EU as Frankenstein's Monster
An interesting article over at the Atlantic Community about the challenges that the EU has, especially after their recent election of two virtual non-entities as EU President and High Commissioner for Foreign Policy. The article seems to posit a unique and positive outcome for Europe, my comments below:
"I like the terminology employed in this article. The EU is a very complex, "Frankenstein's Monster" sort of entity. I suspect, at the end of the day, the EU will remain what amounts to a glorified free trade zone. That is what it is now and what it will probably always predominatey be.
I understand why no medium sized power (like a Germany or France) would want the EU organs to become too powerful and possibly conduct policy inimical to their interests. However, by not attempting to give more influece to two supposedly key roles within its bureaucracy, the EU contines to look unable to punch at the political weight one would expect from its relative economic base.
Meanwhile, it remains the EU's individual constituent nation-states that hold the real diplomatic power. With that in mind, I do not think the "EU Monster" will have the "last laugh." Indeed, I think it illustrates a truth that runs beneath much discourse regarding the entire EU project and the notion of any trans-national structure patterned upon it.
There is altogether too much faith that "transnational entities", of which the EU is the ultimate example, are the definitive wave of the future. Certainly, there will be a role for economic cooperation and interdependence on some policy issues (certain health issues, global warming, international terrorism, some financial regulation). However, when existential questions are raised, nations as well as subnational rather than transnational actors hold sway. This is because most people are loyal to what they know and see around them.
Loyalty to abstactions is difficult. Even the Westphalian "nation" occassionally has problems maintaining loyalty. To think that real loyalty can emerge to a quasi-federation of supposedly sovereign, yet not entirely indpendent nation-states, can be achieved seems a bit overindulgent .
I would even submit that it borders on the height of rationalistic hubris to think that larger conglomerations will be able to hold onto the imagination of the masses, as opposed to the intellectual elites.
Ultimately, that is why we will all have to continue living in a complex world of ever shifting state based alliances concerned with permanent interests dictated by historical context, culture, and geography."
"I like the terminology employed in this article. The EU is a very complex, "Frankenstein's Monster" sort of entity. I suspect, at the end of the day, the EU will remain what amounts to a glorified free trade zone. That is what it is now and what it will probably always predominatey be.
I understand why no medium sized power (like a Germany or France) would want the EU organs to become too powerful and possibly conduct policy inimical to their interests. However, by not attempting to give more influece to two supposedly key roles within its bureaucracy, the EU contines to look unable to punch at the political weight one would expect from its relative economic base.
Meanwhile, it remains the EU's individual constituent nation-states that hold the real diplomatic power. With that in mind, I do not think the "EU Monster" will have the "last laugh." Indeed, I think it illustrates a truth that runs beneath much discourse regarding the entire EU project and the notion of any trans-national structure patterned upon it.
There is altogether too much faith that "transnational entities", of which the EU is the ultimate example, are the definitive wave of the future. Certainly, there will be a role for economic cooperation and interdependence on some policy issues (certain health issues, global warming, international terrorism, some financial regulation). However, when existential questions are raised, nations as well as subnational rather than transnational actors hold sway. This is because most people are loyal to what they know and see around them.
Loyalty to abstactions is difficult. Even the Westphalian "nation" occassionally has problems maintaining loyalty. To think that real loyalty can emerge to a quasi-federation of supposedly sovereign, yet not entirely indpendent nation-states, can be achieved seems a bit overindulgent .
I would even submit that it borders on the height of rationalistic hubris to think that larger conglomerations will be able to hold onto the imagination of the masses, as opposed to the intellectual elites.
Ultimately, that is why we will all have to continue living in a complex world of ever shifting state based alliances concerned with permanent interests dictated by historical context, culture, and geography."
Comments