6 - First the Market, Then Peace

EU's strategies respect goals and commitment to no more war in Europe

It took the Europeans two tragedies to understand that nationalism had run its course: the First and Second World Wars. Particularly following the latter catastrophe, that had literally brought Europe to its knees, a need was clear to all: the conditions that had led to such two devastating conflicts in 30 years had to be prevented from recurring.
European integration was born from this premise. Despite their proverbial national pride, Europeans did not betray this premise. However, it could not remain a pure declaration of principles: it needed legs for going further. The idea was to achieve the main objective, i.e. peace, beginning with the creation of a common market and the progressive elimination of the barriers dividing the States, guaranteeing free circulation of goods, people, services, and capitals.
With this strategy in mind, France took the initiative. It did so on May 9, 1950, when its Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman, said that the time was ripe "for a European federation", and proposed to start with the management of the resources spared by the war: coal and steel. In the post-war reconstruction, production and trade of these resources were strategic from a political as well as economic point of view. Schuman's proposal (vigorously seconded by Italy's Alcide De Gasperi and Altiero Spinelli, Germany's Konrad Adenauer, and France's Jean Monnet) was promptly accepted by six countries (France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxemburg) that on April 18, 1951, signed the Treaty of Paris, creating the very first spark of integration: ECSC, the European Coal and Steel Community.
It was clear, even then, that only the first step had been taken. The founding states believed that "a European power ruled by democratic, independent institutions" had to be created, as Pascal Fontaine wrote in his Ten Lessons on Europe. "Those institutions would manage the sectors where joint actions are more efficacious than separate initiatives: internal market, currency, economic and social cohesion, job creation, environmental protection, foreign and defence policy, the establishment of a space of freedom and security." Despite that integration was limited to a common market for coal and steel, ECSC represented a first instance of peace because it brought together winners and vanquished of the war in an organization governed by the principle of equality. Very soon the next step would come. On March 25, 1958, another treaty was signed in Rome, creating EEC (European Economic Community) and EAAC (European Atomic Energy Community, or Euratom).
These three organizations (ECSC, EEC and Euratom) had a similar scope and common objectives, and unification among them soon looked like the sensible thing to do. This was accomplished with the Treaty of Brussels of July 13, 1967, which unified them and created the European Council, the European Commission and the European Budget. The way was paved for integration not exclusively linked to economy.
The prospects offered by the Treaties soon raised the interest of other European states, despite their reservations to the idea of a common project. Requests for joining the EEC (as the embryonic union was called at the time) began: in 1973 came Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, followed by Greece (1981), Spain and Portugal (1986), Austria, Finland, and Sweden (1995).
With the Single European Act, signed in Luxemburg and The Hague on February 28, 1987, the members of the EEC pledged to create the single internal market with free circulation of goods within December 1992. European integration reached a critical stage, and the union dreamed by Schuman, Monnet, Adenauer, Spinelli, and De Gasperi became possible. In 1972 the Community chose its anthem: Ode to Joy, the hymn by Schiller included in the final movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony. In the same year the EMS (European Monetary System) was also created in order to stabilize the fluctuation of currencies, preparing for a single currency; in 1979 the European Parliament was elected for the first time.
The turning point came with the Treaty of Maastricht signed on February 7, 1992. It represented a quantum leap in the quality of organization: monetary union to be achieved within 1999, new common policies, the institution of European citizenship and launch of a common foreign and security policy. Replacing with a single currency what had embodied state sovereignty for centuries was an unprecedented achievement in the history of the Old World after the Roman Empire, and has no equivalent anywhere else. With the Maastricht Treaty, the European Union was officially formed. It was also called European Community or Europe of the 15, after the number of member states in the mid-90s.
The Treaties of Amsterdam (October 2, 1997) and Nice (March 15, 2001) would further boost common institutions and policies, but the Union really took off from Maastricht. It is now the most advanced organization in the world based on multi-sector integration, able to operate in the fields of economy, society, politics, citizens' rights, and external relations. As a consequence, the Union was called to increase its presence as a mediator and a balancing international force in parallel with its increasing economic and trade power.
The Treaties we summarily illustrated laid the foundations for this great community, the real institutional novelty of the last two centuries: it creates bonds among its member states going much beyond the usual relations entertained between sovereign states. The European Union, in fact, makes laws that apply directly to all European citizens: this, too, is an uncommon aspect. This reality will face the 10 new members that will join the Union on May 1, 2004: Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Slovenia.
However, what we wrote would not be as significant if it was not for several elements.
We mentioned the glue that keeps Europeans together: culture. It's not only a European patrimony: the cultural thought born in the Old World have become the guiding principles of the Western world, after spreading and affirming themselves in America, Australia, and many parts of Asia and Africa. We can mention the Greek and Judeo-Christian heritage; the ideas of liberty and equality born in the French Revolution; the modern scientific method initiated by Galileo, Copernicus, Descartes, Francis Bacon; the separation between religion and politics (secularity of the State); even the idea of achieving better conditions through class struggle and not just the ethics of individual success. Even the very idea of Socialism, giving a human face (as long as possible) to the capitalist and free-trade dynamics, was also born in Europe. Europeans are proud of their identity, but this can be disorienting for non-Europeans, long accustomed to conceiving Europe in terms of Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, and so on. That identity - the new collective identity - comes out, as Umberto Eco recently pointed out, "when we come in contact with a non-European culture, including the American one: comes a moment, during a congress, an evening with international friends, or even a tourist trip, when we suddenly feel a commonality of culture that gives to the points of view, the tastes, the behaviour of a French, a Spaniard, or a German more familiarity than other people's."
Eco goes on: "It has become unconceivable for a Frenchmen to think of waging war on Germany (and of course the same goes for Britons against Italy, or Spaniards invading Belgium), while these conflicts and wars had been the norm for 2,000 years. This is a new situation in history, unthinkable up to 50 years ago."
In a famous speech given on April 30, 1952, in Washington, Jean Monnet, one of the fathers of European integration, tried to explain it to astonished Americans: "We do not assemble States, we unify people." The great challenge of the Union was winning the public opinion to this European idea. The Union is atypical precisely because it identified its reason of existence with the primal need of its citizens, peace, and proceeded to bring governments over to it.
Being atypical and unprecedented entails not being able to draw on any previous experience for solving the problems arising every day. It was then necessary to devise a new work method. Italy's Romano Prodi, current president of the European Commission, described it like this: "We cannot look at the past, because the recipes devised in the past century are not adequate any more. Europe is the great opportunity for re-discussing that past, comparing it with somebody else's experience, to rid ourselves once and for all of the inheritances that, initially uniting us, ended up dividing us." How is that possible? Romano Prodi continued: "No government, no people can leave the past aside and build the future alone: this can only be done by the people and governments of Europe working together. That's why Europe is necessary. Alone, we cannot even cope with the most elementary problems of today, beginning with the biggest one, i.e. the relations with the peoples around us that look to us for building their own future. Neither Germany, nor France, nor Italy can respond to their expectations: only Europe can."
The history of the European Union, briefly summarized here, and the institutions presented in a previous installment brought in the Third Millennium an institution that still needs to take many steps forward, but has taken several already, all crucial for its existence.
Nowadays, the so-called "European space" is free from those customs, fiscal and regulatory hindrances that often hampered activities and the circulation of capitals and services in the past. The common market brought advantages to everyone, even though some go unnoticed: access to a great variety of products, regulated competition moderating price increases, policies protecting consumers and the environment, norms constantly adapting to criteria of top efficiency.
Today, every citizen of every member state is also a European citizen, enjoying the right to circulate, work and reside anywhere in the Union; access to social security and welfare in every country; recognition of education. There's even more: the Treaty of Maastricht (1992) granted active and passive electorate in municipal and European elections to any citizen of the Union residing in any member state, regardless of state citizenship. In the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997), this principle moved forward with article 17: "European citizenship is hereby established. Any citizen of any member state is a European citizen."
People wrote that this immense land, ancient and brand new, represents a challenge for the future. Italy's Ambassador to Ottawa, Marco Colombo, spoke of the unique relations being shaped between the European Union and Canada. One month ago, at the G8 in Evian, the European Union offered the political forum for mending relations between the USA and France and Germany, after the frost generated by the war on Iraq. Discussions have been underway for some time on a proposed future entry of Russia. The scenarios slowly taking shape point to the creation, on the long run, of a new bipolar world, avoiding the conflict of the first one (between the USA and the USSR) replaced with a partnership, as the new emergencies cannot be solved with confrontation. A new bipolarity between the United States and the European Union could mark the end of the unpopular concept of "superpower" and replace it with the idea of joint governance, more suitable for the modern times, among large aggregates and sovereign states, in the world's hottest situations.
Europeans have a sixth sense for identifying dictatorships, whatever their face: they have known them and suffered under them, so they recognize the symptoms and are, at least partially, vaccinated against them. Therefore they seek dialogue, instead of a tug-of-war for establishing who's stronger like in the past version of bipolarity. Even though they do not intend to renounce to their role as the only world superpower, the United States accept the dialogue because they are pragmatists: they won't ever admit it, September 11 showed that they are not invulnerable. Most of all, it is dawning on them that so many tension spots are bad for them.
This objective is neither easy nor for the near future. It is not even to be taken for granted that it will really solve the problems of this poor planet. Europe, however, keeps heading that way.

Publication Date: 2004-08-22
Story Location: http://tandemnews.com/viewstory.php?storyid=4323