... the five great drivers of European unification since the 1950s have now either disappeared or

[pampango]

lost much of their energy.

What happened to the forces that drove the project of European unification forward over the last 60 years?
----First and foremost was the personal memory of war, and the mantra of “never again,” which motivated three generations of Europeans after 1945. But the last generation to have experienced World War II is passing on, and the collective memory is weak.
----Second, the Soviet threat provided a powerful incentive for Western Europeans to unite during the cold war.
----Third, until the 1990s, the engine of European integration was the Federal Republic of Germany, with France at the steering wheel.
----Fourth, the once captive nations of Eastern Europe are no longer uniformly passionate about the European Union even though their citizens have more recent memories of dictatorship, hardship and war.
----Finally, the widespread assumption that “Europe” would mean a rising standard of living and social security for all Europeans has been badly dented by accumulated debt, aging populations, global competition and the crisis of the euro zone.

And that is the beginning of the new case for European unification. While we Europeans should redouble our efforts to ensure that our continent does not forget its troubled past, the need for scale is the key to our shared future. The 21st-century world will be one of giants: weary old ones, like the United States and Russia, and hungry new ones, like China, India, Brazil and South Africa.

If Europeans are to preserve the remarkable combination of prosperity, peace, relative social security and quality of life that they have achieved over the last 60 years, they need the scale that only the European Union can provide. In a world of giants, you had better be a giant yourself: A trade negotiation between China and the European Union is a conversation between equals; one between China and France is an unequal affair.

Europeans should not entirely abandon the hope — faint though it looks today — that their pioneering version of peaceful integration between previously warring states could point the way for better “global governance” in response to shared threats like climate change and to the tensions that inevitably arise between rising and declining powers. For without enhanced cooperation on a global scale, the 21st-century world may come to look like the late-19th-century Europe of rivalrous great powers.

It was probably inevitable that, as the last survivors of Europe's last great war die off, the impetus behind the "pioneering version of peaceful integration between previously warring states" would lose its momentum as well.

Whether Europe's example of such 'peaceful integration' of previously uncooperative (to say the least) countries will be a useful lesson in how to respond to "shared threats like climate change and to the tensions that inevitably arise between rising and declining powers" remains to be seen. But one can hope the belief that walls or vast oceans can protect you from what is happening elsewhere has been relegated to the dust bin of history.

[xchrom]

1. i love the idea of the European Union.

and i love that it would be a balancing force to the economic forces that are asia and the u.s.

but the economics of our day -- have corrupted the eurozone -- and brussels institutions are suffering from incompetence and being too heavy handed in that way that american institutions are.

there needs to be a real accounting with the financial houses and banks -- and they need a dose -- a heavy dose -- of good old fashioned euro socialism back in the system

the system is only there to work for everyone not facilitate inequity.

[bemildred]

2. I like smaller countries, they do less damage when they fuck up.

When big countries go crazy, the whole planet gets hurt.

[pampango]

3. Thanks. Europeans found peace, prosperity and progressive governing in the increased integration

after WWII.

Germany did plenty of "damage when" it "fucked up" the last time. The idea of the EU was to keep one European country from "fucking up" the entire continent and for 65 years it has worked.

Europeans tried the idea of keeping Germany "small" (reparations and limits on the size of its military) after WWI to keep it from causing so much damage again. Needless to say, that idea was unsuccessful. So after WWII they tried the idea of integrating the continent by opening borders to people and goods. History shows that concept has worked better than 'small' but fiercely nationalistic.

And, of course, the US, Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa are not going to become "small" countries any time soon. It would seem a shame that the one continent where peaceful cooperation and integration has created the most progressive societies on earth should be urged to devolve into a bunch of smaller countries.

[bemildred]

4. The problem is that political integration does not necessarily result in peace.

And when it does not result in peace, as in the example you so helpfully point out, it makes a really big mess. Little countries have little ambitions and make little messes with fewer dead people. Meanwhile, the advantages of economic and social integration and intercourse are still available and less likely to be coerced or distorted for political advantage (because the smaller sovereign entities have less ability to control markets.) And if you have lots of small sovereign entities, they all have an interest in keeping any one from getting too big for his britches.

[pampango]

5. In the case of the EU, political integration did result in peace and prosperity. When you say

"when it does not result in peace, as in the example you so helpfully point out, it makes a really big mess", I'm not sure what instance of political integration you are referring to that created a "really big mess". The efforts to contain Germany after WWI did not involve political integration.

They were designed to keep Germany from "getting too big for his britches" as you say. Obviously a strategy that did not work. These post-WWI efforts to contain and weaken Germany were the opposite political integration and did not work.

True political integration came after WWII undoubtedly in light the failure of the post-WWI efforts. This political integration has been very successful particularly by European historical standards in promoting peace, prosperity and progressive governments.