Wednesday, June 15, 2011

EU: political union or economic colonisation by world powers?

Especially in our era, few if any local issues and dynamics are not intertwined with regional (eg EU) or global issues and dynamics. Unless humanity goes back to countries-fortresses.

In our era's volatile global systemics, a country can always build walls ie become a fortress in an effort to preserve its sovereignty and its distinct ID, be that in culture and "values", laws and their underlying philosophy. Opt out of the global trade "game" and preserve the ownership of its key industries, rely on its own "capital", be it monetary or any in any other form. Not have to rely on the views of the global financial community or follow the rules of the WTO or other international bodies. Every country should have and has that right. But how realistic is that? How can it be self-reliant on energy, foods (at least the basic ones), security, economics, capital, etc? And what size (land, population, GDP, internal market) does this option require?

Shared sovereignty (via a real political union USA or FR of Germany style) is a better option than being colonised (economically etc) by one of the world powers, ie China, India, USA, Russia. This IMO applies to the countries of Europe, South and Central America, and other parts of the world. And the EU and UNASUR (in South America) are "vehicles" of such "shared sovereignty" but which has yet to materialise via proper political union.

Everyone is different, But that is a relative term. To a certain extent every country is different and to a certain extent all countries are the same. Which is more feasible eg a political union between eg Ireland and Greece or one between Ireland and eg South Korea? To a certain extent neither is feasible and to a certain extent both are feasible! We do live in "nothing is impossible" times.

Local, national, regional (eg European) and global citizen identities can well co-exist. The issue is at what level, local, national, regional (EU) or global the Polity is formed. Continent-state is an emerging model in terms of having the potential, via shared sovereignty, to provide an adequate level of self-reliance in energy, foods, defence, have a large enough internal market, economies of scale in many utilities and social welfare (eg a Health Service).

People have indeed tended to group around ethnic, geographical and cultural ties. But these are not static over time. Plus melting pot models have always existed (see eg my post "Globalisation, today and in 300 BC"). The US or even just NYC (or London) is a place where nationalities, languages etc can co-exist in a melting pot under a common polity, currency, laws and language spoken at work. Dozens of languages (337 according to Wikipedia) are spoken in US homes or even homes in NYC, one of the key metropoles of the era (138 languages spoken in Queens, NY)

The alternative is colonisation, driven by economics, by one of the real world powers of the era (China, USA and maybe Russia and shortly, India (*)). A balkanised Europe, with a minimal EU and each member "sponsored" by one of those powers.

(*) Could one count the global financial system as one of those powers?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Hi there,

Feel free to comment.
Only suitable comments will be posted.
In EN, FR, GR, D, IT, SP, NL only (Use Google Translate otherwise SVP).