Is ‘Europe’ a project?

This essay was written as my first assignment on the Open University Module DD(ZX)200 – Governing Europe.  The assignment question was: Does it make sense to describe ‘Europe’ as a project?.

In order to respond to the title question, we must first provide ourselves with a definition of a project. Following that, this essay will examine how Europe diverges from this definition. Finally, I will argue that there are four interlinking strands which continue to form the European project.

A reasonable definition of a project, might be a large, planned task or scheme with a specific end target. The concept of Europe clearly diverges from this definition in several ways. Firstly, our inability to accurately define what Europe is, even the most basic manner – geography, displays a vagueness of concept one would not expect from a task with a specific goal in mind. Secondly, the lack of any specified timeframe for completion of the project causes problems with considering Europe as a project. And finally, the continuing development of European area, ideals and politics show a continually evolving concept, and one which is would be difficult to define as a project within the rigid definition provided above.

Despite these divergences from this definition, it can still be argued that Europe is a project consisting of four interlinking strands. Firstly, the creation and maintenance of a common European cultural identity. Secondly the development of a series of common social standards across the entire European area. Thirdly, the stimulation of Europe-wide economic prosperity. And finally, the preservation of peace – commonly mistaken for the guiding principle of the European concept, as opposed to merely one facet of the broader project.

During a debate on whether Europe can be described as a project, it is vital that we note the divergences of the perceived project from our definition of a project. There is uncertainty about the borders of geographical Europe to the south, where Turkey and the former Yugoslav nations remain outside the expanded European Union. To the east debate continues about the future of former USSR nations as well as Russia herself, and even to the west, where Greenland once formed part of the European Community (EC), but is now more frequently defined as a North American state. Europe as a concept did not begin post-1945, and it would be inaccurate to claim that the European project was started in the aftermath of WWII. Certainly, there were aspects which seemed very original at this time, but other areas have their roots much earlier. It is more accurate to view the European project as one whose components started at various times, but which has now broadly succeeded in pulling those strands together.

The degree to which Europe diverges from the traditional definitions of a project are oft-debated, and it is this divergence which leads many commentators to reject the definition of Europe as a project. However, it is clear that the intent to develop common cultural, social, economic and peaceful goals exists in Europe.

The idea of a common European cultural identity has its roots in the middle ages, with a clear demarcation of the European identity provided through the religions of the inhabitants of various states. Through Christendom, a European identity was created, and one which sustained a spirit of unity in the face of conflict with Muslims and Arabs (Lewis & Brown 2005). This idea was somewhat hampered by the emergence of French-style civilisation, and the Germanic focus on ‘Kultur’. While these views were to come into conflict during the first World War, they represented a duality of views that had long since existed in Europe, and both concepts had much in common, as they were rooted in common European existence. Unfortunately, in the aftermath of 1918, the principle of self-determination became the guiding principle within Europe, and this lead to new levels of nationalism within Europe which had not been seen since before the rise of Christendom. Indeed, despite the strengthening of Europe within the European Union in recent years, we continue to see backlashes against any perceived federalism through the rise of ultra-nationalism in movements such as the British Nationalist Party in the UK, the Front National Party in France, and the Freedom Party in Austria. The attempted creation of a common European cultural identity continues despite these obstacles, most recently with the attempted introduction of a Constitutional Treaty which would have moved Europe closer to a federalist structure than she has ever been before.

Since the French revolution, and the concept of citizenship first witnessed during that time, there have been moves towards development of common social standards across Europe. This was most obviously seen during Napoleon’s time, but while democracy continued to flourish in the aftermath of his defeat, any attempt at implementing Europe-wide social standards ground to a halt. The social Europe project was revived in the aftermath of the second world war, though the continuation of emphasis on national self-determination proved a difficult obstacle to surmount. Nevertheless, there are clear indicators of an attempt to create a common set of social values in the new Europe, with the existence of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice two of the greatest signals of this intent.

Europe, and specifically the development of the European Union is often simplistically labelled as a peace-project. While I argue that the nature of the European project is much broader than this, there can be no doubt that preservation of peace in the region has been a recurring theme throughout European history. Whether we look at the Greek or Roman empires, Napoleon’s Continental System, or the European Union, all of these European ideas had preservation of peace as one of their primary aims. However, while the theme has clearly existed in other European movements, post-1945 has seen a new urgency to this strand of the European project. It was stated, “there will be no peace in Europe if states re-establish themselves on the basis of national sovereignty.” (Monnet [1945] Lewis & Brown 2005 p.47) While not exactly prophetic in terms of the future of national sovereignty, this shows that the peaceful strand of the European project was firmly in the focus of one of the architects of the new Europe. It should be noted, that while there have been no further wars within the common European area which has emerged, the push for peace has not been completely successful. Nationalist struggles in Spain and Northern Ireland have continued right through to recent years. However, the existence of these struggles can be viewed as a continuation of the themes of self-determination espoused so freely during the 20th Century.

The final, and arguably most successful strand of the project, has been the drive to create a more economically successful Europe. This has also acted to strengthen the project as a whole, by providing enormous incentive to countries to join the expanding European Union. This economic strand has retained primacy within the European project, from the inception of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) through to the European Monetary Union (EMU). And this primacy has in turn allowed countries traditionally more sceptical of the European project to embrace the project, and become more complete members. As Thatcher ([1988] Lewis & Brown 2005 p. 51) stated in her Bruges Speech, “the European Community is the practical means by which Europe can ensure the future prosperity and security of its people.” Echoing the words of Churchill almost half a century previously. And through this focus on the economic agenda, it is a neo-liberal agenda which has reached primacy within the European project, thriving while agendas more focussed on the social and cultural aspects of the project have faltered.

Of course, the EU of today is much more than the sum of four loosely-interlinked strands of a vague project started centuries ago. Since the creation of the ECSC, Europe has sustained new governance structures which have held these four strands together. The creation of a European Parliament, European Courts and the development of European Regulations and laws are excellent examples of this.

To describe Europe as a project, we must move away from definitions such as those adopted in modern business, which regard projects as temporary, fixed-term scheme, involving defined resources and specific aims. Rather, we must focus on more traditional definitions of the word, those which would simply define a project as a task, undertaking or scheme. With the four strands I have outlined above, and the governance structure which have been put in place to guide those strands and unify them, it is clear that describing Europe as a project makes sense.

References

Lewis, P & Brown, W 2005, DD(ZX)200 Governing Europe, Module 1, Introduction (2nd Ed.), Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Bibliography

Cini, M (Ed.) 2007, European Union Politics (2nd Ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dinan, D 2005, Ever Closer Union: An introduction to European integration (3rd Ed.), Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.