|
| |
GROWTH OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (EU).
Term Paper ID:30431
|
|
|
Essay Subject:
Traces the history and development.... More...
|
13 Pages / 2925 Words
4 sources, 13 Citations,
APA Format
$52.00
Return to List of Papers
|
Paper Abstract:
Traces the history and development. Formation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). Expansion of ECSC into common market and then the European Economic Community. Evolvement into EU with its own flag, currency (Euro), common body of commercial law and regulation. EU geographic expansion. Political differences. Growth in scope of the EU. Concept of Leuropean integration.
Paper Introduction:
EXPANDING EUROPE
From the European Coal and Steel Community to the European Union
The growth of the European Union over half a century has been a curiously bifurcated process. On the one hand, it has been gradual and incremental. Its course of development began modestly with the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1952 (Dinan, 1999, pp. 1-2). As the name suggests, the scope of the ECSC's activities was limited to the coal and steel industries. Its geographical scope was considerably more limited than "European" might suggest, since it then embraced only Germany, France, Italy, and the three "Benelux" countries of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg.
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
In the wake of thenarrow Maastricht votes, the EU entered another period of reduced esteem."1992," which had attracted so much attention before the fact as atransformative date in European history, was quickly forgotten. European integrationism (as distinct from forcible unification byconquest) had existed as an ideal held by a few since the 19th century, andenjoyed a brief vogue in the 192 s. Its geographical scope was considerablymore limited than "European" might suggest, since it then embraced onlyGermany, France, Italy, and the three "Benelux" countries of Belgium, theNetherlands, and Luxembourg. By temperament, de Gaulle was a French nationalist first,last, and always; hence he viewed the ideal of European integrationskeptically. For convenience, we will in this discussion speak of the wholeprocess as being the development of the European Union, even though this asa formal institution did not exist for over four decades after theappearance of its initial germ in the ECSC. 1).Admission of many of these would give the European Union a geographicalscope that could scarcely have been imagined when the Treaty of Parisestablished the ECSC in 1951. Even if this view proves to be skeptical, it is unlikelythat Blair will have as close a relationship with the conservative Bushthan with his fellow "third way" center-leftist Clinton. In World War II,Britain was the one enemy of Nazi Germany not subjected to invasion. Ideologically devoted to free-market theory, and attuned to Cold War views of the Soviet Union, Thatcherdistrusted both the regulatory, dirigiste tendencies of the EU and itspotential for Ostpolitik. All three represent, at leastindirectly, the end of the Cold War; all three were neutralist powers thatmight have felt reluctance to enter a Western international arrangement,the membership of which strongly overlapped that of NATO, and indeed they(along with Ireland, earlier) have had to adjust their neutralism inaccordance with EU policies (Ginsberg, 1998, p. The fourth and most recent geographical enlargement of the EU tookplace in 1995, with the admission of Sweden, Finland, and Austria (Dinan,1999, Table .2, p. Why coal and steel? Tanks, artillery, andbattleships were built of steel, steel was produced using coal; hence coaland steel between them were not only the shorthand measures of industrialdevelopment but the essential sinews of military might. For Britain, the special relationship offered an optionnot available to any continental European power. It might even be said that if Europeans arefrequently annoyed by the EU bureaucrats in Brussels, they are increasinglyannoyed not as citizens of France, or Britain, or Denmark, but asEuropeans. In the 196 s and 197 s, the Tories were more favorable to integration, andLabour more skeptical. In the last half-century we have become accustomed, broadly speaking,to three kinds of wars: prolonged wars in the Third World (more oftenwithin than among states), fought by non-industrialized armies possessingvery limited means; colonial or semi-colonial wars fought by industrializednations in Third World regions where their firepower could not be broughteffectively to bear (e.g., Vietnam); and wars fought by industrializednations against largely non-industrialized enemies, in which the enormousfirepower of an modern army produced swift and decisive results (e.g., thePersian Gulf war). 1 5). For France or (then-West) Germany, Europe was the only vehiclefor retaining substantial independent influence in the world and avoidingbeing reduced to semi-dependent status in the Cold War between the US andthe Soviet Union. Boulder:Lynne Rienner, pp. Thus, one writer in 1973could subtitle a book on the then-European Community, "A Superpower in theMaking" (Galtung). Blair was at least asattuned to the "special relationship" with the United States as Thatcherwas, but his American soul-mate was Bill Clinton, himself sympatheticallyinclined toward European integrationism. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. The largeSpanish fishing industry was also a source of anxiety, to the point whereFrench patrol boats fired shots at Spanish trawlers in the Bay of Biscay(p. However much thisobjective might at times hover in the background, it was present at theoutset and has never entirely vanished, setting the European Union in itsvarious embodiments apart from, say, NAFTA, the North American free-tradeagreement, which few if any imagine as presaging some political unificationof the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Ever Closer Union: An Introduction toEuropean Integration. Such a war may be compared in intensity to the four-day groundphase of the Gulf War -- but on a scale ten or twenty times larger, andcontinuing without letup for years rather than days. 37ff). This political factor was a substantial factor infavor of admission, it being felt that their "admission to Europe" wouldstrengthen their democracies. Nevertheless, progress has continued, marked in 1999 by the formalintroduction of the Euro. The more general term"European integration" will also be used to express an ideology and ideal,as distinct from the purely institutional development of the EU. As Desmond Dinan writes of the latest stage, The European Union (EU) did not come into existence untilNovember 1993, when it subsumed, but did not replace, the EuropeanCommunity (EC). Ginsberg, Roy H. Within a few years the ECSC was functionally broadened to become theEuropean Economic Community (EEC), or "Common Market." It provedstrikingly successful, and by 196 Western Europe was enjoyingunprecedented prosperity. Hence, whateverposition Bush takes is unlikely to pull Blair's Labour away from its pro-European stance. EXPANDING EUROPE From the European Coal and Steel Community to the European Union The growth of the European Union over half a century has been acuriously bifurcated process. Alongside this accretionary development, in geographical extent andpolitico-economic scope, the European Union has from its humble beginningsas the six-nation European Coal and Steel Community been wrapped up in amuch broader concept, the creation of a European federal superstate, or"United States of Europe." Throughout the evolution of the European Unionas it exists today, this broader goal has provided both a guiding ideal anda hindrance, each in varying degrees at various times. In the post-Cold War era, further expansion of the EU is to beexpected. Bush will alter the Labour situation so far asEurope is concerned. Spain alonewould increase the EU's agricultural land by 3 percent, and itsagricultural work force by a quarter (Dinan, 1999, p. (1998). References Dinan, Desmond (1999). Theunderlying tensions regarding Britain's place in Europe have, however,continued to act on its relationship with the EU of the 199 s and 2 s, asthey did with the EEC in the 196 s and 197 s. First, it would directly reduce French influence; for all ofBritain's postwar economic troubles, it had a large economy in a way thatadmitting several smaller countries would not, even if the latters'combined GDP were comparable to Britain's. Geographically,Britain is an island just off the coast of Europe -- hence near to Europe,but not quite in Europe. Its course of development began modestly with the formationof the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1952 (Dinan, 1999, pp. Viewed only in terms of its geographical and institutionaldevelopment, the growth of the European Union from its origins in 1952appears as a steady if gradual process. Thus de Gaulle had a certain love-hate relationship with Europeanunification. It re-emerged strongly after World WarII, and as early as 1948a Council of Europe was convened amid grandiose hopes, only to swiftlyprove ineffectual (Dinan, 1999, p. The then-EEC embraced the leading industrial powers ofWestern Europe, but with one glaring exception: Great Britain. As the name suggests, the scope of the ECSC's activities was limitedto the coal and steel industries. The Baltic States, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland,Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Malta, Cyprus, and Turkey all havepending applications for membership (Redmond and Rosenthal, 1998, p. It also passed by very narrow margin in France(Dinan, 1999, p. Britain's geographical situation was reflected inits political and cultural situation. De Gaulle passed from the political scene after 1968, and six yearslater Britain joined the then-EEC, along with Ireland and Denmark. ForEuropeans after 1945 it was a matter of the utmost urgency that they avoidfighting another one. 5). On the one hand, it has been gradual andincremental. The measure carried easily in Ireland, but fell just short of passagewhen initially put to a vote in Denmark, passing just as narrowly when asecond referendum was held. They are the sinews of industry, but we live in a post-industrial age. Nevertheless, Britain didnot join until 1973. Though she precededReagan, and arrived at her views quite independently, Reagan was herideological soul-mate, and she was far more attuned to the "specialrelationship" with the US than to Europe. In fact, however, it has beenmarked by successive cycles of vigor and uncertainty. Second, it would blur theEuropean-ness of the EEC, due to Britain's continuing ties to theCommonwealth. The first two leave only Norway outside the EUamong the Scandinavian countries. 195 . Not until 1986 was the way finally smoothed for admission ofthe Iberian nations. It seems unlikely that theaccession of George W. Inscope of action, it has grown successively into the European EconomicCommunity (usually known in the 195 s and 196 s as the Common Market), thensimply the European Community, and now the European Union, possessing aflag, a common body of commercial law and regulations, and now a currency,the Euro, supplanting the familiar pounds, marks, francs, and lire of 2 thcentury Europe. Ironically, however, the first geographical expansion ofthe EU was accompanied by a prolonged period of economic stagnation in the197 s and early 198 s (Dinan, 1999, p. As it happened, Maastricht also nearly fell apart. The remainder of this discussion will consider primarily thegeographical expansion of the European Union from its inception, but withsome consideration of its growth in scope.Before proceeding, it may be useful to make some remarks aboutnomenclature. The ExpandingEuropean Union: Past, Present, Future. The most profound fact of modern Western European history is one soobvious that, paradoxically, it is easy to forget: that in the first halfof the last century Western Europe was at the center of two of the largestwars in history, while in the second half of that same century WesternEurope has been entirely at peace, without a single shot fired between itsarmies. In recent years the roles have been reversed;Labour is in general more integrationist, while the Tories have become thecenter of British "Euroskepticism." This reversal may be substantially attributed to the rise of MargaretThatcher. In the immediate postwar years, Frenchpolicy was to keep Germany tightly constrained, but as the Cold War heatedup this policy was no longer viable; both Britain and Germany preferred tostrengthen the nascent West Germany as part of the Western alignment.Faced with this reality, Monnet seized on the possibility of integratingFrance and Germany so closely in economic terms that another war betweenthem would be unfeasible. This reached a sort of culminationin the early 199 s in anticipation of the Maastricht treaty of 1992, whichwas to transform the European Community into the European Union,establishing a framework for full economic integration and paving the wayfor introduction of a European currency. It is both natural and useful to speak of the process ofEuropean integration as going through successive stages: European Coal andSteel Community, European Economic Community, European Community, andEuropean Union. Britain had been involved inEuropean affairs for centuries, but always from a slight distance,protected by the Channel and the Royal Navy; even its intellectualtradition was subtly offset from the European mainstream. The impact of enlargement on the role ofthe European Union in the world. Since that time, it has expanded by successive degrees, both in therange of its authority and activities and in its geographical extent. At the same time, it has grown geographically beyond its original sixmembers, successively incorporating Britain, Denmark, Ireland, Greece,Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland, and Sweden (Dinan, 1999, Table .2, p.5), with further expansion to include several Eastern European countriesprobable within the next few years. 57). He proposed a European Coal and Steel Community,comprising France, Germany, Italy, and the Benelux countries. Third, it would at least indirectly increase Americaninfluence, due to the "special relationship." This last was perhaps mostconsequential, since it would undermine the central value that Europeanintegration offered from de Gaulle's perspective, namely the potential ofEurope as a force independent of both the US and the Soviet Union. Thatcher radically transformed the Conservative Party, alongwhat may conveniently be called Reaganite lines. Of the nations familiarly thought ofcomprising Western Europe, only Norway and Switzerland have remained aloof(along with such ministates as Monaco and Lichtenstein). Thesecurity motivations that lay behind the original ECSC did not apply toBritain, but the economic logic of the EEC did. Nevertheless, in this book (as in everydayconversation) the name EU is used when referring generally to eventsbefore 1993 and to policies that, legally, belong to the EC (1999, p.2).Thus we are not dealing, formally, with a single entity that changed itsname as it developed, but with a subtler process by which new entities grewout of older ones, which might or might not remain as subdivisions, as theEuropean Community continues to exist within the broader framework of theEuropean Union. In the case of Greece, the political factorstrongly outweighed the economic concern -- Greece was small enough, andfar enough away, that its admission would put less strain on the existingmembers. 15 ). It wasafter all de Gaulle who brought Paul Monnet to the forefront of Frenchaffairs, because he understood the need to rebuild and modernize the Frencheconomy, and Monnet was the person who most understood how to do so.Moreover, de Gaulle understood two basic facts: first, that (absent Germanunification) France was bound to be the single largest influence in Europe,and second, that Europe as a whole could exert global influence as acounter to the US-Soviet duopoly in a way that France alone could not. It may perhaps be said that if the enthusiasmthat once attended European integration has largely evaporated, this is inpart a tribute to its very success. Portugal posed no such severe problems, but admitting Portugalwithout Spain would have sent such a negative signal that it wasunthinkable. Enthusiasm for integrationaccordingly waned, even as the European Economic Community was beingtransformed into the broader European Community. When it came to Britain, the "love" component was absent.From de Gaulle's perspective British admission would have three effects,all negative. Such was the political background of the ECSC(Dinan, 1999, pp. London: George Allen & Unwin. 5). Whereas Britain was an advance industrial society, the peer ofFrance and Germany, Greece, Spain, and Portugal were all much poorer thanthe previous members. The "Common Market"years, from the late 195 s to the early 197 s, were as noted earlier an eraof rapid economic growth and resulting optimism. Europeans, particularly the French, thus tended to question whatmight be called Britain's loyalty to Europe as a concept; in particular,Britain had a "special relationship" with the United States, with which itshared language and much heritage. European integration is no longer adream, conceived amid the horrific wreckage of World War II, but a mundanefact of European life. By historical coincidence, theSoviet bloc and then the Soviet Union itself fell apart at just this time,lending a new aura to the prospect of an integrated Europe. These admissions involved a quite different set ofissues. The European Community: A Superpower in theMaking. Thus the admission of Greece went through quickly, taking place in1981. Thus, a nation's prospectivemembership in the European Union, or expansion of the Union's range ofauthority, involves not only an economic calculus -- itself emotionalenough, when it involves the jobs or wages of millions of people -- butdeeply emotional questions of French-ness, or British-ness, or Hungarian-ness. On the other hand, this fact has also been a source of persistinganxieties, suggesting as it does the curtailment of national sovereigntyand even national cultural identity. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.----------------------- 15 198). By the mid-198 s, however, economic growth had resumed, accompaniedby renewed interest in integrationism. GermanChancellor Konrad Adenauer endorsed the proposal, and the ECSC was broughtinto being by the Treaty of Paris in 1951, commencing its activities thenext year. At the same time, the British had alevel of skepticism toward Europe rooted ultimately in having otheroptions. Within a couple of years, however,a new and much more modest plan was floated by a French economic policyofficial, Jean Monnet. 13). The Thatcherite transformation of the Tories in turn accelerated atransformation of Labour, from the trade-unionist dominated party of thepostwar era to the "third way" party of Tony Blair. If it is difficult for us today to grasp thescale of violence in the two great European wars, it may also be difficultfor us to grasp the political as well as economic significance of coal andsteel c. Britain posed a special issue for the nascent European Union in the195 s, 196 s, and 197 s, as indeed it still does today. To many Europeans, as it turned out, the pending EUrepresented only another layer of remote bureaucrats. (1998). Both "World" Wars were primarily European wars, and their scaleand intensity is perhaps difficult to anyone born in the generations since1945 to truly grasp. The question of geographical expansion now cameto the fore. On the one hand, the goal of a "United States of Europe" has giventhe European Union an aura of significance and embodiment of values thatgoes beyond the mere pragmatics of a free-trade zone. Galtung, Johan (1973). 18-21). Inthe postwar era, the British tended to look as much outward, toward theCommonwealth and the United States, as toward Europe. In the intervening period,however, there has been a curious reversal of British political alignments. What we have not seen, since 1945, is wars between industrializednations, with both sides well-trained and well-equipped, and able toprovide their forces with a nearly unending supply of equipment andmunitions. In the 197 s, all three were also "new" democracies, Greece after thefall of the military dictatorship established in 1967, the Iberiancountries after much longer periods of authoritarian rule dating back tothe World War II era. The second major expansion of the EU took place in the 198 s, withthe admission of Greece in 1981 and of Spain and Portugal in 1986 (Dinan,1999, Table .2, p. We associate economic development with high-tech, andmilitary superiority (and thus military threat) more with high-techmaterials and techniques: nuclear weapons, composite materials for stealthaircraft, or electronic sensors and computers. 1 6). In Redmond, John; and Rosenthal, GlendaG., eds., The Expanding European Union: Past, Present, Future. The Bush Administration's position toward Europe isas yet undefined. The Iberian countries posed a more difficult problem. (Southern Italy was also poor, but joined toindustrialized Northern Italy.) Thus their admission raised the questionof integrating economies at very different levels, with all the resultingpotential for industrial and labor dislocation. Coal and steel were of particular concern to France, since it was thecoal and steel of the Ruhr that provided the industrial might -- and thusthe military might -- of Germany. This is the sort ofwar Europe had experiences not once but twice between 1914 and 1945. Redmond, John; and Rosenthal, Glenda G., eds. The world of the late194 s, however, was still an industrial world. On the other hand, de Gaulle was also a realist. To these general complications involving Britain were added, in the195 s and 196 s, the personal complication of Charles de Gaulle (Dinan,1999, pp. 1-2). Two memberstates, Ireland and Denmark, were required by their constitutions to hold areferendum on Maastricht, while France's President Mitterrand chose to holdone. 197-215.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
Click here to request an essay written just for you.
|
|
|
