Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Aleksander Kwaśniewski and the United States of Europe
After listening to former President Aleksander Kwaśniewski’s speech this afternoon I started thinking about not only the problems of integrating Europe into a Union but the perspectives and cultural backgrounds that the different countries have. The unionization of Europe is not just a project of integrating different systems and languages and cultures. It is also important to remember that it is a project which’s aim is to unite vastly different historical traditions and perspectives. It was easy for me to get lost in the thinking that liberal democracy and constitutionalism was a common goal for modern countries (especially countries of Europe). This is an obstacle we have been trying to overcome since the beginning of this course as we try to dissociate our upbringing and beliefs in our system as the best system. It was easy for me to assume that the people involved in and influencing this project had similar ideologies and beliefs, especially someone as influential in the democratic process as Kwaśniewski. However, when listening to Kwaśniewski today it was easy to see that he has a distinctly different (Polish) perspective on the EU. Poland greatly benefitted from joining the EU; it jumped started their economy and created thousands of job opportunities throughout Europe for Polish workers. In comparison with a country like Britain who where importing these workers for jobs that under different circumstances would have been reserved for English workers. Obviously there are pros and cons for such a system but I think that most would agree that Poland profited through joining the EU far more that Britain did through Poland’s joining. That being said, it is easy to see why Kwaśniewski supported countries like Ukraine and Georgia in their quest to join because they are in a similar position that Poland was when it applied and because they come from similar ideological backgrounds. From a British perspective it might not be as profitable or as good an idea. Admittedly it is difficult for me to think “supernationally” in this sense and I have a hard time seeing Kwaśniewski’s “United States of Europe” because I would be so opposed to such a think happening here in the US. But even with that pre-conceived notion it is difficult for me to see why it is in the interests of countries like Britain, Germany and France to allow countries like the Ukraine from entering the EU when they will be gaining far more than they will be bringing to the table.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think we must also remind ourselves how significant the concept of the EU is, in terms of what Europe has gone through in the past centuries: UK, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, etc., these countries were all involved with each other in devastating warfare only several decades ago. In addition to economic benefits, one of the most important significances of the EU is its symbol of unity. The EU creates a mutually supportive society for the betterment of each individual country. Furthermore, the emergence of economically-booming and significantly populous countries/regions, i.e. USA, China, India, Russia, European states must come together as one in order to keep up with the pace of international political and economic development. Yet, a "United States of Europe" similar to our concept of U.S.A., which I think we also discussed in our section last week, is unthinkable to me. With so many distinct languages, cultures, histories, European countries can't be united under one government/constitution even if it tried. The EU should be an institutions that brings EU states together to ease relations/economic production, but most certainly not an overarching government that is above each country's individual government.
Post a Comment