European interdependence: a gift or a curse?
Nov 2nd, 2011 | By Arno Hamar de la Brethonière | Tags: Crisis, Euro, Greece, history, Peace, Solidarity, War
www.flickr.com, photographer: peacay
A very brief history of the idea of Europe
Europe finds itself at the heart of the global financial crisis. Economically weaker countries and banks are facing bankruptcy, and the once visionary economical intertwining of Europe is threatening to take down even the strongest of countries if the system collapses. The once strong Euro is under tremendous pressure, and countries and banks that were doing fine find themselves contributing billions of Euros to save countries that made a mess.
The interdependency that Europe has been pushing for the last decades thus seems to be making matters worse, especially for countries that would otherwise not be in big trouble. So, why on earth would they sign up for an idea like this? The answer lies in history and is being disregarded by public and politics far too often and far too easily. This article aims on casting light into the historical darkness.
Divided we fell
When the smoke cleared from the European battlefields after the Second World War, European leaders found large parts of the continent in ruins. From France to Russia, from Greece to Norway and even in Northern Africa, entire cities were destroyed. People had been systematically murdered for their religion or the colour of their skin and with tens of millions of people killed worldwide, it was – and still is – the deadliest military conflict in history. International trade, industries and banking had been reduced dramatically. Unemployment rates were skyrocketing and the future looked grim indeed. Faced with the devastating effects of two ruthless and unscrupulous wars, all European leaders agreed on one thing: this should never happen again.
After the reconstruction of Europe had started, aided largely by the Marshall Plan, Europe slowly crawled back up. In 1951, the six European nations France, Italy, West Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg created the European Coal and Steel Community: a common market for coal and steel, two industries that are closely linked to the industries of war. The countries did not have direct influence in its government: a special High Authority was created to supervise the market. That way, the countries in a sense ‘gave away’ their control on the two industries essential for making war, and created a supranational entity that would not be regulated by the national governments.
It was an institute based on financial and commercial cooperation, but the underlying thought went much further than that. It was a political move as well. By creating a new supranational institution, the countries hoped to reduce the chances of a new war dramatically, and create an era of peace and prosperity. As it turned out, they succeeded.
In the decades following the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, more institutions would be created. The Treaties of Rome provided Europe with the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). The three would later be merged into the European Communities, and together with the Schengen Treaty and the European Political Community were the basis of the current European Union, which is highly unpopular with the European citizen.
United we should stand
Its unpopularity is partly due to the modern day politics and the staggering lack of historical awareness of the European citizens. Politicians struggle to explain why their country should aid economies in peril. On October 26th 2012, German Chancellor Merkel made a passionate appeal to all European leaders that the financial crisis should be faced head-on and solved with political will, otherwise the Euro and the peace in Europe would be at stake. Some people laconically mocked her sense of exaggeration. I believe she was right.
The European cooperation has provided us with a lasting peace in our society that is unprecedented. Ever since it has been founded, member states have been living in peace. Never before in history had there been a period of sixty years in which no war was fought on Western European soil. It survived the Cold War; former Communist countries now apply for membership. We live in a Europe in which war seems inconceivable, something that could never happen to us. Yet, we fail to understand its uniqueness.
The banking and financial crises hit the world hard. Especially in Europe some countries fell victim to its global nature. But is exactly the supranational nature of European cooperation that has kept us safe from war. Sure, the system is not flawless, not by a long shot. And obviously some major mistakes were made. But one has to realize that ‘Europe’ as a unified entity is actually a very young idea, and we should not give up on it easily. Yes, it is hard to support an idea that seems to have more downsides than benefits, but if we look closer, we find a hidden treasure far more valuable than economic growth or short term gain.
It is exactly our interdependence that has kept us safe from war, an extraordinary and unprecedented achievement. Our experience with near annihilation should weigh heavily on our conscience, and solidarity should be worth more than stock. People that disapprove the European Union and the Euro would do well to keep in mind the many centuries of consecutive war on European soil.
Related posts:
- Support EST with a donation!
June 16th, 2012 - Call for writers
October 12th, 2012 - The European Court of Justice: the true champion of the European project
November 6th, 2011 - Growing Pains: Ukraine’s Case of Benjamin Button
November 20th, 2012 - One step closer to a European identity
November 7th, 2010
Nice article. I agree that we are indeed very lucky (and unfortunately ungrateful) to have experienced more than half a century of peace.
You are right that interdependence made it less likely that France and Germany would ever go to war against each other again. The High Authority was going to ensure that all participating countries would have equal and fair access to cheap coal and steel, however, it was mandated to also create a common market for those goods. This however failed and the HA itself was not very popular with national governments as they perceived the intentions of the HA to expand its authority into other fields – such as oil – as direct interference into national energy policy. Also, once coal imports became cheaper than domestic coal production support for the HA dropped sharply. Nonetheless, it was a very important institution in the wake of the European post-WW2-cooperation.
I think you are wrong about the popularity of the EU with its citizens. I don’t think people have a negative opinion about the EU – most will perceive the common currency, the Schengen agreement and issues such as exchange programmes as something very positive. The problem with the current situation is actually not a new one at all – the EU is unable to communicate to Europeans why it takes actions. The average, non-political science student will only read about (and remember) the EU’s “bad achievements” (think about issues such as the cucumber quality or other “useless” harmonization efforts), however, the EU is actually the best possible outcome Europe could have hoped for. Obviously, and we’ll all agree on it, a lot of benefits are not directly visible in our everyday life but think back to the time when you had to pass through border controls every time you went on a holiday, or how many times you had to exchange money going abroad. Now you travel through 17 countries that use the same currency – how much easier it is to compare prices! The EU is the only player that can ensure that proper competition on the common market takes place – and the more competition there is, the more consumers will benefit from low prices.
One last thought: You wrote that solidarity should be worth more than a stock. This is very idealistic, obviously. I often feel the same about the EU – as the idea of a united Europe will never be achieved with a substantial cost – but I believe that solidarity does not necessary entail the commitment to keep a bankrupt country alive through repeated cash injections. If Europeans realise that this kind of treatment won’t help, they need to make a decision that will benefit the EU as a whole, and in the Greek case this is an orderly default and afterwards a European “Marshall plan”.
Looking forward to your next article!
David,
Thank you for your comment. It is interesting to read about your thoughts.
I was surprised to read that you perceive the general opinion towards the EU to be mostly positive. I do not get this impression at all. I do think the attitude towards Europe is shifting towards being more positive, but the current perception of the EU is mostly negative: expensive, undemocratic, anti-nationalstic. At least, that’s how I think most people think about the EU and is illustrated by the fact that the nationalistic and anti-European party in The Netherlands is still growing. But there probably are diverging attitudes towards Europe in different countries, I suppose.
Also, saying that the EU is actually the best possible outcome the European citizens could have hoped for, might be a bit… strong. It’s not perfect by a long shot.
Regarding your last comment: by no means did I intend to suggest that the EU should repeatedly commit itself to try and safe a sinking ship that is beyond saving. My knowledge of macro-economics is limited, as it is for most people. I do not cast judgement on any decision, be it keeping Greece ‘alive’ or letting it default, as you suggest in one of your blogs.
What I am very critical about is that very few people are aware of the historical background, and the non-financial added value of the EU. This way, the Greece deficit discussion remains one-dimensional: we keep looking for the most profitable (or least costly) solution. Another, probably more important aspect – European peace and security – is being disregarded almost completely in international and national debates, and therefore plays an insignificant role, while it was the prime reason for founding a ‘United Europe’.
Arno,
I guess one has to some extent to differ between the perception of the EU in the old and new member states. If we want to simplify it a lot, one could say that the EU is seem more favourable in the new member states than in the old ones. This is obviously due to the benefits the EU has brought to the new member states. Wherever you go, whenever you see a construction site, there is going to be a sign telling you that the project is co-financed by the EU. In the old member states such a sight is not a daily occurrence anymore. The old member states and their population are somewhat accustomed to the prosperity and security the EU has offered them, and thus they no longer value it as highly as they should. On the other hand, they get more easily annoyed by the rules and directives from Brussels, as they perceive them to be cumbersome and often unnecessary.
I think a lot of the advantages of EU membership are simply no longer connected to the idea of being part of the EU and thus do not reflect positively on the Union. I mentioned border-free travels, a brilliant achievement of the EU, however, we are so used to it that we take it for granted.
You mentioned the rise of nationalism in a number of countries. I think you are right to link those to growing dissatisfaction with the EU, however, I think that after a few years of having such a populist/nationalist party in government, most citizens actually do realise that a harmonious and smooth relationship with the EU, instead of constant anti-EU bashing, is more beneficial for them. As far as the perceived attributes of the EU are concerned, those certainly are disputable. As far as the cost of the EU is concerned, it is actually a rather cheap endeavour if you look at member state contributions to the EU budget. Also, its administration is rather comparable to a medium-sized city’s rather than what you would expect for an institution that influences the life of close to 500 million people. Yes, the EU is anti-nationalistic, but that is actually a good thing, isn’t it? I recall that in the past it was mostly nationalists that set their countries on collision course with other nations, so a less nationalistic and more post-nationalistic attitude (whether you want to call it “European”, “cosmopolitan” or something else is up to you) is another factor that reduces tension between member states.
Well, I might have opted for strong words, but I believe that Europeans, despite all the flaws of the EU, should be very content with it. It is not perfect – how could it possibly be as the first of its kind, an enterprise that has never been undertaken before – but without it almost all European countries would have been reduced to little more than tiny single units in the global international system. It is only because of the EU that countries like France and the UK can continue to keep the feeling alive of being eye-to-eye with the US or China, and even Europe’s powerhouse Germany needs the EU – without its common currency its balance sheet would look less impressive. It certainly makes a difference whether you represent 40, 60 or 80 million or close to 500 million people on an issue and I guess most countries will be happy to have the EU as an amplifier for their positions.
[quote]What I am very critical about is that very few people are aware of the historical background, and the non-financial added value of the EU.[/quote]
I agree that people unfortunately tend to forget about the past and therefore your contribution is most welcome here and I applaud you. History simply seem to matter less to people in good times and matters close to nothing in bad times. That is the problem with the EU as a whole project – if it does not benefit people financially, an idea is worth very little, and the EU is first and foremost build upon exactly this – an idea.
Maybe your article will open the eyes of a few interested readers and they’ll spread the word…