Why the EU Still Has Work to Do

Of the many animals in the presidential debates, the elephant in the room — Europe — has yet to really come up. Foreign policy arguments have centered on the Middle East and the economic disputes have mainly been on a national scale. So whatever happened to the eurozone crisis?

It has not disappeared; recently we have witnessed mass protests in Portugal against the new austerity budget and ongoing chaos in Greece and Spain. In Greece, again, many politicians have been shamefully exposed for exploiting their taxes. Yet somehow, almost inexplicably, bail-out after bail-out, threats and false agreements have all delayed the inevitable. There will come a point when the European Central Bank — and by default Germany — will cease to cough up extra funds and countries will either have to leave the eurozone or alternately be absorbed into a supreme inorganic mass. That decision, however, is not going to be made today. Perhaps this delaying is down to the fact that no one knows which one is really better, but here’s what I think and why.

As one Nobel Peace Prize winner fights for re-election, a new one is announced: the European Union (EU). It has always been an obvious choice. It was founded upon the concept of ruling out any European hegemony by uniting the historical enemies, France and Germany, and has so far been incredibly successful. Though the Cold War certainly helped by uniting all the members on the same side, the achievement is nonetheless remarkable.

The timing of the award, however, is somewhat strange. In the year 2012, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were just as worthy supranational organizations — having done nothing of note —  and the Arab League a lot more so. So it leaves one to wonder why exactly the EU was chosen now. One reason could simply be that they’ve had it in store for a while now, and seeing no other stand-out contender this year, they pulled the EU award out from the stock. I don’t buy that.

2012 is the year of the presidential election in the U.S., the world’s primary superpower and also the year of the communist party leadership reshuffle in China, the only other realistic geopolitical heavyweight. A united Europe would hopefully be able to rival these two as the third force on the world scale. In that situation it would cancel out any possible Cold War-style dichotomy between China and America. The EU also still has a role to play within its borders, with ethnic tensions and far-right groups appearing in many places. Perhaps the Nobel committee was trying to say, “You’ve been great at keeping peace in the past — remember to keep doing it.” A united Europe, and that means a Europe whose states have dissolved all legislative and economic power to an elected body in Brussels, would ensure a dynamic non-antagonistic power-play in world politics.

European leaders are currently participating in major talks about the future of the eurozone. If Europe were to disintegrate, which is a likely consequence of any serious financial changes, then not only would the entire world slip into fiscal chaos, but the new “emancipated” countries themselves, feeling cheated or picked upon, would automatically become more aggressive. War would not be impossible; there are few better boosters for any economy, just look at what happened in the thirties, and people have repeatedly compared this crisis to that of 1929.

The Nobel prize is recognizing both the EU’s past and its ideological brilliance, but also warning that if current issues are not resolved, then it risks doing great damage to world peace.