partnerships, based not only on economic prowess, but also on technology, innovation, financial services, education, etc… then EU member states have a role to play in Asia for a long time to come.

Could you tell me what you mean by the "spoils" of the common currency?

December 5, 2011

Benjamin Newton Brower, Independent, Bronze Contributor (22)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

@ Jack,

First, I did not write the statement of only a federal Europe can be an influence in Asia. My original title was Seizing the Moment of using this crisis to make a more dynamic EU. As for how some EU nations could stand on their own, there are several US States such as California that have near the same GDP as those European nations. Does that mean California should strike out on its own? Plus from those statistics, the EU GDP is far more greater than the individual nations', if EU economic policy became more centralized, they could better wield that influence domestically and abroad.

As for the domination, history is based on domination. Some people like having more power than others, and decide they want to decide how things work. It's human nature, and unless things change, that's how it will continue to be. As for the EU style not being one of domination, it definitely is part of some of its member nations. France still holds strong influence over its former African colonies that draws criticism. Also, the foundation of the EU came about because European nations were stuck between a rock and a hard place in the late 1940's early 1950's of either being totally dependent on the United States, or falling under Soviet domination. Instead of staying apart, nations starting consolidating resources and started economic unions to be economically viable, and maintain independence. So while the EU's style is not to dominate others, it is more to be strong yet diverse. Only thing now is the further centralization is needed on some issues to make the EU an even better model that could be used in Asia to be a path not of Chinese or American hegemony.

By the spoils of a common currency, I meant the poorer nations such as Greece and Portugal had the advantages within the Euro to have the economic benefits of stronger EU economies and essentially run budgets that were well beyond the country's means.

December 6, 2011

Jack Bicker, University of London, Silver Contributor (36)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Thanks Benjamin,

In response to your first point, I don't think that you can accuse Atlantic Community of misrepresenting your article with their headline; after all you did write that... "In time the larger powers [China and the US] would have divided the continent and the nations of Europe would be vassal states to nations they once colonized". I'm sorry, but whereas I am totally in favour of further EU integration, I don't find this prediction very plausible.

Can I also point out that Greece is not a poor country: in 2010 it ran a per capita GDP of US$28,496, as compared to an EU average of US$30,455, and a Chinese per capita GDP of just US$7,544. [IMF]

In my last comment I referred you to an article in the New York Times which stated that going on current productivity, if Greece defaulted on its loans next year it would run a surplus. What we can infer from this is that the problems in Greece, and more widely in the Eurozone, are not issues of productivity, but are instead issues of finance. I also pointed out that China, for example, is just as susceptible to systemic vulnerabilities (see the IMF report). Let's also not forget that the US too suffered a credit downgrade earlier this year too, and has had to borrow huge amounts of money from the far east.

So when it comes to your thesis that unless we federalise, Europeans will end up as nothing more than "vassal states", I still have to strongly disagree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/business/global/as-greece-struggl...

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2011/cr11321.pdf

December 6, 2011

Jack Bicker, University of London, Silver Contributor (36)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Also, you state that...

"As for how some EU nations could stand on their own, there are several US States such as California that have near the same GDP as those European nations. Does that mean California should strike out on its own?"

...Your point on California is a little bit of a distraction. Yes, California has a large economy which is just smaller than that of Italy, and just bigger than that of India. Florida (fourth state by GSP) has an economy about the same size as Turkey. South Carolina has an economy about the same size as that of Pakistan. Mississippi has an economy quite a bit smaller than that of Vietnam, and New Hampshire smaller than that of Sudan... (figures from the IMF and the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis).

By using the example of California, you're missing something of the point of this debate.

Could California go it alone? Yes, maybe, whatever? But the reason that California doesn't go it alone has nothing to do with GDP, but rather that California, like other states, is part of the cultural and historical ties that bind the American union together into a perceived "one nation under God". Forget that a break up of the union would leave many American states with economies smaller that those of developing countries! What is more important here is the political, cultural and economic realities that combine to make up the narrative identity of the United States, that play a central role in US democratic awareness, and which make it unthinkable that there will be a split any time soon.

In a similar vein, I don't feel that you appreciate the political, cultural and economic realities of COUNTRIES (not states) of the EU, who have their own similarly strong national identities, and who after centuries of laying down the skills and infrastructure to both effect good international relations and build innovative economies, are not going to become "vassal states" to China and the US. Integration is a good thing for the UE, and I back it completely, but individual member states have a lot going for them too...

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org