A workgroup in the European Union has stated that the creation of the European Federation will be a model for the rest of the world. Which part of the world is likely to join together after Europe?
Qadaffi of Libyan recently invited a host of African strongmen to meet and discuss an “African Union,” but these men are all brual dictators who wouldn’t surrender their power willingly, though they may talk. Asia’s filled with various states still bitter from WWII, and the odds of seeing the Koreans and Japanese politically joining anytime soon are not high.
I believe South America, or parts of it, is the next place where federalism will catch on. Argentina, hoping to escape US hegemony, is turning to the EU for aid and trade, and I think the EU’s brand of federalism will seep across to South America.
I have to agree with you. I saw the response earlier and was going to say something snide but then what’s the point? It would just be more of the same.
Anyway, I don’t really have much to contribute to the topic but am interested in how the thread will develop. It’s an interesting issue.l
South America? Possibly, but not likely. While they already have a free trade area in place, they probably won’t unite politically. The problem is that the Argentinians really don’t like much of the rest of South America?
Argentina is largely a “white” nation. They look down on Brazil which has a large “black” population. Same with Nations such as Paraguay, Uruguay, Peru, etc, that have a large indigenous population.
I don’t see Latin America letting go of its prejudices any time soon.
By the way, I’d also like to doubt the premise of the OP. AFAIK, the European Union has not adopted a federal structure, mostly due to French objections. I don’t think the French have caved yet, but maybe they have. Also, the European Union was brought about in a special set of circumstances with a special mindset that was a result of the devastation of WWII. I don’t see those circumstances being replicated anywhere else, so I don’t think that European Union-style IGO seeping to another area anytime soon.
Well, Premier Landry and the Parti québécois have said that after they break up Canada, they would like to re-unite in a union modelled on the EU… go figger.
Sorry if that didn’t make sense, let me try to explain:
I think the difficulty I (personally) have with the OP is from the perspective of someone who has had to deal with amorphous, often evasive, statements about ‘Federalism’ for a couple of decades. It’s only been in, perhaps, the past year that the word ‘Federalism’ has actually crossed the lips of some mainstream Euro politicians as a viable goal because the people of Europe have been pretty consistently (equally) divided on the subject whenever asked to vote on greater integration.
Thus I, and I imagine many other Euro’s, tend to look at the minutia and the nuances as opposed to broad statements.
Despite the assumption of the OP, Federalism within Europe is far from a done deal – depending on your definition of what constituent parts are required for a ‘Fed’ to exist. Sure, a single currency takes a form of economic Federalism forward (not, yet, including the UK) – and therefore, political integration also – but there remains much resistance in other areas. Example:
Does a Federation exist without a fully combined military force supporting a single cohesive Foreign Policy ?
So I – as I believe do others - think it’s important to examine what exactly anyone means by ‘Federalism’ because it can mean whatever you want it to mean, on any given day, re any given aspect within your own personal definition.
It’s one of them political subjects.
