My European History Final Paper Thread

For my advanced placement european history class,we had to answer a question basically stating whether or not we believed that the theme of a 'balance of power' exists in modern-day europe with the European Union in existence. This is an extremely long read, so I hope you have some time. Please answer only if you are capable of acting reasonably maturely and intelligently.
Basically what I was hoping is that some people (since I'm failing this class by a scary margin, and I"m just hoping to pass at this point) could give some crits or suggestions.

The concept of a ‘balance of power’ is one that has affected Europe, its politics, economy, and its culture since the end of the middle ages. Europe was, for a very long time, the center of the world’s military and economic superpowers, and their actions determined much of other nations’ policies across the globe, including the United States’. It was the presence of so many superpowers on one continent that created this balance, as each state found itself, at various points throughout history, taking opposing sides to issues of global concern, such as during the Cold War when each nation was faced individually with the option of joining the Americans and NATO, or becoming part of the Soviet Bloc. It was this dualism that caused many of Europe’s greatest wars, particularly between opposing giants (such as Germany and France, who fought each other three times in the span of eighty years, in three of the largest wars the world has ever seen). This perpetual cycle of setup, mounting tension, and conflict is what kept some of Europe’s major powers in check and from ever gaining too much control, or enough to tip the scale permanently. However, at the conclusion of World War II, Europe recognized, largely for the first time, that it may not have the capability to right the balance of power anymore, and that without American intervention, or Russian success on the Eastern front, Germany may well have become the sole ruler of Europe. This prompted the creation of the European Union. With the creation of the EU, Europe has eliminated the concept of a ‘balance of power’ within the continent itself, and with the entire continent becoming united economically, politically, and to a certain extent militarily, the capacity to take opposing viewpoints on any issue to the degree which could affect international relationships within the Union does not exist.
The union of European nations carries greater significance than simply a security alliance like NATO and the UN. While mutual security is a component of the EU, it’s very important to consider that the union of several countries’ currencies, a sort of economic collectivism between states, along with a general consensus that nations will act through the EU in major political decisions effectively transforms the EU into an only slightly more independent version of a United States of Europe. Within the United States, we do not refer to any sort of balance of power between states, as some obviously have a greater power than others, and all states’ action occurs within the borders of a nation, and it is only their general agreement of action that determines the actions of the country itself. It is the same case in Europe. Where military and economic power once determined this balance, “Europe is turning away from power… [it] is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation.” (Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power, pg. 3). Such is the structure of power between states in our own country. Individual countries are leaving behind the ideas of balance and counterbalance with one another through economic and military competition, and instead are turning their efforts to the creation of a collective political and economic entity, while still retaining a general sense of autonomy. This is far closer to the United States than one might expect, where it is almost preposterous to us to consider one state taking up arms against another, and this complete union may very well become a reality in the near future of Europe.
In very recent times, the EU has taken another interesting development. The creation of a Constitution of the EU could be a reality, and proves yet again, in more than one way, that the concept of a ‘balance of power’ no longer exists in Europe. “The constitution brings together for the first time the many treaties and agreements on which the EU is based. It defines the powers of the EU, stating where it can and act and where the member states retain their right of veto.” (BBC News). By creating a constitution, if it is ratified, the EU is effectively saying that it wants a greater degree of political collectivism. By establishing a united and clear set of policies and rules, the members of the union are agreeing to abide by them, making the concept of united action and policy on hot-button issues more structured. Additionally though, the disproportionate voting power of some nations such as France in the vote to decide on the constitution suggests a bias of power in some countries over others, who, if their goals are shared, could easily control the EU however they wished. Obviously, this is not a ‘balance’ of power, and again this is surprisingly reflective of the United States, where some states with larger population have greater degrees of control within congress or in votes.
By consolidating their foreign policies and political decisions, the Europeans have begun taking more unified stances on many major issues like Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan. As the EU became more unified politically, they also become more unified in their opposition to various decisions made by the United States in particular. While there was piecemeal support for US actions in Afghanistan, Iraq was widely opposed by the public and by many governments. Similarly, the fact that only a few members of the EU are involved in alliances like NATO largely does not affect policy within the Union, even though the divisive European gap between NATO and the Warsaw pact was a large part of establishing a balance of power during the Cold War era. NATO was created as an anti-communism mechanism to defend against what appeared to be a USSR growing in power and influence, and in this post-Soviet climate such an establishment has lost much of the significance and power it may have held in the past. Even in the event that a need for the EU to align on either the side of a confrontation between the US and Russia (unlikely), even members of the former Soviet-Bloc are expressing interest in joining an otherwise largely-NATO controlled EU for purposes of security. “Most candidates for membership have sought economic advantage and political influence… The same is true of most Central and East European countries that wish to join the European mainstream after the long years under Soviet domination; and they hope too for enhanced security.” (John Pinder, The European Union: a Very Short Introduction, pg 123) Therefore, what appears to be a division within the Union between NATO members and non-members is really no division at all, and the unity of policy on NATO-related decisions is almost guaranteed.
If anything, in fact, the European continent seems largely to have done away with a balance of power and united its policies and economies to meet an even larger need for counterbalance; a counterbalance against the power with the United States. While it anyone would be hard-pressed to say that the United States and EU are political opposites and enemies, as the US and USSR were during the Cold War, they do have radically different doctrines on foreign policy, and approach to politics. “… the Europeans have not sought to check the rising power of the American colossus by amassing a countervailing power of their own… in what may be the ultimate feat of subtlety and indirection, they want to control the behemoth by appealing to its conscience.” (Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power, pg. 40-41) Even in this, the EU is seeking to use it’s united political force, rather than the sort of power they once possessed and seem to have done away with, to counterbalance what they see as a potentially dangerous nation, ever gaining more power. Kagan, in his book, firmly states again and again that the United States, while fundamentally similar to the EU in structure, tends to take a more power and control-related approach, often relying on force over the rules and diplomacy of the EU.
It is a new era for Europe. For centuries, the concept of a unified European Continent has been brought forward repeatedly, coming closest in history with the Roman and Catholic Church’s empire, but ending with the great schism. As the European Union rises to power in Europe, we see a dissolving of the concept of a balance of power. Instead, a region once torn apart again and again by internal struggle is uniting in common purpose, consolidating economies, policies, and structure in favor of a unified decision-making body without sacrificing each state’s individuality. A structure uncannily similar to the balance-free states of the United States of America, the EU is becoming even more so, and, in many ways, closer to what we are familiar with. Whether or not they are doing this for personally practical reasons or to counterbalance our own nation is unclear, but things are only looking forward for the EU if the ratification of a common constitution occurs. With the creation of the EU, Europe has eliminated the concept of a ‘balance of power’ within the continent itself, and with the entire continent becoming united economically, politically, and to a certain extent militarily, the capacity to take opposing viewpoints on any issue to the degree which could affect international relationships within the Union does not exist.

Works Cited

Bob, Rosenschein. Answers.com. 1999. Gurunet Assc. 23 May 2005 <http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-the-european-union>.

Colton, Joel, and Robert R. Palmer. A History of the Modern World. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1992.

Europa. Feb. 1995. Official Publications of the European Union. 23 May 2005 <http://europa.eu.int/abc/history/index_en.htm>.

Kagan, Robert. Of Paradise and Power. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. 3-103.

Pinder, John. The European Union: A Very Short Introduction . 23 May 2005 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101651155>.

BBC News Online. 22 June 2004. BBC News Network. 25 May 2005
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2950276.stm>.

Class Lecture. 6th Period, AP Euro. Thomas Worthington, Ohio. 26
May 2005.

Edited by (in order): EvilFish, EvilFish, EvilFish, EvilFish

what is your point? im supposed to read that for no reason at all?

to showoff? yeah, why did you post that?

update:

Also, this is a college level course, so please answer only if you are capable of acting reasonably maturely and intelligently.

yeah. i think i was right...

Edited by: Chunky

no. since I know quite a few people on here actually are european, i was hoping for a bit of criticism. Sorry, i didn't mention that.
Yeah, I did kind of sound like ass, didn't I? Changed.

Edited by: EvilFish

what the hell are these people complaining about, something informative and educational?

no wonder kids love rap and MTV

its a nice paper, but next time please format it to look nice, large blocks of text hurt my eyes

(could also be a little longer)

There are quite a few faulty things in the article, actually..

1. The Cold War didn't happen until after WW2. Though I'm pretty sure that you know this, as it stands now it appears that the Cold War caused the dualism. So you might want to reword that.

2. European countries weren't given an option to join either the US or the Ruskies. If the US helped or conquered you during WW2, then you were with the US and her allies. If you were conquered by the Russians during WW2, then the Russians were in control. (Or they installed puppet-regimes.)

3. After WW2, Germany was definitely not being a threat of being the only superpower in Europe. In fact, the UK and France regained their titles as (small) superpowers and due to the huge dividance of power in Germany (which was divided by the English, French, American and Russian) and the newly installed state-system, Germany was divided in two and pretty much powerless. Most of the other nations were in rubble, except the neutral Swiss.

4. A huge error is that you assume that the EU was founded to balance the power properly in Europe. This is hugely false; the EU started out as a trade agreement among the most powerful European nations somewhere in the '60's. (Perhaps already in the '50's..) Gradually the agreements became more close and the trade agreements changed into more, into the European Community. It wasn't until the beginning of the '90's that the EU was founded by, I believe, the treaty of Maastricht. After that, the EU became even more close, by the introduction of the European Monetary Union. (Being the introduction of the Euro.)

5. The UN is not just a security agreement. They're much more than just that. Do a Google. You might also want to mention its predecessor. (The League of Nations.)

6. While Robert Kagan may have been right a few years ago, with the introduction of this (damned) European Constitution a shitload of power is going to Europe and they pretty much get control over everything. Of course, I can't expect you to read all 500 pages of that constitution, but you might want to emphasize that it's Mr. Kagan his opinion and that it might change with recent developments.
Just for your interest: the European Constitution makes it a rule that all member states should keep upgrading and updating their military powers. To me personally, this reeks to a arms race.

7. "use it’s united political force, rather than the sort of power they once possessed and seem to have done away with"; This is a common US belief. That the EU has a relatively weak military force and isn't eager on using it. Though the latter might be somewhat true, the EU still holds a larger and more powerful fighting force than the US. The huge advantage that the US has it that all its armed forces are centralized whereas all European armies are decentralised (divied per member state) and are not used on working together. Each member state has its own all-round fighting force which, together, make about 25 all-round fighting forces. Whereas the US has the possibility of making one huge, centralized fighting force. This is the strength of the US and the weakness of the EU. This doesn't mean however, that the EU has no military power.

============================================================

In conclusion, I'm rather suprised to see that you, as a college student, don't appear to have some basic knowledge of the European Union. I base this opinion on some of the errors in your text and if this is true, I would hold this hugely against the American education system. (Which, to my knowledge, is mostly aimed at their own nation and its history.)

Another interesting point of this new constitution is that it allows preemtive (military) strikes if they're in favor of the EU. You'll probably see the EU growing (if the constitution gets through, which it probably will eventually... Unfortunately..) into the row of new superpowers (together with China and India) where the EU will, most likely, try to solve all the issues the US gets herself into with China and India. (No offense, but the US don't have a good track record..) Personally, I fear the day when the European warmachine gets warmed up again, and we cause the third world war. (AGAIN!)

2. European countries weren't given an option to join either the US or the Ruskies. If the US helped or conquered you during WW2, then you were with the US and her allies. If you were conquered by the Russians during WW2, then the Russians were in control. (Or they installed puppet-regimes.)

that's a good point. I'll work that in, though I think the jist of my statement still stands.

4. A huge error is that you assume that the EU was founded to balance the power properly in Europe. This is hugely false; the EU started out as a trade agreement among the most powerful European nations somewhere in the '60's. (Perhaps already in the '50's..) Gradually the agreements became more close and the trade agreements changed into more, into the European Community. It wasn't until the beginning of the '90's that the EU was founded by, I believe, the treaty of Maastricht. After that, the EU became even more close, by the introduction of the European Monetary Union. (Being the introduction of the Euro.)

I guess i goofed up big time, because I was trying to say that the EU, instead of correcting the balance of power kind of eliminated it altogether. I knew about the fact that the EU began as a collection of smaller economic agreements (the first being a coal and steel one, I believe) but we were given permission to refer to the EU and it's predecessor components as the EU.

5. The UN is not just a security agreement. They're much more than just that. Do a Google. You might also want to mention its predecessor. (The League of Nations.)

There is, generally speaking, more of a security component to the UN than to the EU.

7. "use it’s united political force, rather than the sort of power they once possessed and seem to have done away with"; This is a common US belief. That the EU has a relatively weak military force and isn't eager on using it. Though the latter might be somewhat true, the EU still holds a larger and more powerful fighting force than the US. The huge advantage that the US has it that all its armed forces are centralized whereas all European armies are decentralised (divied per member state) and are not used on working together. Each member state has its own all-round fighting force which, together, make about 25 all-round fighting forces. Whereas the US has the possibility of making one huge, centralized fighting force. This is the strength of the US and the weakness of the EU. This doesn't mean however, that the EU has no military power.

I didn't mean to imply that the EU and it's members didn't have a decent army. I'm perfectly aware that most of the European armies are some of the very best in the world. What I meant was that the EU is far less likely to use their armies than, say, the US. that's a fact.

============================================================

In conclusion, I'm rather suprised to see that you, as a college student, don't appear to have some basic knowledge of the European Union. I base this opinion on some of the errors in your text and if this is true, I would hold this hugely against the American education system. (Which, to my knowledge, is mostly aimed at their own nation and its history.)

Actually I'm a high school student. As for our education system, there is a large portion devoted to US History, but most of our other education is devoted to 'Global History', which often concludes chronologically before the EU even becomes a major player in contemporary politics. Classes devoted solely to European History are generally limited in admittance (at least in High School) and contemporary politics classes tend to revolve mostly around US affairs.

so the point of this thread was to annoy europeans? seriously?

Edited by: Stimor

Dude, criticism isn't necessarily negative. Ever heard of constructive criticism? Yeah, i didn't think so. Google it. Educate yourself. Besdies, did SEThorian seem annoyed to you?

"Dude, criticism isn't necessarily negative. Ever heard of constructive criticism?"

Well the following one one sure as hell was, Evilfish. (granted you didn't post it)

"In conclusion, I'm rather suprised to see that you, as a college student, don't appear to have some basic knowledge of the European Union. I base this opinion on some of the errors in your text and if this is true, I would hold this hugely against the American education system. (Which, to my knowledge, is mostly aimed at their own nation and its history.)"

American High-Schools are notoriously sub-par to the rest of the world, but people from all over flock to American Universities to study abroad. You're basing your oppinon off one person's paper.

If I based my oppinion of European's on you in the same manner you did EvilFish I'd have to draw the conclusion that all Europeans are closed minded individuals who base their oppions of entire cultures upon a lone individual's essay that may or may not have been final draft stereotyping an overall intelligent society as stupid. Fortunately, common sense comes into play.

Chaossaber314 wrote: If I based my opinion of European's on you in the same manner you did EvilFish I'd have to draw the conclusion that all Europeans are closed minded individuals who base their oppions of entire cultures upon a lone individual's essay that may or may not have been final draft stereotyping an overall intelligent society as stupid. Fortunately, common sense comes into play.

But we DO do that!

;P

Good point and I worded that badly. What I failed to mention was that I do have some previous knowledge of the US system but decided not to mention that because of my fancy (faulty) sentence. Furthermore, I wouldn't call US education sub-par, but I would call it 'too American'. By which I mean that it's focused on just the US a tad bit too much.

And I wasn't annoyed with the essay at all, no. Just felt like giving input..

EvilFish wrote: but we were given permission to refer to the EU and it's predecessor components as the EU.

I see.. I understand the teacher his reasoning (to prevent it from becoming too complicated) but personally I would disagree. Some minor research (like what you mentioned, the cole and steel trade agreement and the European Community) wouldn't hurt too much. Mentioning it in one or two sentences wouldn't hurt. But that's just my opinion. (Mind you, I'm also very critic with my own education. And my teachers know it.. >))

EvilFish wrote: There is, generally speaking, more of a security component to the UN than to the EU.

I'd really have to disagree. Securitywise, the UN is actually very conservative and it are its members (such as the US) that undertake the action. With or without the approval of the UN. Another major feat of the UN, in my eyes, is the humanatarian work that they do. Like giving people in 3rd world countries food and medication. But if you compare it to the EU, then there is more of a security component yes. Mind you, the newer member states of the EU (mostly the Eastern European) are joining it partially because of extra saftey.

EvilFish wrote: What I meant was that the EU is far less likely to use their armies than, say, the US. that's a fact.

Definitely true. I wouldn't mind a few more use of it. Instead of aiding the US in attacking oil-rich countries, I would really have like have seen some military intervention in Darfur. Thousands are dying and suffering there, and nobody is doing a thing. Military intervention was briefly discussed, but they quickly wiped it off the table.. A pity..

EvilFish wrote: Dude, criticism isn't necessarily negative. Ever heard of constructive criticism? Yeah, i didn't think so. Google it. Educate yourself. Besdies, did SEThorian seem annoyed to you?

the point of criticism is being negative, it may be constructive or not

That's really your interpretation. I for one can really appreciate critisism and think it can be very positive as it will help me improving my product.