European "Kommunalka"

Abu Aliyev

More recently the concept «Europe» was considered in close binding to the term «Western world» as the image of a homogeneous and integral core. But last events in the world, in particular, global financial crisis and Caucasian war have again strengthened the tendency of this core disintegration.

In the beginning of the Euro-Atlantic alliance after the Second World War key roles have been played by two factors: the Geopolitical opposition of communism and imperialism, and also “Marshall plan”, firmly held down the Western Europe and the US. Although in the Old World already there were sounded appeals to go on other way. French President Charles de Gaulle warned that the purpose of USA since 1945 is to have control over all Eurasia. Washington strategically aspired to divide Europe — which by Gaulle’s opinion, reached from Atlantic up to Ural, including the Soviet Russia. In a counterbalance Atlas policy, advanced by Washington, this outstanding French drew the opposition strategy based on the ex — German consent and creation of the not American Europe, tearing away the atlas Grecian horse — the Great Britain. The Europe had the way to cooperation with the Soviet Russia. Cooperating and moving together, three big European peoples — the French, Germans and Russian — could put an end to the American project of world supremacy. But the subsequent course of events — the Gaulle end, acceptance of the Great Britain in the European union, the European expansion to the East, wreck of the USSR have in aggregate resulted in decline of the European project because of its dissolution in globalization and a political alignment to Washington.
With approach of XXI century the Euro-Atlantic ideal breathes harder. USA and EU start to look at the event in the world more differently to pursue the different purposes. Thus leaders of Old Word aspire to a role of the independent leader. 
Unit of the 25 countries with the population almost in 450 million, a quarter of a World Gross Domestic Product, the European Union can be with good reason ranked as a circle of global economy.
Second, alongside with the economic base the important leader element potential of the Eurounion is cultural — political influence. His scales keep universal character. Appeal of the European values, for example, «has worked» Michael Gorbachev at formation of foreign views of first and last president of the USSR. Aspiring to build «common European home» on the basis of an equal security and at observance of political rights of citizens, Gorbachev has actually agreed to choose with the right of satellites of the USSR alliances at own discretion, and then — after Viennese meeting OSCE — the primate of international law above internal has recognized. It has allowed Warsaw contract political associations demand direct application of positions of the international documents in the states law. The European humanistic values have played, thus, the major role in law enforcement anticommunist opposition in the former socialist countries, having sped up transformation of the last and their run from Moscow.
Recognition of high authority of the European tradition of morals and struggle for validity appeared the fact of accommodation in Old world of the international judicial bodies and tribunals — the International court of the United Nations, the UN International tribunal on former Yugoslavia, the International criminal court, the European court under human rights and others. These instances though sharply dependence on USA, nevertheless, show ability even to not trivial actions. So, in April, 2004 in the UN International court proceeding under the claim of Serbia and Montenegro against USA has renewed in connection with certificates of military intrusion of the NATO on territory of former Yugoslavia and the damage put to her by the American militaries.
The important tool of cultural — intellectual influence became as a whole successful integration experience of EU. It has caused popularity of integration recipes for many non-European countries. Not a secret, that some part of “the European bank of integration ideas” involves also leaders of the CIS.
Let’s address to military-political potential of EU. It has complex structure, existing at once in three: the national states, Actually European Union and NATO military-political block. The Great Britain and France have limited, but effective potential of nuclear restraint. Germany alongside with two mentioned powers, and also Italy and Spain, has large enough and effective usual armed forces. Rather well equipped armies have a lot of average and small members of EU compact, but these forces independently are capable to provide defense of national territory of the appropriate countries and if necessary to be poured in structure of the international contingents for the decision of peace-making and police tasks of an average level of intensity. Thus the cash potential of armed forces does not allow any of the European powers to apply for global leadership.
The conclusion about relative weakness of military-political potential is applicable and concerning the European Union as a whole. What is possible more or to judge, having combined military parameters of the states of EU less adequately.
That is why in the world the Eurounion is capable to render the most appreciable military-political influence by means of the NATO where since May, 2004 enter 19 of 25 members of EU. But use of resources of an alliance means approval of the main partner — USA. Therefore, supported with the American resources, the EU externally can look more convincing military-political unit — however it is equal in that measure and up to that while its foreign policy will not miss sights of Washington.
The EU effectively uses on international scene the organizational resource by participation in the numerous universal and regional organizations, modes, dialogues, forums etc. Officials of EU are capable to use resource, than functionaries of the governments of the large national states, inclined to too «rectilinear» methods of upholding of the positions more skillfully.
There was also a steady practice of regular meetings between the supreme officials of the Eurounion and the governments of conducting powers — USA, Russia, China, Canada, Japan and India. As usual, they pass under the report of meetings at the summit, which gradually deduces heads of EU to the supreme political status equated to the status of chapters of the sovereign states.
EU energetically adapts conditions of cooperation with countries — partners for features of the own legislation, business practice and political values. As the largest trading block in the world the in hands of the Eurounion powerful lever influence — at once 25 voices in WTO, accordingly huge trunk-call advantages. It easily can achieve concessions favorable to him from the states applying for membership in the Organization.
At last, at the order of Europe a set of much more flexible toolkits, than USA a «rough — rectilinear» projection of military force. In it one more important difference characteristic for EU “strategy of soft leadership” consists.
And, nevertheless, being guided on own position in the world, the EU with each year tests the increasing difficulties in coordination and effective use of available potential. Deep disagreements in connection with a policy of USA and Britain concerning Iraq in 2003-2004 years have once again shown limitation of opportunities of EU to act to international scene as an integral organism.
National state institutes of EU are not easily, quickly and sufficiently can provide concentration of resources on the necessary directions of politic activity. From the given point of view the basic problem proceeds from routine decision-making process during which it is necessary to coordinate opinions of the national states included in the Eurounion. Operate this association as interstate institutes (the European council and Council of Ministers of EU, and sub national bodies (main of them — the European commission). Difficulty comes from the moment of birth they have found the own interests frequently contradicting to aspirations of the largest and influential states — members. The big handicap for a way of acceptance coordinated rate of EU became the cautious attitude of the national governments to transfer of the powers to bodies, and on the other hand — divergences between partners in the Eurounion in foreign policy, approaches to concrete international questions.
For example France and Germany — founders of the European integration — are the most active supporters of coordination of the international activity of the Union. As against them, say, the Great Britain, Denmark and Netherlands show restraint, being afraid to oppose a policy of association of USA. Even more intently these states, and also neutral Ireland, Austria, Sweden, Finland perceive projects of relative «autonomy» of EU in the field of defense and safety. In their opinion, similar projects are capable to damage “transatlantic solidarity”. Different approaches have even more amplified after reception in 2004 in structure of the Eurounion of ten new members. Many of them in the policy of safety began to be guided by Washington more strongly, than to Paris or Berlin. Besides, in business of military construction of the country Central and the East Europe are focused on cooperation within the framework of the NATO, rather than from EU much more.
Thus, huge potential on the one hand, and internal friability, slowness in actions with another, predetermine vulnerability of the Union.
Yes, in Old World everyone is more persistently conducted conversations on necessity of an exit from under a shadow of the transatlantic curator. Now it stands up for the multipolar world. It had in view of once president of France Jacque Shiraque, characterizing USA as «hyper-power». Similar moods are strong in Germany and Spain. Not casually, from the beginning 2000 European capitals stressed efforts on change of balance of forces inside OSCE and make the NATO in the advantage. Positions of EU body get stronger. Besides stable mutual relation with Russia strengthening of institutes of the European safety in the Caucasian and central — Asian regions is called to become one of key items. In a practical plane it means transformation of southern parts of the CIS in original “a zone of stability”, separating safe Europe from potential threats on the part of the Muslim world. It is remarkable, that European analytics already specify regions where becomes ripe collision of interests with USA. It is French-speaking Africa, Southeast Asia, Middle East, Central America, the Caspian region.
While there is a serious handicap in business of development of the European strategic unity acts vectors of foreign interests of the countries of EU.
For example, in Northern Europe — Sweden, Denmark and Holland — already for a long time have weaned to think global categories, regarding as of paramount importance of priorities structure. The lost sensation of participation in the big policy alongside with other factors even was caused with growth of xenophobia and neo-fascism.
The big problems are meanwhile observed and in the south of continent. In Spain the outlook, distinguished from other Europe, in particular, prevails: outside of the European continent in Spanish speak 400 million people. And for Madrid Latin America — area of the appendix of the main efforts, traditional expansion of the Spanish civilization. To an ordinary position adhere also in Rome, taking dividends from partnership with States. Though, the geographical position of Apennine peninsula dictates expediency of maintenance on smaller stable relations with the Muslim world. Active participation of Rome in aggression against Iraq, contrary to obvious national interests, means absence at Rome autonomies on international scene. As to the countries of the East Europe their familiarizing with the West-European standards will demand significant time and grants, also not contributing to fast independence. At last, the introduction of Turkey into EU can result in triumph of the centrifugal tendency. To wreck down of the Union.
Clearly, that rallied, and the main thing self-sufficient Europe — the last that wish beyond Atlantic. In the same war in Iraq in 2003 States would not manage to secure with a public opinion even among Americans, act Europe against a united front. In recent war on Northern Caucasus in aspiration to take in hand Russia, Washington also was compelled to appeal to opinion of the European partners constantly. Therefore preservation of the Old World promises to remain on foreseeable prospect a corner stone in a policy of the White house. In it invaluable service can render London — the main observer of Anglo-Saxon interests in Europe, plus newly made members of EU in the East Europe, as Poland, Romania and republics of Baltic which are strongly devoted to Uncle Sam.
It turns out, that it is possible to mean uniform Europe today only France and Germany, and the others simply do not have will and interests to realization alternative. The European integration promotes with the big scratch. The crisis which has burst in 2005 around of acceptance of the uniform constitution of EU has splashed out outside the whole lots of problems. Basic among them — ordinary Europeans to delegate all completeness of authority to bureaucracy in Brussels. As well as at any of forms of multilateral integration, each of participants of EU aspires to receive more privileges and privileges, not having renounced national. 
In hierarchy of long-term strategic interests of Paris and Berlin Eurasia, and especially nearby space of the CIS have lasting value. The question is not so much raw and power components, aspects connected with a safety. The post-Soviet countries are potentially capable to turn to a link between consolidated Europe and dynamically developing Asia.
Here again Russia — special size. Europeans, on behalf of its leaders — Berlin and Paris — have the big hopes for cooperation. In the Kremlin only welcome this process. Becoming with Vladimir Putin’s arrival regular summits Russia – Germany – France is evident to a volume acknowledgement. On the other hand, in the habitual consciousness Europeans while continue to perceive Russia with the certain share of danger. And it is not simple a heritage of “cold war”, but also elements rusofobios which have begun from Napoleon, proceeded supporters of liberalism and Marxism, developed at Hitler and came to an end of Vatican. It and influence of a powerful pro-American lobby in Old light. In a case bows of interests between poles of the largest continent of USA risk to appear in a role “the third superfluous”. Russia is much closer to Europe, than America, is more closely connected by historical, cultural and world outlook categories. From as far as Moscow can be entered in the all-European vector of development, much will depend really.
On the given moment the policy of the Eurounion of the beginning 2000 can be characterized as “proto strategy”. Old light is far from that degree of standard effectively to dispose of impressive resources. According to him it is necessary to commensurate the steps first of all with USA, and also Russia, other centers of influence. And, taking into account unfavorable results of referenda under the constitution of EU to expect for fast occurrence of United States of Europe it is hardly meaningful.

• 38
• 39