Day 1

My very first selection is:

"The European Union: A Very Short Introduction"
by John Pinder, 2001
Oxford University Press, Oxford, England

I had expected that reading about the start of the Union would be sort of dry - that there would be a lot of intricate political details that would seem meaningless 50 years later, but I find that this is not the case at all.

Pinder explains that the first European community was actually the European Coal and Steel Community, which formed in 1950 and included France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Italy. In reality, the two major players were obviously France and Germany. While the name indicates that this was an Community driven by economic motives, Pinder explains that France was actually trying to control Germany's military power in an embodiment of the phrase, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." France had tried to keep Germany down in the years following WWI, but found out the hard way that by keeping their neighbors down, they were restricting themselves economically as well.

The war machines of World War II were driven by coal and steel, and a union that controlled and shared these resources would have been unable to go to war against itself. If conflict ever did arise between the member nations, production would simply stop, and opponents would be forced to glare at each other across meeting room tables rather than bomb each other - there simply would be no ability to produce tanks, planes, bombs, or guns. As the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman explained in 1950, "any war between France and Germany [would become] not merely unthinkable, but materialy impossible." It is important to note, however, that the French were not keeping secrets from the Germans. Political leaders did not think that by forming this community they were somehow disguising their motives - it was broadly realized that the European Coal and Steel Community was a peacekeeping measure first and an economic agent second. Further, Germany saw the community as a means to seek acceptance in the world theatre again after the atrocities committed their during WWII - yet another motive for their enthusiasm.

In the 1950s, the ECSC found that they were a successful economic union. This makes perfect sense - by removing the boundaries between raw materials and their production sites, as well as the boundaries between the producer and the consumer, one increases the efficiency of the system. As Pinder says, "This, together with the evidence that peaceful reconciliation among the member states was being achieved, encouraged them to see the European Coal and Steel Community as a first step, as Schuman had indicated, in a process of political as well as economic unification." There was a slight wavering in 1954 when the French failed to ratify a proposal for the European Defence Community, but a second step was made in 1958 when the European Economic Council was formed between the six founding states. This council allowed for the creation of the common market while respecting the interdependence of the various member states' economies. Notably, the French insisted that the ECC be protected by external tariffs. This would give the ECC a bargaining tool in the coming years, especially in negotiations with the US; European presence in the world economy had been decreasing throughout the 20th century as a result of the two wars, and this would give them a chance to restore their power.

I don't want to focus too much on individual countries just yet, put Pinder makes some interesting points about England's role during these formative years. Broadly, he explains that the English just didn't get it - they were too much concerned with the economic possibilities of the Community in the 50s and did not appreciate the political motivations. As a result, England was largely left out of the process until 1973. British influence has certainly helped to improve the economic situation for the European Union since then, but they continue to lack the necessary political motivations for unification that many other member states have. This is one reason that England is still using their native currency rather than the Euro, despite the fact that one might argue that it would be in their best interest to do so.

This will be the end of my first post today. As I continue to read about the intial formation of the European community, it becomes clear that there are two opposing viewpoints.

I am still reading about the recent events in the EU regarding the French. I was not satisfied with the reported reasons that the French people vetoed this proposal, so I am reading French news sources, and the translation is taking me a bit longer.