"Genetically Modified" Food for thought...
APRIL 28, 1997 VOL. 149 NO. 17
BOOKS
THE ORIGINS OF UNION
THE TAINTED SOURCE TRACES THE ROOTS OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION BACK TO SOME SURPRISING FOREBEARS
BY HELEN GIBSON
It is usual in discussions of European integration to speak of Robert Schuman or Jean Monnet as the founders of European political and economic union. Wrong, says British author and academic John Laughland in The Tainted Source: The Undemocratic Origins of the European Idea (Little Brown; 370 pages). Most of the arguments offered by European integrationists today, he says, were first made not by French democrats but by the Continent's various fascist movements. European monetary union, a common agricultural policy, the harmonization of labor conditions and social welfare, the removal of trade barriers and a variety of other pillars of good integrationist thinking appeared more than 50 years ago in the propaganda and speeches of leading Nazis, Vichyites, Italian fascists and Norwegian Quislings. "Not only the Nazis," Laughland writes, "but fascists and collaborators from many European countries, made very widespread use of European ideology to justify their aggression."
Those fascists, like today's most fervent Europeanists, believed that the concept of the nation-state was outdated and should be replaced by a supranational union. "I am convinced that, in fifty years' time, people will no longer think in terms of countries," said Hitler's propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, in 1940. Helmut Kohl's impassioned argument that a united Europe is necessary to prevent another war was pushed in 1942 by Norway's collaborationist leader, Vidkun Quisling, who said: "We must create a Europe that does not squander its blood and strength in internecine conflict, but forms a compact unity." Nazi economists talked of eventually substituting monetary union for national currencies, with the Reichsmark as the model and Berlin replacing London as the financial center. Simply substitute "deutsche mark" and "Frankfurt" for "Reichsmark" and "Berlin" and the arguments are strikingly familiar. Nor have skeptics of these policies--Denmark, Switzerland and particularly Britain--changed much since then.
In detailing how the fascists made use of an integrationist ideology to justify their aggression, Laughland insists he is not implying that modern pro-Europeans are fascists. He does want to show, however, how easy it is to slip into hypocrisy. "By pretending that one is doing everything for 'Europe,' a lot of self-serving actions can be easily covered up," he says. Above all Laughland argues that "there are anti-liberal implications in the rejection of the nation-state as a viable political and economic unit."
All this provocative prose comes from a distinguished academic with impeccable European credentials. Laughland studied philosophy and German at Oxford and Munich Universities, lectured in political philosophy at the Sorbonne and the Institute of Political Science in Paris for five years, and has been a visiting lecturer at Bucharest University. His 1994 book, The Death of Politics: France Under Mitterrand, received rave reviews. He even lives in Brussels, the very belly of the beast. But all this has not made him a believer.
Critics of European integration like Laughland are often accused of failing to provide a positive alternative plan. Laughland asks why there should be an alternative plan at all. While cooperation between states is desirable, he says, why substitute Europe's nation-states--with their parliamentarian governments and traditional political life--for "a centrally directed economic space" run by a troika of unaccountable, unelected bodies; namely, the Council of Europe, the European Commission and the European Central Bank? None of the institutions of the European Community are democratic, he contends. Intended to streamline decision-making, they were never meant to be.
Among the strongest motivating factors for integration, Laughland believes, is cowardice. A single European bloc, he claims, is seen as the way to shield the Continent--suffering from declining competitiveness, low growth, mass unemployment and sclerotic, and often corrupt, political structures--from world competition. This view holds that safety lies in numbers, one unit comprised of states that are each burdened with the same weaknesses. Rather than undergo the "confused institutional tinkering" that reproduces all the failing national systems at a supranational level, Laughland suggests that the individual countries seriously tackle reform at home. "The crash course in financial prudence being undertaken to fulfill the Maastricht criteria by 1998 is like any diet: without a fundamental change in mentality, these countries will only fall back on bad old habits when it is over," he predicts.
Laughland's opinions will find few admirers among Europhiles--and his academic prose might put off some readers of either persuasion. But he is passionate in his view that sovereignty and nationhood are eternal concepts not to be dismissed lightly--whether by the discredited fascists of the past or by today's fashionable Europeanists.
time.com |
