Do you think the EU is good for world peace?

Question

If so, what examples can you give of sucess?

If not what examples of failure can you give?

Answer 1

No. EU is mass unemployment, social destruction, privatisation and insecurity to ordinary working class people. EU is an elitist super power project, sacrificing democracy and national sovereignty on the alter of the European imperialism, and placing the interests of this European imperialism before peace and international solidarity.!!!

Answer 2

Given that the first world war and the second world war were started in Europe, then any union in Europe which prevents war is good for peace.

The problem with a union, is if any one side obtains too much power and influence over another less sparsely (minority) area. This can be seen to some extent in the union of the British Isles where Scotland is making political protests regarding not getting a fair deal. In other words a union or marriage is good for peace if the union or marriage is balanced. If there is no balance, then divorce will eventually occur or there will be war. (or perhaps worse a forever battle which never ends)

So long as the European union remains flexible and open to change, and is not dominated by the central members too much, I think it is good for world peace.

It is certainly good for new members from Eastern Bloc countries, and the less well off members of the EU. (Czech republic and Hungary for example)

Peace itself is difficult to attribute soley to the EU, however greater openness and no border controls throughout European mainland make for greater harmony and less physical barriers to cooperation. When the barriers of trade and cooperation, and ultimately sanctions against trade occur, that is what can start bitterness, jealousy and war.

Unfair practises against minorities are the precipitation to most wars.

Answer 3

Most people here seem to be knocking the EUand ultimately Europe. Things cant be too bad in Europe now or in the recent past economically as there are far fewer immigrants from Western Europe to Canada and the US than in the 1950's, '60's, or '70's. Usually mass migration is a sign of things bad at home, and things have been pretty good for many years in most parts of Europe. I wonder how many of these comments have come from people who have travelled to Europe. I have seen a huge difference in the prosperity of France, Spain, Italy, Greece, and even Great Britain from my first visit in 1970 and my last visit in 2003. I doubt if the EU had much to do with it, but it has helped maintain a more stable currency in some of the smaller countries in the Union. It must have some definate advantages for so many non-members to want in.

Vancouver, Canada.

Answer 4

The Euroean Union could be good for stability in Europe, although most of the major players (e.g. Germany, France) have figured out that it's not nice to make war with each other. Had the EU been able to make a compelling case that it would be really beneficial to join it, and made joining contingent on certain kinds of positive behaviour (e.g., good human rights record), it might have prevented the tragedies that resulted when the former state of Yugoslavia broke into its resulting nationalities--Serbia, Croatia, etc.--by encouraging them to join the EU and put aside any squabbling. Alas, it didn't happen.

Enforcing peace by military might is a losing game in the long run, as the United States is beginning to realize from its adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The historian Robert Conquest, in several books, the latest of which is "The Dragon of Perfection," ("Reflections on a Ravaged Century" is another source) makes a case for saying that Englishing-speaking countries such as the US, Britain, Canada, and a few other members of the Commonwealth, might make a more cohesive and effective organization than the EU, as these countries all share fairly similar ideas about the rule of law and democracy (this book was written before the US started seriously declining in its respect for the rule of law and before George Bush the Younger's unilateralism became a serious problem--the US has tended to be better-behaved when there was a credible superpower to keep it honest--God I miss Joseph Stalin and the USSR). Conquest, interestingly, thinks that the EU is a bloated bureaucracy that doesn't really accomplish anything very much other than increasing the amount of red tape in each of its member countries and yes, killing whole forests.

In response to a post made above, the UN has had its successes (virtually eradicating smallpox, the prevention of a number of regional "flare-ups" from becoming major shooting wars--there are many examples). The essential problem is that individual nations will always act in their self-interest. The trick is to get them to see that their self-interest and the greater good of humanity coincide. See the last chapter of Richard Rhode's "The Making of the Atomic" for details on this--the ideas come from Niels Bohr, a physicist who was instrumental in getting the ball rolling on the Manhatten Project that made the first atomic bomb, and who was very concerned about the atomic bomb's implications for geopolitics.

Answer 5

Well, there have been no wars between its members since it was founded in 1957. But there's no deep coherence of policy within the new, enlarged Europe. On every serious foreign policy and security issue, old allegiances and separate traditions come to the fore. In a major international crisis I wouldn't count on the EU swinging quickly, decisively and unitedly into action. We'd still be deliberating when the tanks rumbled in and the missiles screeched overhead.

Answer 6

It's neither good nor bad at this point..Let's see France and I believe it was Denmark rejected joining the EU outright.It's just another bueracracy! It may have done something good for the Euopean continent but I'm not sure what that is.It did create a unified currency but I don't follow currencies so I'm not sure how strong it is or how succesful.Different languages and cultures and different ideas of how govn't should be run by the member states.How can much be accomplished?! I don't think it can.They have done nothing to contribute to or take away from world peace.And they won't.At least not in the foreseeable future.

Answer 7

The European union is definitely good for world peace, in fact it just about the only thing that makes tolerating it`s bureaucracy and corruption worthwhile. The EU has prevented another major European war by giving all the members a shared economic interest and a European parliament to resolve disputes. Whatever the downside of the E.U. at least we won`t have to eat our straight bananas in a bomb shelter.

Answer 8

EU is concentrating on economy and not on world peace. Thus, people must encourage EU countries to give a priority on curbing violence and to be against terrorism.

Answer 9

European Union and success in the same sentence give me a break. They could write a book about the successes of the EU and the UN.

Wait a minute there is your success story because the book would so short very few trees would be used in the process. That would appeal to the global warming crowd.

Answer 10

when you see Sarkozy running to Berlin to push again for the EU Consititution you must have your doubts.

Why would a neocon like him want this unless it's for the gain of the NWO?

European co-operation is good, but it could just as easily be done on a bi-laterally between sovereign nations -so why the SuperState?