European Union and Collective Security

[1889]

For a school paper I was reading an old article by Sheldon Anderson (Metternich, Bismarck, and the myth of the “long peace”, 1815-1914 from Peace and Change, Vol. 32, July 2007).

He closes with these two lines: “The European Union is the descendant of the Congress of Vienna’s promise of collective security and the rule of international law. The European states now recognize that the use of force among them is not merely another tool of diplomacy, as von Clausewitz argued, but its ultimate failure.”

I thought Mr. Anderson missed some pretty important points in his article but I do admit to not knowing much about the EU. I thought it was just a giant free trade zone but does it do something more sublime? Are the French and Germans finally brothers as unlikely to go to war as Arizonians and Californians?

 

[Dachs]

He closes with these two lines: “The European Union is the descendant of the Congress of Vienna’s promise of collective security and the rule of international law. The European states now recognize that the use of force among them is not merely another tool of diplomacy, as von Clausewitz argued, but its ultimate failure.”

I thought Mr. Anderson missed some pretty important points in his article but I do admit to not knowing much about the EU. I thought it was just a giant free trade zone but does it do something more sublime? Are the French and Germans finally brothers as unlikely to go to war as Arizonians and Californians?

France and Germany have reconciled to a large extent since 1945. National rivalries still exist among EU members - they always will - but none of them seriously contemplate going to war with one another. That is in large part due to the EU; it is also due to the existence of NATO. It's generally a bad idea to go to war with one's allies, after all. While it's not a centralized federal state like the US yet, as of right now a war between France and Germany is about as likely as a war between the United States and Canada, maybe less so.

And von Clausewitz wasn't wrong...he was just reading the wrong translation. It's not necessarily a tool of diplomacy per se but rather a tool of the political leadership of a country. The point behind that particular statement was to indicate that the military shouldn't have a preeminent part in making the decisions of the political leadership, because that would be like the tool deciding its own task.

 

[dosed150]

For a school paper I was reading an old article by Sheldon Anderson (Metternich, Bismarck, and the myth of the “long peace”, 1815-1914 from Peace and Change, Vol. 32, July 2007).

He closes with these two lines: “The European Union is the descendant of the Congress of Vienna’s promise of collective security and the rule of international law. The European states now recognize that the use of force among them is not merely another tool of diplomacy, as von Clausewitz argued, but its ultimate failure.”

I thought Mr. Anderson missed some pretty important points in his article but I do admit to not knowing much about the EU. I thought it was just a giant free trade zone but does it do something more sublime? Are the French and Germans finally brothers as unlikely to go to war as Arizonians and Californians?

i think it was the economist john keynes who said between the wars that economic union-making countries economies reliant on each other would stop those countries going to war, thats part of the reason the states are unlikely to go to war

 

[~Corsair#01~]

In reality the EU has virtually nothing to do with peace in Europe. Hatred of war has been an almighty force since the Great War, and the presence of the USSR and USA after the second war meant that any country going to war in Europe would soon have more craters than people.
In any case, the only country with any serious reason to go to war was Germany and the reasons for Germany to not start a new war are just too obvious and plentiful for me to bother listing.

The EU imo accentuates national divisions by forcing the horrendous policies of certain French-speaking countries on the people of certain non-French-speaking countries.

 

[Shekwan]

The Lisbon treaty is basically a proposal for a european constitution, which among its articles makes provision for common defense policies for the EU. It's not passed yet but the only country whose people are even allowed vote for or against it is Ireland. I'm not quite sure why we're the only ones allowed hold a referendum about it but it's a pretty big deal at the moment. Most of the other European governments are hoping we don't ''. .. .. .. . up'' and reject it, whereas a large part of the EU population are hoping we reject it. A tough situation.

Also I don't think it matters what language the policy makers speak, it's what policies they actually try to implement. It's all nationalistic . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . at the end of the day.

 

[Steph]

Corsair point of view is very strange... But well, his location says Great Britain...

"One of the first successful proposals for European cooperation came in 1951 with the European Coal and Steel Community. This had the aim of bringing together control of the coal and steel industries of its member states, principally France and West Germany. This was with the aim that war between them would not then be possible, as coal and steel were the principal resources for waging war. The Community's founders declared it "a first step in the federation of Europe", with the hope that this would enable Europe to pursue the development of Africa. The other founding members were Italy, and the three Benelux countries: Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg.

Now, France and Germany are quite close. We have some transnational companies, such as EADS (Airbus). We have some common military program (Tiger helicopter). We also have the Franco-German brigade, a military unit composed of French and German units.

The relationship between Sarkozy and Merkel is not as close as it was between Chirac and Schroeder (at the time Schroeder asked Chirac to represent Germany in some EU meeting where he couldn't attend, which I find a strong political sign). But France and Germany are still very close.

And we finally realize we have more to gain by working together. Of course, it's not always perfect, as there are still some frictions from time to time, but overhall, I don't see any reason for a war with Germany.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

The EU has certainly helped European co-operation, but saying that the EU is solely or even mainly responsible for peace in Europe is nonsense. NATO and the Warsaw Pact were responsible for the peace as was the simple political reality that war under the conditions was insane. Germany is over as a military power of any consequence and the territory is lost has long been colonised by the victorious powers. The minorities that plagued central Europe following the Versailles disaster have conveniently "went away".

 

[Verbose]

The EU has certainly helped European co-operation, but saying that the EU is solely or even mainly responsible for peace in Europe is nonsense. NATO and the Warsaw Pact were responsible for the peace as was the simple political reality that war under the conditions was insane. Germany is over as a military power of any consequence and the territory is lost has long been colonised by the victorious powers. The minorities that plagued central Europe following the Versailles disaster have conveniently "went away".

Coal and Steel Union, Germany included: 1951
Germany included in the NATO: 1955

The NATO relied on that external threat, the EU doesn't. Both certainly have done their bit, but the EU has worked better as a vehicle for reconciliation between European nations. And with the external threat removed, the purpose of the NATO becomes more problematic.

The NATO and EU members Germany and France are very buddy-buddy by now, which is a great relief for Europe, despite France making waves in the NATO. Otoh the NATO-only members Greece and Turkey aren't as friendly as all that.

So I think there's more to indicate the EU helps overcome historic animosity than the NATO.