OLD PROBLEMS OF THE OLD WORLD

A united Europe, which at some point time got into the turbulence of the economic crisis, is going through tough times. While supranational structures and leading countries of the European Union (EU) are urgently searching for ways out of the state of economic collapse of individual member countries, the financial crisis seems to spread its tentacles to new and new member states of the eurozone. A tight fiscal policy in the public sector conducted at the request of international institutions only incites protests among the European population. The protests have not bypassed the supreme body of the European Union - the European Commission (EC), whose staff are threatening with conducting a united strike on 17 December. The EC employees oppose the proposed reduction of salaries, demanding that budget savings be achieved by cutting the salaries of senior "European officials."

It is also possible that the resignations of the prime ministers of Greece and Italy, George Papandreou and Silvio Berlusconi, are to be followed by more. No less disturbing for Europe are the reports about the weakening creditworthiness of France, which makes the positions of Nicolas Sarkozy vulnerable on the eve of next year's presidential election. Meanwhile, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso hopes to reach an understanding at a meeting with the leaders of eurozone countries - France and Germany, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, new Italian Prime Minister M. Monti and the leadership of the community on finding a way out of the situation at an EU summit due on 9 December.

The project developed under the auspices of Barroso calls for the establishment of the so-called stabilization bonds. According to the document, under the common roof of a monetary union, its members will provide loans to collectively overcome the debt crisis. But its adoption largely depends on the position of Germany, which may oppose the idea of reincarnation of euro-bonds renamed in stabilization bonds. Thus far, Berlin has rejected any form of joint euro-loans and the acquisition of obligations of debtor countries by the European Central Bank (ECB). In this regard, as ally of the chairman of the EC, the French president is trying to persuade Angela Merkel to agree to the establishment of stabilization bonds. Meanwhile, some European media view such intransigence on the part of Berlin as a new war of Germany against Europe. "In particular, it draws new international borders and seeks to enslave other peoples." Some German editions have frightened the German people with a counter threat: "Everybody wants our money: the British, the Americans and everyone in the EU!".

According to the Professor of Paris School of Social Sciences, Jacques Sapir, who had predicted the collapse of the euro at the turn of 2011-2012 back in late 2010, this is explained by the collapse of the whole political project, which represents latent federalism. He argues that it is precisely under German leadership that countries with different economic dynamics were united, and the gap between leaders and outsiders was not overcome, but rather increased during the integration.

Some experts predict that the collapse of the eurozone is almost inevitable, and there is a 90-per-cent chance it will occur due to the failure of troubled eurozone countries. But there is also a view that this will occur at the expense of a withdrawal of Germany which will slam the door and want to return to the deutsche mark. These projections indicate that economic disasters in eurozone countries are fraught with political implications which may hypothetically trigger disintegration processes in the EU.

In this context, a certain interest is aroused by a cursory look at the idea of a united Europe which was legally formalized by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992 on the principles of European communities. After the 30-year war the Westphalian system of international relations was created in 1648 on the basis of the principle of national sovereignty. Interstate unions became more flexible and situational in the new conditions. The change of a coalition partner was not so rare. Its essence was to ensure through political and diplomatic maneuvering that no single European state or a coalition of states can accumulate power surpassing the power of the likely contenders. But geopolitical concepts advocating the idea of a united Europe started emerging in the late 19th and early 20th (especially after the First World War). The tone in this issue was mainly set by representatives of the German geopolitical school (F. Ratzel, P. Kjellen and K. Haushofer) and France (V. de Blache and politician and several times prime minister of France A. Brian). In fact, if German geo-politicians envisaged the establishment of an economic and military-political union of European countries with a dominant role in Germany, their French counterparts were more inclined towards political and economic integration on an equal footing, which was to be based on the development of free trade, communication networks and creation (if necessary) of a mechanism for a joint management of territories. But the revanchist sentiments prevailing in Germany after its defeat in World War I hampered the realization of those dreams then.

It would be no exaggeration to say that the outcome of the Second World War was a real shock to all European countries without exception. The establishment of Soviet geopolitical control over much of Europe and the threat of the spread of a communist ideology in the Old World were causing serious discomfort on the opposite side of (capitalist countries) of the European space. In an era of ideological dominance of geopolitics, Europe and indeed the whole world have been divided into two parts, which had direct relevance to European security. This disposition required Europe to become a natural ally of the United States, which is still the creator and guarantor of the European security system. It is only natural that the idea of a united Europe, which provides for the exit of Eastern European countries from the geopolitical control of Moscow, has been picked up now.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and socialist camp, Europe got a great chance of realizing its much-coveted dreams. Leading European countries with strong support from Washington quickly legalized the formation of a political and economic organization, the European Union, providing for coherent foreign and defense policies. Supranational structures were created to manage pan-European affairs. In 1999, the single European currency, the euro, was introduced to global financial markets. It became the official currency of 17 eurozone countries. All EU members have the right to enter the eurozone if they meet certain requirements of monetary policy, while all new members are obliged to sooner or later adopt the euro as a prerequisite for joining the union. In 2004 and 2007, there was an enlargement of the EU at the expense of the majority of European countries from the former socialist camp and the three Baltic countries "orphaned" after the Soviet collapse. Thus, a new economic-political-military alliance was formed and the foundation laid for deepening the integration processes within the organization.

Today, the share of the EU with a population of 500 million people in the world GDP is about 28 per cent ($15.9 trillion). It should be noted that the USA, while supporting European unification, did not plan to strengthen its role in the international arena or hatch plans regarding formation of a new powerful federation on the world's political map. This is why Washington is betting on countries that are opposed to federative relations and support the principles of a confederate union, which does not allow Germany to become a sole leader of the organization. In short, Washington wants a united Europe as a junior ally in the geopolitical struggle against Russia, China and other superpowers. In this context, the excessive political and economic strengthening of the EU runs counter to Washington's geopolitical interests, which has been said by one of the supporters of the US global security system and an author of the Atlanticism theory, Nicholas Spykman. Back in the 1940s, he wrote of a large number of power centers on the Eurasian continent that actively affect global security, so their unification into any coalitions is unacceptable for the United States. Curiously enough, when defining the main directions of American geopolitics, N. Spykman was in favor of keeping the military power of Germany and Japan after World War II to prevent a Sino-Soviet alliance. The union of two great continental powers would not allow the future Anglo-American-Japanese alliance to control the world. But he defined another main line of American geopolitics in the following way: "We must prevent unification of Europe, as this powerful federation of states will eventually weaken US standing in the world." One can hardly say this more clearly. However, an absolute majority of the Anglo-American geopolitical school speak in the same vein, claiming that Europe should become the economic, military and political appendage of the United States. 

On this basis, we can assume that the current ordeals of the eurozone countries, in which Germany claims the role of the first violin, to some extent play into the hands of Washington. Incidentally, the refusal of Great Britain, a consistent advocate of US interests in Europe, to join the eurozone is thought-provoking. The processes observed in Europe may eventually lead to a reduction of the EU's GDP, which is outperforming US indicators, and the weakening of the euro, which is a competitor of the US currency. But Washington can hardly be interested in the full military and political disintegration of the EU. But a united Europe, acting under the authority and the dictates of the United States, is perfectly acceptable. By hastily forming the EU and the eurozone, the leading European countries seem to have made significant miscalculation. Trying to quickly establish a political alliance to prevent a return to the past, they did not thoroughly work out an economic component, which could serve as a solid foundation of this union. And the admission to the EU ranks of countries in all respects inferior to the old residents of the organization actually planted a time bomb in the EU. In fact, many experts expressed their grave concerns on this occasion. Therefore, the statement by French President Nicolas Sarkozy that Greece had allegedly invaded the eurozone by submitting false reports on its economic performance to financial institutions is beneath criticism. Especially since Greece is one of the veteran EU members, as opposed to Greek Cyprus. Most likely, Europe's leading countries were mainly governed by the principle of political expediency and necessity, leaving the solution of economic aspects on the backburner. Apparently, they believed that the most important thing was enlargement. Then, after putting strict conditions to new members, one can require them to live within their means, which is quite fair. The latter viewed the concept of a common home and fraternal relations in their own way. They probably hope that the "big brother" would assume all their economic problems. But no-one has canceled the conventional wisdom, which is as old as history of humanity itself: "brothers are brothers, but their pockets are apart". The situation is compounded by the fact that this turns out to be the argument not only of newcomers, but also of members who have a very decent European "experience". On all other matters they claim to support the principle of equality, as stipulated by the charter and program documents of the EU. But economics has its own laws which sooner or later punish those who cannot, and worse still, does not want to adjust their expenditures and revenues.