United States of Europe? Next Superpower?

[Veni Vidi Vici]

Does anyone think that the EU will become one nation? If so do you beleive that they will ever threaten American power? I say no to both but this is just IMO. I think the EU is far too devided to ever be one nation. EU members look at themselves first and foremost as a member to their nation and secondly as a member of the EU, Americans almost all veiw themself as Americans by comparison. I would like to hear other opinions.

[ZFBoxcar]

Language barriers and disagreements over everything from immigration to foreign policy make it unlikely in the near future. Plus France and Germany want the EU to be under their control, while the British aren't having that at all, and the Spanish (maybe not any more cause of the new government), Italy, and Poland don't like it either.

[Gio]

I agree with you, I don't see it happening anytime in the forseeable future. The recent Iraq war showed that while public opinion may be aganist the war in most EU countries quite a few govts are willing to take the chance and support the US, mainly because no one else can offer the protections of a super power. Also, even though the Franco-German axis may want to create a rival military machine to the US, mainly the Franco aspect of it, it won't happen anytime soon because of pension and medical liabilities with Europe's rapidly ageing populace. Only more immigration can help Europe right now and the populace can just bare the few amount of migrants they get now, more would drive them insane. So I don't see them overcoming any those problems soon. Not to mention Italy's oppostion to Germany getting a seat on the UNSC. And the economic aspect of it, the European Central Bank's dilemma in keeping interest rates stable as inflation flares up in Ireland, needing rates to go up and recession wrecks France and Germany needing rates to go lower to stimulate growth. A little monetarism there. =) Also, the federalization of labor laws cross the continent would be a disaster for the east and the successful countries in the west: Britian, Sweden, Denmark, etc..
Those are just a few of the problems facing Europe in its quest for intergration.

[Bluey67]

Irrevocably yes, but what is more interesting is the form this new "united states" will take. The current political spectrum in Europe and rapidly changing demography leads me to believe we will see a "United Socialist States of Europe" (we are just about there in all but name!) surpassed relatively quickly by the "Islamic Republic of Europe."

[Veni Vidi Vici]

It wouldn't surpirse me at all if the UK quites the EU. They have had problems with every draft constitution proposed by the govt of the EU and it will be a cold day in the pit of hell that the UK allows itself to be ruled by a Franchmen :) . France and germany want all of the power in the EU and this simply will not occur so long as england is on board. I think if England leaves other nations will as well. This would lead to the breakdown of the EU as a whole.

[dave angel]

i'm not sure that the EU needs to develop the same degree of unity (!) as the US in order to become a 'superpower' in its own right, whiles its certainly true that the individual countries have many political differences, they also have a big unifying force: they are liberal, secular democracies and they want to stay that way.

the EU already trades as a single bloc, sometimes it is able to operate on the diplomatic front andit is now undertaking at least two 'peacekeeping' operations (Balkans and Congo). with a little more co-operation in terms of military procurement and force development the EU could truly become a 'power' with expeditionary military forces comensurate with its size and wealth, even if the different parts of that strength belong to different nations.

but no, the EU could become a state, but not a nation.

[alton987]

United States of Europe? Next Superpower?

Just looking for some opinions here...

Could A real United Europe challenge the US and a lets say China in a few years. The EU is a start, but more centralized control would be needed to really compete on the Superpower level with the US and a future China. Couple of questions I have.


1. Would the US ever try to stop a United Europe? I don't mean with bombs but by with small subtle things like trade taffies and maybe try to get UK to stay out by offering better trade deals?

2. How powerful could the EU be? Looking at population, economies, and technology it could be a pretty scary opponent.

3. What is stopping it from happing now?

[Officer of Engineers]

The Brits and the French can't stand each other.

[ZFBoxcar]

I love how ppl talk about the next super power like the next American Idol.

[Julie]

1. Yes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4173459.stm

2. In several countries, unemployment is high, while the euro seems to
have done little to increase trade and wealth in the eurozone.

3. The EU countries will never fine common ground to totally unite, i.e.
what OoE said.

[MIKEMUN]

Too many different nations with different cultures..It would be an exercise in futility..would break down from within after several years...

[dave angel]

its unlikely that the the EU will be a superpower, but its probable that the countries forming the EU will form a superpower - its a sublte difference but an important one. as OoE says, the brits and french can't stand each other - within the EU framework - outside of that framework were best of mates, we have an integrated air-defence network (a bit like NORAD) and co-operate very closely on military and security matters. when we agree on a course of action - iran for example - we work hand in glove.

NATO standardisation and doctrine means the european militaries are able to work together down to company level. taken together the members of the EU have an enormous military capability and despite what some might think, the countries of the EU are rich, very rich.

the military capability is hampered by each country having both teeth and tail, and to a greater extent most countries in europe still being prepared for a major european land war. were things to be organised on a more co-operative basis the members of the EU could radically increase the number of soldiers available to take part in expeditionary warfare without any increase in manpower or the defence budget.

while its true that there are many cultures and languages in europe and that a 'one state' solution is very unlikely, most europeans readily identify with a european model of secular, liberal democracy. in addition, many in europe are becoming much more aware of their european identity - partly because of iraq - and most critisism of further integration is based on problems within the EU rather than the logic of the idea itself. the EU institutions have in the past few years become much more outward looking and less hidebound to the economic areas of co-operation, when EU foreign ministers meet once a month they no longer talk about whats going on in europe, but whats going on outside europe.

superpower in the conventional sense may not apply, rather a collection of countries that at the least have a mutual defence agreement, have very close political and military links and when they agree on a problem ouside of europe can deploy large numbers of effective troops with air and naval support for a long period.

after speaking to friend from university who now works at the MOD, i think it would be accurate to say that both britain and france consider their nuclear umbrella to cover the countries of the EU.

[Parihaka]

1. Would the US ever try to stop a United Europe? I don't mean with bombs but by with small subtle things like trade taffies and maybe try to get UK to stay out by offering better trade deals?

2. How powerful could the EU be? Looking at population, economies, and technology it could be a pretty scary opponent.

3. What is stopping it from happing now?

1:yes, see below
2: financially, very
3: see below

Lone Superpower Plan: Ammunition for Critics

by Patrick E. Tyler
The New York Times
March 10, 1992




The Pentagon's draft policy statement that foresees a one-superpower world in which no collection of allies or foes is allowed to become a rival reflects intense pressure in the American military establishment to define a robust mission for itself in the post-cold-war era.

Should this draft policy be issued this month to the military chiefs under Defense Secretary Dick Cheney's signature, the Bush Administration will find itself at odds with a number of its international allies and, domestically, with the Democratic majority that controls Congress.

And, perhaps more problematical for the President, the Pentagon vision of the new American role sharpens the debate within the Republican Party, where Patrick J. Buchanan lashed out today at the Pentagon prescription for the United States' becoming the ultimate guarantor of world security.

"This is a formula for endless American intervention in quarrels and war when no vital interest of the United States is remotely engaged," Mr. Buchanan told reporters on his way to Memphis, Tenn. "It's virtually a blank check given to all of America's friends and allies that we'll go to war to defend their interests."

Mr. Buchanan called on Mr. Bush to repudiate the draft document. The White House was silent on the matter, and a State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, said he would not comment on a document that was internal to the Pentagon.

The Pentagon spokesman, Pete Williams, today characterized the document as a "low level" draft, but defended its contents. He said the statements were very similiar to public statements and Congressional testimony by Mr. Cheney and Gen. Colin L. Powell, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Democratic reactions to the draft document were as strong as those from Mr. Buchanan on the Republican right, indicating that Mr. Buchanan's opposition converges in this instance with Democratic calls for greater reductions in military spending and for greater collectivism in international security.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he agreed with some of the objectives stated in the policy draft, like combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The problem, he said, was that "the Pentagon vision reverts to an old notion of the United States as the world's policeman -- a notion that, not incidentally, will preserve a large defense budget."

A 'Pax Mundi' Is Urged

He criticized what he termed was an inappropriate Pentagon instinct to erect a "Pax Americana, a global security system where threats to stability are suppressed or destroyed by U.S. military power."

As an alternative strategy, Mr. Biden suggested that the United States pursue "the next big advance in civilization," which he described as "collective power through the United Nations," an option that is effectively rejected by the Defense Department draft.

Among Democratic candidates for President, Paul E. Tsongas has most pointedly addressed the question of whether the United States should take an overarching role in world security.

In his political manifesto, "A Call to Economic Arms," Mr. Tsongas says he would pursue a policy not of Pax Americana, but of Pax Mundi, under which collective security would be a matter of equitable risk sharing and burden sharing so that each nation seeking to protect its vital trade or security interests would make contributions in forces and financial resources to reflect those interests.

"Efforts are going to have to be made to provide a United Nations Security Force with real teeth," Mr. Tsongas writes. "Pax Americana must give way to Heal Thyself. This is not isolationism. It is participation in a new internationalism truly based on the principle of collective security."

Draft Called 'Low Level'

George Stephanopoulos, deputy campaign manager for Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas, said the first reaction to the Pentagon document was that it seemed to be "one more attempt" by defense officials "to find an excuse for big budgets instead of downsizing."

John D. Steinbruner, director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, and an advocate of significant reductions in the President's $1.2 trillion five-year defense plan, said that while many of the goals stated in the policy statement were laudable, its somewhat chauvanistic tone might prompt allies "to challenge us in terms of military procurement."

"People will develop capabilities designed to offset ours," he said, especially if the United States takes a position, as the draft does, that no collection of nations can aspire to regional dominance because that would put them on the path to global rivalry with the American superpower.

"This is very likely to happen if we assertively pursue this kind of superiority," Mr. Steinbruner said.

Caught off guard by the publication of extensive excerpts from the draft defense planning guidance in The New York Times on Sunday, the Pentagon seemed at a loss today whether to embrace the document or reject it. Mr. Cheney was said to have complained to aides that his public testimony on defense strategy gets scant coverage in the news media while classified documents relating to policy formulation underlying those public statements get greater attention.

Mr. Williams called it a "low-level draft" that had not been seen by Mr. Cheney nor been approved by any senior official. "Undoubtedly it will be revised," he said, adding that he had not seen the document, but had instructed his staff to prepare examples of where the document "overlaps" with the public testimony of senior defense officials.

Who Got the Document

On Feb. 18, the draft "Defense Planning Guidance," prepared under the supervision of Paul D. Wolfowitz, the Pentagon's Under Secretary for Policy, was circulated to General Powell, who serves as the President's principal military adviser, the secretaries of all four military departments, Mr. Cheney's under secretaries and assistant secretaries of defense and the chiefs of all four military services.

A week after the draft document was circulated, Adm. David E. Jeremiah, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the document would be issued by Mr. Cheney in early March, thus indicating it was in an advanced drafting stage. A cover memo from Mr. Wolfowitz's deputy, Dale A. Vesser, also indicates that the policy statement is near final form and asks recipients to "focus your comments on major substantive concerns."

One 15-page section of the guidance states that it has been approved by Mr. Cheney and begins, "This section constitutes definitive guidance from the Secretary of Defense" to be used in conjunction with "fiscal guidance published by the Secretary on 15 February 1992."

Today, Mr. Williams declined to say when the final policy document would be issued. But owing to its classification as a secret document, the public may not discover for some time how Mr. Cheney resolves the questions that have been raised about the draft.


Copyright 1992 The New York Times Company

[Commando]

The European Union will eventually be a superpower and will be in my prediction in around 5 years.

With all their differnt cultures and lifestyles they will be able to combine no question about it, but it will be very hard but very much possible???

Will it be more powerful than the USA??
- Yes a lot more powerful military and economically..

Will it ever happen??

on my opinion very soon, thats on my point why the European union was created.
So Europe can become a superpower again.

Iv'e got a feeling in this forum that a few of you always look on the bright side to much, i mean rather hyperthetically than relistically.

[-{SpoonmaN}-]

I don't think that it would be looking on the bright side so say the Europeans won't become a super-power, as I doubt that the liberal and democratic nature of European politics would allow them to become beligerant and impirialistic like they used to be. A second Super power which is free and democratic, and not in perpetual stand-off with the US wouldn't be a bad thing, as it would do more to prevent any one nation from being too powerful. It's not like the EU would be going to war with America.