How the U.S. Attitude to European Integration Has Evolved between 1945 and Enlargement of the EU - Term Paper Example

Introduction European integration has presented a geopolitical dilemma for the United s since it began in earnest as part of an effort to rebound from the devastation of World War II in 1945. On the one hand, Europe has evolved into a colossal political and economic entity that has actively sought to resist American hegemony and to exert its own influence instead. On the other hand, the process of integration has fostered a democratic atmosphere that has resulted in a highly stable and influential diplomatic partner and ally for the US that has greatly enhanced America’s national security. The growth of European unity from a six nation trading block in the 1940s to the 25 nation political, military and economic confederation that exists today has been accompanied by a similar evolution in America’s attitude toward the integration of Europe. There are as many reasons for the US to view the European Union as a threat as there are to view it as a beneficial force. Economically, the EU exceeds the US in population and therefore has the potential to become an economic rival, if it has not done so already. The extent to which the EU has come to coordinate common defense policies and structures also poses a potential challenge to NATO, the primary vehicle by which the US has been able to project military influence throughout the world. Further, a key factor precipitating European integration has been an anti-Americanism born of Europe’s desire to become independent from US influence and to stand on the same stage in exerting its own geo-political influence. Ultimately, the official position of the United States has generally been positive toward the European integration project that has taken place over the past several decades. Official American foreign policy has commonly encouraged and praised European efforts to form cooperative economic, political and military institutions to which its constituent nations subscribe. Nevertheless, the challenge that a unified Europe poses for the United States has made unofficial attitudes somewhat less enthusiastic. In the end, whether American attitudes toward European integration are positive or negative will depend largely on whether Europe rises to become a true global challenge to the U.S. History of European Integration World War II devastated Europe and provided an impetus for the concept of integration as a pragmatic approach to avoiding similar destructive conflicts in the future. Making the countries of Europe economically interdependent, starting with the traditionally fiercest antagonists, France and Germany, was a potentially effective way to ensure they would avoid conflict in the future. With the Iron Curtain descending across the middle of the continent following the end of the war, the need for Western Europe to consolidate itself was palpable. Of particular importance was the need to bring the new West Germany solidly into the fold of a free Western Europe, as that country was literally on the front lines of the budding Cold War. Thus, the European Coal and Steel Community was born, ratified by six countries including France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and The Netherlands. While on its face, the purpose of the ECSC was to promote economic cooperation in a new Western Europe, the true purpose of this organization was arguably to begin the process of tying together the heart of Europe in an interdependence that would preclude hostilities going forward. The Franco-German heart of an integrated Europe has been the primary factor prompting increasing integration. A long history of German aggression toward France made clear to the French that an antagonistic relationship with the Germans would no longer be conducive to their security. The Germans, decimated by the war and hobbled by their Nazi legacy, had little choice but to marry the French in a partnership that would ensure their economic strength and military security. “It is difficult not to acknowledge a general perception that the new Europe would be dominated by a Franco-German directoire. For it is they who invented the union; they have been the biggest beneficiaries; they view themselves as its prime movers” (Dayal 2005). The speed with which the ECSC evolved into more complex entities with more expansive objectives is evidence of the vision its founders had for an integrated Europe of the future. “The fast unfolding events provided a thrust to the European Economic Community and Euraton, which culminated in the Treaty of Rome in 1957, considered the bedrock of European integration. In 1972, the UK, Ireland and Denmark joined the Communities followed later by Greece, Spain and Portugal. In 1995, a 15-member European Community emerged with the induction of Austria, Finland and Sweden” (Dayal 2005). This swift expansion resulted in Europe’s emergence as an integrated global economic giant capable of challenging the US and Pacific Rim as the world’s preeminent economies. Without such integration, no individual European country would likely have achieved that status. Despite the apparently smooth development of a unified Europe over the past several decades, a bump in the road was encountered in 2005, when it became clear that the new draft European constitution purporting to establish the future framework for the EU was not likely to be approved unanimously by its member countries. On May 29 of that year, France and The Netherlands, two of the founding nations of the EEC, resoundingly rejected the new constitution in referenda called for the purpose of ratification. Consequently, other referenda that had been scheduled were called off, and the October 2006 deadline for ratification was retracted. This failure to approve the draft European constitution has resulted in much conjecture regarding the present state of Europe as well as its future prospects. A sense of “Euro-skepticism” has begun to permeate current thinking, indicating growing doubt about the propriety of the European project that seemed destined to produce a federal government of Europe. The failure of ratification also calls into question the ability of Europe to embrace democracy as an instrument of institutional change. “The decision to suspend the ratification of the constitutional treaty after the French and Dutch negative referenda demonstrates the extent to which direct democracy is a blunt instrument in the process of European integration. Intergovernmental and inter-institutional bargaining are likely to take over in leading the European project. This is a paradoxical result for a Union that is seeking to bridge its perceived democratic deficit, and will do little to connect Europe to the people” (“European Union: Integration will remain Elite project” 2005). In summarizing the evolution of Europe, Dean (2005) asserts that “the process of European integration has come far since the 1957 Treaty of Rome created the European Economic Community (EEC or "Common Market") between Germany, France, Italy, and the three Benelux nations. What began as a customs union between six nations has progressed steadily to become the European Union of now 25 nations (and growing) an organization with functions across the entire political spectrum, from social policy to foreign and defense issues.” Dean goes on to maintain that “For many visionaries of European integration, the real goal has always been a ‘United States of Europe’ which would be at least as cohesive as the early United States of America under the Articles of Confederation. Some have dreamt and still dream of a United Europe as a political and economic superpower with peer status to the United States and Russia on the world stage. For others, European integration has been about making the nations of the continent so interdependent that war between them would be an impossibility.” To be sure, different Europeans have had, and continue to have, different visions for what they consider to be an ideal European future. American Attitudes toward European Integration These alternative visions of Europe’s future are varied and illustrate the extent to which conflicting American attitudes toward integration are understandable. On the one hand, a cooperative and peaceful Europe is in the interests of the national security of the US, which twice in the 20th Century had to step into a bloody conflict brought about by European disunity. Further, an economically strong Europe offers the US a lucrative trading partner and access to a tremendous market. “The stronger European economy provided by the single market is in Americas interests as well as Europes. It simplifies the transaction of business by American companies, and has made Europe a more attractive location for American investment” (Eizenstat 1994). On the other hand, the challenge of a growing European entity that has made no secret of its disdain for American dominance and its desire to counterbalance that supremacy is something that few Americans would likely relish. Anti-Americanism continues to be a driving force behind European integration. O’Sullivan (2004) argues that “The balance of European opinion is shifting toward anti-Americanism.” He goes on to assert that there is an underlying problem “that European elites are defining their new identity in opposition to the United States,” and equates the continued support for “ever-closer European integration” with “an argument for entrenching that anti- Americanism and making it even more powerful.” According to O’Sullivan, “What closer European integration achieves is to ensure that the anti- American ‘common European policy’ will override the pro-American attitudes of EU member-states. And Europe is building an anti- American structure.” This anti-Americanism, be it real or perceived, is a powerful factor affecting American attitudes toward European integration. Moreover, it is a relatively new phenomenon that has only gained real traction in the post-Cold War world. Certainly the decades immediately following World War II were not marked by the kind of resentment of America that is evident today. The US enjoyed a long honeymoon period with Europe as the spoils of its pivotal role in liberating Europe from Nazi tyranny. Subsequently, the Communist threat and nuclear arms race of the Cold War caused Europe to gladly take refuge under the shelter of US might. Thus, American perceptions of anti-Americanism fueling European integration are a very contemporary influence on the US attitude. Perhaps because of such perceptions, the current US administration, unlike its predecessors, has backed away in substance from outright support of European integration, despite its lip service. According to Wendt (2005), “only the Bush administration in its first four years has openly backed away from [supporting integration] by emphasising (sic) coalitions of the willing. On Iraq, faced with outright opposition to its policies from Germany, France and Belgium, the US president really had little choice and was only being realistic.” Rather than bowing to the influence of strong European policy disagreement, the US singled out specific countries - such as Britain, Poland and Spain - that were willing to support its policies. In doing so, the US effectively discounted the European Union as a credible diplomatic partner in favor of its individual countries. This amounted to a resounding vote of no confidence by America in a unified Europe. The Bush Administration has certainly broken the mold of what had been deemed acceptable foreign policy as it pertains to support for the European project. This new American approach of singling out particular allies from Europe who are supportive of American policies while sidelining “official” Europe when it does not agree may be a precedent that sets the tone for future administrations. This remains to be seen. Ironically, the official US position as evidenced by the statements of high-level officials is very supportive of European integration, and maintains that such integration is a positive force for transatlantic relations. The Xinhua News Agency (2005) has quoted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asserting that “The United States has been, from the very beginning, supportive of European integration, going all the way back to the Coal and Steel Community. And the United States remains supportive of the European project.” Rice went on to state, “We believe that a united Europe, a Europe that is strong and capable, a Europe that is clearly, at its core, democratic and that has a long tradition and heritage with the United States, can only be good for the forward march of progress and democracy in the world.” Thus, while America seems to accept the positive effects that integration can have in terms of fostering stable, peaceful democracies, the practice of the US had indicated a dismissive attitude toward Europe as a wielder of influence on important global political matters. To be sure, there are many reasons to support the European integration project both in rhetoric and in practice, as previous administrations have done. Eizenstat (1994) asserts, “The European Union reinforces Europes democratic impulse. Greece, Spain and Portugal were encouraged to shed dictatorships by the prospect of membership. Germanys healthy democracy has found a home imbedded in and surrounded by other demo cracies. This, in turn, produces a more stable European continent.” Moreover, the close relationship of France and Germany that is inherent in European integration is a welcome development for America. As Eizenstat (1994) maintains, “The European Union is the major vehicle for French-German reconciliation. Twice in this century, American lives and treasure have been spent in wars between Germany and France.” These security benefits combined with the economic benefit of access to a colossal integrated economic market illustrate tremendous potential rewards for US support of European integration. Conclusion European integration has a long history dating back at least to the early post-World War II years. The modern EU evolved from a rudimentary customs agreement among six European countries known in the 1950s as the European Coal and Steel Community into the present day sovereign political entity that coordinates common economic, monetary, human rights, agricultural and other critical policies of its member states throughout Europe. This evolution has been accompanied by a similar evolution of the American attitude toward this integration. The American mindset has changed from welcoming European economic cooperation as a useful post war reconstruction vehicle, to being wary of growing European economic power and anti-Americanism, to finally being dismissive of European influence on the geopolitical stage. There are many reasons for the US to welcome European integration, despite the challenges it might pose to American influence. An integrated, stable Europe promotes US national security; and access to a single, powerful economic market is helpful to the US economy. Ultimately, the potential benefits of integration outweigh the risks to US interests. While modern anti-Americanism may be rampant within the corridors of EU power, in the end that sentiment is unlikely to deliver any meaningful repercussions for the US. On the other hand, failure of the US to foster and capitalize on the promise of European unity would be a missed opportunity that may never come back. Works Cited Dayal, R. “EU Turmoil: Lessons for European Integration.” Businessline (2005):1 Dean, S. “European Voters Ask: Has EU Integration ‘Come a Long Way’ or ‘Gone too Far’?” Hampton Roads International Security Quarterly (2005):4-5 Eizenstat, S. “The United States Backs the Process of European Integration.” International Herald Tribune (1994):4 “European Union: Integration will Remain Elite Project.” OxResearch (2005):1 O’Sullivan, J. “US Establishment Underestimates European Integration; the Balance of European Opinion is Shifting Toward Anti-Americanism.” Chicago Sun – Times (2004):35 Wendt, A. “It is not up to the US to Seek to Foster Closer European Integration.” Financial Times (2005):12 Xinhua News Agency – CEIS. “Rice Pledges US Support for European Unity, Integration.” (2005): 1 Read More