Allan Topol is a partner in a large Washington-based international law firm. He has a science and engineering degree from Carnegie Mellon, and a law degree from Yale University. For almost 40 years, he has been involved in issues at the height of the Washington power structure.
He is also a national bestselling novelist, using the thriller genre to explore international geopolitical and military issues. His 2001 novel, SPY DANCE, is about a former CIA agent on the run and Saudi Arabian oil. His 2003 novel, DARK AMBITION, deals with the corruption of power in Washington and China's threatening posture toward Taiwan. In January 2004, the novel CONSPIRACY will be released dealing with a foreign leader's attempt to influence an American presidential election and the possibility of renewed militarism in Japan.
[Have an opinion about the issues discussed in this column? Sound
off here.]
It all seemed so perfect. The Western European nations were marching
in tandem, joined more recently by their Eastern European brethren
toward a new reality: A United States of Europe. But now, fundamental
issues have arisen which cast doubt on the structure's foundation.
Some forty years ago, I wrote for my college newspaper at Carnegie
Tech (now Carnegie Mellon) an article suggesting that the Western
European nations would one day form a single political entity with
enormous economic benefit to each of them. Some readers scoffed at
the idea, contending that there was too much animosity between the
French and the Germans after the wars of the twentieth century for
that to occur. Well with the passage of time, that is precisely what
is occurring.
There were some strong motivating factors. One was of course perceived
economic benefit. The idea of a single trading block would make everyone
wealthier, or so it seemed. There is a pragmatic school of political
scientists who believe that politics always follow the money.
Marching hand in hand, the Western Europeans established a series
of governmental bureaucracies headquartered primarily in Brussels.
Old border crossing points between the countries were abandoned. A
common currency, the Euro, burst forth. Here was the ultimate way
to best the United States: create a stronger currency than the dollar-the
symbol of Uncle Sam's dominance.
Through it all, Britain, Italy and to some extent Spain have been
ambivalent. London's refusal to abandon the pound for the Euro served
notice on the continent that many had their doubts about the cost
benefit ratio for the U.K.
On the other hand, many British businessmen dreaded the idea of being
left out of one of the two great trading blocks in the world. The
repercussions for their commerce could be devastating. That prompted
one businessman to comment to me, "If it came down to two alternatives,
we'd prefer to become the fifty-first state, rather than be dominated
by the French and the Germans."
Then there is the European-United States relationship. We could be
kind and call it competition. Cheers go up throughout Western Europe
when reports come in that Airbus is selling more planes on the world
market than Boeing.
But let's be brutally honest. Among many Europeans there is simply
resentment toward the United States, and it has been exacerbated in
the last several years.
Nothing demonstrates this as fully as the European response to Washington's
position in Iraq. Without getting into whether Europe should have
been dealt with more diplomacy or not, the fact of the matter is that
we are viewed as the upstart, arrogant, wealthy younger brother. If
we say white, in Paris and Bonn many will, in a knee jerk reaction,
say black.
These feelings toward the United States have lubricated the movement
toward Western European unity. There is nothing to unite disparate
groups faster than a common enemy.
All is no longer moving so smoothly. Opposition is repeatedly being
expressed in London to a bloc being dominated by the French and Germans,
in which the U.K. would be treated as a stepsister. Add to that an
unwillingness by many in the U.K. to be bound by edicts emanating
from cone-headed bureaucrats in Brussels.
Despite these loud objections in London, and fainter ones in Rome
and Madrid, the European juggernaught continued to roll. Its backers
moved boldly to snap up the Eastern European nations put into a political
free fall by the disintegration of the Soviet bloc. The EU would now
run as far east as the Polish Soviet border. Even Turkey was clamoring
to get in, which has posed a problem for the Europeans because "they're
different, those Turks. Very democratic, but oh so Muslim." Did we
really want to admit them into the Garden of Eden?
But guess what? There is now dissention within the Garden, and not merely about
Britain or Turkey.
On November 25 a majority of the EU finance ministers refused to impose
on Germany and France sanctions clearly called for by EU regulations
for running excessive budget deficits. Had it been two smaller countries,
there is no doubt the sanctions would have been imposed. This has
produced enormous grumbling that there are separate rules for these
two EU giants, who were permitted to flaunt their obligations.
Added to this, a major controversy has erupted in drafting the EU
constitution pertaining to how many votes each country should have
under the weighted voting system. In order to induce Poland to join
the EU, the Poles were offered a very favorable status, giving them
almost as many votes as Germany, whose population is twice its size
and whose economy is ten times larger. A similar disparity exists
in favor of Spain. Now Germany and France want to change the votes
in the new constitution, and the Poles are screaming that they were
conned into joining under false pretenses.
These are but two of the several disputes which have surfaced, as
national interests are putting the brakes on those trying to implement
the EU constitution like a runaway freight train. It remains to be
seen whether it will remain on the tracks or not.
