Is Europe ready for more unity?
July 9th, 2012
03:09 PM ET

Is Europe ready for more unity?

Editor's note: Bernard Gwertzman with talks to Charles A. Kupchan, an expert on European affairs, in a Q&A from

Europe is experiencing its worst major economic and political crisis since World War II, says CFR Europe expert Charles A. Kupchan. While the recent summit lays out "steps that at least for now appear to be calming the markets and pushing Europe in the right direction," says Kupchan, there's a real question about whether Europe's publics are ready for further integration.

"The jury is still out on whether the member states and their respective populations are prepared to bite the bullet and countenance intrusions on their sovereignty when it comes to core questions of economic and political decision-making," notes Kupchan. Kupchan also says that the United States, beset with its own fiscal and financial problems, can only urge Europe to bold action and is not in any position to come to Europe's aid.

How bad is Europe's economic and political situation?

The European Union is still in the midst of its greatest crisis since World War II. The crisis has both economic and political components. The core economic issue is that the eurozone remains beset by financial instability and concern about the solvency of key member states. And that economic fragility intersects with the question of political unity, because the economic crisis is eating away at the social fabric of European unity. The crisis requires a collective response–that is to say, more political integration–if it is to be adequately solved in the long run. And the jury is still out on whether the member states and their respective populations are prepared to bite the bullet and countenance intrusions on their sovereignty when it comes to core questions of economic and political decision-making.

Well, in England, for instance, public opinion polls show (PDF) most people really want out of the European Union. Can that happen?

The UK is an outlier in the sense that the British have always been somewhat skittish about the European project and about getting too close to the continent. Therefore there is now a debate in Britain about the possibility of actually leaving the union. The British already have opted out on a number of issues, including membership in the eurozone. But if the ongoing crisis ultimately leads to a tighter fiscal and political union, Britain would find itself very much outside the European core, [and] marginalized in European politics. That could well precipitate a referendum on membership and the prospect of a potential British departure over the longer run.

How can the Eurozone function with such differences in the economies of countries such as, say, Germany and Greece?

The introduction of the euro is part of a long chain of events that goes back to the late 1940s and early 1950s. [Then, in 1957] the Treaty of Rome set the stage for the single market called then the European Economic Community. Over the course of the 1990s, steps were taken toward monetary union and the introduction of a single currency. Those steps forward were effectively economic integration in the service of political union and geopolitical integration, effectively doing away with the national boundaries that so many times in history caused war.

The push toward monetary integration should have been accompanied by the necessary steps on the political front; we should have seen fiscal integration, banking unions, a European Central Bank that has the same kinds of competencies as the U.S. Federal Reserve. But Europeans weren't ready to take those kinds of political steps, and they therefore went ahead and launched the euro, despite the fact that they were well aware that the appropriate bodies of oversight were not being introduced at the same time.

The absence of adequate oversight and the differences, largely along regional lines between northern Europe and southern Europe, came to haunt the euro. That's effectively where we are today, where you have very different kinds of economic systems in the north and in the periphery that has led to rising debt and imbalances, particularly in countries like Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland.

Are the richer countries in Europe ready to bail out the ones having the big problems?

There has been a debate about this issue from the get-go, and in some ways it goes to the heart of the difficulty that Europe has faced. Germany is the key player. Germany has the resources and the power to take the lead in trying to bail out the weaker member states, but the German electorate, and many members of the German elite, have been reluctant to put the burden on German taxpayers, and so what we saw happen last week at the most recent summit was an effort to begin to address the issue of debt in the southern tier by taking a series of important steps that, at least for now, appear to be calming the markets and pushing Europe in the right direction.

Describe them, please.

The decisions taken at the summit can be divided into three categories. The first, and the initiative with the most immediate impact, was to give the European Central Bank a green light to loan money directly to failing banks. That gives the ECB the ability to recapitalize banks in Spain, which were in bad shape because of bad loans associated with the real estate bubble. Prior to this decision, private debt and sovereign debt were being linked; banks were going down and governments were stepping in to save them, but then those governments themselves were seen as becoming less creditworthy, and their borrowing rates went up. That's what happened in Ireland, and it was in the process of happening in Spain. So the summit decided to give the ECB more power and to redress the banking crisis without exacerbating the sovereign debt crisis.

The second decision–and this is still a work in progress–is to put in place the beginnings of a banking union, to give the European Central Bank the ability to oversee Europe's banks and to set standard procedures and rules. This was in many respects the bargain central to the Germans being willing to say: We're ready to put more resources on the line as long as those resources are attached to greater conditionality and to greater institutional and financial discipline. What we will see by the end of 2012 is flesh on those bones.

Finally, the summit put in motion a process of deliberation that is meant to ask some pressing and profound questions about the longer-term goals of European integration. What might Europe look like a couple of years down the road? Will the president of Europe be directly elected? Will Europe have a bicameral parliament–one for popular elections and one that represents the individual member states? Will there be a fiscal union? That is to say, will there be one body that sets tax policy for the union as a whole? These issues are now on the agenda because the financial crisis has forced them, and in some ways. They are the six-million-dollar questions, not unlike the questions that Americans were asking at the Constitutional Convention in the 1780s. The crisis has forced upon the Europeans big questions about the potential–I wouldn't say final–but penultimate structures of the Union.

Are the leaders of Europe agreed on the need for closer unity?

In general there is more appetite in Germany for European federalism. There is less appetite for this in France, which is more statist and less keen to countenance infringements on its sovereignty from Brussels. And there is the secondary question of: Are Europe's publics ready for this? It's too soon to tell. What is worrying about this extended financial crisis is that we are seeing the growth of a strong anti-EU sentiment among European voters, and that is reflected quite clearly in the results of elections that have taken place over the last couple of years. That doesn't mean that those attitudes can't be reversed, but it does mean that the public will reconnect with the European project if the austerity gives way to growth, and only if European leaders, rather than following public opinion, get out in front of the public and attempt to relaunch the European project. The blueprints now under discussion and that are being generated by the European Commission and the European Central Bank are intended to give European elites the narrative, the vision, that they can use to attempt to reanimate European unity among European publics.

Is the United States just a bystander in all this, or is there something the United States can be doing?

The United States has effectively had its hands tied because of its own fiscal and financial difficulties. President Obama made a call early on in the European crisis that it would be inappropriate and politically unpopular to be bailing out European countries when American workers and the American economy are themselves in dire straits.

The United States is encouraging Europe to act. It has been sending high-level emissaries, including Secretary of the Treasury Geithner, and one of his key colleagues, Lael Brainard, to advise the Europeans and encourage them to take bold steps and not baby steps, but the United States has not put its own assets on the line. There's an important lesson in that story, and that is that America's main partner in the world is flirting with financial meltdown, and the United States is unable to come to the rescue. That tells us that we are, to some extent, in a brave new world in which the United States is no longer in a position to be the lender of last resort, or the country that always is ready to send out the fire trucks when there is a blaze somewhere.

In other words, there's no second Marshall Plan.

There's no second Marshall Plan for Europe; there's no second or new Marshall Plan for the Middle East. That's just a reflection of the fact that we're heading into a world in which the hegemonic position of the United States has taken a hit because of the continuing diffusion of power to new quarters, but also because of the pressing need of the United States to focus on problems here at home.

Post by:
Topics: Economy • Europe

soundoff (14 Responses)
  1. JAL

    The best advice on unity is pretty simple. When you see someone trying, I mean really trying to be polite and have good manners, accept them for it and be inspired to do the same. This is the most powerful force we can muster and it is good enough to succeed.

    July 9, 2012 at 5:54 pm | Reply
    • Harry Callahan

      Some memorable quotes from JAL:
      "Many ballets were thrown away"
      many tutu wearers are sad.
      It does indeed. Tanks for the reminder.
      July 10, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
      Brownian motion can be used to characterize primary stress in brain function. Also, our brains seem to be hard-wired to demand a periodic and genuine progress (new car feeling, baby begin born), and then sometimes we take drugs to simulate this progressive euphoria.
      July 8, 2012 at 9:43 pm |
      At this point, the Higgs-Boson theory will not stand the test of time, because the Higgs mechanism fails to characterize the far more significant event of transitional (energy-to-mass) failure. The characterization of transitional failure can be equated to the characterization of evil. Since evil has a dual, symbiotic and perhaps even parasitic nature, an independent characterization may be impossible to muster based on human logic.
      July 7, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
      These time based time invariant functions serve as independent equations. Any scientist will tell you that there never seem to be enough independent equations.
      July 8, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
      Generally speaking, the significance of the Higgs mechanism is inversely proportional to the mass of black holes. Far more significant are the reasons for Higgs failure, at least in most of the galaxies on record. Thomas Edison was far more intrigued by the information gained from the root-cause analysis obtained from a failed light bulb.
      July 7, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
      Standing the test of time is the essence of a time invariant system.
      July 8, 2012 at 8:46 pm |


      July 11, 2012 at 7:34 pm | Reply
      • Harry Callahan


        July 11, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
  2. Quigley

    The idea of uniting Europe has never been a good one. Hasn't anyone here studied European history? Obviously not! It appears that the idiots here forgot what Hitler, Mussolini and the Communists in Eastern Europe already learned ages ago.

    July 9, 2012 at 7:21 pm | Reply
    • Harry Callahan

      That you cannot force anyone to do anything?

      July 11, 2012 at 7:40 pm | Reply
  3. Matt A.

    Disunity,. . . might be the proper course.

    July 9, 2012 at 7:51 pm | Reply
  4. Patrick

    Disunity is the state of not being able to agree about important things : lack of unity.
    Uniity is a way of combining the parts so that they seem to belong together.
    The Nazi's preached the doctrine of folk community. All classes were relished to enjoy the same meal, the solder, the boss, the worker, the banker. The work-less, built the autobahn's. Other nations, were mass unemployment persisted, watched Germany with envy. Hitler Youth, League of German Maidens; all young people learned Party songs, drilled, danced and belonged. Few people dreamed of conquest or had hope like Hitler for a German Empire from the Urals to the Atlantic. Most people felt that Hitler was taking back what had been robbed from them and restoring, not destroying, the order & unity of Europe.

    July 9, 2012 at 8:29 pm | Reply
  5. 100 % ETHIO

    Under God, Europe's unity, either now or after is only under America's Clock.

    Europe is under America rule.

    July 9, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Reply
    • Marine5484

      How true that rings, ETHIO! The M.I.C. today wants to run things on both sides of the Atlantic!

      July 10, 2012 at 11:05 am | Reply
  6. j. von hettlingen

    Angela Merkel's voters and tax-payers aren't willing to save the Euro at all costs.

    July 10, 2012 at 4:52 am | Reply
    • j. von hettlingen

      The Finns and the Dutch cast doubt on using Eurozone bailout funds more flexibly and want to prevent the new permanent bailout fund – the ESM – from buying bonds in secondary markets.

      July 10, 2012 at 4:55 am | Reply
      • j. von hettlingen

        Last year Finland delayed a second bailout deal for Greece by demanding collateral on its share of EFSF loans. The Finns might not moan their leaving the Euro.

        July 10, 2012 at 4:59 am |
  7. saeedTheTowelHead

    And saeed is genetically similar to his sheep mother. Baaaaaaaaaaaah, Baaaaaaaaaaaah, Baaaaaaaaaaaaah, Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaddy?

    July 10, 2012 at 9:16 am | Reply
  8. Matt A.

    Patrick: I'm suggesting the euro should be abolished and the countries return to their original currencies.

    If they want to be the USE, they need to make quick decisions. We'll likely see the collapse of a pipe dream.

    July 10, 2012 at 9:51 am | Reply

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.