European Union expands! What does this mean for the future?

Great Debates
1

Effective May 1, 2004, the European Union will admit ten new member states (http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/enlargement2004/0,14516,1204600,00.html):

Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia

Cyprus and Malta are the only two of these countries which are not also members of NATO; they are also the only two which are former British colonies, and members of the Commonwealth of Nations. “Cyprus” in this case does not mean the whole island of Cyprus, only the Greek southern half, which recently rejected a UN-brokered plan to unite it with the Turkish north. Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia are former republics of the Soviet Union. Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary are former Communist states and Warsaw Pact members. Slovenia is a former republic of Yugoslavia.

These countries will be joining with the following 15 pre-May 1 EU members:

Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom

All of these are also members of NATO, except for Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria.

The following states of Europe have applied to join the EU but have not yet been admitted:

Bulgaria
Romania
Turkey

All three are NATO members. Romania and Bulgaria are former Warsaw Pact members. Turkey is the only Islamic country that has applied for EU membership.

The following European states are not members of the EU and have not applied to join:

Albania
Andorra
Belarus
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Croatia
Iceland (assuming Iceland can be classed as a “European” state)
Leichtenstein
Macedonia
Moldova
Monaco
Norway
Russian Federation (assuming, etc.)
San Marino
Switzerland
Ukraine
Vatican City
Yugoslavia (now reduced to the republics of Serbia and Montenegro)

Of these, only Norway and Iceland are NATO members. Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine are former Soviet republics. Albania is a former non-aligned Communist state. Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia and Yugoslavia are former parts of the old Yugoslavia.

Some thoughts and questions on these developments:

  1. The new EU members are expecting that joining the Union will bring them an economic miracle. Are they going to get it?

  2. The EU started out as a coal-and-steel tariff union and grew from there. It is, at present, something more than an association of completely independent states (such as the U.N.), but less than a sovereign multinational government. After this expansion, will the EU evolve further in the direction of unification, or towards greater dispersal of power and independence of member states, or maintain more or less its present political form?

  3. How will the admission of so many Eastern European countries, formerly Communist states and still home to very active Communist parties (sometimes surviving under a changed name) affect the political culture of the Union? (Come to think of it, most of the old EU members also have powerful socialist or Communist parties, which have been in power or at least in government at various periods since WWII.)

  4. Has Europe now entered into a period of lasting peace for the first time since the fall of the Western Roman Empire? After the EU expansion, and an economic system that makes every European nation a trading partner of practically every other, are there any conceivable circumstances that could cause European states to go to war against each other?

  5. Will Russia ever be invited to join? Will it join? In his book The Clash of Civilizations (Touchstone Books: 1998), Samuel P. Huntington classed the “Orthodox” civilization (Russia, etc.) as a different civilization from the “Western” civilization (i.e., the Catholic-and-Protestant societies of Europe, plus the U.S. and Canada). (The Catholic societies of Latin America are classed as a third, separate civilization.) In Huntington’s view, there is a deep division in viewpoint between the Orthodox and the Western countries: Orthodox countries have usually been rule by absolutist states, from Byzantium to Russia, and have very little experience with liberal or democratic government, or limited government, or even church-state separation (in both the Byzantine Empire and Tsarist Russia, the emperor effectively controlled the Orthodox Church). This division, in Huntington’s view, accounts for a lot of political turbulence in the Ukraine (which is Catholic in the West and Orthodox in the East). Furthermore, according to Huntington, one factor in the bloody breakup of Yugoslavia was the perceived difference between the Catholic Croatians and the Orthodox Serbs (the two groups even speak essentially the same language, but the Croatians write it in Latin letters and the Serbs use Cyrillic letters). In the new admissions to the EU, all of the new member states are traditionally Roman Catholic, except for Estonia which traditionally has been divided between Orthodox and Protestants. Of the old EU members, almost all are Catholic or Protestant; the only Eastern Orthodox country in the Union is Greece. Romania and Bulgaria – whose EU applications have not yet been accepted – are predominanty Eastern Orthodox. Is the difference Huntington sees between the Western and Orthodox points of view going to inhibit further EU expansion to the east?

  6. Will Turkey ever be admitted? In terms of its effects on nature of the EU’s shared political culture, admitting an Islamic state would be an even bigger change than admitting Russia. Up to now, Turkey has been kept out on human-rights grounds – and, no doubt, on cultural and religious grounds. EU membership would give the Turks representatives in the European Parliament to fight for the rights of Turkish guestworkers in Germany, France, etc. On the other hand, membership would also involve the EU directly in the question of independence for the Turkish Kurds – who would have their own representatives in Parliament, assuming the electoral districts are drawn up honestly. And then there’s the Cyprus question . . .

  7. There is now a near but not complete overlap between the memberships of the EU and NATO: All EU members are also NATO members, except for Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden. All NATO members are now EU members, except for Bulgaria, Iceland, Norway, Romania, and Turkey – and, of course, the United States and Canada. Is it possible that EU and NATO will merge – that is, that NATO will simply become the military arm of the EU? Alternatively, is it possible the EU will put together its own common military force independent of NATO (and, therefore, independent of U.S. influence)?

  8. Will Europe-as-a-single-unit evolve into a new world-power that can rival the United States for leadership and influence?

2

Are you sure there aren’t other aspects of this you want to discuss? :slight_smile:

Of course not. If there are any economic miracles on this world, you won’t find them in Europe. What makes you think they “are expecting” this anyway?

One thing to keep in mind is that the EU has a plan in place to change how many votes each country gets. I forget the details (they are easy to find on the EU website), but right now the small countries get more votes, proportionally, than the larger ones do. This becomes less so over time. Sort of like moving from a US Senate type arrangement to a US House of Reps type of arrangement. The more countries that are in the EU, the slower the decision process and the harder it will be to take action.

I think you answered your own question. But if the EU takes a decided turn towards communists practices, you’ll see backpedalling from the economically dominate countires (especially Britain).

That part of Europe that is in the EU, yes. Russia still isn’t in the EU, though, and that’s the wildcard.

Well, Greece (the mother of all Orthodox countries) seems to be doing OK, so I don’t see this as a big deal at all. The Yugoslavian Orthodox/Catholic issue between the Serbs/Croats was more related to their historical ties to Russia/(NAZI) Germany than relgion per se. Also, aren’t most Czechs and Slovaks of an Orthodox religion?

That’s the elephant in the living room, so to speak. I think it it’s a long ways off. Europe just isn’t ready for a Muslim member. Look at what’s going on in France with the whole headscarf thing.

You forgot the US. We’re not joining the EU anytime in our lifetimes. That sort of eliminates a merging of the EU and NATO, no? And a slight nitpick, but Iceland really is not part of Europe in any significant way. It isn’t even in the process of applying for EU membership. Let’s hope the EU becomes more militarily self sufficient-- that’s less of a burden for the US.

Possibly, if China doesn’t beat them to it! A lot will depend on the Euro and any European military. Unless they have a currency that can rival the dollar, and a military to back it up, they’ll be followers and not leaders.

3

The Economist had an article about this last week (being a British mag that covers politics and economics, a sizabe chunk of their articles involve the EU) http://www.economist.com/World/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2597266. Basically it suggests that some of the poorer countries impetus in signing on comes from having watched Irelands economy jump start after their having joined (their per-capita income went from a little more then half of the EU average to surpassing it.)

  1. It would be sort of strange to have communists elected to posts in the EU’s gov’t, which was founded to facilitate free trade. Though unless communism makes a really big come back in the next few years, I doubt it will happen.

  2. I would imagine that the former Yugoslavian states are probably the most likely European states to start a war with each other, though none of them are EU members. Out of curiosity, does any one know if joining the EU commits one to any sort of a mutual defense pact. Is such a pact preposed in the (yet to be ratified I believe) constitution.

  3. Turkey has applied for admission, and is being considered. Personally I think this is more questionable on geographic and semantic grounds then religious ones (shouldn’t 50% of your land mass have to be in continental Europe to qualify).

  4. The current plan is to create a “European Defense force” to co-exist with NATO in case of future hypothetical conflicts in which non-EU nato members can’t be convinced that force is necessary.

Two hours to go…

4

The EU was originally created with the goal of an economically unified Europe, but that doesn’t mean that it should be limited to that ideal for eternity. The global situation in the 60’s had the countries of western Europe as much more differentiated from the third world than they are now, so much so that few would even consider the possibility of African or south Asian countries every meeting the standards necessary to join. But things change. Some third-world countries have been making huge strides in both economic growth and political freedom, so why shouldn’t they at least be given consideration. If the collapse of trade barriers between European countries is good, then shouldn’t the collapse trade barrier between Europe and other countries also be good?

5

I think this is the beginning of the end of the wretched mess. Too many different countries, too much centralization, too little demand from the public, little or no feeling of “European-ness” among the public. The new countries will be second-class members for years to come, and resent it. The grandiose “constitution” looks dead, courtesy of the Brits. The Euro will either continue to damage national economies by depriving them of their own monetary policies, or the bigger economies will undermine the Euro by ignoring the rules and running deficits.

I just linked to this Anatole Keletsky article in another thread, so might as well put it here too. He says that the EU as its founders and current visionary-unelected leaders understand it will probably start to unravel in the years ahead.

My guess is it will revert to being a glorified free trade zone, with loose ad-hoc sub-alliances forming as willingess to act in unison permits in other areas like foreign policy.

6

No. According to Microsoft Encarta, both the Czech Republic and Slovakia are, traditionally (i.e., pre-Communism), predominantly Roman Catholic.

7

National Geographic magazine has a story on this subject in the May 2004 issue. An excerpt is HERE. If you don’t subscribe, head over to your local library or doctor/dentist’s office to read the full article. :smiley:

8

OK. As for Estonia, the Protestant/Orthodox split is actually a deeper issue as it is based primarily on an ethnic Estonian/Russian split because of significant (forced) Russian immigration after WWII. The other Baltic nations have a similar issue to deal with, but IIRC Estonian has the largest Russian minority of the 3 countries.

There were lots of issues revolving around these ethnic splits in the Baltic states after they became independent, although I haven’t heard much about it recently.

9

Actually, probably. If only because there is more confidence in their economic position, and likely more room for loans.

If it does, it will take a long time. You have military, economic, and political unification. Military is the easiest, and you had a version of that with NATO - though Europe now wants its own alliance, without America dragging it around through the mud. This is likely to happen. Economic is what is happening now - much like the original states in America started out. Political is much harder. Nationalism still rides high, in a sense. The difference between Europe and pre-Constitution America is that America was already used to being ruled under one power. It will take quite a while for Europe to politically unite, and then it will be under a very loose structure.

Well, I don’t see a intra-European war breaking out any time soon. However, you can’t rule out a dictator rising to power. The question then is pre-emptive strikes more than a full fledged WWII-type conflict.

Maybe invited, but I can’t see it joining any time soon - but not because it is Orthodox. A different culture, yes, but I wouldn’t call it “Orthodox.” Russia has been caught in the twilight zone of not quite being European for centuries, this is nothing new, but given Russia’s fear of NATO encroaching onto its borders and the political climate, the only thing that I can see driving Russia to join the EU is if it were ensured massive loans or a random political reversal. Russians tend to have a lot of pride in their status as mavericks, as Alyona demonstrated.

If you want some good reading on Russian culture, pick up Natasha’s Dance.

As you point out, with the Cyprus question in the air, it is questionable. Other than that, I think it is certainly possible for it to happen.

No. NATO will remain, but an independent European military alliance will largely replace it. America is still like an albatross around NATO’s neck as far as most Europeans are concerned, so they will just do their own thing and let NATO stagnate.

I also don’t see the EU itself having a “military arm” - it is more likely that the EU will have a “military brother” - an organization independent of the EU, but coexisting.

Will it? Dunno. Can it? Yes, given time.

More likely is the US collapsing, in a way, and Europe replacing it. With things how they are now, though, that won’t happen for some time. They need to pull off a few things, first - independent technological base, political unification, etc. The acceptance of Eastern Europe into it will make the process take longer, but it will be more complete.

10

  1. No way. Never, especially not that way round.

  2. I really hope so. There are steps in that direction, but so far those had little impact. Of course there is still the obscure and rather toothless Western European Union. The Eurocorps looks promising but at only 60 000 men maximum (most remain under national command in peacetime) it is still far from a “Union Army”.
    What might happen one day in the future is a stronger integration of European forces so that Europe could form a unified number 2 (militarily! :wink: ) in the Nato.

You may not forget that the Turkish population is Islamic but Turkey is a very secular country. We are not talking about Saudi Arabia here. The problems with Turkey are more closely related to the influence of the military and the de-facto civil war against the Kurdish PKK. It will take some time but personally I am absolutely certain that Turkey will join one day.

11

I most vehemently hope not :eek:

12

??? Doesn’t everybody?

13

I do, so I thought it was natural. Guess the moderators don’t agree. :frowning:

Sad to not know whether to cry or masturbate whenever Bush screws up.

14

What I meant was, doesn’t everybody achieve sexual gratification or soil themselves in glee/distress . . . oh, never mind.

15

Why are you, as (I infer) an Irishman or Irishperson, so terrified by the possibility that Europe-as-a-single-unit might one day have its own common military force?

16

Well I don’t agree with this “Europe-as-a-single-unit” thing to begin with. In my view the EU should be a loose conglomeration of sovereign democratic states, rather than the superstate it’s increasingly becoming. The creation of an EU army would greatly further this trend and would also have disturbing implications for Ireland’s neutrality.

BTW I am actually a yet-to-be-naturalised immigrant to Ireland, and female.

17

Hm. So, what are the chances of one more European war? I could see one happening, akin to the American Civil, if the EU attempts to become a solid superstate. Increased federalization of powers will happen, as bureaucrats love to extend their own domain.

18

I don’t think this is so likely. The current EU on its own can’t transform itself into that superstate. At some point you need consensus among member states. Realistically I think that a more or less monolithic Europe is decades anyway. However even if there won’t be an official unification, integration will continue on all levels. Some of the effects are spectacular like the Euro, some are not, like the European driver’s licence. This will continue to a degree were borders start to blur and secession from Europe becomes extremely impractical. National vanities notwithstanding, there are many pragmatic benefits from the EU which can’t be ignored easily.

19

The phrase “national vanities” is a bit unfair, kellner. There are valid reasons for wanting your state to retain its autonomy, particularly if it’s one of the smaller states which will inevitably have less say in the decision-making process than the Frances and Germanys of the EU.

20

[nitpick]

Actually, Latvia had the largest ethnic Russian population of the Baltic republics at the time of the last all-Soviet census in 1989, but I don’t know if they’ve done a comprehensive census since then, and there’s been a lot of population shifting in the meantime. Let me see what I can dig up…