When the E.U. becomes “Europe” again. Fundamental arguments that indicate an unstable European future

by Alexandros Th. Drivas, International Relatios Expert

There are always many things that we could set into dialogue concerning the E.U.  Especially, there is a significant question:  Could the E.U. fulfill its starting goal, which is stabilizing and unifying the states of Europe? During the decades of 1950 and 1960, optimism is gaining ground in Europe, so there is an unprecedented agreement among forces which have been in conflict for ages. Adaptation policies and theories of liberalism and functionalism, tried to make Europe more homogeneous, in order for the U.S. to outlive the Cold War (with Western Europe by their side). Today, 55 years after the Treaty of Rome, this optimism has elapsed and Europe reminds the prediction of John Mearsheimer with his article “Back to the Future”.

A big number of academics and even most politicians, believed the arguments of European integration which was the only solution for peace and prosperity among Europe. The treaties seemed to be the guardians of peace, security and prosperity in Europe that seemed to have put an end to the sinful past. By 2007, the EU has been presented as the best model of regionalism. After 5 years, is considered as the most problematic continent after Africa. What went wrong with the E.U.?

The dawn of the Cold War, necessitated the homogenization of Western Europe. The point of this homogenization was that the U.S.A had the geopolitical and economical need of Europe. The heritage of Halford MacKinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan and George Kennan, placed the Atlantic Europe as the basic platform to control and finally deter the soviet expansion. The creation of the E.U. and N.A.T.O had to achieve this goal. These plans qualified the cooperation among West Germany, Italy, France and Great Britain. The words of Lord Ismay concerning the main purpose of N.A.T.O, «To keep America in, to keep Russia out and to keep Germany down. », could have the same meaning for the E.U. Frankly speaking, the E.U. set up the economic and political efforts of the U.S. and built on the logic of security and balance of power. Functionalist and neo-functionalist practices had placed in realistic philosophy. The presence of NATO after 1991 left some room for the European cooperation and the new goal was to embody the other European states which were Soviet allies. In the middle of the last decade of 20^th century, European integration seems to have integrated into economic subjects, by creating (in the late 1990s) a common currency area with the adoption of the euro as common currency. However, the realistic platforms in which the pillars of the E.U’s structure were built, such as the Common Foreign Policy, or the Common Policy on Defense and Security, are totally absent.

Nevertheless, the Franco-German axis, which was the main vehicle of European unification and partnership, received a strong blow at the end of the previous decade (2007-2008). Then, it seemed to be less important evidence but today speaks so language for the future of the E.U.  While the crisis was coming to strike the unprepared Eurozone, the French government with Sarkozy’s initiation, tried to put within the framework of the EU, a Mediterranean structure of cooperation. This fact alone meant “differentiation from the Franco-German axis.” Angela Merkel was strongly opposed to French initiation, because she felt that the E.U. loses its meaning by building parallel policies with the European Neighborhood Policy and Euro-Mediterranean cooperation. That was a serious breach, considering that today the E.U. talks about economic issues that are related with the countries of European South.

Moreover, there are many voices in Europe who claim that Germany tries to create a new hegemony with financial instruments. The election of Francois Hollande raises expectations such as the quest that France is ready to become the setback pillar for Germany. Over the resolving process of Eurozone’s debt crisis, the E.U appears to host a dipole of alliances. The Nordic countries (Germany, Austria, Finland, and Netherlands) consider that the fiscal discipline that passes through austerity measures is the solution of the debt crisis. On the other hand, Southern countries wish to adopt development’s solutions that require fiscal expansion. Despite the complex situation that the E.U. faces, there is a vision of a vibrant political stage-fifth and final- of E.U’s. The question that we have to answer is how this kind of integration can be succeeded. The German Finance Minister, -for at least two years- says that “each state is responsible for its budgetary policy.” Therefore, there are a lot of experts who claim that the E.U. has no national limits.

Another incident that raises skeptical thoughts about E.U’s future is the role of France and Great Britain concerning the strategic bombing in Libya. This operation has brought together Britain and France which collaborated with the U.S.A to drop the Gaddafi regime. One the other hand, Germany did not want to participate in this mission. This special relationship that involves a variety of security issues and defense could be exploited to strategic triangle among the U.S.A., Great Britain and France. At the same time, this Anglo-French partnership reminds to Berlin that Germans could not have the big stick in Europe. The essential evolution for Europe is that Great Britain declared the end of its economic depression. The deeper meaning of this new economic reality calls for an economic competition between Germany and Great Britain (besides that we all know that U.K. is not a member state of Euro zone). Even if E.U. was considered a successful economic community, we should remember the strong disagreements for the funds of Common Agricultural Policy, in which France and Great Britain had different views about the transactions in agricultural productivity (France unlike Great Britain, had supported them).

Moreover, we can focus on a dangerous social phenomenon which is easily observed in Europe. The rebirth of parties that support extreme right policies. We can find a lot of causes concerning this dangerous revival, but the main point is double; the economic depression had already created doubts about the European democracy. If we add the islamophobia, that is a result of E.U’s failure to create a stable and common policy for immigrants. When it comes to policy, Europe has little things to prove.

All these issues suggest that the E.U. will not be the same in the future. The indications prove that the struggle for power reappears in Europe. The strong separation between North and South is the main problem. The lack of cooperation is important evidence that reminds the European past. The Soviet threat, led the European states to coordinate into the E.U. but the elapse of bipolar system revives a pro-Cold War system in Europe. Liberalists and supporters of Pluralistic structures claimed that economic and commercial interdependence would protect the European stability. Neither European Common Market, nor the establishment of Western Democracy, brought unification facts. Even if the certain economic crisis could be faced as an historic challenge for deeper and real unification, doesn’t mean the “End of European History” paraphrasing Fukuyama’s book. For Realistic School of thought, E.U. is nothing more than a regional regime which follows the order of power. Inside such a regime there are strong states, the weak ones and the revising ones, which want to tackle first power and establish their own order. The most decisive aspect for European future is none else than the role of the U.S.  In European case also, the principle of Strategic and Realistic Art can be applied: “He are hoping for the best and planning for the worst”[1]. The historical past of the continent and the present tendencies portend that the stabilization of Europe will be a major challenge in 21st century.

[1] George Friedman, “The Next 100 Years”, Double Day, USA 2009, p. 116

No related news.