World Forums

"Manifest destiny" was a hallmark of 19th century America whereby that young nation sought to expand itself to encompass all "from sea to sea". It worked and so successfully that manifest destiny went beyond the Pacific coast to incorporate an island nation (of indigenous peoples) in the mid-Pacific and a huge tract of land close to Siberia.

Does the EU have also such a "manifest destiny" and where are its boundaries. For instance, if the EU is a "European" institution/categorization, then by what logic must it consider the request for a nation (Turkey) that is largely confined to Asia Minor? Or, does it include those ex-Soviet nations that are traditionally part of Europe, but find themselves geographically in that part of the world that is intermediate between Europe and Asia?

Well, the preamble of the new EU draft constitution (http://www.eubusiness.com/imported/2003/06/112352/a) makes clear that the Word "European" does have a real implication (wheras, in contrast, NATO also has members that are located quite far away from the North Atlantic). So I see no intention by the EU to expand around the world. There do exist boundaries, no question.

But where exactly the boundaries are is disputed.

As for Turkey, the debate is already going on. Many conservatives hold that Turkey isn't European either geographically or culturally. They do, of course, contradict the (conservative) founders of the ECC (Adenauer, de Gaulle, etc.) who had made it always clear that they believed that Turkey, too, should one day be opened the way into the ECC- provided the conditions are met (which is certainly not the case yet - question is, when - 10 years, 20, 30, 50? Dunno.

As for Russia and most other CIS states except the Baltics, the discussion hasn't even started. Right now, it would be a major provocation for Russia if the EU started official application talks with, say, Ukraine or Georgia. Not sure what happens if/when one of those states is ready and willing to join the EU.

Not an important subject though. That prospect is very unrealistic and will remain so for at least 50 years.

I would not make light of the decision to begin talks with Turkey. Once admitted, even if in fifteen years, it sets a precedent.

What does the EU then say to Morocco, or Algeria or Tunisia, or .... ?

I also sense that it will have an effect on the consideration of the ex-SU countries such as the Ukraine or, one day, Belorussia, or Moldavia. A line must be drawn somewhere. Where?

Moldova should be no problem at all. If the EU admits Romania, then why not their direct neighbors?

Ukraine and Belarus are trickier issues though. Not because they are not European geographically (they are), but because their admission would isolate Russia, which would not be very healthy politically. The only solution would be to include Russia as well, buit I doubt the EU will be able to handle the problems that would come along in anything less than, say, 50 years.

But of course, this is mere speculation as neither Ukraine, nor Russia or even Belarus even remotely meets the political, let alone the economic, conditions to even consider the beginning of talks.

As for African countries, I disagree that an admission of Turkey would set a precedent. The ECC founders always made clear that they wanted a joining perspective for Turkey (see my previous post). In contrast, a Moroccan application to join the EU in 1987 was dismissed just because Morocco isn't a European country.

Felix

The "economical conditions" are a very strange proposition. Even today, EU contains countries with such disparate economic conditions that one has got to wonder...

I mean, Portugal and Greece (not to mention Poland and other new EE entries into the EU) seem several paces behind the Frances and Germanies of the EU...

"EU contains countries with such disparate economic conditions that one has got to wonder... "

Is New Hampshire at the same level of economic development as, say, California?

No, not really, but there is a common currency, a common market for goods and services, a common body of law (with some local exceptions), etc., etc.

There seems to be more commonality between the EU and the US than difference. No? The two entities will never be "alike" but given aspirations, all advanced econmies tend towards more or less the same standard. People may speak different languages but they all want generally the same things, that is, a decent life.

Not sure if Portugal is really so far behind Germany. But if so, it won't take long until they catch up.. . In any case, even Poland and Latvia are worlds apart Belarus or Ukraine economically.

But seriously, the decision to admit so many countries so relatively early was much more of a strategic decision than an economic one. It was clear from the beginning that the expansion would, for example, turn Portugal from a net recipient into a net contributor.

But the EU doesn't see itself as merly an economic force, but also as a community of shared values. It was believed that the expansion would promote those values into the new member states. In the long run, this could bring peace and stability into the region. Especially when the new EU nations also become part of the Eurozone. In the short or middle run, the expansion would be very questionnable if economic aspects were the only aspects to be considered, no question.

Synthese wrote:"
There seems to be more commonality between the EU and the US than difference. No? The two entities will never be "alike" but given aspirations, all advanced econmies tend towards more or less the same standard. People may speak different languages but they all want generally the same things, that is, a decent life.

The United States of America are have become a "nation" in the very meaning of the world. Something the EU is not willing or able to achieve. Maybe NAFTA will one day become comparable to the EU today - never say never (people would not have believed in a common European currency 25 years ago) although I doubt that. The USA is simply too big to profit from that. The conditions for such a union were much better in Europe than they can ever be in America.

"The ECC founders always made clear that they wanted a joining perspective for Turkey (see my previous post). In contrast, a Moroccan application to join the EU in 1987 was dismissed just because Morocco isn't a European country."

And Turkey is?

Europe ends at the Bosphorus. Only Istanbul and a desolate stretch of land to the Greek border is on European soil.

Does that parcel of land qualify Turkey for admittance as a "European nation"? If it is, then Morocco can claim that the Spanish colony of Cueta in Morocco facing Gibraltar is also sufficient reason for consideration.

In fact, being European is more than a geographical consideration. It is one of similar cultural attributes, a common destiny and an uniform judicial and economic structure. Does Turkey meet these criteria? Can it meet these criteria?

Shouldn't more attention be given to the Balkan states that are clearly in Europe? Just some food for thought ...

"But seriously, the decision to admit so many countries so relatively early was much more of a strategic decision than an economic one."

Let's say it was good economic strategy. The EU as it stands today is a common market with a population slightly larger than that of the US.

This simply means that it has the economic potential to be as large a market in terms of GDP, which is not yet the case. Still, even the US started with only thirteen colonies more than two hundred years ago.

Mighty oaks from acorns .... etc., etc., etc.

"The United States of America are have become a "nation" in the very meaning of the world. Something the EU is not willing or able to achieve. Maybe NAFTA will one day become comparable to the EU today"

NAFTA does not meet three or four of the criteria that qualify status as a "nation". It does not have a common currency, neither a common legal context, nor a unified leadership (nor a common foreign policy). Whether the three signatory nations are willing to develop such is also highly suspect. NAFTA is the equivalent to the Common Market, yes, but does it have the genetic ability to develop further? Hmmmnn ....


With the exception of the fourth, the EU is well on the road to meeting the first three criteria. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly as regards geopolitics, the EU must get its house in order in terms of foreign policy. Xavier Solonna flying around to various capitals with his cheery smile is NOT a common foreign policy - he is a very sympathetic n ambassador, but not much else.

Nations take time to build. It is barely a half century since the signing of the Treat of Rome in 1957 that started the ball rolling.

Synthese wrote:"The ECC founders always made clear that they wanted a joining perspective for Turkey (see my previous post). In contrast, a Moroccan application to join the EU in 1987 was dismissed just because Morocco isn't a European country."

And Turkey is?

Well, at least part of Turkey is in Europe. Also, Turkey is a member of the European Broadcasting Union, the Turkish Soccer FA is a member of UEFA, not AFC, and the same also goes for most other sports. I'm not saying that I support Turkey's application (in particular I believe the talks start way too early), but it does make sense to exclude Morocco but not Turkey.

Europe ends at the Bosphorus. Only Istanbul and a desolate stretch of land to the Greek border is on European soil.

Correct. But does the definition of "Europe" in the term "EU" necessarily have to follow the strictly geographical view?

Does that parcel of land qualify Turkey for admittance as a "European nation"? If it is, then Morocco can claim that the Spanish colony of Cueta in Morocco facing Gibraltar is also sufficient reason for consideration.

That doesn't make sense at all. If Morocco had a colony in Europe, OK. But how should a Spanish colony within Morroco qualify Morocco? That could perhaps enable Spain to join some African EU counterpart, but not vice versa.

In fact, being European is more than a geographical consideration. It is one of similar cultural attributes, a common destiny and an uniform judicial and economic structure. Does Turkey meet these criteria? Can it meet these criteria?

"Similar cultural attributes", depends on your definition. As far as I understand it, the EU has a set of values (human rights) that are imperative for all members. Can Turkey meet the criterion? Not yet, but they may one day.

The term "a common destiny" in the draft constitution has a meaning for those who have already joined the EU. Once Turkey would have joined, and adopted their laws to meet EU standards, this alone should be evidence enough that they are being serious- you wouldn't require anything more from any other country, too, would you?

"uniform judicial and economic structure." - In this respect, I don't see any special problems regarding Turkey. At least not more of them than with Bulgaria or Romania or Latvia.

Shouldn't more attention be given to the Balkan states that are clearly in Europe?

Well, Slovenia is already in. Bulgaria and Romania are scheduled to join in 2007. Croatia is already in application talks and they have a good chance to join until 2010. So what do you propose? Are you saying that Serbia, Bosnia or Macedonia are anything like even remotely fit to join the EU? And, at least in Serbia, I don't even believe that they would want to join anyway...

"... does the definition of "Europe" in the term "EU" necessarily have to follow the strictly geographical view? "

Errr ... that is the question I originally put to this forum ...

The US is not a geographical set of contiguous states. But, neither has it invited Puerto Rico to statehood not, for that matter, the District of Columbia.

What does this mean? It means that geography is not important in a primary sense, but perhaps secondary. First, one must answer the question regarding cultural assimilation. And, if one asserts that the Turks are a "modern nation with modern aspirations" then according to that criteria Morocco might pretend to fill the bill. Or Israel, or ....

If it is a question of religion, then the cultural assimilation becomes more complex. The EU nations cannot accept certain aspects of Muslim culture that disfavor or degrade the female. In fact, the real issue in Europe regarding Turkey is the issue of how different Turkey is from other Muslim cultures of the Middle-East.

"That doesn't make sense at all. If Morocco had a colony in Europe, OK. But how should a Spanish colony within Morroco qualify Morocco? "

Cueta enjoys all the benefits of the EU. It is contiguous to Morocco. Refuse this precedent and you refuse that of Turkey, contiguous geographically to Greece.

Should Morocco attempt to militarily occupy Cueta, the reaction from Spain (and indirectly the EU) would be swift.

"The term "a common destiny" in the draft constitution has a meaning for those who have already joined the EU. Once Turkey would have joined, and adopted their laws to meet EU standards, this alone should be evidence enough that they are being serious - you wouldn't require anything more from any other country, too, would you?"

Adopting EU laws and the Euro is not a "common destiny". Destiny, in this matter, is a question of collective fate or fortune. Meaning this: Will Turkey respect the collective will of the EU in terms of domestic (i.e. social) or foriegn policy?

For example: Presume, for whatever reason, that the EU decided, for its defense, that it must occupy Kosovo. Will Turkey participate in this takeover of a Muslim nationality (presuming the Kosovars become an independent nation). Or, will they opt out on religous reasons.

Regardless of thier supposed willingness to confront these issues, as regards the Armenians and Kurds, Turkey remains silent about both the past and the future. It must clarify its position regarding these two issues.

"uniform judicial and economic structure." - In this respect, I don't see any special problems regarding Turkey. At least not more of them than with Bulgaria or Romania or Latvia.

Turkey has an awful record of disrespect for human rights (not necessarily a problem with the three other nations above mentioned), particulaly in terms of incarceration of "convicts". It's judicial processes have also been quetionned. Of course, it has fifteen years to work these issues out to the satisfaction of the EU.

"So what do you propose? Are you saying that Serbia, Bosnia or Macedonia are anything like even remotely fit to join the EU? And, at least in Serbia, I don't even believe that they would want to join anyway..."

Why not offer exactly what is proposed to Turkey? The rules for admission are set and explained. Then over a period of time (fifteen years) the EU observes progress towards the country's ability to meet the criterias.

It would seem only fair to propose to these Balkan states the same that is proposed to Turkey.

"But of course, this is mere speculation as neither Ukraine, nor Russia or even Belarus even remotely meets the political, let alone the economic, conditions to even consider the beginning of talks."

Neither does Turkey today, but it has fifteen years to implement the means by which it will adhere to the criteria set. In fifteen years, the Ukraine, Belarus and even Georgia could indeed meet the requirements.

Errr ... that is the question I originally put to this forum ...

And as you see, my answer is "no". At least not when it comes to the strict geographical sense.

But, neither has (the US) invited Puerto Rico to statehood

First, if geography were as important as you are saying, there would be no reason whatsoever to leave out Puerto Rico, but include Hawaii. Second, your claim is simply false. Referanda did take place twice (in 1967 and in 1993) where Puerto Ricans could vote to either retain Status Quo, gain independence, or become a US State. It's just that in both referenda, autonomy was the clear winner - although it was quite close in the last one:


Puerto Ricans have twice voted to determine their political status. In 1967, the outcome was Commonwealth 60%; statehood 39%; independence 1%. In 1993, Commonwealth dropped to 48.6%; statehood rose to 46.3%; independence polled 4.4%; and 0.6% of the ballots were blank or spoiled. [Source]

Don't know, perhaps the tax exemption weighs higher than the political rights earnt by becoming a US State !?

not, for that matter, the District of Columbia

This is a political anomaly I have no explanation for (Not that it would matter in the context of the European Union though). Anyone else?

If it is a question of religion, then the cultural assimilation becomes more complex. The EU nations cannot accept certain aspects of Muslim culture that disfavor or degrade the female. In fact, the real issue in Europe regarding Turkey is the issue of how different Turkey is from other Muslim cultures of the Middle-East.

No argument with that. Again: The EU is a community of shared values. Those who don't share those values cannot join. And equal rights for women is clearly part of that. Although I see much worse problems when it comes to Turkey, which would not allow Turkey to join the EU now IMO, but perhaps in a few decades.

Cueta enjoys all the benefits of the EU.

Like the Canaries, or Martinique, or the French Territoires Outre-Mer (But, oddly enough, unlike Greenland although Greenland is government by Denmark) So what?

Should Morocco attempt to militarily occupy Cueta, the reaction from Spain (and indirectly the EU) would be swift.

Morocco would never be so foolish to attack a NATO member with force- that would not be a promising action either militarily or politically, to put it mildly. Rather, they should hope that Spain will surrender their colony one day. Who knows, perhaps they decided that they just don't need their outpost any more one day - perhaps in less than 10 years.

And, if one asserts that the Turks are a "modern nation with modern aspirations" then according to that criteria Morocco might pretend to fill the bill. Or Israel, or ....

It's not about whether they are "modern". Even the PR China is "modern" in many ways. It's about whether they accept, and implement, the values of the EU. Right now, they are about to accept, and in the process of implementing them, with a long way to go.

Israel? Well, nice idea? Do you remember that I was saying that Turkey is a member of UEFA and EBU? Well, so is Israel 8) ... But let's get serious: If an application by Ukraine or Belarus is problematic for strategic reasons, then much more so is one by Israel - and the chances that their situation will change so that they could join are very low, even in 100 years. And finally, even if it were different, I doubt that they would ever want to join the EU. So, Israel is a non-issue here really.

Adopting EU laws and the Euro is not a "common destiny". Destiny, in this matter, is a question of collective fate or fortune. Meaning this: Will Turkey respect the collective will of the EU in terms of domestic (i.e. social) or foriegn policy?

For example: Presume, for whatever reason, that the EU decided, for its defense, that it must occupy Kosovo. Will Turkey participate in this takeover of a Muslim nationality (presuming the Kosovars become an independent nation). Or, will they opt out on religous reasons.

If they ever want to opt out of the EU, they can. The EU draft constitution has an opting-out clause.

In addition, I think decisions like that still require unanimous decision. IOW, Turkey could veto the invasion, plain and simple. In addition, you are painting a picture of a centralized EU which is far from even being planned.

Regardless of thier supposed willingness to confront these issues, as regards the Armenians and Kurds, Turkey remains silent about both the past and the future. It must clarify its position regarding these two issues.

I agree that this is really an issue, though not one that poses an unsolvable problem.

It would seem only fair to propose to these Balkan states the same that is proposed to Turkey.

Let them file an application, then we can talk. Or would you propose that the EU take the initiative? I don't see any reason whatsoever for that - especially considering that those states are far behind even Turkey in many respects.

In fifteen years, the Ukraine, Belarus and even Georgia could indeed meet the requirements.

Frankly, I don't think Turkey can meet the requirements in the targeted 15 years, nor do I think that those CIS states can. And, again, don't forget the strategic situation in this case. If all those states were in the EU, Russia would be isolated from Europe, which could prove a dangerous situation in the long run.

First, if geography were as important as you are saying, there would be no reason whatsoever to leave out Puerto Rico, but include Hawaii.

I am making no claims. I am debating and issue. Nuance.

As I said, geography is important as secondary consideration. The fact that Turkey is mostly NOT in Europe is a consideration, and should they not meet the criteria in fifteen years it will take on an enormous importance.

Why? Because the rest of Europe cannot have fundamentalist Turks roaming about its territory as a terrorist threat. For the moment, they are not. However, it is a concern to counter-terrorist authorities that Shengen individuals may avoid identity checks on entry.

Second, your claim is simply false.

Read above. You see claims where there are none.

I don't think Turkey can meet the requirements in the targeted 15 years, nor do I think that those CIS states can. And, again, don't forget the strategic situation in this case.

They can and they likely will. It's not certain and they will have to make a considerable effort. But, given the welcome given to the green light for the discussions of entry, they seem to have the will to try hard.

The strategic situation as regards Russia is moot. Putin understands that Russia needs foreign investment, particularly European, to rebuild the Russian economy. It's attitude towards Europe, therefore, will be neutral - benign neglect, whilst Europe get hooked on Russian energy supplies.

I see no military reason for the Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic countries should not make an effort to join. It would open markets and they aspire to a European lifestyle. Besides, Russia is still a great bear and Europe is a good balance against Russian interference in internal politics.

You see claims where there are none.

So you did not claim thatthe US never invited Puerto Rico to statehood?

Why? Because the rest of Europe cannot have fundamentalist Turks roaming about its territory as a terrorist threat. For the moment, they are not.

This is very naive, to put it mildly. What is the "Califate state" organization, in your opinion? A Turkish culture club?

However, it is a concern to counter-terrorist authorities that Shengen individuals may avoid identity checks on entry.

Turkey would not automatically enter the Schengen accord the day they would join the EU.

Putin understands that Russia needs foreign investment, particularly European, to rebuild the Russian economy.

Russia may not be able to do without foreign investment. But there are other potential trading partners. PR China for instance. Some strategists expect China to become a superpower in a few decades, and then, the geostrategical situation to be a cold war between US and China - a situation which would not be very good for the EU. An isolation of Russia would play in the hands of China and make that scenario much more realistic.

Some strategists expect China to become a superpower in a few decades, and then, the geostrategical situation to be a cold war between US and China - a situation which would not be very good for the EU.

Yes, well, we expected the same of Japan and that did not happen either.

China has a major hurdle to overcome. It is not with continued economic expansion, but with the aspiration of democracy that growth stimulates. The Chinese oligarchy, whilst shuffling chairs amongst themselves on the Politburo, have not quite figured that one out.

Besides, when the average Chinese begin to see how select family members of the ruling class have cashed in heavily on their privileges, becoming sickeningly rich, there is bound to be a major sea change in mindset amongst the proletariat.

China has one helluva lot of social problems on the horizon that growth alone will not solve but likely exacerbate. All is decidely not well in the Middle Kingdom

Felix K wrote:Not sure if Portugal is really so far behind Germany. But if so, it won't take long until they catch up.. . In any case, even Poland and Latvia are worlds apart Belarus or Ukraine economically.

Are they really THAT far apart?

Well, I do not know about Belarus, but Ukraine had one of the highest rates of economy growth on the continent a couple of years back (the last data I had available)

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english ... /data.html

IN 1998:

Latvia's GNP - $2420
Belarus' - $2180
Poland - $3910
Russia - $2260
Germany - $26570
Portugal - $10670

Obviously, the difference between Latvia and Belarus is insignificant, compared to that between Germany and Portugal in 1998.

http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/globalwor ... capita.htm

2004:

Rank Country Population (millions) Population density (people per sq. km) Gross national income per capita
1. Norway 5 15 $38,730
2. Switzerland 7 184 $36,170
3. United States 288 31 $35,400
4. Japan 127 349 $34,010
5. Denmark 5 127 $30,260
6. Sweden 9 22 $25,970
7. United Kingdom 59 246 $25,510
8. Hong Kong, China 7 $24,690
9. Finland 5 17 $23,890
10. Austria 8 97 $23,860
11. Netherlands 16 477 $23,390
12. Ireland 4 57 $23,030
13. Belgium 10 315 $22,940
14. Germany 82 236 $22,740
15. Canada 31 3 $22,390
16. France 59 108 $22,240
17. Singapore 4 6,826 $20,690
18. Australia 20 3 $19,530
19. Italy 58 196 $19,080
20. Kuwait 2 131 $16,340
21. Israel 7 318 $16,020
22. Spain 41 82 $14,580
23. New Zealand 4 15 $13,260
24. Greece 11 82 $11,660
25. Portugal 10 111 $10,720
26. Slovenia 2 98 $10,370
27. South Korea 48 483 $9,930
28. Saudi Arabia 22 10 $8,530
29. Oman 3 8 $7,830
30. Trinidad and Tobago 1 254 $6,750
31. Mexico 101 53 $5,920
32. Czech Republic 10 132 $5,480
33. Hungary 10 110 $5,290
34. Poland 39 127 $4,57035. Croatia 4 80 $4,540
36. Uruguay 3 19 $4,340
37. Chile 16 21 $4,250
38. Argentina 36 13 $4,220
39. Estonia 1 32 $4,190
40. Venezuela 25 28 $4,080
41. Costa Rica 4 77 $4,070
42. Panama 3 40 $4,020
43. Lebanon 4 434 $3,990
45. Slovak Republic 5 $3,970
46. Mauritius 1 597 $3,860
47. Lithuania 3 54 $3,670
48. Malaysia 24 74 $3,540
49. Latvia 2 38 $3,480
50. Gabon 1 5 $3,060
51. Botswana 2 3 $3,010
52. Brazil 174 21 $2,830
53. Jamaica 3 242 $2,690
54. South Africa 45 37 $2,500
55. Turkey 70 90 $2,490
56. Russian Federation 144 9 $2,130
57. El Salvador 6 310 $2,110
58. Peru 27 21 $2,020
59. Thailand 62 121 $2,000
60. Tunisia 10 63 $1,990
61. Romania 22 97 $1,870
62. Colombia 44 42 $1,820
63. Namibia 2 2 $1,790
64. Bulgaria 8 72 $1,770
65. Guatemala 12 111 $1,760
66. Jordan 5 58 $1,760
67. Algeria 31 13 $1,720
68. Iran 66 40 $1,720
69. Macedonia 2 80 $1,710
70. Kazakhstan 15 6 $1,520
71. Ecuador 13 46 $1,490
72. Egypt 66 67 $1,470
73. Albania 3 115 $1,450
74. Serbia and Montenegro 8 $1,400
75. Belarus 10 48 $1,360
76. Bosnia and Herzegovina 4 81 $1,310
77. Swaziland 1 63 $1,240
78. Morocco 30 66 $1,170
79. Paraguay 6 14 $1,170
80. Syrian Arab Republic 17 92 $1,130
81. West Bank and Gaza 3 $1,110
82. Philippines 80 268 $1,030
83. China 1,280 137 $960
84. Honduras 7 61 $930
85. Bolivia 9 8 $900
86. Sri Lanka 19 293 $850
87. Armenia 3 109 $790
88. Ukraine 49 84 $780
89. Angola 13 11 $710 undefined
90. Azerbaijan 8 94 $710
91. Indonesia 212 117 $710
92. Nicaragua 5 44 $710
93. Georgia 5 74 $650
94. C?d’Ivoire 17 52 $620
95. Republic of Congo 4 11 $610
96. Cameroon 16 34 $550
97. Lesotho 2 59 $550
98. Papua New Guinea 5 12 $530
99. Yemen 19 35 $490
100. India 1,049 353 $470
101. Senegal 10 52 $470
102. Moldova 4 129 $460
103. Haiti 8 301 $440
104. Mongolia 2 2 $430
105. Vietnam 80 247 $430
106. Pakistan 145 188 $420
107. Guinea 8 32 $410
108. Bangladesh 136 1,042 $380
109. Benin 7 59 $380
110. Sudan 33 14 $370
111. Kenya 31 55 $360
112. Zambia 10 14 $340
113. Lao PDR 6 24 $310
114. Uzbekistan 25 61 $310
115. Cambodia 12 71 $300
116. Nigeria 133 146 $300
117. Kyrgyz Republic 5 26 $290
118. Tanzania 35 40 $290
119. Mauritania 3 3 $280
120. Gambia 1 139 $270
121. Ghana 20 89 $270
122. Togo 5 88 $270
123. Burkina Faso 12 43 $250
124. Central African Republic 4 6 $250
125. Mali 11 9 $240
126. Uganda 25 125 $240
127. Nepal 24 169 $230
128. Madagascar 16 28 $230
129. Rwanda 8 331 $230
130. Chad 8 7 $210
131. Mozambique 18 24 $200
132. Eritrea 4 43 $190
133. Niger 11 9 $180
134. Tajikistan 6 45 $180
135. Malawi 11 114 $160
136. Liberia 3 34 $140
137. Sierra Leone 5 73 $140
138. Guinea-Bissau 1 51 $130
139. Burundi 7 275 $100
140. Democratic Republic of Congo 52 23 $100
141. Ethiopia 67 67 $100
Not ranked
Puerto Rico 4 436 $9,076 or more
United Arab Emirates 3 38 $9,076 or more
Libya 5 3 $2,936–$9,075
Dominican Republic 9 178 $736–$2,935
Cuba 11 103 $736–$2,935
Iraq 24 55 $736–$2,935
Turkmenistan 5 10 $736–$2,935
Afghanistan 28 43 $735 or less
Myanmar 49 74 $735 or less
North Korea 22 187 $735 or less
Somalia 9 15 $735 or less
Zimbabwe 13 34 $735 or less

So, obviously, the gulf between Latvia and Belarus is nowhere near the size of the gulf between Germany and Portugal

Belarus could be the strongest economy in the world, but as long as they are ruled by a dictator and as long as they still have the death penalty, just to name two key criteria, one doesn't even need to discuss their EU ambitions, except perhaps after the (IMO overdue) discharge of Mr Lukashenko.

Ah, and BTW,

according to your numbers, Latvia has 2.5 times the per capita income of Belarus, while Germany has roughly twice the income of Portugal.

So, in relative numbers, the gap between Latvia and Belarus is not only comparable to the one between Germany and Portugal, but actually even slightly higher. And since growth is a relative value, not an absolute one, those relative numbers are much more relevant than the absolute ones. Would you really say that the difference in living standard between Germany and Portugal must be greater than the one between, say, Croatia and Ethiopia? After all, in the former case, the difference in income per capita is $12,000, but only $4440 in the latter.

Felix relative numbers really mean squat here. If you had $3 abd I had $1, according to the relative amounts you'd be ahead of me by a far larger amount than Latvia is ahead of Belarus. However, these $2 would not even buy you a Big Mac.

The absolute numbers rule supreme as they give you an idea just what purchasing power an average Belorussian or Latvian has.

And, yes, the difference between Croatia and Ethiopia is far less than that between Germany and Portugal. Both in absolute numbers and their corresponding economies.

Belarus could be the strongest economy in the world, but as long as they are ruled by a dictator and as long as they still have the death penalty

I thought China, run by a de facto dictatorship, was supposed to fill that role.

And, how is the death penalty a hindrance to economic growth. It hasn't seemed to affect either China or the US adversely in terms of economic growth? Quite the contrary, in fact.

Eugene, if I were to place Germany, Portugal, Croatia and Ethiopia in two categories of wealth, I'd definitely draw the line between Croatia and Ethiopia, not between Germany and Portugal.

Also, your argument doesn't really fly when it comes to monthly revenues. One who earns $12million a month isn't much better off than one who earns $10 millions. Both have a very good living. The difference between $10,050 and $50 makes a much greater difference in terms of quality of living. The two million dollars in the first case simply matter MUCH LESS than the 10,000 dollars in the second.

Synthese wrote:

Belarus could be the strongest economy in the world, but as long as they are ruled by a dictator and as long as they still have the death penalty

I thought China, run by a de facto dictatorship, was supposed to fill that role.

And, how is the death penalty a hindrance to economic growth. It hasn't seemed to affect either China or the US adversely in terms of economic growth? Quite the contrary, in fact.

I never claimed that the death penalty is a hinderance to economic growth. What I did claim is that the death penalty is an obstacle in a bid to join the EU. And this is true. The EU doesn't want the death penalty in their ranks, and the abolition of the death penalty is a requirement for application talks. Why, do you believe, did Turkey abolish the death penalty recently and changed Öcalan's death penalty into life? It was precisely for that reason.

I never claimed that the death penalty is a hinderance to economic growth. What I did claim is that the death penalty is an obstacle in a bid to join the EU.

And, I never claimed that you claimed anything.

Even with its admittance to the EU, Belarus has less of a chance at sustained, accelerated economic growth than many other countries.

Much depends upon the entrepreneurial instinct of its business elite. Like the Ukraine, there is suspicion that it will take perhaps a generation to overcome the five generations of mind-numbing central planning. This a real challenge of all the eastern block countries and none show any particular talent for overcoming the disadvantage. How does a business culture learn how to take risk when that very factor has never been an integral part of either markets or the economy?

The oligarchs, whether in Russia or the Ukraine, proved that without "privileged access" to existing assets at lowest-cost prices, they are unable to attract investment funds towards developing new technologies. (About as good as it gets is the Slovak emergence as a pool of talented work skills, which will be mostly employed in manufacture/assembly, and mostly in the automotive industry.) I see no ex-CIS country that has attracted an overabundance of investment in hi-tech, even if some of the Baltic states show an aptitude for I.T. Even I.T. is showing pronounced competition from both southwest Asia and the Far East.

The tendency in the ex-CIS is to take existing rust-belt industries, practically ruined by postponed investment, with decades old technology that must be junked and replaced to enhance productivity. Due to comparatively favourable labour costs, some of this manufacture could find its way to the west. It depends tightly on whether it can compete with the "China price" in products with value-added.

In fact, the largest percentage of exports from the "New East" of Europe is likely to be in energy products (coal, petrol and gas) for some time to come - perhaps as much as ten to twenty years.

Synthese wrote:

I never claimed that the death penalty is a hinderance to economic growth. What I did claim is that the death penalty is an obstacle in a bid to join the EU.

And, I never claimed that you claimed anything.

Then, please explain how I should have understand your question: "And, how is the death penalty a hindrance to economic growth." other than you suggesting that I meant to say just that?

Even with its admittance to the EU, Belarus has less of a chance at sustained, accelerated economic growth than many other countries.

Much depends upon the entrepreneurial instinct of its business elite. Like the Ukraine, there is suspicion that it will take perhaps a generation to overcome the five generations of mind-numbing central planning.

This is a good point. And, let me add, this problem affects CIS states much more than it affects, say, Poland, or even the Baltics - simply because those countries not only have a longer history of communism behind them, but also, because they never knew anything close to a free economy, as the previous feudalistic system wasn't much better in that respect.

And, unfortunately, nor is the current mixture of free enterprise, central planning and corruption in many of those states. At least as far as Belarus is concerned, the counting of the "generations" needed to overcome the effects of central planning may not even have started as of yet.

The oligarchs, whether in Russia or the Ukraine, proved that without "privileged access" to existing assets at lowest-cost prices, they are unable to attract investment funds towards developing new technologies.

It's worst. The fact that those oligarchs get the privileges hinders many others from achieving the same.

(About as good as it gets is the Slovak emergence as a pool of talented work skills, which will be mostly employed in manufacture/assembly, and mostly in the automotive industry.) I see no ex-CIS country that has attracted an overabundance of investment in hi-tech, even if some of the Baltic states show an aptitude for I.T. Even I.T. is showing pronounced competition from both southwest Asia and the Far East.

That's hardly a surprise, but rather the effect of a free and competitive worldwide market. If you get the same quality for less money, you'll move. This is why many IT jobs moved from Germany to Hungary, then to Romania, and it's only a matter of time until they will even leave ex CIS.

The tendency in the ex-CIS is to take existing rust-belt industries, practically ruined by postponed investment, with decades old technology that must be junked and replaced to enhance productivity. Due to comparatively favourable labour costs, some of this manufacture could find its way to the west. It depends tightly on whether it can compete with the "China price" in products with value-added.

In fact, the largest percentage of exports from the "New East" of Europe is likely to be in energy products (coal, petrol and gas) for some time to come - perhaps as much as ten to twenty years.

I would not argue with that.

Interesting discussion, although I only skimmed through most of it since I don't have time to read all 77 posts.

The idea of a manifest destiny is an interesting one, because already in the early days of the European Union, or the European Coal and Steel Community as it was called back then, the aim was to one day create an all-European community. After the Second World War, Winston Churchill talked about a "United States of Europe", and if we're still quite a bit from achieving that yet, Europe has definitely moved slowly but steadily in a federalist direction. Especially since the Single European Act, there have been a number of federalist reforms: a single market, a single currency, a European Parliament that has real legislative powers, an emerging common foreign and security policy, the development of a European defence policy, etc.

I would say the manifest destiny of the European Union is not so different from that of the United States of America: the latter's was to spread across the continent from the east coast to the west coast; the former's is to unite all of Europe from the Russian border in east to the mid-Atlantic in the west. The difficult question is, of course, where does Europe's border stop? I for one think geography is not really that interesting. Russia is too large for the EU to absorb, but I could well see the likes of Georgia and Azerbaijan join the EU, along with Turkey of course which is already a candidate country, and I would like to see both Israel and Palestine join the EU some time in future as that would IMO help facilitate reconciliation and peaceful cohabitation in that region.

But somewhere the EU must end. And the border, I think, should stop where the next federation begins. The African Union is trying to emulate the EU. South America recently set up the South American Community of Nations to create a politican union on that continent. I would like to see Central America and the Caribbean to follow suit, and then South East Asia and the Arab countries. Eventually, the world may be made up of, say, 20 political unions - with the big countries like the USA, China, India and Russia being political unions in their own right. That in turn could form the foundation of a world federation where democratically elected representatives from the different unions would sit together and deal with issues such as world trade, global warming and international security.

An illusion? Maybe. But in 50 years, who knows? 50 years ago, who would have predicted that we might have a European Constitution?

As for economic disparity within the EU and between EU member states and possible future members, I don't think that is such a big problem per se. What is essential is that the economy in the applicant country is a functioning market economy ready to tackle EU regulations and competition from elsewhere in the EU.

The model that all new member states will hope to emulate is of course Ireland. Being the poorest of the Nine when it joined in 1973, it has, with help of structural funds and with the benefit of market access coupled with good business sense and good government, jumped to the top of the EU table in GDP per capita.

Winston Churchill talked about a "United States of Europe", and if we're still quite a bit from achieving that yet, Europe has definitely moved slowly but steadily in a federalist direction. Especially since the Single European Act, there have been a number of federalist reforms: a single market, a single currency, a European Parliament that has real legislative powers, an emerging common foreign and security policy, the development of a European defence policy, etc.

This has been the general trend, yes. It is the most probable outcome as well, even though, in order NOT to be called the "US of Europe", the "EU" designation was readily adopted. Words, just words.

The facts however are more poignant. Federalism does imply a federal government - and the Brussels Commission cannot in any way be likened to such. It is constituted of national envoys. It is an indirectly elected body, and even some of the "ministers" in that council need not be elected by direct vote (if they have been nominated by their national PM).

European foreign policy is a cacophony. As Kissinger once famously said, "When I want to call Europe, who do I call?" Every EU nation has its vested interests and they are often conflictual. Besides, a foreign policy without the military punch to support it is like shadow boxing - elaborate but totally inoffensive. When Europe wants to move troops quickly it has to call Moscow to lease available large-carrier air transportation.

One item in the list of requirements above is missing and it is key. It is a common tax policy. Taxation is the genesis of any effectual national political will. Without the means to tax uniformly across the EU, there is no revenue. As large as the EU budget is, it is a mere shadow of what the combined national budgets amounts to.

The problem is, when taxation is taken from national leaders they become eunuchs. State intervention in Europe has been prevalent since WW2. To take away the ability to tax and spend, Euro-national politicians would have little left to do but administrate. The EU states lose most of thier soveriegnty.

Career politicians are elected on their ability to "do something" in terms of national policy. Without tax revenues, they are relegated to administrative roles based upon allocations from the EU, where policy is devised. This is the real issue in the development of the EU. When will national soveriegnty bend to the will of a common EU soveriegnty? It is unlikely for another two or three generations. The partition of powers between the nations and the EU would be more like that of the states and the Federal government in the US. Is Europe ready for such? Unlikely.

Sixty percent of the EU budget presently is dedicated to the CAP. Any change in that monolithic attribution was torpedoed by Schroeder and Chirac two years ago which "fixed the CAP in concrete" until 2011. So, it will be a while before there is a EU-centric taxation policy similar to that which exists in the US.

When that happens, then Europe will see profound changes, but not until them. For the moment, EU development is advancing more like a "creep" than in "leaps and bounds".

Maybe that is the way Europeans want it to develop?

I would like to see Central America and the Caribbean to follow suit, and then South East Asia and the Arab countries. Eventually, the world may be made up of, say, 20 political unions - with the big countries like the USA, China, India and Russia being political unions in their own right.

The above smacks of "multi-polarity". George will be VERY disturbed at that idea! (Which is admittedly irrelevant.)

Manifest destiny is one that is based upon communal destiny and therefore common cultural values. That was the intent of asking the question as regards Turkey and it applies in a similar fashion to the construction that you have suggested. Political union based upon a geographical concept is not bad, but is it enough? I suggest that it isn't.

Turkey wants Europe to believe that it has the same notions of democracy, human/gender rights and social development. Passing a few laws to show good faith is necessary but not sufficient. Which is why the period of overview was set at fifteen years. During that span of time the EU will be watching to see if Turkey can actually and functionally develop itself into a modern state. That takes a great deal of political maturity, not only amongst its politicians but amongst its people - and particularly the Turkish military.

Can Turkey's army understand that it is no longer the safeguard of Kemal Attaturk's heritage? Good question and Turkey has fifteen years to answer it. It must mature to do so.

Tsunami-hit Thais told: Buy six planes or face EU tariffs

TSUNAMI-struck Thailand has been told by the European Commission that it must buy six A380 Airbus aircraft if it wants to escape the tariffs against its fishing industry. ...trade authorities in Brussels are demanding that Thai Airlines, its national carrier, pays £1.3 billion to buy its double-decker aircraft.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=591&id=66782005

European foreign policy is a cacophony. As Kissinger once famously said, "When I want to call Europe, who do I call?" Every EU nation has its vested interests and they are often conflictual. Besides, a foreign policy without the military punch to support it is like shadow boxing - elaborate but totally inoffensive.

Military is but one tool of foreign policy, albeit the ultimate and most effective one. The EU is still weak on military because of the lack of a common policy, but there is improvement in this field as well - especially since 1999. The Rapid Reaction Force, the EU battle groups and EU peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and Congo are examples of that.

However, as of yet, the EU's strongest cards in foreign policy are soft power cards. The EU is an economic giant that speaks with one voice in international trade negotiations and has one Common Commercial Policy in the WTO. It also carries considerable weight in other areas of diplomacy, whether that be toward Turkey, Ukraine or in the Middle East. The carrot of closer economic ties with the EU ensured Russia's acceptance of the Kyoto protocol. There's little doubt that in soft power foreign policy, the EU has achieved more than the individual member states would have been able to if left by themselves.

When Europe wants to move troops quickly it has to call Moscow to lease available large-carrier air transportation.

???

One item in the list of requirements above is missing and it is key. It is a common tax policy. Taxation is the genesis of any effectual national political will. Without the means to tax uniformly across the EU, there is no revenue. As large as the EU budget is, it is a mere shadow of what the combined national budgets amounts to.

If not a common tax policy, then at least the EU needs to have taxation powers at the Union level. But that does not necessarily mean an increase in the Union budget, which is currently at roughly 1% of EU GDP. The size of the budget is separate discussion from how the revenue is collected. Right now, member states pay directly into the EU coffers. I would prefer if the budget was financed by an EU-wide tax (e.g. X % VAT).

The problem is, when taxation is taken from national leaders they become eunuchs. State intervention in Europe has been prevalent since WW2. To take away the ability to tax and spend, Euro-national politicians would have little left to do but administrate. The EU states lose most of thier soveriegnty.

Why would taxation be taken away from national leaders? Most government jobs, such as education and health care, would remain on national or regional hands and should be financed by taxes at the national or regional level. All levels of government should have taxation rights for financing their expenditures. It is important that a government is responsible both for income revenues and expenditure, not just the expenditure.

Career politicians are elected on their ability to "do something" in terms of national policy. Without tax revenues, they are relegated to administrative roles based upon allocations from the EU, where policy is devised.

That's the European superstate scenario. I don't think it will happen. Rather, I think we will see an evolution towards a truely federal union where each level of government has clearly defined policy areas and responsibilities, matched by taxation rights.

The partition of powers between the nations and the EU would be more like that of the states and the Federal government in the US. Is Europe ready for such?

Now? No. In 50 years? Who knows?

That said, I think the German or Swiss federal models may be a better model for Europe than the US one which is more centralised.

Sixty percent of the EU budget presently is dedicated to the CAP

Yeah, and everyone loses out, except the farmers of course. Consumers pay more, third world farmers sell less. It's the biggest unsolidaric scheme on the planet, devised to benefit the few at the expense of the many and the poor. The sooner we get rid of it, the better. Not that I have my hopes too high up.

One positive impact of the potential membership of countries like Turkey and Ukraine is that they have a huge agricultural sector which would force through sweeping CAP reforms.

That was the intent of asking the question as regards Turkey and it applies in a similar fashion to the construction that you have suggested. Political union based upon a geographical concept is not bad, but is it enough? I suggest that it isn't.

I agree. Political union must be based upon a set of values. For the EU, those are democracy, the Four Freedoms of Movement, market economy, solidarity, human rights - among others. The European Constitution, if ratified, provides the necessary fundament of the political union that is the EU.

If and when Turkey fulfill all the membership criteria in practice as well as theory, it should be allowed in.

Can Turkey's army understand that it is no longer the safeguard of Kemal Attaturk's heritage?

The most important part of Ataturk's heritage is without doubt the secularisation and Europeanisation of Turkey. When Turkey joins the EU, that ambition will have been fulfilled and set in stone.

But the Turkey issue is an interesting one, especially because of rising Islamophobia in Europe which provides a challenge for the supporters of Turkey's efforts to enter the Union.

Actually, I'm going to a conference in Brussels in the beginning of February to debate just this very issue. It is entitled "Turkey's Way to EU Membership".[/quote]