Peter Hamilton

Shayne Clarke
English 150

The conception of United States of America was so declarative, so unique, that it may

never be matched. Broken down into its individual concepts, it establishes the protection of a

large nation, yet ensures the familiarity of a localized government. This interaction of state and

national governments has inadvertently set the grounds for a new nation. A European Nation.

One which has jokingly been coined “The United States of Europe.” The European Union has

come a long way in the past few years, but how much further does it have to go for its presence

to be taken seriously? How much further can it go? The European Union will never function as

efficiently and effectively as the United States of America due to its history and the cultural

differences. Now is a time when the balance of power in the world influences our lives daily.

September 11, 2001 can be a direct response to how Al Qaeda viewed the balance of power. The

fact the USA went into Iraq without the approval of the UN shows the imbalance of power and

the variance in ideology due to cultural differences. Just as the UN could not properly govern its

members, the EU will never be able to properly govern its members. Its most prominent

members will never submit to a decision they are opposed to. There exists a level of pride and

cultural conflict which has made cooperation between these countries nearly impossible.

Jacque Chirac, the prime minister of France, is infamous for his “nationalism.” His

insistence upon preserving the French language has resulted the support of his countrymen, and

the annoyance of the rest of the world. He has been known for his insistence that French be

spoken to the degree that English is. He requests translators when speaking before an English

speaking or international audience, though he was educated in the United States and has no

difficulty expressing himself in English. He once met privately with George W. Bush and

insisted on bringing a translator. In another instance he was set to speak in a meeting with the

EU. As no official translators were available, he insisted that Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of
 Peter Hamilton
Shayne Clarke
English 150

the UK, translate for him throughout the meeting. He once attended an important EU meeting,

dealing with economic issues between the nations. When a fellow Frenchman began to present

the situation in English, Chirac asked him why he was not speaking in French. The man

responded that English was the language of the business they were doing. Chirac promptly

stated it was not the language he does business in and left the meeting. This lack of cooperation

in a simple issue such as language is only magnified in international agreements. If a man like

Chirac won’t surrender his territory concerning the language used to communicate, how can one

expect him to compromise in a situation of any importance?

The rivalry between Germany and France has become so ingrained in the culture of the

two that it may be a long time before they learn to cooperate with each other. In the past 150

years, the French and Germans have waged war 3 times, and each time the French lost. This

prideful wound may never heal. The last thing any Frenchman would ever do is to let the

Germans triumph, even in a political disagreement. To compromise would be to admit defeat,

yet again. Likewise, the Dutch have held a position of social and economic independence for

such a long time that the idea of compromise seems to have been forgotten. The recent attempt

by the EU to ratify a European constitution was entirely defeated by the Dutch government. The

lack of ability to compromise combined with the intense levels of cultural difference leaves the

EU in a situation where there seems to be no obvious solution. Without an agreement on a

constitution, the EU is little more than a collection of economic and political treaties, when the

ultimate goal is for a unified Europe.

The biggest failure of the EU has been the free movement between nations in the EU.

The impoverished immigrants from eastern European countries have full right and ability to

legally live in Western European Nations. Once citizenship has been attained in a participating
 Peter Hamilton
Shayne Clarke
English 150

country, an immigrant may travel freely between nations and live wherever they please. Yet

there is no universally established criteria for citizenship, which allows an immigrant to become

a citizen of a country such as Poland, where citizenship laws are relatively loose, and live in a

country like Belgium. Immigrants account for the majority of crime in any big city, and the free

travel between countries undermines any attempt that a nation might have in controlling this

issue. The recent riots in France by immigrants wrecked havoc for weeks. Joe Van Holsbeeck, a

Belgian youth of age 17, was stabbed to death on April 12, 2006. His attackers where of North

African descent, but had become citizens of Poland and had since moved to Belgium. Perhaps

this would not have happened if the open border laws had not been in place.

Due to the extensive historical prejudice, modern day politicians and other government

officials seem to fear nothing worse than being branded as a racist or a prejudice. Jean-Marie

Dedecker, a senator for the Belgian Liberal Party, pointed out that “you will sooner get punished

for riding a bike without the lights on than for stealing a bike. [...] Policemen look the other way

in order to avoid being accused of racism – because nothing is more detrimental to their career –

and also to signal that they hold no prejudices. They behave in exactly the opposite way when

they suspect decent citizens of some misdemeanor.” Any action taken to control this

immigration is prohibited. Daniel Féret, the leader of the Belgian anti-immigrant party Front

National, had been punished for his efforts to control immigration and decrease crime. He faces

a potential 10 months in jail for publishing racist pamphlets. This continual fear to offend others

of different nationality, coupled with the intense nationalistic pride of each country, leads to a

split in the country itself. Half the country puts cooperation as its number one priority, to the

point where they are willing to give up their right to control and govern themselves. Others have
 Peter Hamilton
Shayne Clarke
English 150

no desire to cooperate. What is left is a situation with two extremes, and a middle ground

viewed as an impossibility by each.

So where can the European Union go now? With a joint constitution an apparent

impossibility, cooperation and compromise an impossible middle ground among the extreme

political views, and a universal fear of losing ones culture, a unified Europe looks to be highly

unlikely. The success of the Euro as a common currency shows that it is possible to unite, but it

seems that the cultural differences will make unity difficult. For the European Union to function

as a “United States of Europe,” it will require more than politics and politicians can offer. It will

require centuries of war, of conquest, and of prejudice to be undone. No, it is not impossible, but

it is neither probable nor simple. As such, the EU will never be viewed as a single unified power.