I'd like to speak up in favor of a United States of Europe being in the US
National interest.
First, I'll concede that Gautam's most powerful argument is that the
governance of the European Union, as currently constituted, is
fundamentally borken - and it appears less than certain that the current
European Consitutional Convention that is now underway will fix the
problem. I think that the European Union's democratic difficulties stem
from the fact that the great European experiment in federalism is, perhaps
by necessity, being conducted in stealth. The United States of Europe,
instead of being built in one massive swoop through popular referenda, is
instead being built through various intergovernmental arrangements in the
hopes that sheer inertia will make the existence of the United States of
Europe someday inevitably. Hence the euphemasim encoded in the Treaty of
Rome for "ever closer union."
Gautam criticizes this approach as being fundamentally undemocratic, but I
think that this fails to consider the greater picture as to whether or not
such grand experiements in federalism, while in the best interest of all,
necessarily require a less-than-democratic jump start in order to get
going. It seems to me, anyhow, that people are generally unwilling to
join large federal systems - presumably out of fear of having their local
interests subsumed by the federal good. Moreover, the arguments in favor
of a federal system - particularly economies of scale in governance,
defence, and trade are often intangible benefits, the value of which is
usually not easily assessed by the general populace. Indeed, it is
something of the US's dirty-little secret that the United States of America
did not come about through the series of popular referenda that critics now
insist that the United States of Europe employ. Indeed, the US
Constitution came into effect after being ratified by the *legislatures* of
only *nine* of the thirteen member States - and the reamining four did not
join the Constitution until years later. Thus, in my mind, I think that
there are good reasons to consider *republican* (small "r") principles to
be more important than "democratic" (small "d") principles. Participation
in the body politic on the issues of the day is, quite frankly, a lot of
work. It is only reasonable that people should decide to elect
"representatives" for themsevles who will study the issues of the day full
time, and thus make decisions on behalf of the peoples - subject to review
of the people (elections) from time-to-time. Thus, while the European
Union governing structure is definitely broken, I do not consider it
sufficiently detached from republican principles to be considered
unsalvageable.
Secondly, as for Gautam's arguments that the stability pact attached to the
monetary union is wholly unadvisable is not debatable. Nevertheless, from
where I am standing, the stability pact is already dead. It is being
openly flouted by many countries, and covertly flouted by others.
Moreover, the free trade, open borders, and indeed, the monetary union
itself, will speed the process of integration of the European economies
over time, making the negative effects of the common economic policy less
severe over time. In other words, on several counts, the stability fact
is simply a minor issue of the day that will likely be mostly forgotten by
history. Thus, I hardly consider the stability pact a solid reason for
long-term opposition to the United States of Europe by the USA. (Then
again, perhaps I should read your paper if you have other examples of such
economic mismanagement.)
Thus, the last question is whether or not a military strong United States
of Europe is in the US foreign policy interest. I believe that it is on a
number of counts.
1) I think that the values and ideas that unite Americans and Europeans are
far stronger than those that divide us - and moreover, a far stronger than
those that united any two major powers in previous world history. I think
that this is largely an effect of the post-nationalist/imperialistic era.
Thus, I hardly consider a conflict in the 22nd century between the USA and
USE to be "inevitable."
2) Indeed, even under a United States of Europe, the prospects of the US
of E assembling a military force to take on the USA is highly unlikely
within the next 100-200 years. You have already pointed out the economic
and demographic trends that point against, in addition to the lack of
political will for such enormous militarization. Instead, I would expect
the US of E to carry a military force less than that of the US under its
"two-theatre" guideline, but nevertheless, the US of E at even half the
size of the USA's military capability would present itself as a vital ally.
3) As noted, the Europeans have shown themselves to be highly unwilling to
commit a significant proportion of their resources towards military power
projection. In this environment, then, it is essential that they maximize
economies of scale to ensure that they make the most of the resources that
they do devote to the military. The US wants European military support
around the world - we have pleaded for it for years - this support is
fundamentally in our long-term interests - and this will only come about
through the coordinated efforts of a strong central government in a United
States of Europe.
4) Indeed, the US truly needs a serious military partner for certain types
of missions. Already, we are seeing that the US cannot handle all
military missions at once. After winning the war in Afghanistan we had
neither the resources nor the will effect a true military
occupation/peacekeeping operation in the country. This sort of operation
of peace-keeping and nation-building would have been ideal for a
war-adverse European population and a United States of Europe.
5) The US also truly needs a serious military partner for general military
missions. The proliferation of needed military missions around the world,
increases the possibility that war-weariness either from our troops
themselves or from the American public will set in, and hamper a US
President's ability to project military power in areas of vital American
national interest. I think that it has become clear that in a
post-September 11th world, even the smallest country can pose a vital risk
to the United States of America. Moreover, the US seems unable to handle
all possible crises at once. We saw this in the late 1990's when Saddam
Hussein started acting up while the US military was pre-occupied in the
Kosovo campaign, and we see it again today as the DPRK has begun acting up
with the US military mired in the Iraqi desert. Just as Europe is sitting
out the Iraqi campaign, into the future it will fundamentally be in the
US's national interest to be able to sit out a necessary campaign, and let
our allies in the United States of Europe handle an important mission,
while the US recovers.
6) Lastly, I think that many in the Bush Administration would agree with me
that the greatest long-term (50-100+ years) strategic threat to US
interests is China. If China fails to reform as it developes, and instead
develops a reactionary, nationalistic, and imperialistic regime, it would
have the population and natural resources to present a grave threat to the
free will. In this environment, the US of E would be an essential ally.
In this World War II-esque scenario, it would be far easier for the
resources of Europe (such as they may be - since we agree that they will
not be the equal of the US) to be mobilized under a strong federal
government under the Untied States of Europe than under the current
arrangement. Thus, even if a US of E chooses not to become a significant
military partner of the US right away, it will neverthless be available as
something of a "sleeping giant" (or at least a "sleeping serious-player" :)
in the event of an unthinkable world crisis in the distant future.
Nevertheless, I think it is clear that the War on Terror is going to last
for a very long time - at least through 2010. Moreover, thereis no reason
to believe that there will be less need for military resources in the long
term future. Yet, unfortuantely, so far it has become clear that the US
does not have the resources to do everything it needs on its own, as
presented by our less-than-ample security presence in Afghanistan, the
slowness of the buildup to engaging Iraq, and our apparent inability to
militarily respond to a crisis in Korea, the Balkans, or in Africa while
engaged in Iraq. Thus, it is clear that the US needs a partner, and the
most serious candidate for such a partnership is a strong, federal, United
States of Europe that can maximize the mlitary resources it does have to
contribute in our joint cause of liberty and freedom for humanity.
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
