This would not have happened in the times of monotheistic religions, but the gods of the anthropomorphic religions were human-like, just like the iconic figures of fame that we worship in our day. In later days, Europa -- or Europe -- took her revenge on men by way of massacres, pogroms, genocides, slavery, colonialism, fascism, communism and massive wars.
After so much agony and destruction, the people of the continent wised up and signed a deal on March 25, 1957, to work to eradicate war and develop ways of reconciling their differences by peaceful means. “In varietate concordia” (unity in variety) became their motto while they built an alliance based on economic cooperation and mutual legal and political values. This was a break with an antagonistic and totalitarian past. It is not a coincidence that the dictum formulated at this time was that anyone who has doubts about the EU must visit a military cemetery.
What we see today is a union of 27 states with a population of nearly 500 million and an annual domestic product of trillions. Yet this success story does not convince everyone in the union. Open Europe, a civil organization that conducts research on European issues, has found out that 75 percent of the citizens of the EU do not want decisions made concerning their lives by bureaucrats or politicians in Brussels. They want to be referred to on major issues through referenda. Fifty-six percent of EU citizens believe that the institutions of the supra-organization do not represent the ordinary citizen on the street. Those who want further empowerment of the existing institutions are only 28 percent.
Similar research conducted by the Financial Times in Germany, Italy, France, Britain and Spain indicate that 44 percent of the citizens of these EU countries believe that the quality of their lives have deteriorated since they entered the EU. News out of Poland suggests that after the euphoria of becoming a part of the West following long decades of suffering under communism, today more Poles feel disappointed with the results achieved after becoming a member state.
This is both odd and sad. Odd because the EU is a voluntary organization and has been the opus of the widest consensus achieved in the history of mankind. It is sad because such a glorified achievement is not as satisfying as is expected to be. Why is this so?
Beginning with the 1990s there is a trend of truncating social security investments and welfare supports for vulnerable groups. Higher technological standards are precipitously increasing human capital costs to train a more qualified work force. Limited investment in this field is leading to unemployment. Low-income jobs are filled with immigrants and this in turn is leading to xenophobia and racism. The rift between the rich and the poor is not breached because the role of national states that manage the public sector with its humanitarian investments and social welfare services has increasingly vacated these areas, leaving them to the mercy of private initiative and capital.
More people believe that decisions about their lives are made, not by their local governments or national parliaments, but by a distant and detached international bureaucracy in Brussels. Furthermore neo-liberal policies have made international financial organizations masters of economic life that affects their daily lives directly. But the average citizen has no influence on these supra-national bodies. The perception that people are caught up in an unequal relationship that works against them is not limited to the very poor and disenfranchised. It is said that the reason the EU Constitutional Convention was refused flatly in France and Holland is due to the combination of these facts.
In addition to these issues, many Europeans feel that the political resolve of the EU is too weak and the continent is made to follow the flawed leadership of the US that has acted like a rogue power and insulted Europe when some of its leaders resisted US adventurism in the Middle East. If Europe is to play a peaceful role in international relations it must have commensurate power to match that of the US and other contending powers such as Russia, China and India. Yet there is no resolve to this end among the European leaders of the day.
It is obvious that the EU is a spectacular project, but an evolving one. If it closes in on itself it may become politically and strategically dwarfed. Economically the EU may be controlled and manipulated by its more powerful actors. Take Germany as an example. This country is a net exporter of quality goods. According to the March 2007 statistics issued by the Federal Ministry of Economy, the volume of German exports to the euro-zone is 43.2 percent. Its exports to other EU countries outside the Euro zone are 20.2 percent. It exports 17.3 percent to neighboring countries in Europe. Germany’s exports to Asia and to the US are respectively 10.5 percent and 8.8 percent.
What these figures suggest is that German exports to Europe constitutes over 80 percent of its total foreign trade. Does this mean that there is a growing monopolization of economic power that is enjoyed by a few? Is Europa being kidnapped once again by another bull? Is it a coincidence that Germany is the most ardent opponent of Turkey’s accession? Is it because sooner or later this privileged position can be challenged?
