The European Union: Strategy Renewal

Alexander Potemkin,  25 November at 14:09 0 1501

Every geopolitical structure lies somewhere between myth and reality. The fate of the European Union and its citizens is no exception. Charlemagne, the founder of the first European empire, first conceived the idea of a united Europe in the early Middle Ages. His idea was based on the desire to create a united European nation. It was not an easy task for Charlemagne to unite the continent’s numerous peoples, each of which had its own language, culture, religion, and traditions. He gathered the best minds of his time—scientists, philosophers, musicians, and poets—at the Palace of Aachen (Germany). Charlemagne called this host of talents the Academy. He standardized units of measurement, instituted a single currency, and developed an efficient communication system—a network of messengers capable of covering vast distances in several days—thus giving rise to the prototype of a unified economic European space. Under Charlemagne, the military arts became academic. All of this took place in the 8th century A.D. When we talk today about “Germans,” “Englishmen,” “Swedes,” “Frenchmen,” “Dutch,” Belgians,” “Norwegians,” “Danes,” “Swiss,” and “Austrians,” we forget, or do not even know, that all of these peoples are merely part of a single, albeit complex, family with ethnic German roots. European history is full of strivings to expand territory and unite it into a single and stable formation.

My view of the current European Union is as follows: it is an entirely artificial formation with a heterogeneous structure. It is comprised of a powerful center—Germany, Great Britain (now on its way out), France, and Northern Italy—and weak territories—the Baltic states, the Balkans, and other countries. How can expansion be coordinated in a single region knowing that the European Union has some very unprofitable countries with an unviable population, maintaining the existence of which entails an unproductive waste of material resources? Under what circumstances could an integration project have clear advantages for Europe?

The time when campaign management runs the show has come to its logical end. Today, rejuvenation can only be achieved by intellectual mobilization that promotes innovative technology and an incremental European development program, as well as legislative reformatting of the conditions for entering and exiting the European Union. To begin with, European political and cultural experience retains genetic memory of Rome, the Eternal City, and “all the roads” that lead to it. Imperial ideas have inspired many great minds throughout the ages. Poet and thinker Dante Alighieri wrote a treatise in 1313 called De Monarchia. It focused on unification of the whole world and the moral expediency of creating a world state that would best order humanity in its entirety. In the Middle Ages, the world state was naturally seen to be contained within the boundaries of Europe. That is, the author of The Divine Comedy suggested precisely what I am suggesting today, i.e. Europe is one government, one nation, one language, one law, and one religion. There are no Latvians, Bulgarians, Croatians, Greeks, Poles, Danish, or Austrians. There is a single ethnicity—Europeans. And there are edifying examples of this.

The first example, a success, is the U.S. Hundreds of thousands of Europeans moved to America 300-400 years ago. Each ethnic group spoke its own language, that is, there was no common language. In the 18th century, they decided to create a common language. According to legend, one of the parliamentary deputies, a German by the name of Muhlenberg, cast the deciding vote (42 against 41), thus establishing English as the official language. The U.S. would not have materialized or become the most powerful county in the world, if each of its states had spoken in different languages (French, German, Spanish, and Italian), developed its own ethnic culture and traditions, and followed its own religion…

The second example, a failure, is the Soviet Union. During czarism, before the 1917 revolution, the empire had one state language—Russian. After the revolution, only three of the fifteen republics formed by the Bolsheviks—Georgia, Armenia, and Lithuania—had their own statehood and spoken and written language, while the first two even had their own alphabet, which was much older than Cyrillic. Primary school pupils (1-4 grade) were permitted to study Georgian and Armenian in the local church schools and madrasas, while Arabic was allowed in the Muslim regions. In the czarist universities, teaching was only conducted in Russian. The Central Asian region—Kazakhstan, Kirgizia, Tajikistan, and most of Uzbekistan—were united only in the territorial geographic term “Kirgizstan.” In these territories, there was not a common national written language or alphabet, apart from the spoken with its different local parlances and dialects. Russian was considered to be the official state language. The imams only read prayers in Arabic in the mosques. Citizens of the Russian Empire were not allowed to give their names in the local dialect after they received their passports. It could not be “Ali Bei,” it had to be written in the Russian transcription as “Alibeev.” It could not be “Shevarnadze,” but had to be written as “Shevardov.” With the advent of Soviet power, everything changed. Separate independent republics were established—Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, etc. Russian academic linguists created national alphabets and languages that became an integral part of the education system of the new republics and were taught in the secondary schools and institutes. Local folklore culture and ethnic traditions acquired a state status. The communist ideology essentially prohibited religions and significantly reduced the number of believers. This gave a powerful boost to mixed marriages between former Christians and Muslims. This resulted in a qualitative increase in the national IQ. National elites were cultivated and governments and borders established. But during the first serious economic crisis, the U.S.S.R. disintegrated. But if it had been formed along the lines of the U.S. with one language, one government, and common borders, would the Soviet Union have had such a sad demise? Surely the European political elite should be able to draw some edifying lessons from these vibrant contrasting examples?

A football fan from Rumania might ask fretfully, what will happen my language? A beer lover from Belgium might snivel, will Brussels no longer be the capital of Europe? A cyclist from Estonia might say indignantly, I am a proud Estonian, I did not become a Russian in the Soviet Union, why should I become a European? Throughout history, there have been different ideas of what precisely the “European community” should be. Of course, unified Europeanism as an intellectual (worldview) trend and, as a specific reality, has encompassed, at most, one quarter of a percent of the continent’s entire population. This might be fine for a simple society that is incapable of understanding prophets and thinkers, heeding their calls, and listening to their speeches. And whereas it has always been in keeping with the times to honor the thoughts and deeds of Charlemagne and read and interpret Dante, the elite does not always have enough intellect and will to follow their advice.

Imperial ideas have always been formulated through worldview and history, in which, of course, empires had a special role to play. The Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, the British Empire, the French, Spanish… the Russian Empire as the Third Rome… have all been expanses for fulfilling the imperial mission. All the world empires fell, but the memory of their global aspirations has been retained to this day. In order to live, exist, and develop, an empire must be undergoing continuous enhancement—not only incorporating new regions into its space, but also developing new principles and management technology. European liberal conquests were expressed by the establishment of social states in which the top priority was placed on protecting the rights of each individual. But liberal individualism—with a difference in IQ of 50 to 90, or even 120—makes the concept of semi-joint harmonious living unviable. The inconsistency is also shown by the disturbing smoldering processes that are clearly about to burst into flames. It stands to reason that it is of no consequence what IQ a person of a particular nationality has. But practical experience shows that E-50 (this is the provisional name we will give to a European with an IQ of 50) has no particular aspiration to acquire an education and improve his status and everyday life without resorting to crime, which is why the viability of such an EU subject is low. E-90 has a very strong desire to rise above E-50 in the social and material respect. These subjects are much more viable than others, which means they are happier than E-50. But E-120s are less satisfied with their existence than the E-90s. They are not interested in material benefits, while their eternal dissatisfaction is related exclusively to the intellect. They know what they want, but realize that their IQ is insufficient to ultimately figure out and resolve a particular global scientific problem. So communal living is being imposed on 27 countries that have entirely different laws, different languages, different religions, often different currencies, different governments, and different histories of mixed ethnic combinations. This communal living of different ranks of people does not bode well. In the labor market, the cost of labor resources from the Baltic countries will always be much lower than the cost of a worker from Central Europe. This is because a German, for example, will always solve a technological task faster and more efficiently. Spaniards and Italians are distinguished from many of their neighbors by their creative potential, while the Dutch and Swedes are known for their business acumen and entrepreneurial skills. And these talents have to be united at the genetic level. A rich altruist can give his accumulated wealth to the poor. But a highly developed person has only one way to give his intellectual property—by adding his genes to the national gene pool. This can be achieved by creating a single state, not 27 different ones, that is, by creating a single European nation with a common language, common religion (atheists and Jews do not count—in the almost six thousand years it has existed, Judaism has never shown a sign of aggression, this religion is exclusively ethnic), common law, common currency, and common living rules for all. This will make it possible to fundamentally unite small and large peoples, there will be no Greeks, Danes, Slovenians, Portuguese, Swedes, or French. The genetic blend will acquire good development dynamics and give a positive boost to the intellectual rejuvenation of the Europeans. A single nation will appear, which means it has a chance of survival. Otherwise the prospects look extremely bleak…