UNIT 3 – UNITED IN DIVERSITY
LEAD-IN: Read and Discuss
‘It's time for all of us to recognize that
different cultures have different values. There is no
denying the differences between the West and the
Muslim world. That's the truth about world ethnicity,
and no amount of politically correct wishful thinking
will change that truth. Countries that ignore that truth
put themselves at grave risk of internal discord,
subversion and civil war.
Either a country is united in its common
culture or it becomes disunited in its
multiculturalism…’
James P. Pinkerton, Newsday.com
READING-1
Managing Population Diversity
Pre-reading: Read the texts’ titles and the subheads. What do you expect the texts to be about?
TEXT 1
Read the article, word its message and do the assignments that follow.
THE END OF TOLERANCE
Farewell, multiculturalism. A cartoon backlash is pushing Europe to insist upon its values.
By Stefan Theil
Newsweek International March 6, 2006
The world has long looked upon the Dutch as the very model of a modern, multicultural
society. Open and liberal, the tiny seagoing nation that invented the globalized economy in the
1600s prided itself on a history of taking in all comers, be they Indonesian or Turkish, African or
Chinese.
How different things look today. Dutch borders have been virtually shut. New
immigration is down to a trickle. The great cosmopolitan port city of Rotterdam just published a
code of conduct requiring Dutch be spoken in public. Parliament recently legislated a
countrywide ban on wearing the burqa1 in public. What's going on here? Weren't the Dutch
supposed to be the nicest people on earth, the most tolerant nation in Europe, a melting pot for
minorities and immigrants since the Renaissance? No longer, and in this the Dutch are once
again at the forefront of changes in Europe. This time, the Dutch model for Europe is one of
multiculturalism besieged, if not plain defunct.
This helps explain Europe's unusually robust reaction to the cartoon crisis, which
continued with riots in Nigeria and Pakistan that have left over 100 dead. There were apologies,
to be sure, for causing offense after a small Danish paper published a dozen cartoons of the
Prophet Muhammad. But on one point European leaders were united and bluntly clear: they
would not tolerate any limits on European newspapers' rights to publish. "Freedom of speech is
1
not up for negotiation," declared Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, summing up a
consensus that has only grown stronger as the cries of outrage from the Muslim world grew
louder.
Welcome to the end of tolerance, or at least to the nonnegotiable limits to what
Europeans will tolerate. After decades of relatively unfettered immigration and cultural laissez
faire when it came to accepting people of differing values and social mores, there are signs that a
potentially ugly backlash is setting in.
But if Europeans aim to build multiethnic societies that play by their rules, they'll also
have to get their heads around the fact that this new world will be multireligious, too—a fact that
poses awkward challenges. Over much of Europe, for example, established Christian churches
enjoy special state privileges and subsidies. Most mosques, by contrast, are hidden in converted
shops or tenement apartments. In Copenhagen, a 15-year plan —to build a national mosque has
become mired in red tape and local opposition. A German state recently passed a law banning a
hijab2 in schools—but not yarmulkes or nuns’ habits.
Until such double standards can be abolished and a new equality established, Europe's
new toughness will feel like forced integration. It's a form of creating a second-class citizenship.
All the burden of change is placed on the immigrant. And if that's not to be the case, then
Europeans will almost certainly have to accord Muslim faiths the same status accorded
Christianity.
It's also clear that if Europeans want their immigrants to behave like Europeans, then they
must be willing to accept them as Europeans, too. That's where many societies that long thought
of themselves as culturally homogenous have problems. Being German can no longer be defined
on ethnic lines. It's an open question whether Germans, Dutch, or Danes will ever truly accept a
multiethnic, multireligious "Germanness," "Dutchness" or "Danishness." But given the
immigrant and demographic trajectories of Europe's future, there is little choice but to try.
Reading Notes:
1. Burqa (burka) - a long, loose garment covering the whole body from head to feet, worn in
public by women in many Muslim countries.
2.
Hijab - the religious dress code which applies to both women and men. To observe Hijab
women should wear a head covering in public. Just like women, men should wear loose, long
and non-transparent clothing so as not to attract attention from the opposite gender to their
physical appearance. The religion itself allows both Muslim men and women to wear clothes of
their choice provided they comply with the tenets of modesty and avoiding clothes that are flashy
or extravagant.
FOLLOW-UP:
Which of the following can be inferred from the text?
1.
The Netherlands is no longer a model multicultural country.
2.
Freedom of speech is one of European core values.
3.
Multicultural means multireligious.
4.
In its attitude to religion the EU applies double standards.
5.
The treatment of immigrants in the EU is unfair.
6.
Europe faces a difficult choice: welcome or restrict/stop immigration.
2
TEXT 2
Skim the text to find out what ideas lie behind the title, do the assignments that follow:
THE MELTING POT, THE SALAD BOWL, AND THE CONFUCIAN IDEAL
James Farrer
January 31, 2008
Many political analysts concur that we are entering a multipolar world order. Some of
them argue that the new world order will be a tripolar competition between Europe, China, and
the United States, each struggling to gain and maintain influence over a set of second-tier powers
and peripheral regions. Yet, this imperial competition will not simply take place in terms of
foreign policy. Immigration and social policies directed at ethnic minorities are related to foreign
policy and the management of foreign alliances. In other words, the different models of empire
represented by America, Europe, and China are in part a reflection of the management of internal
population diversity.
First, despite some academic rhetoric to the contrary, the United States remains a
melting-pot nation, bringing in millions of people and incorporating them into an AngloAmerican civilization based on broadly shared liberal ideals—life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. Anti-immigration ideologues may challenge this view of a borderless American
dream, but it remains the attraction for tens of millions of documented and undocumented
immigrants hoping to stay in the United States.
Because of this widely accepted model of immigrant incorporation, most of the millions
of immigrants do learn English (or their children certainly do), and there are few foreign political
extremists among the largely assimilated U.S. immigrant populations. Similarly, American
foreign policy also is based upon the principle that most people want the same things that
Americans want: democratic, liberal capitalism. Things can go wrong when U.S. presidents
misjudge the willingness of foreign populations to embrace the American dream, but it remains
the consistent touchstone of American foreign policy, good or bad.
In contrast, European immigrant policies have generally represented much more of a
"salad bowl"2 approach to immigrant incorporation—based on an ideal of multiculturalism and
the coexistence of populations that retain their own customs and identities. Within individual
European countries, it is hard to reverse the perception that immigrants, especially those from
Africa and Asia, are social and political outsiders, and hard to persuade these immigrants that
they can truly be "German" or "Dutch." Despite the diversity of its contents, the salad's "bowl"
remains strong, based on the ideals of universal human rights and strong juridical and political
institutions. The Enlightenment basis of European empire is very similar to the United States, but
the political structure is obviously quite different.
Comparatively speaking, Europe's model of a multiethnic society is weaker in one sense
(involving a weaker sense of social solidarity than the U.S. model) and stronger in another
(based on a commitment to a cosmopolitan or supranational juridical order, including such truly
global institutions as the International Criminal Court). Europe, by creating a salad bowl of
nationalities scattered across national boundaries, allows for a much more expansive but also
potentially explosive mixture of cultures. But it also presents an attractive model of a
cosmopolitan international political order, based on supranational institutions without the
requirement to assimilate to a common language and culture. To the extent this model functions
within immigrant Europe, it may become attractive globally.
3
China, meanwhile, presents a very different model of dealing with ethnic and national
differences within its own borders. Over many dynasties, the Chinese empire developed a
civilizational model of imperial tutelage based on a principle of moral leadership enshrined in
Confucian doctrines. The Confucian ideal implied that anyone could "become Chinese" by
learning the proper behaviors and thoughts of a scholar.
In reality, however, the Chinese model of managing ethnic minorities and foreign
nationals owes much more to the Soviet Union's model of a multiethnic socialist state than to
Confucian principles. Similar to the USSR, the People's Republic of China recognizes 55
"national minorities," many living in designated "autonomous regions." Although China's
minorities comprise less than 10 percent of the population, they occupy important strategic areas
in western China. They are given special, separate, and sometimes advantageous status in social
matters such as education and birth control, but they are culturally marginal and politically
subordinate to the majority Han.
Despite the collapse of the multiethnic Soviet Union, the Chinese have stood by this
Soviet-style model of managing ethnic minorities, using a mix of force, Han colonization, and
economic incentives to keep minority populations within the state, while still not abandoning the
overt principles of respecting ethnic diversity. Similarly, foreigners living in China are treated as
"special guests," but there are many policies geared toward limiting their influence on the
majority Chinese population.
Foreign policy and internal ethnic and immigration policy are linked at a fundamental
level. Nations that base their claims to leadership on universal principles will be judged on how
they exercise these principles in internal policies toward foreign and minority populations.
Successful immigrant countries will have much greater success projecting power in an
increasingly globalized and mobile world. The American, European, and Chinese models of
empire or influence are not incompatible. Notions of difference can be made to coexist with
notions of universality, and this is what is happening in practice.
Ex.1 Find words corresponding to the definition given below:
concur with, to incorporate, to assimilate, to embrace, a touchstone, to retain, to imply, to
designate, to comprise, incentives, to abandon, incompatible
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
l)
to appoint (so) to a specified office or post, to assign
to give up completely (a practice)
a criterion by which something is judged or recognized
to strongly suggest the truth or existence of (sth not stated)
so different in nature as to be incapable of coexisting
to accept (a belief, theory) willingly; to include or contain (sth) as a constituent part
to continue to have (something); keep possession of
to take in or contain (sth) as part of a whole; include
to absorb and integrate (people, ideas) into a wider society or culture
a thing that motivates or encourages someone to do sth
be of the same opinion; agree
to consist of; be made up of
4
Ex.2 Fill in the gaps with the following verbs making necessary changes. Each verb can
be used twice:
to incorporate, to embrace, to retained, to comprise, to designate, to imply, to abandon
1. The Balinese Hindus __________ the majority of the island's population in this Muslimmajority nation.
2. Syria’s government refused to implement the Arab League’s peace plan by __________
deadline.
3. During a Republican presidential debate, several candidates __________ the idea of the US
using covert operations to help solve diplomatic problems.
4. Even as his Arab allies __________ him, Syrian President still has a strong bulwark to
prevent his meeting the same fate as the leaders of Egypt, Tunisia or Libya.
5. In two contested races, both incumbents their __________ seats with the sole newcomer.
6. Italy's new government __________ well-respected figures, but Prime Minister will have to
act fast to pass unpopular major reforms.
7. It's time to __________ the UN convention on the rights of the child into UK law.
8. Two reserved parking spots were specifically __________: one for the mayor and the other
for the chief administrative officer.
9. The words "arrested" and "charged" do not __________ guilt.
10.
Italy __________ the Women's World Cup volleyball title after the US was swept by host
Japan in the last match of the tournament.
11.
Entry into the competition __________ acceptance of these rules.
12.
There are five basic foods that every athlete should __________ into their diet.
13.
The reasons why people __________ religion are that they have intellectual doubts and
want to do things religion forbids.
14.
Labor unions are starting __________ some of the bold tactics and social media skills of
the Occupy movement.
TEXT 3
IN PRAISE OF MULTICULTURALISM
Jun 14th 2007
From The Economist print edition
Almost everyone now agrees that it has failed. Has it really?
SWEAR WORDS, like everything else, are subject to fashion. Since the London
bombings of 2005, a new obscenity has entered the lexicon, alongside the anatomical and the
blasphemous: multiculturalism. Once it connoted curry and the Notting Hill carnival; these days,
when applied to British politicians or their policies, “multiculturalist” is almost as derogatory a
term as “socialist” or “neocon”. Even more than they agree about most other things, the main
political parties are united in their conviction that multiculturalism is a perniciously naive idea
whose time has gone, or ought never to have come at all.
Last month, for example, David Cameron, the Tory leader, warned an unenraptured
audience of Islamic leaders about the dangers of “cultural separatism” in Muslim communities.
“The creed of multiculturalism,” he alleged—meaning, roughly, a combination of indulgence
and subsidy for minorities and their institutions—had contributed to a “deliberate weakening of
our collective identity”. Two Labour ministers, meanwhile, suggested the creation of an annual
holiday to help cultivate a renewed sense of Britishness. A commission set up by the government
5
last year, to advise on segregation and extremism, recommended that less money be spent on
providing civic information in Urdu, Arabic and so on, and more on unmulticultural English
lessons.
The shock of hearing a suicide-bomber's video testament delivered in a Yorkshire
accent—hitherto more associated with cricket commentary than terrorism—spelled the end for
multiculturalism. But even before the bombings the word was becoming a slur. Rioting by Asian
youths across northern England in the summer of 2001 forced curry-house multiculturalists to
confront the reality that government nonchalance* had helped to engender. As well as the burned
cars, they saw fossilised social mores and the angry alienation of second- and third-generation
Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants, some of whom profess more allegiance to the global
umma than to Britain.
There are three reasons why the legions of anti-multiculturalists are wrong. First, left to
their own devices many immigrants to Britain have prospered. Indians and some other minorities
do better than whites in schools. There are many types of British Muslims, and some of them are
moving up and out. The 2005 bombers, it now seems, were shaped and motivated as much by
strife within Muslim communities—fanatical Islamism serving as a perverse form of
intergenerational rebellion—as by schisms between Muslims and wider British society.
Second, multiculturalism's detractors tend to concentrate on the easy targets. It is plainly
true, for example, that Britain should anathematise notorious practices such as forced marriage or
“honour killing”. That government commission and others are right to emphasise English
lessons, especially for women, since an inability to speak it harms their children's prospects as
well as their own. But less tends to be said about what are the most important determinants of
segregation, namely housing and education. “Multicultural” policies may have created
neighbourhoods and schools in which almost every face is the same colour. But as well as being
illiberal, most of the alternatives would probably create more trouble and anger than they
prevent.
Finally—and for all the disparaging talk about Londonistan, capital of Eurabia—other
countries, including those where the disparagement of multiculturalism is sharpest, have less to
teach Britain about integration than is often assumed. That is partly because they have failures
too, and partly because their circumstances are too different to be meaningfully compared. Some
talk admiringly about the American solidarity embodied in the pledge of allegiance and Mount
Rushmore1. Yet in Chicago and elsewhere, black Americans are more ghettoised than any
minority is anywhere in Britain (they also intermarry less than blacks in Britain). Many
American immigrants may indeed stick the Stars and Stripes on their front lawn as devoutly as
do other hyphenated Americans; but, apart from their faith, they may not have much in common
with the Muslims of Burnley or Oldham.
The vogue for promoting a new, inclusive Britishness is well-intentioned, but probably
doomed. National identities cannot be confected—and besides, the British already have one.
Privacy and freedom are two of its nicer components, and multiculturalism, for all its failings,
has been a fine expression of it.
Mount Rushmore1 - a mountain in the Black Hills of South Dakota, noted for its giant
relief carvings of four US Presidents-George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln,
and Theodore Roosevelt-carved (1927-41) under the direction of the sculptor Gutzon Borglum
(1867-1941)
6
Ex. 1 Bring out the context in which the following words are used in the text and use them
in the sentences of your own paying special attention to collocations:
blasphemous, derogatory, perniciosly, unenraptured, indulgence, deliberate, engender,
profess, allegiance, perverse, schisms , notorious, advocate, disparagement, devoutly.
Ex 2. Explain and expand on the following:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
combination of indulgence and subsidy for minorities and their institutions
suicide-bomber's video testament delivered in a Yorkshire accent—
curry-house multiculturalists
confront the reality that government nonchalance had helped to engender
profess more allegiance to the global umma than to Britain.
left to their own devices many immigrants
and some of them are moving up and out
it is a piffling force compared with far-right outfits elsewhere in Europe
Britain should anathemise egregious practices
community groups that cater to only one ethnicity or religion
and for all the disparaging talk about Londonistan, capital of Eurabia
indeed stick the Stars and Stripes on their front lawn as devoutly as do other hyphenated
Americans
o The vogue for promoting a new, inclusive Britishness
o National identities cannot be confected
SPEAKING-1
Answer one of the following questions in a 2-minute statement:
1. What is cultural laissez faire?
2. Should the government have a right to restrict people’s clothing choices?
3. Should any religions be given special treatment by the state? (tax exemptions for
churches)
4. Should tolerance be legislated (either in terms of antidiscrimination laws or restrictions
on behaviour that could be offensive)?
5. What does it mean “to behave like Europeans”? Can someone respect European values
while maintaining a foreign culture and religion?
6. Are European values compatible with Islam?
7. What are the three models of managing population diversity? Say, which of them, in your
opinion, is the most viable.
8. Has multiculturalism really failed?
TEAMWORK:
In two teams brainstorm to suggest how immigrants can be encouraged to integrate into
society while still maintaining their cultural and religious identities. Say, what governments
should do to assist the integration.
Draft a list of measures that should be taken to deal with the problem and compare it with
the list of the other team. Can you reach consensus?
SPEAKING-2
The Emergence of the European Unity Idea
7
Get ready to speak on the milestones of European Integration (2-3 min). You may
want to speak about:
Treaty of Paris
Treaties of Rome
"Copenhagen Criteria"
Maastricht Treaty
Treaty of Amsterdam
Lisbon Treaty
EU Enlargement
Enlargement of the Eurozone
PROJECT WORK (Stage 1)
1. Think of a topic for your Project on the US. Come up with a list of points you will want to
cover. Share your ideas with the class. Together brainstorm for what other points might be of
interest to your peers.
2. Draft an outline of the presentation
READING-2
European vs. National Identity
Read the Introduction to the topic and answer the questions that follow:
An important question to the study of Europe is the very ambiguity of the concept of
European Identity. There are no clear-cut geographical, political, cultural or historical boundaries
that define Europe once and forever. It would surely be difficult to conceive of Europe without
reference to a core group of countries, of which the founders of the EEC (France, Germany,
Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Italy) would definitely be part. Beyond that, the
ambiguity begins. Today there are arguments as to whether Russia or Turkey are European,
while not so long ago it was said that Africa began at the Pyrenees. The UK is often perceived
both by natives and aliens as being detached from Europe – and not only geographically.
Another important issue is that ‘being in Europe’ and ‘being European’ are different things. Even
accepting the existence of a vague feeling of belonging to Europe, that might have very few
cultural and political implications because the paramount allegiance of the individual is to the
nation. In any case, it would be surprising to expect that ‘Europeanness’ should have flourished
in a world in which the dominant actor was, and still is, the nation.
What is Europe?
Is it a purely geographical term?
Does it make sense to talk about European culture? Or is ‘Europe’ rather a cultural area?
TEXT 1
Pre-reading: Do you think the creation of an ever closer European Union endangers national
identity?
Skim the text to find out the author’s opinion on united Europe.
8
DISUNITED EUROPE: The European unity and diversity
Northern and Southern Europe are very different places. Even on this broad scale, Europe
is thus an extraordinarily diverse portrait of economic, political and social conditions. The
foundation of the European project was the idea that these nations could be combined into a
single economic regime that would mature into a single united political entity. This was, on
reflection, a rather extraordinary idea.
Europeans, of course, do not think of themselves as Mediterranean or Northern European.
They think of themselves as Greek or Spanish, Danish or French. Europe is divided into nations,
and for most Europeans, identification with their particular nation comes first. The European
Union was where the individual identified his fate with the fate of the nation.
During the generation of prosperity between the early 1990s and 2008, the question of
European identity and national identity really did not arise. Being a European was completely
compatible with being a Greek. Prosperity meant there was no choice to make. Economic crisis
meant that choices had to be made, between the interests of Europe, the interests of Germany and
the interests of Greece, as they were no longer the same.
The nation-state was real. We could see this earliest and best not in the economic arena,
but in the area of foreign policy and national defense. The Europeans as a whole never managed
to develop either. The foreign policies of the United Kingdom, Germany and Poland were quite
different and in many ways at odds. And war, even more than economics, is the sphere in which
nations endure the greatest pain and risk. None of the European nations was prepared to put the
bulk of its armed forces under the command of a European government nor were they prepared
to cooperate in defense matters unless it was in their interest. The unwillingness of the
Europeans to transfer sovereignty in foreign and defense matters to the European Parliament and
a European president was the clearest sign that the Europeans had not managed to reconcile
European and national identity.
There was another impulse behind the idea of Europe. Most of the European nations,
individually, were regional powers at best, unable to operate globally. They were therefore
weaker than the United States. Europe united would not only be able to operate globally, it
would be the equal of the United States. If the nation-states of Europe were no longer great
individually, Europe as a whole could be. Embedded in the idea of Europe, particularly in the
Gaullist view of it, was the idea of Europe as a whole regaining its place in the world, the place it
lost after two world wars. That clearly is not going to happen. There is no European foreign and
defense policy, no European army, no European commander in chief. There is not even a
common banking or budgetary policy. Europe will not counterbalance the United States because,
in the end, Europeans do not share a common vision of Europe, a common interest in the world
or a mutual trust. Each nation wants to control its own fate.
The Europeans like their nations and want to retain them. After all, the nation is who they
actually are. The question, then, is simple: Given that Europe never came together in terms of
identity, and given that the economic crisis is elevating national interest well over European
interest, where does this all wind up? The European Union is an association, at most an alliance
and not a transnational state. There was an idea of making it such a state, but that idea failed a
while ago. As an alliance, it is a system of relationships among sovereign states. They participate
in it to the extent that it suits their self-interest or fail to participate when they please. In the end,
what we have learned is that Europe is not a country. It is a region, and in this region there are
nations and these nations are comprised of people united by shared history and shared fates. The
9
other nations of Europe may pose problems for these people, but in the end, they share neither a
common moral commitment nor a common fate. This means that nationalism is not dead in
Europe, and neither is history. And the complacency, with which Europeans have faced their
future, particularly when it has concerned geopolitical tensions within Europe, might well prove
premature. Europe is Europe, and its history cannot be dismissed as obsolete, much less over.
TEXT 2
Pre-reading:
 What are advantages and disadvantages of the EU enlargement?
 Does Europe have a president or a government?
 Do the EU laws take precedence over domestic laws of the EU member states?
QUIETLY SPROUTING: A EUROPEAN IDENTITY
By Katrin Bennhold
April 26, 2005
BRUSSELS — Jorgo Riss was born and raised in Germany: He has a weakness for
bratwurst and a thoroughly Germanic seriousness about issues like solar power. But he also has
an Italian casualness about punctuality and loves his 5 o'clock tea, a habit he picked up in
London.
A year after 10 new members joined the European Union, euro-skepticism and doubts
about the new European constitution may be dominating headlines. But beyond politics and
institutional battles, the everyday reality of Europe's open borders is quietly forging a European
identity.
A growing number of young Europeans study, work and date across the Continent.
Unlike their parents, who grew up within the confines of nationhood, they are multilingual and
multicultural.
Most of the EU citizens who say they feel "European" still rank their national identity
higher than their European one, opinion polls show. But among those aged 21 to 35, almost a
third say they feel more European than German, French or Italian, according to a survey by Time
magazine in 2001.
Stefan Wolff, a professor of political science at the University of Bath, in England, calls
them the "Erasmus generation," after the EU's university exchange program. Over the last 18
years, Erasmus has allowed 1.2 million young people to study abroad within Europe during their
university years. When this generation takes the reins in coming decades, both in Brussels and in
national capitals, it could produce a profound cultural shift, he says.
"Give it 15, 20 or 25 years, and Europe will be run by leaders with a completely different
socialization from those of today," he added. "I'm quite optimistic that in the future there will be
less national wrangling, less Brussels-bashing and more unity in EU policy making - even if that
is hard to picture today."
To be sure, Europeans have been crossing borders for centuries. From the complex
intermarriages of monarchs to artists and writers moving among coffeehouses in Paris, Vienna
and Prague, political calculation and cultural exchange have formed a broad sense of common
heritage on the Continent.
But the acceleration and breadth of mobility over the past decade are unprecedented. At
its heart lies a combination of legal and economic factors.
10
The advent of a single European market, implemented between 1985 and 1992, enabled
goods and people to move more freely across borders in the EU. Since then, the number of
Europeans gaining degrees outside their country of origin has surged, and many of them stay on
at least temporarily to work in their new home.
An international education is by now a must-have for talented young people, and
European companies have made the whole Continent their roaming ground. They want
cosmopolitan, mobile and multilingual staff.
According to a poll conducted by the European Commission in all 25 member states last
year, more than two-thirds of respondents say they feel "attached" to Europe. Fifty-seven percent
see their identity as having a "European dimension" in the near future, up five percentage points
from 1999, while 41 percent say their identity remains entirely national.
So what is this somewhat woolly notion of feeling European? What is the common
denominator between, say, an Irish villager and a Pole living near the Ukrainian border?
Unlike a national or regional identity, strongly based on geography and language, being
European appears for most people to be a set of broadly shared values. One such value would be
democracy, which most Europeans associate with a social safety net, according to periodic
opinion polls conducted by the commission. Quality of life ranks high on their list of priorities,
as do environmental concerns and a reluctance to use military means to achieve political goals.
There are still sharp differences of opinion within the EU, of course. France is famously
reluctant to scale back its generous benefits and has lobbied hard for harmonizing taxes across
the Union, while Britain and some of the new East European members want more economic
liberalization.
Two factors could set back what appears to be an emerging European identity in the
decades ahead. One is economic malaise in large swaths of the EU, amplified by stagnating
population growth, and the other a widening disconnect between pro-European leaders and the
wider public. But no doubt the expansion of the EU is what is paving the way to a true European
identity. In many ways enlargement has made Europe more European.
Ex. 1 Answer the questions:
What examples does the author give to prove the fact of a forging European identity?
What implications can the cultural shift produced by the "Erasmus generation" have?
Which factors have recently brought about labour mobility?
In what way do the must-haves demanded of the young Europeans help forge a common
identity?
5. Why do few people in Europe feel foremost European?
6. What, according to the author, is the main difference between a national and a European
identity? What issues is European public unanimous on? On what issues are there
disagreements?
7. Which problems can have a negative impact on an emerging European identity?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ex. 2 Explain and expand on the following:
 Europe will be run by leaders with a completely different socialization from those of
today.
 In the future there will be less national wrangling, less Brussels-bashing and more unity
in EU policy making.
 European companies have made the whole Continent their roaming ground.
11

In many ways enlargement has made Europe more European.
Ex. 4 Paraphrase the following word combinations and give their Russian
equivalents:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
to grow up within the confines of nationhood
to produce a profound cultural shift
a must-have for talented young people
to give up their national identity
a social safety net
to rank high on their list of priorities
the basic premise of a welfare state
economic malaise
a widening disconnect between pro-European leaders and the wider public
Ex. 5 Render into English using the topical vocabulary:
Наиболее серьезную угрозу формирующейся европейской идентичности
представляют демография и иммиграция. Проблема социальной интеграции иммигрантов,
не желающих расставаться со своим национальным самосознанием, становится одной из
главных задач внутренней политики государств - членов ЕС. Недовольство и протест
коренного населения вызваны не только тем, что иммигрантов считают виновниками
высокой безработицы и главными получателями социальных пособий. В этой связи
лидеры стран-членов ЕС столкнулись с необходимостью проведения реформы систем
социального обеспечения, которая должна способствовать укреплению института
европейского гражданства.
В последнее время возникла угроза утраты европейскими народами своей
культурной самобытности. Это ведет к обострению национальных чувств, усилению
поддержки национальных атрибутов и символов. Национализм порождает чрезмерная
бюрократизация и централизация управления в ЕС. Такие проявления интеграции, как
открытие внутреннего рынка, сужение национального суверенитета, приток иммигрантов
из соседних стран, не только не способствовали усилению чувства принадлежности к
европейской культуре, но и вызвали болезненную реакцию населения. В критике, которой
подвергается Брюссель, отражается недовольство мощным бюрократическим механизмом,
протест против «евробюрократии». Не случайно, на выборах в Европарламент жители ЕС
голосуют не за кандидатов с лучшей европейской программой, а исходя из своих
национальных политических предпочтений.
Институты ЕС и национальные правительства прилагают усилия для
противодействия росту ксенофобии и правового радикализма среди коренного населения.
Эти проблемы являются одними из главных в списке приоритетных задач в ближайшее
время. Однако чтобы возродить общественную поддержку европейские политики должны
стремиться к достижению единства в ЕС через многообразие культур, языков, народов и
стран. Сохранить культурную близость невозможно путем бюрократических предписаний
из Брюсселя. Благодаря формированию европейского самосознания лидеры ЕС смогут
придать этой организации новый облик в мире.
12
SPEAKING-3
Portrait of an EU Member Country
Prepare a short report on the history of an EU member country: its role in the Union, its
goals and ambitions associated with its membership. (5 min). Make sure to use topical
vocabulary from the list given below
Topical Vocabulary List – 1
to transfer sovereignty in foreign and defense matters
to reconcile European and national identity
to operate globally
to retain nations/values
to elevate national interest over European interest
to be united by shared history and shared fates
to forge a European identity
to rank their national identity higher
the acceleration and breadth of mobility
the advent of a single European market
a social safety net
THE EUROPEAN UNION QUIZ
1. Which Allied war leader said in 1945 "we must build a kind of United States of
Europe"?
A. Harry Truman
B. Joseph Stalin
C. Winston Churchill
D. Charles de Gaulle
2. What seven member European structure was born out of the 1948 Brussels Treaty in
1955, and which was primarily orientated towards defence?
A. Western European Union
B. Eastern European Union
C. European Defence Community
D. European Atomic Energy Community
3. Where was the treaty signed that created the European economic community forerunner of the EU?
A. Westphalia
B. Rome
C. Brussels
D. Versailles
4. Which six countries were the founding members of the European Union (EU)?
A. Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands & the United Kingdom
B. Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands & West-Germany
C. Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, West-Germany & the United Kingdom
D. Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands & the United Kingdom
5. Which Treaty first incorporated the European Council into the Community Treaties?
13
A. The Maastricht Treaty
B. The Rome Treaty
C. The Amsterdam Treaty
D. The Lisbon Treaty
6. What event does the Europe Day, May 9, commemorate?
A. The introduction of the euro in 2001
B. The Schuman Declaration of 1950
C. Britain's entry into the European Economic Community in 1973
D. The signing of the Maastricht treaty in 1992
7. Why are there 12 stars on the European flag?
A. Ourapanos, the mythical first European, has 12 sons
B. The union is administered by 12 commissioners
C. To represent 12 member states
D. It is a number that represents prefection and completeness
8. In what year did the Copenhagen EU summit take place, summit that laid down the
criteria necessary for a Member State to meet in order to be eligible to join the EU?
A. 1957
B. 1968
C. 1986
D. 1993
9. Which were the three EFTA countries to join the EU in the 1995 enlargement?
A. Finland, Spain and Portugal
B. Austria, Finland and Norway
C. Lichtenstein, Iceland, and Switzerland
D. Austria, Finland and Sweden
10. When did the countries on the Iberian peninsula join the European Union?
A. 1976
B. 1986
C. 1996
D. 1966
11. The only country to have ever left the European Union is
A. Norway
B. Greenland
C. Iceland
D. Denmark
12. Who, apart from the United Kingdom, had not joined the euro by January 2001?
A. Austria
B. Greece
C. Denmark and Sweden
D. Portugal and Spain
13. What is the latest country to join the 'eurozone'
A. Cyprus
B. Sweden
C. Slovenia
D. Estonia
14
14. Which of the following countries is a potential EU candidate country?
A. Macedonia
B. Armenia
C. Albania
D. Croatia
15. How frequently does the rotating presidency of the EU change?
A. Every five years
B. Every six months
C. Every year
D. Every three weeks
16. Borders are widely respected by mankind, but not by nature. The Danube is one of the
main rivers of Europe. Which countries of the European Union does it run through?
A. Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania & Bulgaria
B. Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania & Ukraine
C. Germany, Austria, Serbia, Hungary, Romania & Bulgaria
D. Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary, Romania & Bulgaria
17. The world's oldest anthem belongs to an EU-member: which one?
A. Germany
B. Italy
C. The United Kingdom
D. The Netherlands
18. Which of the following classical compositions forms the basis of the official European
Anthem?
A. Vivaldi's Four Seasons
B. Beethoven's Ode to Joy
C. Handel's Fireworks Music
19. What are the 4 countries in Europe which are islands?
20. Which region of the EU is the first to celebrate New Year?
PROJECT WORK



(Stage 2)
Present an outline of your project. Expand on the items central to your presentation.
Try and find a catchy title for the Project (you may want to use a line from a well-known
song, a commercial slogan or a pun even for a “serious” topic)
Get ready with the ideas about the design of the slides in your PowerPoint (pay attention
to the colours and fonts you will be using)
READING 3:
Common European values vs. American Core Values
Pre-reading: Look at the title of the text that follows. What do you expect the author’s message
to be?
Now read the text to find out what ideas lie behind the title.
TEXT 1
A UNITED EUROPE IN THE 21ST CENTURY: ECLIPSING THE AMERICAN
DREAM?
15
By Rick Steves
In his book The European Dream, Jeremy Rifkin contends that Europe's vision of the
future is quietly eclipsing the American Dream. In this essay, Rick Steves folds his European
experience with Rifkin's look at the emerging European Union. Rick's passion is to share the
insight he's gained through his travels in order to challenge fellow Americans to make our
country a better place — both for Americans and for our global neighbors.
The American Dream — the promise that anyone can succeed through hard work — has
powered this country since the days of the Founding Fathers. Born of a rough-and-tumble
frontier society, the American Dream guided us as we established the first great modern
democracy, tamed the West, and rose to become the world's richest and mightiest power — and
eventually its only superpower. In short, the American Dream is what made America great.
But just a decade after the United States emerged victorious from the Cold War, our
nation has been gradually pulling away from the rest of the planet. Recently, the American
government has begun acting like a gross caricature of the American Dream — the lone
"cowboy" who acts unilaterally, impulsively, and violently.
Meanwhile in Europe, the progressive, idealistic policies of the 1960s — dismissed as
"old hippieism" in the U.S. — have taken root. They've matured into a politically viable mix of
tolerance, multilateralism, and environmental-friendly policies that governments are embracing
and electorates are supporting. The United States grows more conservative (as it deals with the
new realities imposed on it by the "age of terror"), while the so-called "Old World" is
experimenting with a new way of doing things one that's arguably better suited to fit into the
more globalized world that's emerging in the 21st century.
The American Dream
The American Dream is the creed of the rugged individualist — a belief that anyone who
works hard can succeed. It started as an egalitarian ideal that balanced the opportunity to better
oneself economically with a guarantee of certain basic human rights. As free agents in a free
society, we would all have equal access to economic opportunity. To the American pioneer,
government was, at best, a necessary evil whose main duty was to preserve a nation free from
tyranny and unnecessary restraints on the individual. Even today, most Americans see big
government as a potential threat to — more than a protector of — their autonomy, property
rights, and freedoms.
The American Dream's innovative spirit, hard work, and belief in the capitalist
marketplace can be credited for our prosperity as a nation...but that's not the whole story. The
rise of the United States from a scraggy nation of rebels to the world's richest country was
possible in part because we enjoyed the ideal environment for our success: a vast, fertile, and
barely populated continent; abundant slave labor followed by a flood of cheap, hardworking
immigrant labor; a common language; natural resources (lumber, iron ore, oil reserves); and
moat-like oceans isolating us from the horrible destruction of the World Wars in both Europe
and Asia.
The American Dream served us well as an isolated continent, but, as humankind evolves,
the era of nation-states seems to be giving way to a more global, multilateral consciousness. If
this is the case, then the most powerful and unilateral nation-state on earth may be the one most
resistant to change. As our planet shrinks and intercontinental communication and commerce is
as easy as the click of a computer mouse, the American Dream feels more and more selfabsorbed and perhaps outmoded.
16
The European Union
A frustrated Secretary of State Henry Kissinger famously asked in 1977, "What telephone
number do you dial to reach Europe?" Today Europe can be reached easily, and the phone
number starts with 011-32-2, that's Brussels, The European Union — an economic trading bloc
with increasing political clout — now speaks clearly, with a single voice, for all of Europe, at
least when it comes to domestic and trade issues.
Twenty-five nations have pooled their resources and made a common commitment to a
common destiny. The European Union — with 450 million people — makes up seven percent of
the world's population. (The United States has 300 million, or five percent.) Europe now has the
world's largest economy, with a GDP of $11 trillion (slightly larger than the U.S.'s). Now the
third-largest government on earth (after China and India ), the EU is unique in that it has no
claim to territory.
The European Union was born out of the destruction of war, designed to never again
allow a war do to it what World War II did. The nations of Europe are sacrificing national
autonomy for the security of no more war and the efficiency of a big free-trade zone. Nudged
slowly and steadily on by visionary Eurocrats, the former rivals have gradually (and often
reluctantly) morphed into a single union whose motto is "unity in diversity." And a new
superpower is born.
It took a series of small, barely-noticeable, but ultimately decisive steps. In 1951, France,
Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, and Italy created the European Coal and Steel
Community, the nucleus of a future united Europe. This union helped overcome the biggest
obstacle to maintaining peace in Europe — the economic rivalry between France and Germany.
In 1957, they took a further step with the Treaty of Rome, which founded the European
Economic Community. Its immediate goal was gaining economic efficiency by creating a
"Common Market," trading some economic independence for free trade and uniform standards.
Initially sold as an economic coalition, the EEC was always designed to progress step by step
toward greater unity. Leaders foresaw the day when the nations would wake up and find a
complex and thickly interwoven web of networks that was impossible to untangle...and Europe
would be one.
In 1987, the European Parliament was created, a giant step. In economic and
environmental issues, this was the first time that states couldn't veto decisions. The government
of Europe was gaining real power.
Then came the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, and with it the rise of a newly-reunited
Germany. Before 1989, the EEC's mission was to not be swallowed up by the competing super
powers (the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.). Now unity was necessary to ensure that other European
countries wouldn't be overwhelmed by a strong, reunited Germany. The threats felt by the
emergence of a united Germany trumped the reluctance to trade away sovereignty.
With the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht, the EEC became the European Union (EU) — now
clearly much more than just a free-trade zone. Its agenda: a common currency (the euro), a
common defense and foreign policy, and a common stance on justice and human rights. In 2004,
10 new nations joined the EU, bringing total membership to 25.
Today's European Union has a president and a military (although member states can veto
any commitment to military action). The EU parliament can make laws that supersede the laws
of its member states. Its court has jurisdiction over EU citizens. It has a uniform currency, the
17
euro. It legislates and regulates on matters such as commerce, trade, education, and the
environment. Its citizens have a common passport.
Still, many EU residents aren't totally sold on the idea. When you talk to average
Europeans about their new union and its advantages — including the ability to stand toe-to-toe
with America in trade negotiations — you don't sense a lot of enthusiasm. While political and
business leaders are rah-rah EU cheerleaders, it seems most residents are "Euroskeptics" who
prefer to focus on the fiascos.
This unique political institution has evolved more quickly than the citizens' mindset, but
that's nothing new in Europe. In 1861, when the united nation of Italy was created, locals still
identified with their regions, and leaders declared "We've created Italy, now we need to create
Italians." The visionaries behind the EU know that a similar situation exists today. In less than 50
years, a growing segment of its population is feeling more European than German, French,
Spanish, Polish, Estonian, or anything else. While many old-timers are less enthusiastic about it
all, a new generation — "Generation E" — is growing up European.
With or without exuberance, the European on the street knows that progress towards
further integration is necessary, inevitable, and is here to stay.
Europe's new consciousness is global. The idea is to expand human empathy, not national
territory. The focus is on sustainability, peace, and harmony. It challenges the idea that progress
be measured in material advances. Such idealism — so out of fashion in America — is now
generally accepted in Europe as prudent public policy. Gandhi said, "There's more to life than
increasing its speed"...and today's Europe is taking those words to heart.
The American Dream vs. the European Dream — Two Very Different Visions
As Europe emerges as an economic and cultural superpower, it's becoming clear that its
beliefs and traits are often 180 degrees different from the United States'. The American Dream
emphasizes autonomy, national pride, and material wealth. Meanwhile, Europe's vision of the
future emphasizes community, cultural diversity, and quality of life. While America values hard
work, property ownership, and a unilateral foreign policy, Europe champions fun and free time,
human rights, and multilateralism.
America pursues military security by unilateral action; Europe builds interdependent
alliances. In personal life, Americans achieve happiness by self-reliant accomplishment; in
Europe, a full and meaningful life requires lots of communities and relationships. While the
American Dream emphasizes economic growth at any cost, the European Dream stresses
sustainable and environmentally safe development. While the American Dream glorifies the
work ethic, the European Dream strives for fun and leisure. The American Dream is tied to
religion, while the European Dream is secular. While Americans sport red, white and blue
bumper stickers saying, "Proud to be an American," Europeans believe we're all in this together.
While the American Dream is personal, the European Dream is communal. This may seem
naively altruistic, but ultimately Europeans recognize that looking out for the greater good (the
"common wealth) is in their own best interests. And superstars are not as prized in Europe —
where they say the grain that grows taller will be cut first — as in America.
America (and all the cultural influences it has graced — or cursed — the planet with) is
still envied, but it's no longer as admired as it once was. Our way of life no longer inspires, but is
increasingly derided. American ad jingles that used to sell in Europe now turn people off. We are
actually feared, as most Europeans rate the United States as the most dangerous (to world peace)
country on the planet.
18
Conclusion
In his book, The Euopean Dream, Jeremy Rifkin writes that in medieval times, faith was
the glue that kept society together. In the modern age, it was reason. Europe has concluded that
in the global future, it must be empathy.
Today 450 million people have EU citizenship. Think of the accomplishment after a
thousand years of killing. The visionary leaders of the European Dream, along with legions of
Eurocrats in Brussels, are fostering a new political system that favors negotiation over
ultimatums and cooperation over competition. Its plodding bureaucracy can seem clumsy and
almost laughable at times. But as an alternative to another devastating war every generation or
two, it's a brilliant vision. The EU's power grows not by expanding sovereignty but by
broadening cooperation. America still has the "hard power" (economic and military muscle), but
its "soft power" — the cultural and moral inspiration, optimism, and ingenuity that so many
emulated for so long — may be ebbing.
The European Union has a vision of a prosperous continent at peace that includes all,
celebrates diversity, respects universal human rights, enjoys a high but sustainable quality of life,
protects the environmental rights, and has lots of fun. And 450 million Europeans see it as a
model not limited to their continent, and possibly providing a better future for all humankind.
I'm not saying that America needs to emulate Europe. But we may be unwise not to see
the extraordinary dynamic unfolding across the Atlantic — much as Europe underestimated the
emergence of America after 1789. America's biggest error may be in not taking Europe
seriously. We would be wise to keep an eye on what the EU is doing, respect it, and learn from
it. And by keeping that in mind on your next trip, your travels will give you an insight into one
of the most exciting yet unnoticed developments of our time.
SPEAKING 4:
Team Work
In teams make up the lists of American and European values bringing out the major
differences. Speak about the factors that define a country’s set of values. Make extensive use of
the Topical Vocabulary list that follows. Present your lists to the class.
Topical Vocabulary list – 2:
to succeed through hard work
to act unilaterally
a politically viable mix of tolerance and multilateralism
to embrace environmental-friendly policies
a creed of the rugged individualist
to have equal access to economic opportunity
to speak with a single voice / with one voice
to pool resources
to make a common commitment
to sacrifice national autonomy for security
to trade economic independence for free trade and uniform standards
a unity in diversity
to progress toward greater unity
a reluctance to trade away sovereignty
19
to supersede the laws of its member states
a prudent public policy
to champion human rights and multilateralism
to build interdependent alliances
a sustainable and environmentally safe development
to foster a new political system
READING 4:
UK-EU relations
Pre-reading: How important, in your opinion, is Great Britain for the European decisionmaking? Does Britain need the EU membership?
Read the article to find out the attitude of the Foreign Secretary to the idea of “variable
geometry”. Share your background knowledge on the subject with your group.
TEXT 1
REVIEW OF THE BALANCE OF COMPETENCES BETWEEN THE UNITED
KINGDOM AND THE EUROPEAN UNION
July 2012
Foreign Secretary William Hague
Membership of the EU is in the UK's national interests. But the EU needs to reform to
meet the challenges of competitiveness, a stable Eurozone and greater democratic legitimacy.
The Government is committed to playing a leading role in the EU and protecting the UK’s
sovereignty.
Being part of the EU is central to how we in the UK create jobs, expand trade and protect
our interests around the world. It enables us to drive and shape a single market of some 500
million people, with a combined GDP of £11 trillion, in which British citizens can trade, travel
and work freely. It is a key reason for Britain’s attractiveness as a global business hub and place
to invest. It is the basis for co- operation with our closest partners on challenges that by their
nature cross borders, such as climate change, international development, migration and
transnational crime. And it amplifies the UK’s voice and helps advance our values of democracy,
open markets and individual rights in the wider world.
In the 39 years of our membership, British leadership has helped to shape the EU for the
better. We have been leading proponents of the EU’s most successful policies – the single
market itself and enlargement to the North, South and East. By being active and activist, we can
continue to shape the EU that we need – outward looking, accountable and responsive.
Because today’s Europe needs reform more than ever. It has considerable achievements
to its name, but also has real flaws, and now needs to adapt its ways very significantly to meet
current and future challenges.
Whilst the countries that have chosen to adopt the Euro will need to take the steps
necessary to put their currency on a sustainable basis, more broadly the EU will not prosper if it
reacts in this same way to challenges by accruing greater power at the centre. To ensure that the
European continent is one of peace, security and prosperity based on freedom and the rule of
law, the EU will also need to act effectively as a Europe of 27 member states, which remains
open to future enlargement. And the EU and all its member states will have to do everything they
20
can to promote economic growth and prosperity.
Europe today confronts three urgent challenges, which have intensified even since 2010.
All matter to Britain. They provide the focus for what the Coalition has achieved on Europe and
will work towards.
First, the speed and scale at which globalisation is shifting wealth and power towards
emerging economies. There is in this a great positive development for the world, as free markets
and technological change lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. However, it requires
Europe to reform to stay competitive, generate growth and generate jobs. It also means that there
is great benefit in European nations working together to project their influence, on security,
climate change and other genuinely global issues.
The second challenge for our policies has been dealing with the crisis in the Eurozone. This Government will not join or prepare to join the Euro. But stability and growth in the
Eurozone, to which 40% of our exports are sold, are vital to our own economic recovery. The
crisis in the Eurozone and the uncertainty it is generating are having a chilling effect on our
economy and on the global economy. We want our neighbours in the Eurozone to succeed in
solving their difficulties by taking the necessary steps now and for the future to create stability
and confidence, as well as addressing Europe’s overall low productivity and lack of economic
dynamism. The Eurozone crisis is changing the shape of the EU. It is pushing it towards greater
“variable geometry” – with a number of different configurations of member states cooperating in
different policy areas. This should make for a more effective EU, a body with the flexibility of a
network not the rigidity of a single bloc. Variable geometry should not undermine the
foundations of membership of the EU, in particular the single market, and no member state
should be excluded from participating in areas it wants to join. At all times the UK will ensure its
influence is brought to bear as an active and activist member of a changing EU. It is right that
Britain protect its own economic interests. First, by ensuring that the crisis does not undermine
efforts to reduce our deficit. Second, by making sure that the single market works fairly for the
benefit of all 27 members, including the UK.
The third issue that Europe must confront is the challenge of legitimacy. Recent elections
in Europe have shown how real this is. Those across Europe saying that they had a positive
image of the EU drop from 52% in 2007 to 31% in 2011. This is not an isolated trend. But
without the roots that sustain national democracies, it is even more important that the EU
addresses the legitimate demands for greater accountability, transparency, efficiency and probity.
TEXT 2
Scan the text to find out the three main challenges for the EU.
Read the text again to find out how UK Foreign Secretary W. Hague sees the
present and the future of Europe.
EUROPE AT A CROSSROADS: WHAT KIND OF EUROPE DO WE WANT?
23 October 2012
Foreign Secretary William Hague
We are committed to playing a leading role in the European Union in order to advance
our national interest. The single market is one of the greatest forces for prosperity the continent
has ever known and that is why we will continue to push an ambitious programme of deepening
the single market while seeking to reduce unnecessary burdens in EU legislation. To continue to
21
deliver prosperity and security for our citizens in the face of a shift of economic power to the
emerging markets, the EU needs to be more outward-looking, more dynamic and more
competitive on the global stage. We want an EU that is able to use its collective weight for our
common interests, such as trade and security.
The activities of the EU have expanded over time. It has steadily acquired influence over
many aspects of our daily lives – for better and for worse – without successive governments or
the British people being able to take stock of what was happening in the round. The crisis in the
Eurozone has accelerated this process of change for those member states within the single
currency and we now find ourselves at a defining moment in Europe’s history.
We understand the need for Eurozone countries to take steps towards closer fiscal and
economic integration as a logical consequence of monetary union. Given the UK’s place outside
the Euro, it is right that we have said we will not be part of that closer integration. We support
the fact that multiple forms of EU membership already exist and this flexibility is in the interest
of both the EU and UK. The EU is not and should not become a matter of everything or nothing.
But as the EU continues to develop we need to be absolutely clear when it is most appropriate to
take decisions at the national or local level, closer to the people affected, and in other cases when
it is best to take action at the EU or global level.
The Government is working to achieve the commitments it made to the British people in
the Coalition Programme for Government. We have ensured that there is no further transfer of
competence or powers over the course of this Parliament. We also introduced and guided
legislation through Parliament - the European Union Act 2011 - which enhances democratic
accountability by establishing that any future transfers of power or competences from the UK to
Brussels would need to be agreed by the British people in a referendum.
The crisis in the Eurozone has intensified the debate in every country on the future of
Europe and there is no exception here. Now is the right time to take a critical and constructive
look at exactly which competences lie with the EU, which lie with the UK, and whether it works
in our national interest.
This is a time of epochal change as globalisation tests developed countries’ ability to pay
their way in the world.
Today I want to look at the future of the EU from a wider perspective. As the Nobel
Peace prize reminded us, the EU is about much more than just the Eurozone. I understand what
the Euro means to its members but the EU’s greatest achievements, the things that have the most
real good for the peoples of Europe, are the establishment of the Single Market and the
enlargement of the European Union.
The European Union, alongside NATO, has been an instrument of peace and
reconciliation. It has helped to spread and entrench democracy and the rule of law across Europe.
It has helped make armed conflict between its members unthinkable. The Single Market has
opened up prosperity and opportunity to hundreds of millions of people. We must ensure that
the solutions we adopt for the current crisis do not jeopardise the integrity and achievements of
the EU as a whole.
If we do not succeed in making our economies globally competitive and generating
sustainable growth then whatever else we do, whatever declarations and treaties we sign,
whatever structures we build, will all ultimately be irrelevant. There will be no Social Europe,
there will just be an Excluded Europe. If Europe becomes a neighbourhood of economic decline
we will not matter in the world and we will have betrayed the peoples of Europe. This is a
22
mission for the EU27 and the UK will be at the forefront of this effort.
Co-operation within the EU on the great global issues has allowed us to advance our
shared interests and values with effect. But that does not mean we should try to forge a single
European position and voice on everything.
We want British, German and Finnish national diplomacy, and international institutions
like NATO to thrive alongside coordinated action at the EU level. The EU is part of but far from
all of the solution to the fundamental challenges we face.
Often important things will not be agreed or cannot be done through the EU. It would be
neither right nor realistic to think that questions of war and peace could or should be decided by
QMV. Indeed, just because some things work well in coordination with all of our European
partners does not mean we should do everything at 27. A more effective EU does not have to
mean a bigger, more expensive or more centralised EU.
There are three great problems of Europe’s future we need to solve if we are to ensure
that a wider European Union has the flexibility, the legitimacy and the agility to succeed in the
21st century.
First, how we structure the EU when many countries want differing kinds of integration
and still preserve the EU’s essential unity.
Second, how we deal with the problem of democratic legitimacy and accountability of
decision-making in the EU, which is a growing concern in most Member States.
Third, how we get the right balance of what the EU does do or doesn’t do. These are not
simple matters. Clearly the Eurozone’s current structures are not working. We respect the
democratic decision of the countries of the Eurozone to preserve it. That will require changes.
We know the options. It is not for Britain to tell you what the exact remedy should be. The
choices faced by Eurozone countries are not easy. Some proposals would severely curtail
national democracy – issues like national budgets – forever. Others might mean decades of
financial support from stronger economies to the weaker. How to find a way through these
problems in a way that is fair and commands democratic consent is immensely difficult.
We need to look afresh at some of the things the EU does. They have to make sense to
our voters. That is why, over the next two years, the British government will be reviewing what
the EU does and how it affects us in the United Kingdom: a constructive and serious British
contribution to the public debate across Europe about how the EU can be reformed, modernised
and improved.
The EU is already a diverse place and with further enlargement it will become more so:
by the time all the Western Balkan nations join there will be more than thirty countries in it. Its
peoples do and will want different things from the EU. Some will be in the Eurozone and some
not. Some are comfortable with ideas of federalism, other are not. Some, like Britain, play an
active part in foreign and security policy, others find its practice difficult. Some yearn to go
further in opening up markets. Others find the idea threatening.
We should recognise and embrace that diversity – it would be a dangerous denial of
reality to wish it away. We must respond to what our people and democratic institutions are
saying – not just in Britain, but across Europe. We ignore them at our peril. Extremist parties
have enjoyed no significant success in Britain or Germany but worryingly that is not true of
every EU Member State.
This Government is committed to Britain playing a leading role in the EU but I must also
be frank: public disillusionment with the EU in Britain is the deepest it has ever been. People
23
feel that in too many ways the EU is something that is done to them, not something over which
they have a say. The way in Britain Lisbon was ratified without any consultation of the voters
has played a part in that. People feel that the EU is a one-way process, a great machine that sucks
up decision-making from national parliaments to the European level until everything is decided
by the EU. That needs to change. If we cannot show that decision-making can flow back to
national parliaments then the system will become democratically unsustainable. Subsidiarity
must really mean something.
It is obviously in Britain’s interests for the EU to succeed in the tasks I have described
and for Britain to play a leading role in it. It will not be easy to achieve but this would be a
Europe that thrives on its diversity and allows all of its peoples to fulfill their aspirations. It
would be a Europe built on sustainable democratic foundations. And it would be a Europe which
kept pace with the rapid changes in the world and the developing interests of each of its
members, a Europe adapted to the 21st century.
TEXT 3
HALF OF BRITISH VOTERS 'WOULD CHOSE TO LEAVE THE EU IN
REFERENDUM'
James Kirkup telegraph.co.uk
09 Nov 2012
The survey will fuel the growing political debate about Britain’s future place in the EU,
which has seen even Cabinet ministers suggesting that the UK would prosper outside the union.
It was published a day after Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, publicly urged David
Cameron to resist growing Conservative pressure for an exit and keep Britain in the EU.
The YouGov poll showed that 49 per cent of voters would vote to leave the EU in a
referendum. Twenty-eight per percent said they would opt to remain a member.
The poll, of 1,637 British adults, was carried out late last month and also showed that
most Britons do not believe their country has much sway over European affairs.
Only 29 per cent of voters said they consider Britain to be influential within the EU.
Forty five per cent said Britain has little clout in Europe.
British voters are also gloomy about the future of the EU: 65 per cent said they are
pessimistic about the union’s prospects, while only 22 per cent were optimistic.
The Prime Minister has said he does not want to have a referendum on EU membership,
arguing that remaining inside the union is in Britain’s best interests.
Instead, he has proposed negotiating changes in Britain’s membership to reduce the
impact of EU rules on British life. Those changes could be put to the people in a referendum, Mr
Cameron has said.
The Prime Minister’s policy does not go far enough for some Conservatives, including
members of his Cabinet. They say the party should be willing to consider offering voters the
choice of leaving the EU altogether.
The British political drift towards scepticism over Europe has alarmed some European
leaders, who worry that the result could be a British departure from the union.
Topical Vocabulary list – 3:
Variable geometry
membership of the EU
24
to be central to sth.
to shape a single market
an outward looking, accountable and responsive EU
to put the currency on a sustainable basis
to accrue greater power at the centre
to reform to stay competitive
to deal with the crisis in the eurozone
to advance the national interest
to deepen the single market
to reduce unnecessary burdens in EU legislation
to take steps towards closer cooperation
a transfer of power or competences from the UK to Brussles
to advance shared interests and values with effect
to entrench democracy
to recognise and embrace that diversity
subsidiarity
SPEAKING 5:
Discussion
Explain what each of the following terms means. Bring out the differences in their meaning
or usage and give their Russian equivalents:
 Europe of variable geometry
 Enhanced cooperation
 Schengen (Agreement and Convention)
 Multi-speed Europe
 Europe à la carte
 Hard core
 Concentric circles
 Codecision procedure
 Consent procedure
 Distribution of competences
 Consolidation of legislation
 New-look NATO
 Neighbourhood policy
 Opting out
 Principle of subsidiarity / of proportionality / of conferral
 Accession criteria
 Applicant country
PROJECT WORK


(Stage 3)
Speak on the design of your Power Point Presentation slides
Draft a reference list of the sources you used in getting ready for your presentation
25
WRITING-1
Summary
Write a summary of the article in Reading
Before you begin look through the stages of summary writing in the MANUAL and read the
proofreading list BEFORE and AFTER writing your summary
READING 5:
EU – the Superpower
Pre-reading: How weighty in your opinion is the role of the EU in the world today?
A potential superpower is a state or a political and economic entity that is speculated to
be in the process of becoming a superpower at some point in the 21st century. Presently, it is
widely recognized that the most commonly mentioned as being potential superpower is the
European Union (a supranational entity)
TEXT 1
SUPERPOWER? NOT FOR THE EU
Philadelphia Inquirer -- September 26, 2004
Ian Garrick Mason
It has the size and strength, but not the solidarity. For the European Union to become as
powerful as the United States, its 25 members need to unite at a level much deeper than
economic integration.
Given the last two years of transatlantic jousting and recrimination over Iraq, would it be
logical to expect the European Union to eventually try to become an independent superpower?
Indeed, last spring's announced development of nine regiment-sized EU battle groups for
deployment outside Europe and the signing next month of a new European constitution make a
superpower future for Europe seem more tangible than ever.
Certainly, the European Union is now a huge entity. Ten countries joined this summer
(for a total membership of 25), and total EU population stands at 456 million, compared with
America's 292 million. The EU GDP is $12.3 trillion ($11.6 trillion for the United States), and it
has 1.9 million military personnel (compared with America's 1.4 million).
But for all its size and strength, the European Union will never become a superpower - at
least, not without its own Alexander Hamilton, the driving figure behind the need for a
completely new constitution and conception of the United States to replace the Articles of
Confederation of 1777.
Under the Articles, the Continental Congress was empowered to conduct foreign relations
on behalf of the states, to run an army and navy in case of war, and to settle interstate disputes.
But the states themselves remained free and sovereign.
The fragile system was almost guaranteed to break down. Trade friction between the
states was intense, and interstate tariff barriers grew numerous. Congress had no power to tax the
American people directly and was therefore dependent on the states for all of its revenue - and
the states had a disconcerting tendency to miss their payments.
Many Americans, including Hamilton, a former aide-de-camp to George Washington in
the Revolutionary War, found this national weakness intolerable. At an ill-attended conference
26
convened only to make economics-related changes to the Articles of Confederation, Hamilton
called for a new meeting to discuss all the problems faced by the states. The result was the
Constitutional Convention of 1787, whose final document Hamilton strongly championed.
The government created by this constitution - with its elected executive, bicameral
legislature, independent judiciary, and its power to directly tax the population, declare war, and
raise and command an army - would provide the framework for America's evolution over two
centuries into today's military and economic superpower.
In many ways, the European Union has already gone well beyond the American Articles
of Confederation. Its inter-state trading rules (the "European single market") are deep and wellenforced, enabling full mobility of goods and services, labor and capital. It has developed a
single currency, the euro, managed by a European central bank. A directly elected European
Parliament exists, as does a Court of Justice and an executive branch, the European Commission.
Furthermore, the EU has direct and automatic access to a share of VAT (the European sales tax),
so it is not dependent on dues paid by member states.
From a military point of view - the essence of what being a superpower is - Europe
remains much more fragmented than America was under the Articles of Confederation. All of
the EU members remain explicitly sovereign nations - members can leave if they want to - and
each maintains its own armed forces and conducts its own foreign policy, as can be seen in the
widely diverging approaches of France and the United Kingdom with respect to the Iraq war.
Though all states are bound through both the EU and NATO to help each other in the
event of a foreign attack, participating in a European-initiated war or peacekeeping operation
remains completely optional for each member state. Even the union's famous "Common Foreign
and Security Policy" is formed by unanimous decision of a council of member states, not by the
union's executive branch.
These are not the attributes of an emerging superpower - when America goes to war, after
all, California does not get to opt out of it.
To become a superpower, the European Union would have to persuade its member states
to make fundamental changes to its power structures: an active-duty military would need to be
recruited and paid by the executive (the Commission); member states would have to give up
control of foreign policy; and the power to declare war would have to be vested in a majority
vote of the European Parliament.
These would be immense changes - but without such changes, Europe will remain what it
is today: a unified economic giant, with 25 armies and 25 foreign policies. Not a superpower.
But is there anything wrong with this? The forces that drove America together in the 18th
century were quite different from those that are driving Europe together now. America had just
fought a war against a world power, Britain. Another world power, France, was a potential
enemy. America was vulnerable, so simple economic union wasn't sufficient.
Europe moved toward unification as a way of eliminating the threat of internal war,
which has killed uncountable millions over the centuries. Because deep-rooted nationalisms
could not be expected to simply evaporate, unity has been achieved by gradually implementing a
variety of mutually supporting political and economic mechanisms: free trade, human rights,
democracy, and the rule of law.
For this kind of project, a single army controlled by a powerful federal government is not
needed. Though some European generals and the American administration may complain that
27
Europe is not pulling its weight in interventions around the world, the elimination of war on the
battle-scarred continent is surely a great victory in itself.
One day, Europe may decide that the time is right to become a superpower - perhaps
motivated by some external threat against which America will not or cannot defend it. One day,
perhaps, a European Alexander Hamilton - a Dane? Spaniard? Pole? German? - will be able to
transcend centuries of nationalism to effect a more complete integration. A more perfect union,
one might even say. But until that day, the American superpower will be neither supplanted nor
balanced by a European rival.
TEXT 2
Pre-reading: The EU was created as an economic community. How far can it presently be
regarded as a political unity?
Scan the article and find out what particular EU nations are involved and what
functions the EEAS has.
10 EU NATIONS CALL FOR ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL UNION, AND A
EUROPEAN ARMY
June 22, 2012
From theTrumpet.com
Euro crisis is a ‘wake-up call’ for closer integration.
In order to solve the euro crisis and survive in the modern world, European Union
nations need to give up more powers, forge a political union and create new institutions like a
European Army, 10 EU foreign ministers said in a report presented to EU officials on June 19,
2012
Several of the finance ministers also called for the creation of what has been termed a
“super-president” as a single figurehead for the union. Sometimes called the “Berlin Group” or
“Berlin Club,” the group began meeting at the suggestion of German Foreign Minister Guido
Westerwelle to reinvigorate European integration.
To combat the euro crisis, the report says the EU must overcome a “fundamental flaw—
monetary union without economic union.” Europe should “look into the possibility of a stronger
role for European institutions regarding national budgets.” More decisions need to be taken at the
European level, it says, and a nation’s power to veto these decisions needs to be cut back.
But the recommendations go beyond the current crisis. “New political and economic
global players are gaining more influence,” said the report. “In dealing with these new
powerhouses, we Europeans will only be able to uphold our values and pursue our interests
effectively if we pool our strengths much more, both internally and in dealings with the outside
world.”
In the long term, this means a “European Defense Policy,” which could include a
“European Army” for some nations, the report said. When it comes to defense policy, “most
foreign ministers feel that we should be more ambitious,” says the report.
In the shorter term, the European External Action Service (EEAS)—the EU’s diplomatic,
intelligence and military unit—must “be strengthened more.” The EU also needs “a more
dynamic Common Security and Defense Policy, stronger EEAS planning and command
capabilities for civil-military operations, more pooling and sharing.”
The report also says, “We should also aim for a common seat in international
28
organizations,” presumably referring to the EU’s longstanding goal of gaining a seat on the UN
Security Council. The group plans to continue meeting, focusing especially on how to make
Europe “a global player.”
The 10 foreign ministers endorsing the report are from Germany, Austria, Belgium,
Denmark, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain. French
representatives also attended some of the meetings.
These are some of the most influential nations in the EU. Watch for their
recommendations to be acted on quickly, as the euro crisis forces eurozone nations closer
together.
TEXT 3
IS EUROPE A SUPERPOWER
Andrew Clarke
September 16, 2012 e-International Relations
2011 may come to be seen as a turning point for the European Union. Given the
Eurozone crisis and its global implications, it is perhaps easy to denounce Europe’s successes in
the field of foreign policy. Some would argue that the European Union is no longer in a position
to promote its system of governance to emerging powers now that action on the Eurozone is
taking precedence in European politics. Coupled with impending defence and development aid
budget cuts, Europe’s prestige in international affairs may not recover for some time. However,
it is important to not dismiss the European Union as an international actor simply because of the
Eurozone crisis. The continent was widely praised for leading the military action in Libya and its
action on climate change at the Durban conference. The Union’s main barrier to being seen as a
superpower is its difficulty in being able to pursue a grand strategy. Given the wide room for
disagreement stemming from the differing ideological and national interests of member states, it
is increasingly difficult for the European Union to act collectively. Again, the financial crisis has
again only exacerbated this tension as member states disagree on fiscal and monetary reforms.
Because of it whilst Europe is an effective actor abroad, it has lost much of its credibility, which
will take considerable time to recover.
External policy consistency can be difficult for the EU, mainly because of the great
spread of the EU’s external relations interests and activities. We can still see a divide between
the ‘old’ and ‘new’ Europe in terms of ideology – those member states reluctant to match leading
countries in terms of military and defence capabilities. This, some would argue, deprives Europe
of an ability to respond to crises with ‘organised violence’.
This lack of coherence has been most recently exemplified by the increasing gap between
Britain and many of the other EU member states as a result of the Eurozone crisis. The growing
euro scepticism in Britain has been fuelled by claims that the Euro has failed as a currency, that
immigration is too high, and that budget cuts mean contributions cannot be made to Europe. This
situation, however, has been only worsened by politicians, who are reluctant to promote the
benefits of Europe. The rising powers, i.e. BRICS, are increasingly reluctant to accept ‘lectures’
from Europe, given public disagreement between member states, and its overall waning
influence.
A wider issue with European foreign policy though, is what has been termed its
‘renationalisation’. This argues that the bigger member states, i.e. Britain, Germany and France,
have worked more to individual aims rather than the most effective policies for the EU as a
29
whole. This was exemplified in the UK’s campaign to block the EEAS, the French diplomatic
offensive against Turkey and Germany’s blocking of a larger use of EIB funds in the Middle
East. Even in what was seen as Europe’s big success – the response to the Libya uprising – there
was disagreement from Germany, who abstained on the UN Resolution vote. Also, many would
also argue that although Europe led the invasion, there was a big reliance on US military
equipment and assets.
It would be unfair though, to claim that the EU has been completely ineffective due to a
lack of collective action. Member States even acknowledge that this is a growing problem and
have worked to create institutions and processes for the Common Foreign and Security Policy
(CFSP) and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). This shows that efforts are being
made in the area and that it is high on the agenda. Conversely though, it could be argued that
these efforts have been nothing more than decisions on how to respond to crises, rather than
creating strategic partnerships with nations outside of Europe. An aggregation of the military and
economic and diplomatic abilities of the member states is possible, but there is a lack of a
concrete structure for creating such policies.
When analysing whether Europe can be viewed as a superpower, it is useful to compare
to other, existing superpowers. Scholars believe that America is the only superpower. If this is
true, then arguably the most important international relationship is that of Europe and the United
States of America. As the largest trading bloc in the world, Europe is clearly still a significant
global actor. Yet, it is important to note that the Eurozone crisis has had an important impact on
the Europe-US relationship. Whilst the US is keen to maintain its ties with Europe, it is also
reluctant to become too embroiled in the Eurozone situation, due to fears of it destabilising the
US recovery, which it already has to a degree, according to some critics.
It was less than a decade ago that the relationship between the US and the EU took a
significant blow during the Iraq crisis. Arguably one of Europe’s greatest assets – having two
nations as permanent members of the UN Security Council – was jeopardised after disagreement
between Britain and France over responses to Saddam Hussein and the Bush invasion. But,
Obama is seen to hold a more diplomatic view towards Europe, trying to promote collective
action between the Member States. Whilst the US and Europe may disagree on national interests
and some policies, they are both highly significant actors in global governance with parts to play
in each other’s policymaking processes. Although the US is anxious about the Eurozone crisis, it
is inconceivable at the moment to think that the European Union and America could close off all
ties. Both have become interdependent on each other economically and in terms of security.
It is, however, possible to witness a rebalancing of the strategic partnerships, given the
rise of new powers – Brazil, Russia, India and China. Particularly the latter, China, is seen to be
challenging Europe’s multilateral vision in the world. With the euro currently in crisis, and the
rising powers benefitting from globalisation, Europe is struggling to promote itself as a
legitimate role within the global order. This is not to say though, that Europe is being left behind.
In fact, it is working to create bilateral ties with the rising powers. This is perhaps not out of
choice though. For example, whilst the Eurozone crisis has brought austerity to many European
countries, it has become an opportunity for China to purchase assets. The relationship is not
simply an economic one. Together with the US, the EU is working with Russia and China in
stopping nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea. This approach has largely been
collective, which would suggest that there is still room for convergence in European security
policy. The fact that the efforts are being led by France, the UK and Germany would suggest
30
again though, that some policies are becoming somewhat nationalised – with Germany
abstaining on the UN Resolution regarding Libya but becoming involved in other security
matters, it appears to have become a situation in which Member States simply opt-in.
The EU’s relationship with Russia remains to be strong given the economic
interdependence. Whilst there has been room for widespread disagreement, for example during
the conflict with Georgia, both the EU and Russia acknowledge the need for mutual cooperation. Perhaps the most notable success is Russia’s accession to the World Trade
Organisation which has paved the way for further EU-Russia trade liberalisation.
Aside from bilateral relationships, the EU is effective as a multilateral actor, having
member states in several institutions, including the UN,
NATO and the World Trade Organisation. The EU forms a
fairly successful bloc in the UN and unites on issues such as
trade. However, there is again a lack of a clear process and
structure for the EU multilaterally. This is shown with the
European Commission representing member states at the
World Trade Organisation and the lack of collective
representation on the United Nations Security Council.
It has been demonstrated that the European Union is a
successful international actor, and perhaps this would
indicate that it can be considered a superpower. Despite the
Eurozone crisis, it is still a significant financial actor as the
biggest trade bloc in the world. Given the nature of globalisation, nations are becoming
interdependent with the EU. This again would demonstrate that it could be viewed as a
superpower. The main problem that the EU faces, however, is a lack of collective action and
policy cohesion. This has been demonstrated throughout the evolution of security and military
policies which are ineffective for an actor of such sheer size. The Eurozone crisis has only served
to exacerbate the tensions between countries, as member states with differing ideologies respond
and reform using different methods. Because of this, as well as the rise of other powers, EU
influence is perhaps waning. However, the EU is still a significant actor in international affairs,
as demonstrated by the collective action on Libya. It would perhaps be an overstatement, though,
to say that it is a superpower, due to its lack of strategic partnerships with the upcoming BRICs.
Perhaps after the European economy has recovered, the attention of policymakers can be
recalibrated to look towards a future role of Europe as a superpower.
FOLLOW-UP:
In pairs make a list of arguments that make the author’s case. It may require
intensive reading. Share your lists with the class. Compare them with the lists of your peers
SPEAKING 6:
Debate Club
Choose one or several topics. In teams get ready for the debate. Act it out.
 Does the EU Qualify For a Superpower Status?
 Is Multiculturalism a Better Social Model Than Assimilation?
 The Prospects for Closer Integration of Great Britain in The European Union
31
READING 6:
the Future of the European Union
Pre-reading: What in your understanding is a multi-speed (multi-layered) Europe?
Read the two texts and say what the most likely scenarios for the future of the European
Union are.
TEXT 1
IN EU, NATION-STATE APPEARS TO BE BACK
March 1, 2006 Katrin Bennhold
The New York Times
Recent efforts by European governments to protect and forge national corporate icons
herald a profound shift in Europe's economic and political landscape: the nation-state, generally
dormant under mutual pledges of cooperation, appears to be back with a vengeance.
At a time when the European Commission is seeking to knit together a common identity
and tear down remaining economic barriers, a string of hostile reactions in national capitals to a
wave of cross-border mergers is the latest blow to an already weakened institution.
Divisions in the European Union before the Iraq war laid bare its failure to speak with
one voice in foreign affairs. Last year's rejection of the proposed European constitution in France
and the Netherlands called into question the idea of closer political union.
Now governments appear to be on a quest to reclaim the one area where the consensus of
joining forces has always been strongest: the single European market. But the recent outbursts
risk creating a domino effect because they have been unusually frequent and aggressive. Worse,
they come in a context of widespread skepticism toward the Union, which has triggered a
political instinct among leaders to pander to voters fearful of seeing jobs migrate abroad.
Fears of globalization have been magnified by the enlargement of the EU in 2004, which
brought countries from Central and Eastern Europe into the Union and has since caused a
backlash among many western states against what they perceive as the competition these low
wage and fast growing economies represent.
Much of the recent muscle-flexing comes ahead of the full opening of Europe's energy
market in July next year. The deadline has prompted rapid consolidation in the energy sector and
prompted governments to support their own national champions.
Political leaders, particularly in France and Germany, have shown a tendency to play to
their voters' concerns rather than trying to defuse them, often attacking the European
Commission in Brussels for policies aimed at opening and integrating markets further.
Last month the European Parliament diluted a landmark commission law aimed at
opening up the EU's market in cross-border services. The measure included many exemptions
and gave national governments continued powers to protect their services sectors after trade
unions' protests and pressure from the governments in Paris and Berlin.
The European idea has been crumbling for years, even though people tried to paper over
the cracks. There are no more taboos."
TEXT 2
FUTURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION - ENLARGED OR BROKEN?
Patric Dixon
Globalchange.com
32
The most likely scenario for the future of the European Union over the next decade and a
half will be slow but steady progress towards integration, held back by the rich diversity of
cultures and economic crises. A Greater Europe cannot be built without strong EU governance
and visionary leadership, yet these are the two issues which are notably missing at present.
The European Parliament does not command the same sense of respect as national
Parliaments, nor the connection with ordinary people. This is a serious problem. Who makes
decisions in Europe anyway? Is it EU councils of Ministers who are appointed by their own
governments? Is it elected representatives of the people (MEPs)? And that is the heart of the
problem.
What happens when an economic crisis unfolds rapidly - affecting different nations in
conflicting ways? What happens if a nation behaves irresponsibly, in ways that create
instabilities and liabilities for other members of the Euro Zone?
Culture differences are profound and deeply sensitive to the future of the European
Union. Take language for example. In France there is great resentment about the dominance of
the English language and it is illegal to play too many English songs on the radio. It is hard to
imagine such a profound division between different States of America.
Passions of large numbers of people within the EU can be easily inflamed by insensitive
decrees from Brussels, or by "unfair" treatment by one country of another. Disputes over budget
deficits, overspending, beef, lamb, asylum seekers, chocolate, Iraq and so on are not just
superficial. They often hide very long, historical issues and profound resentments. Finding a way
through will mean finding a common EU voice, a clear moral lead from a commanding EU
figurehead who will bring confidence and clarity. The current system of a 6 monthly rotating
leader is unsustainable, confusing, destabilising and makes effective leadership impossible.
The European model is changing forever with rapid expansion to the East, doubling the
number of countries and embracing nations that are extremely poor in comparison. Governance
will be complex (we don't even have an elected President), and so will be the culture mix. Face
the facts: ethnic cleansing is a daily reality in Europe - even in the UK. Every night somewhere
in Belfast we see sectarian attacks, and every morning the removal vans arrive to take another
family away to another location. So here we have nations rushing to become one, who cannot
even stop people in the same street butchering each other because they want to be so different.
So expect growth, extension, vast economic trading areas, and with it growing tensions,
economic tensions, xenophobia and resentment.
FOLLOW-UP:
1. Find words in the texts which mean the same as the following (they are in text
order). Use them in the sentences of your own.
Text 1
Text 2
plan
responsibility
deep and strong
indignation
ignite
nominal leader
commitment
revenge
unfriendly
to cause to begin
negative reaction
freeing from obligation
33
SPEAKING 7
Some experts say there are three possible scenarios for the future of the European Union (EU):
1. The EU dissolves as a result of uprisings and frustrations in fiscally sound countries;
2. The EU is readjusted and financially challenged countries are removed (i.e. Spain,
Greece, Portugal, etc.);
3. The EU collectively decides to form a central agency with limited direct control over
each country’s central bank to ensure future stability.
Get ready with a statement on the future of the European Union (3 min). You may either
choose one of the scenarios that follow or suggest an alternative path. Make sure to give
convincing arguments for your case.
PROFICIENCY FILE
Use of English (open cloze)
The EU is by ______ (1) the largest export market for Russia, while Russia is the EU's
third biggest trade partner. Trade and energy relations form the cornerstone of this strategic
relationship. A large percentage of Russia's exports to Europe is made ______ (2) of supplies of
oil and gas.
Concerning visa-free travel, the EU and Russian leaders look ______ (3) to the adoption
of a list of common steps towards its introduction. The list is ______ (4) line with the four blocks
(document security, illegal migration, public order and security, external relations) covered in the
Migration Dialogue which was launched at the EU-Russia summit in June 2011.
In the context of the Partnership for Modernisation, the EU stressed the need for Russia
to improve its business environment. In particular, a firm commitment to the rule of law is
required to attract EU investors and know-how. It was agreed that a modernisation strategy must
address the socio-economic, technological and political fields, the rule of law, and involve
society _____ (5) large. The EU also encouraged Russia to be supportive ______ (6) the EURussia Civil Society Forum.
Word formation
EUROPE AND AMERICA
Nov 25th 2010/The Economist
IT IS the biggest, closest and richest friendship in the world, and its most
important military __________ (1). America and Europe account for half of global
ally
GDP and nearly one-third of trade. Each side of the North Atlantic has more than 1
trillion invested in the other. Yet the partnership is strangely __________ (2). Like a balance
misshapen weightlifter who exercises only one arm, the partnership bulks up its
military limb, perhaps even __________ (3) it. Meanwhile the economic and political
work
one is weedy and neglected.
In America's mind the EU is __________ (4) the economic extension of essence
NATO. As NATO's main actor, America would rather work through the alliance, or
through individual countries. And that, frankly, suits the big European __________
lead
34
(5). The prestige of David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy or Angela Merkel rests in part
on their personal __________ (5) with the American president.
deal
Depending on the issue, power in Europe is spread __________ (6) between
even
national capitals and Brussels and, within the EU, between the commission, the
Council of Ministers and the parliament. For decades the EU left geostrategy to
NATO and national leaders. Despite the Lisbon treaty's grand foreign-policy
aspirations, the EU has not learned to think in geopolitical terms. Now the euro zone's
woes have diverted attention inward again. Not__________ (7), many Americans surprise
find the EU __________ (8).
fury
Yet on both sides of the ocean senior figures hope that in his second term Mr
Obama will follow the example of George Bush who, __________ (9) by the Iraq
weak
war, sought closer co-operation with Europe. As global power shifts away from the
West it would help to have two strong transatlantic arms, not just one. At a time of
economic trouble, it is even more important for both sides to contribute to growth by
aligning regulations and removing barriers to trade.
As the EU develops greater means to deal with global crises, it needs to talk to
NATO. Absurdly, co-operation between the two bodies, both based in Brussels and
with 21 members in common, is often blocked by the enmity between Cyprus (in the
EU but not NATO) and Turkey (in NATO but not the EU). It is time for both bodies
to __________ (10) (or sidestep) such petulance.
come
Gapped Sentences
1.
Swedish furniture giant Ikea says it “deeply regrets” the fact that some of its suppliers
used forced prison __________ in communist East Germany.
__________ has gained its first seat from the Tories in a by-election since the eve of its
landslide victory in 1997.
Mexico’s senate has approved a wide-reaching __________ reform bill in the biggest
shakeup of the country's job market in more than four decades.
2.
By the government's estimate, more than 83,000 American servicemen and women who
were missing in __________ remain unaccounted for.
Schools will be hit by escalated industrial __________ by teachers in a row over jobs, pay,
pensions and workload amid "deep concerns" among staff over their profession.
And as affirmative __________ faces an uphill battle in the US Supreme court, the White
House could make more efforts to crack down on discriminatory hiring practices.
3.
Three weeks of protracted negotiations between Angela Merkel's conservatives and the
Free Democrats ended today when the parties signed a coalition __________focused on tax cuts.
When ground invasions took place in previous conflicts Israel lost international support
and a great __________ of sympathy around the world.
Most energy is bought and sold through secret back-room __________ and energy
companies are allowed to generate power, buy it for themselves and sell it on to the public.
4.
Asset managers aren't doing enough to manage conflicts of __________with their clients.
Here is an illustration of how economic policy has shifted: inflation is over 5%, yet the
Bank of England is expected not to raise, but cut __________ rates today.
35
The Brussels "lobbycracy", thought to number 15,000 people representing 2,600
__________ groups, is said to wield inordinate influence over the EU institutions.
5.
The public have a civic __________ to get involved but the prime responsibility for
ensuring electoral turnout should always be on elected officials.
Travellers from Britain and other European states should be allowed to return from trips
outside the EU with shopping worth up to £1,000 without having to pay __________or tax.
6.
Japanese Prime Minister told a ruling party official he wants to __________an election
for parliament's lower house on Dec. 16.
The operation of the uniform 112 emergency __________ number is an EU requirement
that Hungary has yet to satisfy.
Key Word Transformation:
1. Steve went to London so that he could brush up his English.
reason
Steve’s …………………………… that he wanted to brush up his English.
2. You don’t know who your real friends are until there is a crisis.
moments
It’s only ……………………………… out who your real friends are.
3. Your place of birth doesn’t determine your accent so much as where you spend your
childhood.
brought
It’s where ……………………………….. rather than your place of birth.
4.
One is constantly afraid of violence in some large cities.
threat
There ………………………………. in some large cities.
5.
I’ve only just realized what our director meant by comments.
dawned
It ……………………………… our director meant by his comment.
6.
You should have been at the party; you would have enjoyed it.
make
It’s a …………………………. to the party; you would have enjoyed it.
7.
Everything points toward a landslide victory for the presidential party.
indication
There ……………………….. win a landslide victory.
8.
No doubt there was a terrible row when the mistake was discovered.
sure
There is ………………………... a terrible row when the mistake was discovered.
PROJECT WORK
(Stage 4)
Speak on the reference materials you used when drafting your project (websites,
newspaper/magazine articles, books etc.)
Get ready to present your project in class
36
READING 7:
EU-NATO relations
NATO-EU: A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP
Sharing strategic interests, NATO and the European Union cooperate on issues of
common interest and are working side by side in crisis-management, capability development and
political consultations. At the Lisbon Summit in November 2010, the Allies underlined their
determination to improve the NATO-EU strategic partnership.
NATO’s new Strategic Concept, adopted at Lisbon, commits the Alliance to prevent
crises, manage conflicts and stabilize post-conflict situations, including by working more closely
with NATO’s international partners, most importantly the United Nations and its strategic
partner, the European Union.
The Strategic Concept clearly states that an active and effective European Union
contributes to the overall security of the Euro-Atlantic area. Therefore the EU is a unique and
essential partner for NATO. The two organizations share a majority of members (21), and all
members of both organizations share common values.
NATO recognizes the importance of a stronger and more capable European defence. The
Allies welcome the entry into force of the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty, which provides a
framework for strengthening the EU’s capacities to address common security challenges. NonEU European Allies make a significant contribution to these efforts. For the strategic partnership
between NATO and the EU, their fullest involvement in these efforts is essential.
NATO and the EU can and should play complementary and mutually reinforcing roles in
supporting international peace and security. The Allies are determined to make their contribution
to create more favourable circumstances through which they will:

fully strengthen the strategic partnership with the EU, in the spirit of full mutual
openness, transparency, complementarity and respect for the autonomy and institutional integrity
of both organizations;

enhance practical cooperation in operations throughout the crisis spectrum, from
coordinated planning to mutual support in the field;

broaden political consultations to include all issues of common concern, in order
to share assessments and perspectives;

cooperate more fully in capability development, to minimise duplication and
maximise cost-effectiveness.
Close cooperation between NATO and the European Union is an important element in the
development of an international “Comprehensive Approach” to crisis management and
operations, which requires the effective application of both military and civilian means.
The Chicago Summit in May 2012 reiterated these principles by underlining that NATO
and the EU share common values and strategic interests. The EU is a unique and essential
partner for NATO. Fully strengthening this strategic partnership, as agreed by the two
organisations and enshrined in the Strategic Concept, is particularly important in the current
environment of austerity.
In this context, the Secretary General has engaged actively with his EU counterparts,
including the President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy, the President of the
European Commission, José Manuel Durao Barroso, the President of the European Parliament
Martin Schulz, as well as the High Representative/Vice President of the Commission, Baroness
37
Ashton. He has addressed the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee in joint session
with the sub-committee on Security and Defence on numerous occasions. Institutionalized
relations between NATO and the European Union were launched in 2001, building on steps
taken during the 1990s to promote greater European responsibility in defence matters (NATOWEU cooperation¹). The political principles underlying the relationship were set out in the
December 2002 NATO-EU Declaration on ESDP.
With the enlargement of both organizations in 2004 followed by the accession of
Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union in 2007, NATO and the European Union now
have 21 member countries in common².
Reading Notes:
1. At that time, the Western European Union (WEU) was acting for the European Union
in the area of security and defence (1992 Maastricht Treaty). The WEU’s crisis-management role
was transferred to the European Union in 1999.
2. 28 NATO member countries: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
27 EU member countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, the United Kingdom.
38
OPTIONAL FILE
VOCABULARY FOCUS: TALKING POLITICS
Every clique has its own language — an insider's jargon that people outside the group
don't always understand. Politicians have a language of their own too, and it often appears
in media reports about politics.
Read the sentences paying special attention to the italicized word combinations.
Explain what each of them means and do the exercises that follow.
1. Bob Perry, a high-level player in Republican politics, favors affirmative action and has
softer views on immigration issues than many in the G.O.P.
2. The political clout organized labor once wielded may fail to deliver this fall even as
Democrats turn to unions more than ever.
3. In July 2009, as a divided Senate tangled over health care legislation, there was
bipartisan consensus on one point: Ted Kennedy could make a big difference, if only he were
there.
4. As many frustrated Americans who have joined the Tea Party realize, we cannot stand
against big government at home while supporting it abroad.
5. The package stalled when supporters were unable to muster the 60 votes needed to
overcome a Republican filibuster.
6. Italian police have admitted that gangs of Napoli’s hardcore “Ultras” went out hunting
fans last night in attacks that led to two Liverpool supporters being stabbed.
7. The Democratic Senate candidate in Delaware is far ahead in state polls, yet both
President and Vice President were here on Friday to stump for him.
8. Indonesia's House of Representatives barely passed any laws in the first year of its
current term, placing critical pending legislation on the back burner.
9. Messy though it may be — allegations of gerrymandering and other violations
prompted court challenges in more than 40 states after the last round of redistricting.
10. According to a Washington Post analysis, outside interest groups are spending five
times as much on the 2010 midterms as they did in the 2006 midterm elections.
11. Affable and driven, Harvey Milk was a San Francisco politician who succeeded by
inspiring crowds rather than making backroom deals.
12.
In an effort to avoid stark failure, a fallback plan is emerging that would push
tough decisions on taxes to next year.
13. The Democratic-led Senate and Republican-led House on Monday barreled toward a
showdown on competing plans to cut spending and raise the debt limit.
14. The United Nations human rights committee condemns Syria's crackdown on
opposition protests, calling on it to implement an Arab League plan to end the violence.
15. The Constitution was devised with an ingenious system of checks and balances to
guard the people's liberty against combinations of government power.
16. EU finance ministers will seek on Tuesday to break an impasse over a new regime to
supervise banks.
39
17. Supervisors that effectively delegate their authority can free up a great deal of their
own time.
Ex. 2 Insert words from Ex.1 into the gapped sentences:
1. The term ………. refers to virtually any voluntary association that seeks to publicly
promote and create advantages for its cause.
2. ………. is done every 10 years to adjust the boundaries of voting districts to
accommodate population shifts.
3. A global treaty to ………. the deadly trade of fake medicines is urgently needed, say
experts.
4. Newly re-elected President Barack Obama appears to be headed toward a ………. over
taxes and government spending with the House of Representatives.
5. The commission plans to offer recommendations on pension reform anticipated to
become a ………. issue next year.
6. ………. are intended to allow legitimate power to govern and good ideas to be
implemented, while abuse of power, corruption, and oppression are minimized.
7. The Board of Directors authorized an enterprise-wide restructuring plan and has ……….
to the company's management to determine the final plan.
8. In increasingly urban France, farmers still wield ………. .
9. ………. means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and
minorities in areas of employment, education, and business.
10. Following his re-election, President Obama called on Congressional leaders, Republicans
and Democrats, to find ………. solutions to some pressing issues.
11. ………. between the United States and Japan concerning Diaoyu Dao in 1970s are illegal
and invalid, gravely violating China's territorial sovereignty
12. Senate aides say ………. to give President Obama authority to raise the debt limit will
soon become “plan A” for averting a national default.
13. EU finance ministers sought on Tuesday ………. over a new regime to supervise banks,
but much of the plan is contested.
14.
Ex.3 Translate the following sentences into English using the abovementioned political
terms:
1. Верховный суд США дал свое согласие на рассмотрение дела об обратной
дискриминации.
2. На прошлой неделе Барак Обама совершил серию поездок по стране.
3. Противоборствующие стороны в Ливии готовятся к решающей схватке.
4. Поскольку абсолютного большинства в парламенте не получила ни одна партия, судьбу
правительства Британии решит закулисная сделка.
5. Правительство обещало предпринять жесткие меры по борьбе с преступностью.
6. Представители ЕС работают над альтернативным планом спасения Греции.
7. «Движение чаепития» объединяет политиков под лозунгами отказа от активного
вмешательства государства в экономику.
8. В этот день несколько тысяч наиболее активных сторонников оппозиции
организовали демонстрацию с требованием отставки правительства.
9. США боятся потерять свое влияние в АТР из-за усиления позиций Японии.
40
10.
Основанием для пересмотра границ избирательных округов являются, как
правило, результаты переписи населения, проводимой в стране каждые 10 лет.
11.
Европейские правительства могут выделить почти 940 миллиардов евро на борьбу
с долговым кризисом в стремлении преодолеть тупик между Германией и Францией.
12.
США не считают создание бесполетной зоны над Сирией первоочередной
задачей.
13.
Парламентская оппозиция намерена оттянуть принятие закона о митингах с
помощью тысячи поправок.
FRENCH BORROWINGS
When the French invaded England under William the Conqueror in 1066 they initiated
200 years of not only political domination but linguistic domination. The French language
became the elite language for more than two centuries and the impact of that domination on the
English language was monumental. According to different sources, nearly 30% of all English
words have a French origin. In Units 1 and 2 you have come across such words as
entrepreneur, laissez faire, mortgage, embezzle, perjury, all of which are French. The
political lexicon includes many words of French origin too: like liberalism, coup d'état,
sovereignty and many others. It is also the case in the domain of diplomacy (attaché, chargé
d'affaires, envoy, embassy, chancery, détente, rapprochement).
Match the words given below with their definitions that follow (make sure you know
how to pronounce them). Use the words in the sentences of your own. Translate them into
Russian:
debris, coup d’etat, gaffe, entente, laicite, debacle, penchant, rapprochement, savoir-faire,
rapport, détente, acquiescence, adjournment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
a friendly understanding or informal alliance between states or factions
a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government;
the confidence and ability to do the appropriate thing in a social situation
a strong or habitual liking for something or tendency to do something;
scattered pieces of rubbish or remains;
is agreement to do what someone wants, or acceptance of what they do even though you
do not agree with it;
7. an absence of religious interference in government affairs and government interference in
religious affairs;
8. the easing of hostility or strained relations,
9. an increase in friendliness between two countries, groups, or people, especially after a
period of unfriendliness;
10. is a temporary stopping of a trial, enquiry, or other meeting
11. mutual understanding;
12. is an event or attempt that is a complete failure;
13. an unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator;
CULTURAL AWARENESS:
41
The English employs many figures of speech, one of which is called metonymy. It is a device that
refers to someone or something through the use of an associated term.
Metonymy tends to use a lot of geographical names as shorthand for larger concepts or
organizations. This is a device that's frequently used when talking politics. Here are examples:
The White House to represent the U.S. Presidency
Washington to represent the American government
Wall Street to represent business
Downing Street for the British Prime Minister's Office
Hollywood to represent the film industry
Broadway to represent the New York theatre scene
Detroit to represent the U.S. auto industry
Silicon Valley for the IT industry
Now explain what the following metonyms stand for and use them in the sentences of your
own:
Madison Avenue
Langley
Whitehall
Fifth Avenue
Brussels
K street
The City
Foggy Bottom
Main Street
Beltway
Fleet Street
Strasbourg
IDIOM SPOT
In idioms we often refer to nationalities. A ludicrously incongruous statement may be
called an "Irish bull", and drink-induced courage may be termed "Dutch courage". This quiz
is on similar nationality-linked idioms:
1. Being absent without permission may be called:___________ leave?
 Italian
 French
 Irish
 Welsh
2. What kind of twins are born within the same year (9 to 12 months apart)?

Italian twins
42
 Irish twins
 Siamese twins
 Indian twins
3. Both "melancholia" and "rickets" have been called the __________ disease.
 Spanish
 Italian
 African
 English
4. _________ walking is defined as fitness walking with specially designed poles
 Swedish
 Norwegian
 Nordic
 Danish
5. Rubella or 3-day measles is also known as the ___________ measles.
 German
 Swiss
 Austrian
 Polish
6. A method of selling in which the price is reduced until a buyer is found is called a
__________ auction.
 English
 Japanese
 Australian
 Dutch
7. A children’s game in which a phrase or a sentence is passed on from one player to
another, but is subtly altered in transit is called __________ whispers.
 Japanese
 Arabic
 Chinese
 Rican
8. A gift given with the intention of tricking and causing harm to the recipient
 Indian
 Greek
 Chinese
 Russian
9. An outing, a meal, or other special occasion at which each participant pays for their share
of the expenses is called _________ treat.
 Hungarian
 Dutch
 Jewish
 Arabic
43
10. An effect resembling a moving wave produced by successive sections of the crowd in a
stadium is a ___________ wave.




Caribbean
Mexican
Italian
French
ADDITIONAL TEXTS
TEXT 1
In heaven, the cops are British, the lovers are French, the food is Italian, the cars are
German, and the whole thing is run by the Swiss.
In hell, the cops are German, the lovers are Swiss, the food is British, the cars are
French, and the whole thing is run by the Italians.
Stereotypes having to do with people of specific nationalities. Some of them are a little
bit Truth In Television. But remember, nations are not Planets Of Hats.
The British are often perceived as stuck up, unemotional and stuffy. Partly true, in the
sense that they may not be as instantly outgoing or comfortable with expressing emotion as some
other nationalities. Also perceived as disproportionately likely to be gay. Untrue, as far as
statistics can be trusted. On the upside, they tend to get to be Deadpan Snarkers a lot. As a rule,
the English upper classes dominate foreign stereotypes of the UK, and even then many countries
call the entire UK just 'England' officially.
This idea appeared in Men Behaving Badly: Gary's Portuguese housemaid remarked on
hearing that he lived with Tony that a lot of English people were gay, to which Gary replied with
some indignation "you're thinking of the French." See below.
British Stuffiness - The English upper class get this in Britain itself too, as do
Yorkshiremen in a more bluff, plainspoken sense. Never cockneys though.
"Get three Englishmen together and they'll start a club. Get three Welshmen together and
they'll start a choir.
Pink Floyd: "Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way."
In League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Vol. II, Alan Quartermain tells Nemo that
"pretending everything is tickety-boo is the English national past-time."
From Doctor Who: "Well, she's British and moneyed. That's what they do. They carry
on."
"I'm British; I know how to queue." - Douglas Adams makes several references to no one
being better at queuing than the British.
British tourists get similar stereotypes to Americans in Europe, expect for having little
less fat and more money.
The French are supposed to be arrogant and cowardly, the latter because of their
Government's capitulation to the Nazi war machine during World War II. However, this
completely ignores the work of the French resistance, which assassinated Nazi officers, attacked
their supply lines and helped smuggle out POWs. On the other hand, the French are also
considered sexy.
44
Additional note on the French: the stereotype of French cowardice (as opposed to
arrogance and decadence) dates back to the catastrophic collapse of the French army in 1940, but
only became commonly expressed in the United States after French and American clashes over
foreign policy during the Cold War. French characters in American movies and television prior
to the 1980s usually reflect older views of the French as flamboyant, emotional, but courageous
soldiers. In addition, before US army rangers, the Green Berets, US Marines and Navy SEALS
became the standard trope for Bad-ass Heroes, the French Foreign Legion, often with a plucky
American or two in its ethnically-mixed ranks, were a standard background for rugged,
dangerous male movie characters.
The "arrogant Frenchman" stereotype was helped by Charles de Gaulle, who managed to
let the world know on every occasion that France was a world power when they weren't
anymore. During World War II de Gaulle was a constant problem, refusing to cooperate in the
Allies plans to free France. He, unlike all the other leaders, in his public speech right after DDay stated that this invasion was the real invasion, this had the potential to ruin the Allied
deceptions that Normandy was just a feint, with Calais the real invasion point. That was just one
of his many, many, many actions whereby it seemed he was more of a problem for his friends
than enemies.
South African TV characters in non-South African programmes are disproportionately
white. This has a partial justification because of apartheid — whites are more likely to able to
afford to leave the country. They will often tend to be racist.
And, they frequently have thick pretentious Seth Efriken eksents.
And Rooineks (British White South Africans) and Afrikaaners will be shown to
supposedly never get along.
People from the US are split into various sub-categories, from Deep South rednecks to
New York intellectuals. However, the stereotypical US citizen is fat, boorish, greedy and
completely unaware of the existence or nature of other cultures (or in other words like Homer
Simpson). Expect to hear some jokes about American tourists wondering if the Tower of London
pre-dates World War II, or pronouncing the city in The Midlands "Lie-chester", or talking about
"Bucking-Hayum Palace". US people are often shown as greedy capitalists or a Corrupt
Corporate Executive.
Americans are apparently renowned as being fat, ignorant, and having good teeth.
Canadians are usually depicted as very similar to Americans, but more polite and
considerate. However, all bets are off with the stereotype of Bob and Doug McKenzie which
paints the country as a nation of Cloudcuckoolanders obsessed with the great outdoors and
sports.
The phrase "Welcome to Canada. It's nice up here, eh?" pretty much defines this
stereotype.
In many countries frequented by American tourists, the advice "pretend you're Canadian"
is often given.
Canadians also tend to be portrayed as a lot less nationalistic than Americans (unless your
a violent separatist in any one of the provinces, most popularly Quebec or Alberta), and have
even made jokes about their own military (i.e. the "Two Canoes and a Slingshot" joke told by
Canadians about their contributions to the War on Terror).
The Japanese are either ruthless but stoic businessmen, schoolgirls giggling behind their
hands, or cheerful but incomprehensible tourists laden with cameras. Regardless of type, the
45
ones who aren't also samurai are all ninja. In older times (i.e. before the end of World War Two),
they tended to have very bad teeth and were portrayed in thick-framed eyeglasses. Or
businessmen rapists with pet tentacle monsters. Or suicidal, honor-obsessed crazy people.
The "very bad teeth" thing is still very much in play. Not only orthodontics has started to
catch on, and only relatively recently at that, but females with crooked teeth are even considered
kawaii for supposedly having the crooked teeth of a grade school kid. Braces, as a result, are not
nearly as prevalent as they are in North America.
Male Chinese are sometimes depicted as having long, thin "Fu Manchu" style
moustaches, especially when they are being played by Westerners. The Chinese in general are
also depicted as sneaky and overly bureaucratic. This could stem from the fact that pretty much
every god or spirit in Chinese mythology had a specific place and job to do. They are also
stereotyped to be Kung Fu masters surrounded by Dragons Up The Yin Yang.
Chinese women, especially in older works, are often characterized as delicate flowers,
most likely by people who have never seen Raise The Red Lantern or read any novel written by
any female Chinese novelist in the past thirty years. They also make "Great Life Mates", or so
the ad at the side of my screen is telling me. The Chinese might be taking over the ruthless
businessman role from the Japanese in Hollywood films. Maybe it's resentment for all the debt
the US owes them. "China still cool! You pay later!"
Russians are drunk, nostalgic for Soviet Russia, and love to do traditional dances while
drunk. Much like stereotypical drunks, Russians have two emotional states: exuberantly joyful,
or coldly enraged, and can switch between the two at a moment's notice. Russian immigrants to
the US are mostly gangsters. They love chess, have terrible grammar, worse architecture, and are
quite likely to use some Russian Reversal ("In Soviet Russia, TV watches you!"). Russians will
tend not to use articles (the words 'the' and 'a'), or to use the wrong ones. This is because Russian
does not have any equivalent to these words.
Israelis are either stereotypical American Jews (a 2% minority in Israel), or a Warrior
culture (good or evil based on personal bias).
This is somewhat of a Truth In Television. The army has always played a major role in
everyday Israeli life, and still remains much more influential and liked than the army in most
Western countries.
The perception of Israeli women (all Israeli women) as being especially battle-ready Hot
Amazon types is firmly not. While 30% of IDF soldiers are female, relatively few serve in
combat positions, and most combat units open to women have only been so fairly recently.
Before the state of Israel was formally founded, and during the War of Independence, things
were rather different. Nowadays, the highest ranking female officer in the IDF is the head of the
Spokesperson's Unit.
The Irish are usually portrayed as heavy drinkers — either violent mindless brutes or
charming but feckless chancers. They are also extremely religious, poor, and have lots of
children (all largely or entirely out of date). Everyone from Belfast is involved in terrorism,
Irish-Americans (as distinct from Irish people from Ireland) are cops, priests, firemen or corrupt
politicians, also religious with lots of children. Oh and nearly everyone has red hair.
The violence part of the stereotype may be fading slowly. In part this is thanks to a
diminishing of the actual violence in Stroke Country, in part because it is difficult to maintain the
image of 'the fighting Irish' when the Irish have not actually been in a war since 1921. The
46
popularity of the self-pitying drunk stereotype (as against the violent drunk stereotype) might be
a factor too.
Mexicans surprisingly have a lot in common with the Irish, which is why we get along
and intermarry so well.
In Great Britain, the Irish are generally perceived and stereotyped as incredibly stupid,
making them the inevitable Butt Monkey of 'Englishman, Scotsman, Irishman' jokes.
All Scottish men wear kilts (and get uppity if people call them skirts) and/or tam
o'shanters. All Scots are either absurdly thrifty or drunken, violent Glaswegians. They also eat
haggis all the time. They will typically own bagpipes.
Their meanness is explained by the fact that most of Scotland (and Northern England ) is
economically-deprived and working-class, so they don't have a lot of money to spend on new
stuff. Old habits die hard.
Oh, and anyone who has ever called a Scotsman's kilt a skirt will see Truth In Television.
Mexicans are loud, boisterous, fight bulls in arenas, wear large straw hats that they dance
around from time to time, eat foods comprised of beans and hardened corn and peppers too spicy
for foreigners to handle, and frequently nap in hammocks. They're also lazy.
We're good drinkers, too. Tequila ain't strong for nothing, after all. Salud.
This may have been the stereotype back when Looney Toons was being made, but
nowadays you are likely to find that people think all Mexicans are hard-working, poor, planning
on sneaking into the U.S., and possibly involved with a drug cartel. This is all partially Truth In
Television, thanks to CNN and Lou Dobbs.
We're practically the new Irish...except the language thing...
Australians are all expert trackers, wrestle crocodiles in their spare time, and are rough,
illiterate larrikins who love beer and are not very sophisticated, unless they're taking in a show at
Sydney's Opera House of course. They are almost invariably male, and are always blond and
over six feet. All of these ideas were probably spread by the film Crocodile Dundee, although
the makers of that movie were joking. This was also part of the popularity of the late Steve
Irwin.
The Australian population is heavily urbanised, yes, but the country itself is still largely
desert. As one song put it, "The greater part of every state is off the beaten track/Though most of
us live on the coast you can't escape the fact/There's a lot more of Australia out the back."
Like Canada: The country is the 2nd largest country in the world (3rd if you discount
lakes and rivers and such), yet everyone seems to live at the bottom.
Australians swill ridiculous amounts of beer and are extremely loud, according to British
perceptions.
Germans are ill-tempered, humorless, and ruthlessly efficient. They are either
megalomaniac or blind followers. They are nearly always villains. They are never The Hero, but
may be an ally. If an ally, they will most likely have some degree of angst. This stereotype will
probably alter significantly in the next few years. There is also the stereotypical habit of a
German on holiday getting up early to "reserve" a spot on a beach or a sunbed by placing their
towel on it. A newer stereotype noticed in the UK is that of the polite and conscientious German
tourist. This is to be expected, what with all the history, y'know.
Italians are often mafia members or spaghetti-and-meatball-slurping cook and his
domineering mother with an expertise in the preparation of all things pasta-based. More
generally, Italy can come of as a cut-rate France: cultured, sophisticated, stylish, even sexy, but
47
not as much. Also a strong overlap with the Catholic Church in fiction, for obvious reasons.
Italian girls are always hot. See also: This Flash Animation (made by an Italian).
Indians (the ones from from India), when they appear at all, are depicted as cheerful and
hard-working, with a tendency to mangle English. Also, they work wonders with technology (the
stereotypical tech support rep is Indian).
The Dutch are ultra-liberal, pot-smoking sexual deviants. Unless, of course, they're
cycling around past windmills and through fields of tulips while wearing wooden shoes.
The Swedish are not all that commonly portrayed in media these days, but when they are,
they are generally women who are sex puppets with phonetic accents.
The Finnish are portrayed drunken and aggressive (like Scottish stereotype), and portray
the aforementioned Swedes as gays (like British stereotype).
Norwegians are either portrayed as modern-day Horny Vikings or as leather and spikeswearing, church-burning black metallers (which after all is kind of a modernization of the old
viking trope).
Danes are either hot blondes, or boring.
Cubans are hot-tempered, tend to talk with their hands and are all really good swimmers.
This troper is part-Cuban and while the hands thing is still very stereotypical, it's not entirely
untrue.
Switzerland, in Europe, is famous for having dimwitted people who really like to take
their time. In the American continent, however, they're famous for being filthy rich bankers who
live by the clock.
People in Austria are great at skiing, and the country itself often seems to be the smaller
brother of germany, after all a certain man was born here. Of course they all wear fancy
leatherpants and yodel all day. And by the way: there are no kangaroos in Austria
TEXT 2
THE AMERICAN-EUROPEAN VALUES GAP
American Exceptionalism Subsides
February 29, 2012
As has long been the case, American values differ from those of Europeans in many
important ways. Most notably, Americans are more individualistic and are less supportive of a
strong safety net than are the publics of Britain, France, Germany and Spain. Americans are also
considerably more religious than Western Europeans, and are more socially conservative with
respect to homosexuality.
Americans are somewhat more inclined than Europeans to say that it is sometimes
necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world. Moreover, Americans more often
than their European allies believe that obtaining UN approval before their country uses military
force would make it too difficult to deal with an international threat. And Americans are less
inclined than the Europeans, with the exception of the French, to help other nations.
These differences between Americans and Europeans echo findings from previous
surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center. However, the current polling shows the
American public is coming closer to Europeans in not seeing their culture as superior to that of
other nations. Today, only about half of Americans believe their culture is superior to others,
compared with six-in-ten in 2002. And the polling finds younger Americans less apt than their
elders to hold American exceptionalist attitudes.
48
These are among the findings from a survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global
Attitudes Project, conducted in the U.S., Britain, France, Germany and Spain from March 21 to
April 14 as part of the broader 23-nation poll in spring 2011.
Use of Military Force
Three-quarters of Americans agree that it is sometimes necessary to use military force to
maintain order in the world; this view is shared by seven-in-ten in Britain and narrower
majorities in France and Spain (62% each). Germans are evenly divided, with half saying the use
of force is sometimes necessary and half saying it is not.
When asked whether their country should have UN approval before using military force
to deal with international threats, American opinion differs considerably from that of Europeans.
Americans are almost evenly divided on the question, with 45% saying that the U.S. should have
UN approval while 44% say this would make it too difficult to deal with threats; in contrast,
solid majorities in the four Western European nations surveyed, including about three-quarters in
Spain (74%) and Germany (76%) say their country should have UN approval before it takes
military action.
Views on International Engagement
About four-in-ten (39%) Americans say the U.S. should help other countries deal with
their problems, while a narrow majority (52%) says the U.S. should deal with its own problems
and let other countries deal with their problems as best they can. In this regard, Americans are
not drastically different from respondents in France, where 43% believe their country should
help other.
Cultural Superiority
About half of Americans (49%) and Germans (47%) agree with the statement, “Our
people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others;” 44% in Spain share this view. In
Britain and France, only about a third or fewer (32% and 27%, respectively) think their culture is
better than others.
While opinions about cultural superiority have remained relatively stable over the years
in the four Western European countries surveyed, Americans are now far less likely to say that
their culture is better than others; six-in-ten Americans held this belief in 2002 and 55% did so in
2007. Belief in cultural superiority has declined among Americans across age, gender and
education groups.
Individualism and the Role of the State
American opinions continue to differ considerably from those of Europeans when it
comes to views of individualism and the role of the state. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) Americans
believe it is more important for everyone to be free to pursue their life’s goals without
interference from the state, while just 35% say it is more important for the state to play an active
role in society so as to guarantee that nobody is in need.
In contrast, at least six-in-ten in Spain (67%), France (64%) and Germany (62%) and
55% in Britain say the state should ensure that nobody is in need; about four-in-ten or fewer
consider being free from state interference a higher priority.
In the U.S., Britain, France and Germany, views of the role of the state divide
significantly across ideological lines. For example, three-quarters of American conservatives say
individuals should be free to pursue their goals without interference from the state, while 21%
say it is more important for the state to guarantee that nobody is in need; among liberals in the
49
U.S., half would like the state to play an active role to help the needy, while 42% prefer a more
limited role for the state.
Those on the political right in Britain, France and Germany are also more likely than
those on the left in these countries to prioritize freedom to pursue one’s goals without state
interference. Unlike in the U.S., however, majorities of those on the right in France (57%) and
Germany (56%) favor an active role for the state, as do more than four-in-ten (45%)
conservatives in Britain.
Religion More Important to Americans
Americans also distinguish themselves from Europeans on views about the importance of
religion. Half of Americans deem religion very important in their lives; fewer than a quarter in
Spain (22%), Germany (21%), Britain (17%) and France (13%) share this view.
Moreover, Americans are far more inclined than Europeans to say it is necessary to
believe in God in order to be moral and have good values; 53% say this is the case in the U.S.,
compared with just one-third in Germany, 20% in Britain, 19% in Spain and 15% in France.
Religious vs. National Identity
American Christians are more likely than their European counterparts to think of
themselves first in terms of their religion rather than their nationality; 46% of Christians in the
U.S. see themselves primarily as Christians and the same number consider themselves
Americans first. In contrast, majorities of Christians in France (90%), Germany (70%), Britain
(63%) and Spain (53%) identify primarily with their nationality rather than their religion.
TEXT 3
A UNITED EUROPE IN THE 21ST CENTURY: ECLIPSING THE AMERICAN
DREAM?
(Continued) By Rick Steves
Here are several ways in which the American Dream is at odds with the European Dream:
The Economy
Free trade is important. It has long driven the need for bigger political units. In the
Middle Ages, it cost merchants half the value of their goods to simply ship their wares a few
hundred miles down a river (paying tolls to those "robber baron" castles as they crossed the
borders of little states). Britain, with the first established single internal market, emerged as
Europe's first big economic power in part because of the flow of trade without tariffs and
customs. In 1600, Europe had 500 separate states. In 1900, 25 states governed most of Europe.
About a hundred years later comes the next stage: the unification of all Europe.
As the 21st century unfolds, the United States maintains its "go it alone" approach and
belief in the wisdom of unbridled competition. Meanwhile, the European Union is establishing
unified standards of operation, and government guidance is enabling competing companies to
coordinate for efficiency and greater overall productivity. This suits high-tech industries well,
giving collaborative Europeans an advantage over the competitive American approach.
The EU is vigorously pursuing a vision of complete integration into one vast transEuropean network. Powered by an initial investment of $500 billion, a futuristic grid of
transport, energy, and telecommunications is making Europe one super-efficient playing field for
commerce and communication. The EU is funding programs for over a million European
students to go to high school in other member countries, and get job training or do volunteer
service in another nation. Weak links in the giant free-trade zone — like Portugal and Ireland —
50
are identified and brought up to par with EU money. Today Portugal is laced by new freeways,
and Ireland has a higher per capita income than England for the first time in history. Workers in
poor regions are getting aid for education and to learn job skills.
English is becoming Europe's lingua franca. On my last trip, I noticed new signs in
airports are now in only one language — English — further uniting Europe and battling the
inefficiency that comes with a babble of languages.
The euro currency has also been a huge success. In 2005, €1 is worth about $1.30 (up 40
percent in two years). Monetary discipline is built into the euro system — member nations do not
have the option of stoking their economies with big deficit spending. This, coupled with
America's huge and growing deficit, has allowed the euro to challenge the U.S. dollar as the
leading global currency. Experts predict that soon, oil-producing countries will be selling their
oil in euros, not dollars. (Europe is already the biggest importer of Middle Eastern oil, and
Norway and Britain are big oil producers.) This would cause the demand for dollars to decline —
further weakening the American economy.
Of course, the news isn't all good for Europeans. The downside of the euro currency has
been serious inflation. While the change-over from the many local currencies to the euro (in
2002) went very smoothly, with it came a huge increase in prices. Italians complain even today
that they "earn lire, but spend euros." Germans claim consumer items nearly doubled overnight.
Buying power among average Europeans is down or at least they feel that way. Yet in the big
picture, Europe's economy as a whole has strengthened with the advent of the euro.
America is slow to grasp the economic might of an emerging Europe in part because we
compare ourselves to individual countries rather than to the EU as a whole. The three largest
European states (Germany, Britain, and France) each have economies about 50 percent larger
than the three largest American states (California, New York, Texas). And Americans, so
enamored with Bill Gates and Boeing, don't notice that the 60 of world's largest 140 companies
are European, while only 50 are American. French-owned Airbus, whose new mammoth A380
Navigator dwarfs the Boeing 747, has rocketed past Boeing and now controls 75 percent of the
global airplane market. Of the world's 20 largest banks, 14 are European. Three of the top six
chemical companies are European. European companies dominate in food, insurance,
engineering, construction, and telecommunications. And while America is quick to brag that
small businesses are the backbone of its economy, the EU has more — with nearly 70 percent of
employment in Europe coming from small and medium businesses (as opposed to less than 50
percent in the U. S.).
In democracies, governments provide for their societies what their electorates expect. In
America, government provides a place for capitalism to thrive — following the old adage
"what's good for General Motors is good for America." European governments temper the
excesses of capitalism, redistributing wealth so no one is left behind. It's the will of the people.
Working and Quality of Life
The problem with the American Dream is the growing gap between rich and poor,
making success a distant dream for those outside the bubble of wealth.
Europeans produce virtually the same per worker hour as Americans, even though their
per capita income is about a third less. Why? They work fewer hours. Europeans prefer to work
less, earn less, live more simply, and play more.
When the French government instituted the 35-hour workweek in 1998, it correctly
figured that with each worker working fewer hours, there would be a need for more workers,
51
which would in turn alleviate unemployment. The government subsidized companies to pay
workers the same for 35 hours as for the previous 39-hour workweek. (This was funded by
savings the government enjoyed in unemployment payments.) Employers were skeptical at first
about the new seven-hour workday, but they found that happier, more rested workers
accomplished virtually as much as they used to in more time. Employers were rewarded with
more flexibility to assign workers for weekends or evenings, or to limit vacations to more
efficient times. The result is a more relaxed populace. European wives don't need to constantly
remind their workaholic husbands, "Nobody ever went to their grave wishing they'd spent more
time working."
America and Europe approach work differently. America embraced the Protestant work
ethic with gusto. In the Industrial Age, we endeavored to get things going "like clockwork."
Nature, once considered God's creation, became man's quarry. America took modern concepts
like efficiency, money, and production to extremes. People have even come to refer to
themselves as machines: geared up, revved up, burned out, overloaded, turned off, connected.
For an American, time is money. It's built into our language: we save it, spend it, waste it. We
even bank it. For a European, time is something you enjoy. Italians take it to extremes with their
"slow food" movement and famous phrase, il dolce far niente, the sweetness of doing nothing.
Traveling around Europe, I notice that Europeans don't appreciate efficiency like I do. To
them, efficiency dehumanizes...it turns humans into machines. They ask: "Would you ever treat
someone you loved efficiently ?" European parents don't think in terms of "quality time" — joy,
empathy, and caring cannot be done "efficiently." While Americans strive for happiness by
doing, Europeans get it by being.
Let's look at the numbers. Though the United States and Europe have comparable GDPs
(both around $11 trillion), a few things need to be factored in to assess the overall quality of life.
GDP figures count the entire economy — productive and non-productive. The United States
spends half a trillion dollars ($500 billion) each year on its military (not counting the Iraq War),
while Europe spends only $150 billion. The US spends more on legal services and health care.
The United States consumes a third more energy. Europe has more doctors per thousand people
(3.22 vs. 2.79), while the United States has higher infant mortality and shorter life span. When
rated for healthcare fairness among developed nations, the United States was dead last. While the
United States spends more per capita than any other nation on health care (over $5,000 per
person), we're one of only two developed nations (with South Africa) that don't provide health
insurance for their citizens. (We have more than 40 million citizens who can't afford health
insurance.) Compared to Europe, the United States has four times the murders per capita. With
more than two million Americans in prison (a quarter of the world's prison population), we have
over seven times as many people in prison per capita than Europe.
America clings to the belief that more money and material wealth bring us happiness and
the "good life." But when all of these intangibles are factored into the big picture, you can see
why Europeans believe that, while our economies may be roughly equal, their quality of life
beats ours.
Equality and Welfare
In the United States, charity is prized as a voluntary, private-sector phenomenon. In reelecting the "tax cuts for the wealthy" economics of the Bush Administration, Americans seem to
have embraced the trickle-down notion that, as the rich get richer, they'll lift the poor with them,
caring for others out of the goodness of their hearts. In fact, the presence of millionaires among
52
the poor is seen by some Americans as a motor that drives people to work harder to win the big
payoff. The United States has an almost religious respect for the forces of the marketplace, and
therefore works to shrink the government's involvement.
Europeans, on the other hand, see the value of compulsory "charity" in the form of
progressive taxation and more social services. While America spends only 11 percent of its GDP
on social services, Europe spends a whopping 26 percent. While elements of Europe's cradle to
grave security are being rolled back and many Europeans are concerned about bloated and
wasteful government programs, they still trust their governments to help them look out for their
neighbors and the rest of the world. Europeans believe that if the government doesn't intervene
against unrestrained capitalism, greed will prevail, wealthy people will thrive, and the poor will
multiply. This is bad news if you want to become a multi-millionaire in Europe. But for the other
99-plus percent of people, such social equality is much appreciated.
Europe legislates income equality. When measuring income equality of the world's 26
richest industrialized nations, the top 18 countries are all European. In the dirty derby of income
inequality, the Untied States is outdone only by Mexico and Russia. And, with recent political
trends against progressive taxation and estate taxes, Americans are scrambling to do even worse.
While the typical high-income earner in the United States earns over five times that of the lowwage earner, by the same measure in Europe the ratio is 3 to 1.
America's minimum wage is 40 percent of the average wage; in Europe, it's about 55
percent of the average wage. In the United States, unemployment benefits and employment
benefits are relatively weak. The United States is one of only three industrialized nations that
doesn't require paid maternity or paternity leave (even unpaid), while in most of Europe, a threemonth leave with full salary is standard.
Most Americans are comfortable with the "sink or swim" approach. Seventy percent of
Americans believe the rich are rich because they're smarter and work harder, and the poor are
poor because they're slackers; only 40 percent of Europeans would agree. We also believe
government aid doesn't make much of a long-term difference. No American politician interested
in getting elected makes fighting poverty his crusade.
Europe spends more on social services not merely to help the poor, but to enrich their
society's quality of life. While politics in the traditional nation-state mold deals primarily with
government and the economy, Europe also stresses civil society — religion, arts, environment,
human rights, education, health, and ethnic sub-cultures. Civil Society Organizations (CSOs),
which represent these aspects of a society (school groups, doctors' societies, church
organizations, environmental groups, and so on), are the new kid on the political block, and are
struggling for a place at the table. Europe understands that as multinational corporations are
becoming more powerful than governments (even enforcing their will on them, with
organizations like the IMF and World Bank), the governments will need the support of CSOs to
remain a player.
The Military
Ponder the fact that France (with a quarter of our population) lost as many people in a
single day during World War I as the U.S. did in the entire Vietnam War. It's hard to imagine the
depth of the scars of war Europe lives with. And yet today, the Irish toss darts with the English,
Serbs vacation in Dubrovnik, and Germans enjoy the beaches of Holland (careful never to ask
directions to the "old town" in Rotterdam ). Many Europeans consider the best thing about the
EU to be how it streamlines the various nations' armies into one single peacekeeping force.
53
Europeans, long masters of warfare, are now pacifists. And their pacifism is something that is
driving the creation of the EU.
Whether it's part of the "American Dream" or just the hard reality, the United States
spends vastly more on its military than the EU. In fact, we spend nearly as much as the rest of
the world combined, including 80 percent of the world's total military research-and-development
spending. Meanwhile, since World War II, 75 percent of the world's on-the-ground peacekeeping
forces have been Europeans. This means that the U.S. has taken on a greater responsibility when
it comes to international military actions. Standard operating procedure has become "the United
States does the cooking, and the EU does the dishes." This trend is likely to continue as
European nations consider essentially abolishing their armies and American politicians are
learning it's hard to get elected without promising to spend more on the military.
The Environment
Environmentalism is a basic foundation of the European Union. Europeans treasure
nature as a number one priority, and their protection of it is taken to extremes unimaginable in
the United States. In their everyday lives, they willingly put up with major inconveniences for
the environment.
Huge festivals are held with no disposable cups. Europe's toilets have heavy and light
flush options. You can't lock modern hotel room doors without taking your key out of an
electricity slot, which turns off all the lights in the room. Escalators work only when people are
on them. Entire communities are well on their way to becoming entirely wind-powered.
Conserving energy and finding clean, non-fossil-fuel alternatives is a matter of ethics in Europe.
Seventy percent of Europeans believe that damage to the environment is a serious and immediate
problem, while only 25 percent of Americans agree.
On a societal level, big corporations must prove that their products are safe and pay for
recycling costs. Regardless of how profitable an activity may be, it's not allowed in Europe if it
compromises the environment. Judging from the rarity of gas guzzlers on the European road,
high gas taxes effectively discourage wasteful consumption.
Europe's Green Party — which is on the political fringe in the United States — is wellrepresented in local and national European governments. Europe has championed many major
international environmental treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol to fight global warming, which
the Bush administration has rejected. Sure, Europeans have paid the price — bearing the high
cost of environmental regulations — but they figure it's worth it.
In the 19th century, a coal-powered Britain led the Industrial Revolution. In the 20th
century, the United States — powered by oil and the internal-combustion engine — dominated
the world. Today Europe is committed to a fully integrated, renewable, hydrogen-based economy
by 2050.
American companies are suddenly realizing that their biggest and most affluent market
— nearly half a billion Europeans — is embracing new standards that make our cars, cosmetics,
and chemicals out of bounds unless we meet their far higher standards. Europe's new
environment and safety standards must be met if the America's $500 billion chemical industry is
able to compete in the European market. The U.S. chemical industry, along with the U.S.
government, has suddenly begun lobbying very energetically in Brussels to change this — but
with no real success. Europeans strongly believe that their regulatory policies should be driven
by the people's needs rather than corporate need. One might conclude that, as American
54
corporations continue their drive for profit at the expense of the environment, Americans are
becoming second-class citizens in regard to chemical and environmental safety.
Human Rights
The European Union's new constitution which is now being debated and fine-tuned for
ratification by its member states crystallizes the new European Dream. It gives the EU power to
sign treaties, and establishes a foreign minister empowered to conduct a single foreign and
defense policy. The challenge is a complex dance: letting smaller states have power, without
ending the dominance of the bigger states.
The 250-page document borrows much from the U.S. Constitution, but it's also peppered
with ideas foreign to the American way of government. There is absolutely no mention of God,
beyond a mild reference to "our religious inheritance." Rather than championing private
property, the EU constitution promotes sustainable development, fairness, protection of the
environment, peace, social justice, women's rights, children's rights, and even animal rights.
The constitution's forte is human rights. Its writers declared upon unveiling it, "Of all the
people in the world, Europeans have the most extensive human rights." These rights include no
death penalty, the right to privacy, the right to access of data about yourself, the right to join
trade unions, to get an education (including vocational and continuing education), the right to
diversity (cultural, religious, and linguistic — all discrimination is prohibited), the right to paid
maternity leave, housing, health care, to a protected environment, and even the right to an annual
paid vacation!
Europe's is the first constitution to recognize rights beyond its boundaries — global rights
of people and environment. The language is universalistic, directed at all humankind and the
entire planet. It presents a global vision of peace, sustainable development, respecting diversity,
human rights, environmental protection, and fairness — not to mention fun and quality of life.
As they contribute to a growing global consciousness everywhere, the people of Europe
recognize that many of their biggest problems don't recognize borders.
Europeans will be the first to admit that their new constitution is idealistic and overshoots
what is enforceable. But millions are working hard to make it a reality.
Europe's Two-edged Challenge: Rising Immigration, Aging Population
While it's easy to get caught up in the European Dream, Europe is not all peche and
crème. Two major problems facing Europe are how it treats its immigrant population and how
the EU's ethnic European population is both shrinking and growing older.
Rather than assimilating into a "melting pot" like in the United States, today's immigrant
groups are now parts of diasporas: cultural groups who roam the planet but stay connected.
Tapping into easy global communications and cheap travel, they have no interest in melting into
the land they now call home. Within the world's 200 nations, ethnographers have identified about
2,000 ethnic groups. Their "homeland" is not their physical residence but their shared customs,
language, religion, and traditions. Communities of Tunisians in Paris, Pakistanis in Norway, and
Brazilians in Portugal are not about to dissolve into those cultures.
Probably the most pervasive cultural issue Europe faces right now is the rampant and
ever-increasing tide of anti-immigration, anti-Semitism, and anti-Islam. Some of it is simply the
tensions of assimilating a new culture into an old one — Turkish guest workers in Germany,
Algerian Muslims in France, black Africans from former colonies in Portugal.
In France, they're debating (bitterly) whether to allow Muslim girls to wear their
traditional headgear to schools that have standard dress codes. Would banning the scarves be
55
enforcing democracy... or squelching diversity? In the Netherlands, a prominent filmmaker —
Theo Van Gogh, the artist's great-grandnephew — was killed on the street, apparently for
making a movie criticizing Islam.
Throwing gas on the fire are politicians who capitalize on — frankly — racist attitudes.
Thanks to this latent strain in Europe, right-wingers with an anti-immigrant stance (such as
France's Jean Le Pen) do surprisingly well in election after election.
If you study the demographics, it seems Europe is becoming an old folks' home. While
American politicians fret about reforming Social Security, Europe is doubly worried. By 2050,
its population will have dropped by 13 percent, a third of all Europeans will be over 60, and the
median age of Europe will be 57 (compared to 35 in the United States ). Governments are
combating Europe 's very low birth rate with incentives such as tax breaks for having kids. But,
not surprisingly, cool and comfy European DINKs (double income, no kids) are not about to
have children just for a tax break. Young Europeans are organizing into "groups for generational
justice." With fewer working people each year, the EU simply can't support the swelling older
ranks of Europeans expecting early and comfortable retirements. Something has to give.
Europe is in a bind. With a stagnant and even dropping indigenous population and floods
of immigrants, its make-up and ethnicity is changing. Without immigration, the Continent will
depopulate, and the European Dream will wilt rather than flourish. The big challenge for the
Europeans is keeping its population up and incorporate its immigrants constructively into a
vision of the future that brings fairness and justice to all. How Europe handles its demographic
challenges remains to be seen.
TEXT 4
THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING EUROPE
Monday, Mar. 08, 2010
By Simon Robinson
It was supposed to be the moment Europe grew muscles. Last fall, after a decade of work
to simplify policymaking and make the European Union more efficient at home and stronger
abroad, the last few holdouts signed a 1,000-page document known as the Lisbon Treaty. In
November, the E.U.'s first real President and Foreign Minister were chosen. Europhiles dusted
off their familiar dream: of a newly emboldened world power stepping up to calm trouble spots,
using aid and persuasion where it could, but prepared to send in troops when it had to. Brussels
would lead the fight against climate change. And Europe's economies would prove to the ruthless
free markets of North America and Asia that the social market still offers the best way out of an
economic crunch.
The dream didn't last a month. At the climate change conference in Copenhagen in
December, it was China and the U.S. who haggled over a final deal, while Europe sat on the
sidelines. Instead of a foreign policy triumph, 2010 began with an unseemly squabble over
whether or not to bail out Greece, whose debt has dragged down Europe's currency. At the same
time, U.S. President Barack Obama announced he would be skipping an E.U.-U.S. confab in
Spain in May, frustrated, it appeared, with the endless summitry that goes with accommodating
the E.U. Little wonder that Europe finds itself in one of its periodic bouts of angst-ridden selfdoubt. And little wonder that the rest of the world is asking questions: What does Europe stand
for? Where does it fit into a world that seems set to be dominated by China and the U.S.? Would
anyone notice if it disappeared?
56
Let's get one thing straight: Europe is a remarkably good place to live. Many of the E.U.'s
member states are among the richest in the world. Workers in Europe usually enjoy long
vacations, generous maternity leave and comfortable pension schemes. Universal health
insurance is seen as part of the basic social contract. Europe is politically stable, the most
generous donor of development aid in the world. Sure, taxes can be high, but most Europeans
seem happy to pay more to the state in return for a higher — and guaranteed — quality of life.
"The E.U. offers an attractive social, economic and political model," Charles Grant, director of
the London-based think tank Centre for European Reform, argued last year. "It is more stable,
safe, green and culturally diverse than most parts of the world, which is why neighbors want to
join and many migrants aim for Europe."
But the good life at home doesn't make Europe strong abroad. The E.U. may have all the
soft-power credentials in the world, but on the grand stage it has lacked the weight and influence
of others. At times, it simply seems unable to say what it thinks. Washington and Beijing may
squabble from time to time, but the U.S. has a reasonably well-articulated China policy: engage
economically, encourage democratically, and criticize on human rights when appropriate. What's
the E.U.'s China policy in a few words?
The E.U. underwhelms on other big issues. "When it comes to pressing international
problems like Afghanistan, Pakistan or North Korea, the E.U. is either largely invisible or
absent," wrote Grant in his essay, provocatively titled "Is Europe Doomed to Fail as a Power?"
Lucio Caracciolo, editor of Limes, one of Italy's leading foreign policy magazines, says the
problem is a Cold War hangover. The post-World War II period was a golden age for Western
Europe, a time of reconstruction under the U.S. security umbrella, he argues. When it ended,
Europe went into shock. "We're in denial," Caracciolo says. "We see that the Americans are not
interested — to put it mildly — in our interests, and we put our head in the sand." Europe
"happily decides," Caracciolo says, that Afghanistan, Iran, are American affairs. "Any major
crisis is something that is analyzed abroad. We are not up to the responsibilities of the time."
The Lisbon Treaty, establishing the new offices of the President of the European Council
and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, was supposed to change all
that. In practice, however, the new E.U. will be run by a complex mechanism with four axes: the
President and Foreign Minister; the country holding the rotating presidency; the President of the
European Commission and national heads of state and government. The new setup looks like a
parody of all that is wrong with the E.U., bureaucratic and complicated, built on least-bad
options and seemingly designed to encourage turf wars rather than action.
Critics point to the selection of Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton as Europe's
President and Foreign Minister as symbolic of a lack of vision. Van Rompuy, a former Belgian
Prime Minister, is known for his ability to balance local sensitivities — no small feat in Belgium
— and cajole opposing camps towards a consensus. Useful attributes, no doubt, but hardly the
ones needed to make the E.U. count on the international stage. Ashton, a former British minister
and European trade commissioner, has little experience in foreign affairs. "Van Rompuy and
Ashton give the impression of being chosen for their limits rather than their merits," says
Dominique Moïsi, senior adviser at the French Institute for International Relations. One senior
European official frets that when it comes to the E.U. projecting itself, the choice of Van
Rompuy and Ashton means the grouping will have to reconcile itself to five years of
underperformance.
57
It's early days for the new team, of course. Van Rompuy and Ashton could surprise their
detractors. "We should be ambitious," Ashton told TIME in late January. But for all that
ambition, Europe is no closer than it ever was to answering Henry Kissinger's famous question:
"Who do I call when I want to call Europe?" So what explains the gap between Europe's stated
ambition in foreign policy and its performance? And how can that gap be closed?
No Europe: So What?
Start with history. The modern conception of a united Europe was born in the embers of
World War II and rested upon the notion that binding Germany's fortunes to those of France and
the rest of Europe could end the violence that had regularly engulfed the continent for centuries.
Judged by that measure — and notwithstanding the pathetic failure to prevent or quickly end the
wars of the Yugoslav succession — the E.U. has worked out fine. For most of that time, its
leaders have been happy to concentrate on domestic policies: a single market, a European
currency, free movement of people. The E.U.'s defenders, moreover, would argue that in its
immediate neighborhood, its success has had a "demonstration effect" that is not to be
underestimated. Just as Greece, Portugal and Spain wanted to lock in their democratic rights by
joining the E.U. in the 1980s, so when the Soviet yoke was lifted, the nations of Eastern and
Central Europe wanted to join the E.U. as fast as they could. By extending an area of peace and
liberal government to the east, the E.U. has done much to calm a part of the world that not long
ago was the cockpit for murderous rivalries.
Beyond its neighborhood, however the E.U. has rarely punched its collective weight. The
main reason for that, of course, is that member states still like to defend and pursue their own
national interests, rather than subsume them in a multinational body. There's also a case — and
plenty in Europe make it — that Europe is better off continuing to aim low. "Very few European
countries see the role of the E.U. as a power," says Moïsi. "They see Europe as a place — with a
common market, a common currency, but not a power that should project itself onto the outside
world."
That argument begins to break down when you have aspirations to help fix the world.
Over the past decade or so, many Europeans have liked to think of the E.U. as a counterweight to
Washington and now Beijing: a big, rich, but more benign global power. Ask Catherine Ashton
to define Europe's ideals, and her aspirations are far from modest: "Democracy. Human rights,"
she says. "Wanting to see stable, secure nations, with whom we enjoy political dialogue and
economic relationships."
Europe is right to think big — both for its own sake and for that of others. Many in the
rest of the world would welcome a stronger European voice. Capitals from Pretoria to
Washington are constantly urging more from their European allies. As U.S. Assistant Secretary
of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Philip H. Gordon said to the House Foreign Affairs
Committee after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty last year: "We hope E.U. member states
will invest the post-Lisbon institutions with the authority and capacity to make concrete
contributions to the pressing global challenges we face together." In Africa, India, Latin
America, leaders would fall over themselves to engage more closely with a power that's neither
the U.S. nor China — both nations that can come across as too powerful, too proselytizing of
their own values, too prone to see their interaction with others solely in terms of their own
national interests.
But if Europe is to realize its own dreams and those of others, it has to change the way it
does business. Acting as a true single bloc would bring greater influence. One of the problems in
58
international meetings, says Jean-Pierre Lehmann, a professor of international political economy
at IMD in Switzerland, is that the E.U. is "paralyzed by its members." A senior Asian official
describes — with evident exasperation — how at international summits European leaders talk
endlessly to each other. "They're very clubby," he says, and it isn't meant as a compliment.
Next, Europeans need to appreciate that ideals alone don't bring you respect. You have to
win others to your side. The reality of that hit home — or should have done — at Copenhagen.
Europe had done much of the running on global climate-change policy, setting carbon-reduction
targets, introducing the first markets in which carbon could be traded, leading the way on
exploiting greener energy sources. European leaders arrived in the Danish capital giving the
impression that setting an example would be enough to persuade others into making concessions.
But the conference took a different turn. A group of developing countries threatened to walk out.
With negotiations on the verge of collapse, Obama entered a room where delegates from China
were meeting those from Brazil, India and South Africa. They struck a deal and then presented it
to Europe and other participants. "It was a global meeting hosted by a European country, in the
E.U., in an area where the E.U. had something to offer," says the IMD's Lehmann. "But it was a
huge humiliation. Europe was out of the room." "The painful lesson of Copenhagen is that you
cannot be taken seriously ... if you are not a serious actor," says Moïsi.
The Peaceful Continent
In a bitter irony, it is one of modern Europe's most cherished convictions — that the force
of arms rarely settles political disputes for long — that inhibits it from being a more powerful
player. European nations have sent thousands of young men and women to fight the Taliban, but
the memory of the 20th century means European public opinion seems unwilling to commit to
the war in Afghanistan for the long haul. On Feb. 20, the Dutch coalition government collapsed
because of a dispute over when to end the country's deployment. The German government faces
enormous domestic challenges in admitting its forces in Afghanistan are there to fight, not to be
humanitarian workers in uniform.
To Washington, which knows that the world remains a dangerous place, these attitudes
have become a serious concern. On Feb. 23, at the NATO strategic concept seminar, U.S.
Secretary of State Robert Gates was particularly blunt. "The demilitarization of Europe — where
large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that
go with it — has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real
security and lasting peace in the 21st." Plenty of European diplomats would agree with him.
After the speech one diplomat spoke of an "inertia" among Europeans when confronted with
novel threats. "We have to explain to our own public opinion," he said, "the world we live in."
But that requires political leadership, which in much of Europe is lacking. Yes, Britain
still sees itself as having a global role; so does France, whose President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has
been active on issues from the Georgia war of 2008 to the consequences of a nuclear Iran. But
the E.U.'s largest state is absent from most such debates. For the last half of the 20th century,
Germany was at the heart of the European experiment. But since the end of the Cold War, it has
stepped back from the E.U., regularly taking a different path when Europe attempted a unified
policy (notably during the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009), and strengthening ties with Russia,
to the chagrin of Britain and France. "Behind the scenes Germany is still pretty much the puppet
master in the E.U., pulling many strings," says Ulrike Guérot, head of the Berlin office of the
European Council on Foreign Relations. "But sometimes Berlin is deciding not to pull any
59
strings at all now, in which case nothing happens. Germany is starting to become good at
avoiding Europe in a very subtle way."
Others notice the failure of the E.U. to find a single voice. China, for example, has
become skilled at playing the E.U.'s individual members off against each other. "There is a
complete absence of a strategic debate in Europe about China," says Daniel Korski, senior policy
fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Instead of tackling that failing — an
obvious priority for this century — Europe has spent much of the past few months obsessing
over how Washington views it. Obama has visited Europe six times since taking office, and
made just one trip to China. But the U.S. President's decision to skip the Spain summit, and his
failure to attend the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, has had Europe acting like a
jilted lover. French press reported that Sarkozy was forced to console an upset Merkel ahead of
the Wall ceremony by painting Obama as a distant being whose presence would not be missed.
"If you make a really big effort, he'll send you a letter," Sarkozy said, according to newsweekly
Le Point. "And if you get on your knees, he'll add 'Yours Truly' in his own writing."
As they contemplate the future, leaders of the E.U. can no longer avoid the hard question:
Is a common foreign policy what its member states — and their domestic political constituencies
— really want? If it isn't, then the rest of the world can adjust its expectations accordingly. If it
is, then Europeans can start the real work of public diplomacy, speaking out for their asserted
virtues of tolerance, compromise and liberality, not in a condescending way, but in one that
explains how the world's true dark continent in the 20th century found a path to peace. And the
E.U. could work harder to ease tensions in its sphere of interest — ensuring that Bosnia does not
slip back into conflict, working closely with Turkey to ensure its enormous potential for
encouraging a new prosperity to Europe's East is realized, reaching out in a true partnership to
the nations of North Africa — another good Sarkozy idea — to see if they can be brought within
the European zone of prosperity. Doing nothing, giving in to inertia, will win the E.U. few
friends. "An unsentimental President Obama has already lost patience with a Europe lacking
coherence and purpose," according to the European Council on Foreign Relations. "In a postAmerican world, the United States knows it needs effective partners. If Europe cannot step up,
the U.S. will look for other privileged partners to do business with."
That, it should be said, would be easier said than done. We should not forget: Europe is
rich and democratic; its values are closer to those of the U.S. than those of anywhere else. But
Europeans cannot rely on that shared sensibility to secure American favor forever. The world
beyond Europe's borders is changing fast. What counts now, says Constanze Stelzenmüller,
senior transatlantic fellow at Berlin's German Marshall Fund, is what Europe "can bring to the
table." So far, it's bringing too little. Do Europeans want that to change? If so, now would be a
good time to say so.
60