By Zach Wojtowicz

Credit: cch.mntzion.com

The European common market is at the core of the EU philosophy. Over the last decades, the continent has seen a rapid lessening of trade and labor restrictions. Yet, antithetical to this internal mantra of freedom and economic competition, the European Commission is looking to strengthen its ability to wage economic battle with foreign countries. 

A new proposal, drafted by the trade commissioners from France and Belgium, would grant the European Commission the ability to restrict public procurement markets within member nations. These markets are where governments contract services such as water, energy, transport, and postal services with private enterprises. Currently, some of these contracts are made with firms in the contracting country, some between EU members, and some with non-EU foreigners. Under this new proposal, the European Commission could bar foreign countries from bidding on these contracts if they were not deemed to be sufficiently trade-friendly by the EU.

 According to the two author delegates, the proposal was formed in response to requests by a pervious summit to “promote [European] interests and values more assertively and in the spirit of reciprocity and mutual benefit”. As the Union consolidates power, it is discovering that it might be able to throw its weight around in the international trade arena to its benefit. In fact, this was one of the less publicized and less glorified reasons for creating the European economic union in the first place. Post-war Europe was smart enough to realize that, without unification, it would be along for a long ride of American global domination. This fact, and recent moves by developing countries (such as China) to corner entire markets by monopolizing natural resources only adds to Europe’s drive for strengthened trade negotiations.

While it may be sensible that the EU take aggressive measures to promote free trade around the world, the short-term benefits of such policy to the EU are questionable. Germany, as presented in its formal response to the measure, thinks negatively about the maneuver, claiming that “ =the EU’s leverage in negotiations with third countries can be strengthened by other means” and that “The proposal will seriously damage the creditability of the EU in its fight against protectionist measures established elsewhere”. I personally agree with Germany. Two hundred years of political economy show that protectionism, whether it be on a national or in this case continental scale, generally leads to outcomes where everyone loses. 

By: Zach Wojtowicz

Photo Credit: avrupanaliz.files.wordpress.com

Americans identify themselves as just that: American. It is rare to hear someone speak of themselves as an Organite, a Missippian, or a Rhode Islander. We embody a seemingly paradoxical heritage: E pluribus unum, or ‘from many, one”. This motto summarizes our belief that a brilliant national culture, greater than the sum of its parts, emerges from the composition of many subcultures, each contributing their strongest aspect. In a time when the phrase “United States of Europe” is in vogue, it seems strange that French still identify themselves as French, the Spanish as Spanish, and so on. What makes Europeans subsumed under their Union fundamentally different from American states subsumed under ours? 

History shows us that the basic philosophy of the articles of confederation – that of retained state sovereignty but coordinated trade, travel, and defense – resembles the modern European Union. We also can see that a bloody civil war in America motivated nationalism in the same way that two bloody continental wars spawned European super-nationalism. However, the American Civil War took place a full century before the idea of a European identity was used to promote peace. In that extra 100 years of development, the United States saw state’s rights used as an excuse to propagate racism, resulting in the ultimate legal destruction of state’s rights and, therefore, a shameful stigma associated with state pride. While it is hard to imagine that a similar legal degradation of national sovereignty will take place in Europe over racial matters, it is not difficult to imagine that such contentious lines might be drawn over economic difficulties. With time, the tension over fiscal irresponsibility might temper the loudest nationalists, at least momentarily as their country is being bailed out by the wider Union. 

A second component is cultural homogeneity. At its founding, the United States spoke English and adopted protestant cultural values, a sense of agrarian work ethic, and English common law. While large portions of immigrants joined the United States over time, the entrepreneurial spirit of the US created an economic incentive to conform the the existing basis of English Protestantism. Yes, there are many ills to the American history of political and economic control by a small class, but the aspiration of those seeking to attain that class, the “American Dream”, did contribute greatly to cultural integration. However, the European Union was formed as a conglomeration of cultures, and not the addition of cultures to a predominant base, so there has been no single standard to conform to. This makes the process of cultural assimilation more complicated, but not impossible. Smaller nations that are less influential in trade and politics will eventually adopt the language and practice of larger nations – France, Germany, England, Spain, and Italy – in order to participate. This is already taking place, and with time, the convergence of culture will greatly facilitate the equitable access to opportunity across Europe.

The final factor is a difference in political structure. In the US, each state is completely dependent on the federal government. In Europe, however, each nation maintains a fully functioning government which, if the EU were to disappear, would largely be able to maintain its status quo. This is the common perception of many Europeans, who can remember the days when their government was independent. This notion is strengthened by the fact that European heads of state are still far and away the most visible legislatures in the EU, which gives a feeling that people are not common citizens of Europe, but rather their country is a citizen of Europe, and they are simply a citizen of their country.

I believe that, in time, Europe will begin to develop a super-nationalistic unity similar to that developed in the Americas. That this is an common consequence of modernization, and made even more likely by the legal unification of Europe. The question remains: Will this be a good thing?