U.S. security requires strong, united Europe

Pigs and Pearls

Those in the American neoconservative foreign policy establishment — and the armchair diplomats who support them — ought to pause before cheering the failure of the European Union to coalesce into a viable state. Pundits and ideologues may strut with nationalistic hubris at the sight of Mother Europe in distress, but it is in the national interest of the United States to see a strong, united Europe that can act as an armed consort to counter fundamentalism and tyranny, not a damsel in distress requiring yet another U.S. intervention.

The barely hidden remarks of glee about Europe's unification struggles began this spring, as certain European leaders stood in opposition to President George W. Bush's request for help before the second war in the Persian Gulf.

Philip Stephens, senior editor and commentator at the Financial Times, pointed to the inability of European powers to agree on big issues in a column printed in the Feb. 23 issue of The Washington Post entitled "Why Europe Can't Get It Together." In it, he writes, "The countries of Europe may agree to make common cause when the issues are small … But, once the geopolitical stakes rise, national interests and pride win out over solidarity."

Columnist George Will attacked the European Union's constitution in the July 27 issue of The Washington Post. "Europe's nations speak of 'pooling' their sovereignty, but the great question remains: How can those nations' self-government — the setting of social policy by representative parliaments — be compatible with a European Union armed with this constitution? The answer is: It can't be.

"The European Union already has 80,000 pages of laws and regulations abridging the nations' sovereignty in matters momentous and minute. And the proposed constitution gives the European Union full supremacy over member nations in some areas, including trade. In America, the power to regulate interstate commerce has been the greatest engine for expanding the scope of the federal government at the expense of the states."

In mid-September, voters in Sweden rejected the adoption of the euro in favor of retaining the national currency, the krona. The Washington Post's news article from Sept. 15 made some assertions that many Europe-bashers would relish.

"Many [said] the outcome could slow Europe's march to closer integration and compel governments to consult more with their populations," Post Foreign Correspondent Keith Richburg writes. Later, he continues, "Critics of European integration have long argued that the EU suffered from a 'democracy deficit,' meaning crucial decisions are often made by governments without consulting their populations. In many cases where there have been referendums, particularly in Scandinavia, voters have expressed skepticism about closer ties.

"The next major test will be for a new European constitution, which is now being finalized, and some opponents of joining the euro said they will demand a referendum on that."

The founding fathers must be shaking their heads. "Surely," one can hear them say, "surely you don't expect the people to make a wise and judicious choice on this matter? Haven't you learned anything from our experiences?"

It is easy for Americans to forget their own undemocratic origins. Fifty-five men crafted the U.S. Constitution without popular input and in complete secrecy. It was submitted to the states on a yes/no basis, without opportunity for amendment and without the Bill of Rights. The Constitution assigned unprecedented powers to the federal government, especially regarding trade, taxation and foreign policy.

Most importantly, the Constitution was to be ratified or rejected by a constitutional convention — not a referendum — in each state. Virginia, the 10th state to join the new United States, did so in an 89-79 vote.

Fascinating. Fewer than 170 people decided whether Virginia would give up its independence over trade and foreign policy. New York, the 11th state to ratify, did so on a 30-27 vote.

That's not democratic. That's representative. That's how the founders intended it. That's how Europe ought to do it.

The founding fathers knew that the people, absent a national disaster, would choose the status quo of the weak confederation of states over such a radical change. For the voting public to demand a change from the norm indicates a profound dissatisfaction with how things are being run, as demonstrated by California's abnormal and tragic recall election. The fierce opposition to the Constitution launched by the antifederalists shows that there was no such profound popular dissatisfaction in 1788.

Perhaps those who cheer at Europe's problems think that a weak, divided Europe is in the United States' best interest. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Europe sits as a geographical offshoot of Asia and hangs precariously over Africa. Thus, this continent lives next to two politically troubling neighbors — the volatile and unpredictable Middle East and the bloated corruption of Russia.

A strong, united Europe would be able to project force quickly into the Middle East to quell disturbances and also could work to stabilize the Russian bear's accelerating downward spiral. Such responsibilities could free the United States' hands so that it can turn to its historical spheres of influence — the Pacific Rim and the Americas.

Despite how often the two may disagree, the United States and Europe are linked by a common culture. The United States is the product of European humanist thought from the Enlightenment. Americans have more in common with Europeans than with any other culture on the globe.

The crowned heads of Europe most likely frowned when a strong, centralized United States emerged from a patchwork of British colonies. Yet, their annoyance turned to relief over a century later when that unified nation twice came across the pond to pull Europe out of catastrophe.

The United States cannot afford to make a third trip to rescue a divided Europe from itself or from its neighbors. Americans should cheer Europe on to form a strong, centralized government that can stand with the United States. After all, it would be better to have a strong ally than a weak liability.

Adam Sharp is a junior foreign languages major. E-mail him at omnilingual@hotmail.com.