The end of Europe-or a tale of the swan, the pike and the crab.

Whene’er companions don’t agree,

They work without accord;

And noth but trouble doth result,

Although they all work hard.

One day a swan, a pike, a crab,

Resolved a load to haul;

All three were harnessed to the cart,

And pulled together all.

But though they pulled with all their might,

The cart-load on the bank stuck tight.

The swan pulled upward to the skies;

The crab did backward crawl;

The pike made for the water straight-

It proved no use at all!

Now which of them was most to blame

‘Tis not for me to say;

But this I know: the load is there

Unto this very day.

From “The world wit and humor”, New York, 1906, pp 19-21

Also from “The Fables”, by Ivan Krylov

The idea of united Europe goes back to antiquity and certainly deserves admiration and applause. The current events occurring on the European continent however, are a cause for concern as after years of talking and half steps the Europeans seem to have failed to create a vital and unified state but rather have become an epitome of the old Slavic fable about the swan, the pike and the crab. Just like in the aforementioned tale the bird, the fish and the crab, were unable to work in unison, the Europeans have found themselves in a quagmire that is on its due course to shatter the entire global economy for years to come. The dangerous lack of consensus how to handle a crisis as the one in Greece for instance is just a tip of the iceberg of the dysfunctional and cumbersome modus operandi of the European Union as such. The purpose of this article therefore is to shed some light on the challenges associated with the European unification process and perhaps encourage the people in Europe to think outside of the box and re-vitalize the idea of a union.

The process of European integration started in the years immediately after the Second World War when both the victorious and defeated countries on the old continent found themselves devastated economically and unstable politically. After causing two destructive wars in a short succession the Europeans generally accepted the fact that they couldn’t handle their economies as well as national and foreign policies in the same way they had been during the first half of the 20^th century. They essentially agreed to rely largely on NATO as a basis for their defense and had to turn their focus on economic development as the only outlet left for their respective societies to apply their energy and skills. The war had scarred Europe to such an extent that even the raw materials that were considered essential for starting a conflict-namely coal and iron ores had to be put under a supranational entity to insure the distribution of those commodities among the European countries. The initiation of the European Coal and Steel Community put the management of coal and iron ores under collective control. In the mean time figures like Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman stood behind the idea of expanding that community in order to achieve a “common market” that would become the mile stone of European integration and ultimately lead to prosperity and most of all reconciliation among the European states. The treaty of Rome in 1957 set the stage for the creation of the European Economic Community (or Common Market) and a customs union between the six original member states: Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, France, Italy and Germany. The creation of a trade zone free of tariffs spurred an unprecedented economic growth among the member states that would attract other countries on the continent to join the community. The fact however that such a development was initiated in the years of the Cold War with the US and the USSR essentially controlling the fate of Europe as far as foreign policy is concerned would have tremendous consequences in the years to come.

When the Cold War came to an abrupt end the European countries found themselves in an unchartered territory. For the first time in 50 years they had a chance to come out of the shadow of the two super powers and conduct foreign policy on their own. It turned out that they didn’t quite know what to do with the newly found freedom in international relations. They decided to accelerate the process of integration and in the same time continue participation in NATO (with the exception of few countries like Austria, Finland and Sweden that were considered neutral). By signing the Maastricht treaty in 1993 the European member countries agreed to create a “European Union”, the European Commission (executive branch of the government), European Parliament (legislature) and the European Court of Justice. They also agreed to establish a monetary union based on a common currency-the “euro” with the provision that all countries except some, like Great Britain that were allowed an exemption, would accept it. The prerequisites for joining the “eurozone” were rather harsh: inflation up to no more than 1.5 percent a year, a maximum of budget deficit of three percent to GDP and a debt to GDP ratio of no more than 60 percent. Additionally the Maastricht treaty stipulated that once accepting the euro member countries could not opt out of it without leaving the European Union as well.

In order to meet the criteria the countries that wanted to enter the “euro” zone had to undergo restructuring, privatization, tax changes and curbing government expenditures. The social price for such drastic measures turned out to be too high for some as Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Italy and they entered the eurozone anyway riding the wave of excitement of the new European integration.  In the years to come with the establishment of the new currency a European Central Bank was erected with the main purpose of maintaining inflation at the 1.5 mark set at Maastricht. It’s curious however that the Central Bank created in Frankfurt was not given the monetary means that the Federal Reserve in the US has. For instance it could not “print” extra euros to fund lack of capital by European banks as the Federal Reserve did recently to ease monetary pressures in the US. It was largely restricted by its purpose of maintaining low inflation which of course naturally leads to uncompetitive interest rates maintained artificially high to curb possible inflation, which naturally suppresses growth. Additionally countries like Greece that did not undergo restructuring were taking advantage of being in the eurozone to borrow while convincing banks that they were part of the solid “euro” block, essentially cheating the global financial system by posing as something they were not.

What occurred in the years that followed the treaty of Maastricht was slow but steady acceptance of yet more countries into the Union. That period however also highlighted the challenges that accompanied a structure developed in the reality of the Cold War that was trying to exist in a new and changed world. The shortcomings of the system established in Europe became evident when the first president of the European Commission Walter Hallstein proposed the so called: “bicycle theory of the European Union” which states that integration was like riding a bicycle- it had to always move forward to avoid coming to a standstill and falling over. What happened after Maastricht was that the European integration process slowed and eventually came to a halt causing the bicyclists (all 27 of them) to fall over and what is even worse not being able to reach an agreement how to get back on the bike.

The reality is that the awkward structure created in the European Union-European Commission that is supposed to act as an executive power but actually can’t make executive decisions without the agreement of the governments of all member states, The European Parliament that has no real sway except voting on the budget of the union, the existence of the Council of Ministers which somehow acts as an auxiliary legislative body and the fact that all these entities along with the Court of Justice and the European Central Bank are somehow spread out between Brussels, Strasbourg, Luxemburg and Frankfurt, does not convey a feeling of unity but rather the opposite. Additionally the lack thereof a common defense policy has created a monster that is yet to show its head in the future development of foreign affairs. For instance some of the EU states are members of NATO, some are not. One can only wonder what would happen if for example Turkey (a NATO member) attacked the Republic of Cyprus, which is part of the European Union. Would the rest of the EU countries support its fellow EU member or would they split along NATO lines? If they do support NATO, then how would they treat the possible fall of a EU member to another state attack?

The fact is that the European integration process has stalled ever since 2005 when the member states couldn’t agree on further political convergence and giving up of certain areas of sovereignty in order to keep the process moving along. Additionally the fact that the union currently exists of a hodgepodge of 27 sates, all in different state of socioeconomic development isn’t alleviating matters. For instance the “union” lists countries that are protestant, catholic, eastern orthodox, which have never before been in a close relationship. The general mistrust that exists between them showed just recently when the Netherlands and Finland blocked the acceptance of Bulgaria and Romania into the “Shengen” agreement which would have removed any border control between the aforementioned applicant states and the rest of the union.

   

The current state of affairs in Europe certainly looks grim and just like in the tale of the swan, the pike and the crab, no blame can be assigned as the participants are just doing what they think is best for them not realizing that by doing so they are leaving the “cart” stuck in the sand. All we can do is appeal to the citizens of Europe as Victor Hugo did in 1849: “A day will come when all nations on our continent will form a European brotherhood…..” Victor Hugo actually planted a tree at his residence in Guernsey and stated that by the time the tree matured a United States of Europe would have come into being. We can only hope that the Europeans will cherish that tree and for once forget about their cavil but come out of the box and resuscitate the idea of “Europe” as a unified nation once and for all.