Tensions between Nationalism and Internationalism: European Union Curriculum Resources for Grade 11 Social Studies Classrooms in Alberta Robert Gardner Kent den Heyer Wayne Lavold Kelsey McCready Kenneth Mouré George Richardson Jana Stejskalikova Lori Thorlakson The development of this resource was co-funded with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this resource are the sole responsibility of the European Union Centre of Excellence at the University of Alberta and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission.
43
Embed
Tensions between Nationalism and Internationalism · The three case studies here focus on the tensions between nationalism and internationalism as reflected in the European Union.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Tensions between Nationalism and Internationalism: European Union Curriculum Resources for Grade 11 Social Studies Classrooms in Alberta
Robert Gardner Kent den Heyer Wayne Lavold Kelsey McCready Kenneth Mouré George Richardson Jana Stejskalikova Lori Thorlakson
The development of this resource was co-funded with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this resource are the sole responsibility of the European Union Centre of Excellence at the University of Alberta and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission.
Copyright material belonging to a third-party and referenced herein may have been reproduced with permission,
separately licensed, or the content has been reproduced under the fair dealing exception in the Canadian
Copyright Act. Further reproduction of the material outside the context of this publication may require
permission from the copyright owner.
HOW TO USE THIS RESOURCE
This resource is intended to aid in addressing Related Issue III of the grade eleven Social
Studies Program of Studies for Alberta. The resource focuses on the Specific Outcomes 3.1 to
3.9 under Skills and Processes as well as Skills Outcomes relating to Critical and Creative
Thinking and Communication. In anticipation of curricular changes related to “competencies
of the 21st Century Learner” this resource also addresses Critical Thinking and Problem
Solving skills by exposing students to the dilemmas inherent in membership in international
organizations, and by inviting students through various assessment tasks to consider what
nations should do when faced with a variety of challenges.
The three case studies here focus on the tensions between nationalism and internationalism as
reflected in the European Union. The case studies examine economic union, principally the
common currency; identity and questions about what constitutes national citizenship; and
environmental issues related to developing a common policy regarding climate change.
Teachers will notice that while the three case studies deal with distinct issues there is
considerable overlap and interrelatedness. The resource is flexible and adaptable: teachers
may use any or all of the case studies in any particular sequence.
Each of the three case studies includes a brief story that sets context for the issue, a
“backgrounder” section that provides historical foundation to the current EU policy under
investigation, and three assessment opportunities. The assessment pieces have built in
differentiation. Students can choose which of the three assessment tasks they would like to
engage with. The intention is that this is a five-day unit but is expandable and contractible to
accommodate the needs of individual classrooms.
Throughout this resource there are various questions, quotes from political and national
leaders, images and charts. Students are invited to engage with any or all of these by writing
in a notebook or journal; these responses would aid in preparing to complete the assessments
at the end of each case study, and for the final assessment.
Introduction: Nella Last, a housewife living in Barrow-in-Furness, England, kept a diary during World War II for the social research group Mass Observation, and her diary later became the basis for an award-winning television drama, Housewife 49. She continued her diary after the war, and recorded the harsh conditions of everyday life. Shortages of essential goods continued, especially for food and coal, and there were long queues to buy food. Bread, unrestricted during the war, was rationed starting in July 1946. Nella accepted the wartime shortages as a worthwhile sacrifice for the war effort, but she did not expect them to continue and to grow worse when the war was over. “The New Year is going to be a shock for people,” she wrote in December 1945. “Things will be very tight and on the whole more difficult than in the war years, for there will be so many more civilians and so many less things to buy.” Europe suffered vast human and material losses in WW II. The need to restore political stability and economic well-being was widely recognized in 1945. More than 40 million Europeans died in the war, more than 13 million were “displaced persons,” cities and communications networks had been damaged by bombing, and economies were producing at a fraction of their prewar levels. The challenge was enormous. How might security and basic comforts be restored to tens of millions of people in an environment of unimaginable destruction? Former competitors and enemies would need to cooperate to solve problems and improve conditions for all citizens. A balance would need to be struck between the collective interests of the whole continent and those of individual countries of distinct language, culture, resources and economic strength. One key Allied objective announced in the Atlantic Charter in 1941 was that all men in all lands should be able to live “in freedom from fear and want.” The United Nations Organization in 1945, the World Bank and IMF, and in 1947 the announcement of the European Recovery Program, were all institutions created to promote cooperation. They were intended to reorder and rebuild an international structure to foster peace and economic security. Cooperation was needed to share scarce resources, to restore trust between nations, and to foster economic growth. Consider some key issues and questions regarding the proposed large scale cooperation:
The war had been a conflict rooted in nationalism. To what extent could international institutions build cooperation without damage to national interests?
How might countries work together when some enjoyed advantages that others would not?
How would national governments respond to opportunities that would limit their national sovereignty?
Background: The path from devastation in 1945 to today’s European Union of 28 countries, with a single market and a common currency (the euro, used by 17 member states), was a path taken in small steps. It fixed attention on attainable goals rather than an ultimate destination. Economic reconstruction and relief were the immediate needs. The first steps were slow, focused on reconstruction, and on institutions to provide security for international payments and bilateral trade. By 1950, cooperation developed to coordinate the production of raw materials across borders (The European Coal and Steel Community). In 1957 the Treaties of Rome created the European Economic Community of six countries to establish a customs union, create a single market for goods, labour and capital, and provide for common commercial, agricultural and transport policies. In subsequent steps, new members joined the Community. Further integration removed barriers to the free movement of goods, labour and capital, and monetary union introduced a single currency, the euro. Member states agreed to cooperate in more challenging areas such as foreign policy, security, justice and home affairs. The member states of the European Union (as it has been called since the 1992 Treaty on European Union) have tried to solve policy problems by working together. This worked best in policy areas where the economic benefits were most obvious (such as creating a single market that every member state could access) or where the policy problems were cross-border by nature (such as environmental policy) and in rather technical matters. In these areas the European Union developed strong supranational methods of cooperation, with policy-making led by a European-level executive (the European Commission in Brussels, Belgium) and, more recently, by the European Parliament. The trade-off was that individual member states participated in policy-making, but no longer had independent sovereign power in these policy areas. Cooperation was most difficult in policy areas that are traditionally part of a sovereign state’s core functions (such as foreign policy) or in policy areas that are politically contentious (such as taxation). In these areas, the member states still cooperate, but do so in an intergovernmental style, with each state keeping the right to block common decisions by exercising a veto (e.g. foreign policy) or else by coordinating their policies in a non-binding way (e.g. economic growth policies).
What would be the driving force behind this unprecedented effort at economic and political integration?
How might national interests be affected by the limitations and responsibilities necessary for cooperation?
The European Union represents an interesting case study of the tensions between nationalism and internationalism, between cooperation and independence. Thus far the great experiment has been remarkably successful in some areas, but continues to face challenges as the Union evolves and expands in a changing world. The European Union remains a work in progress.
Economic needs alone do not explain the persistence and the extent of integration efforts. Economies had recovered and surpassed their prewar levels of output within a few years after the war. Integration continued and ambitions developed to extend integration; obstacles altered the course of integration without arresting its progress. Economic integration necessarily involves political decisions and limitations on national authority. Individual countries give up rights to determine national policies in agreeing to cooperative programs negotiated by international agreement. Integration requires sacrifices of national autonomy in exchange for benefits of cooperation and coordination to better solve policy problems. Three issues are particularly important for understanding the national interests at stake in the process of integration:
1. Economic control of the national economy in creating a common currency Completing the common market meant sharing a common currency (the euro). The European Central Bank controls the single currency. A stable and successful common currency requires the coordination of national budget policies. Budgets are still under control of national governments, but they face pressure to coordinate their policies and accept deficit and debt limits to keep the currency stable.
2. Challenges to national identity when labour can move freely across
borders. Immigration is an issue that challenges national identity. The single market means that workers from EU countries are free to move across EU borders to work in any member state. When immigration is not related to the movement of EU workers, member states control their own policies, but face pressures to coordinate policies at the European level.
3. Challenges to national economies when environmental and energy policies
are decided by international agreement. In the EU, some policy areas, like the environment, are predominantly supranational, determined at the European level. Other areas, like climate change and energy policy, are intergovernmental. They require agreement from all member states. This mix of supranational and national responsibility for policies poses a challenge for the development of national economic growth strategies. In Canada, it is sometimes difficult for governments to develop policies when they affect both federal and provincial policy areas.
CASE STUDY #1 – Economic union
Derek’s story
In the month of July, 1985 Derek decided to get away from London for a month-long holiday
in Europe. He had planned and saved for several weeks and put together a budget for his trip.
He would charge all his travel, accommodation and eating costs to his credit card in order to
keep track of expenses, but he set aside £1000 buy souvenirs or gifts for himself.
Derek went to a bank in London to purchase Belgian francs; the bank charged a 1.5%
transaction fee but he was able to get 78850 francs – plenty enough to shop with. Derek
enjoyed the mild weather and busy streets of Brussels, but after two days decided to move
onto France. Due to daily fluctuations in currency values that were common that summer the
Belgian Franc was actually worth slightly less than it had been a few days earlier; not enough
to be troublesome, but the bank in Brussels did charge 1.5% for exchanging Belgian to
French Francs. Over the next few days Derek spent many lunch hours in outdoor cafes along
the Seine but couldn’t find any gifts or souvenirs that captured his imagination. After six days
he moved on to Spain. Curiously, that week the Franc had been falling in value against the
Spanish peseta, but not a lot. A Paris bank charged a 1.5% exchange fee but Derek bought
218000 peseta, plenty enough to shop with. The historic sites in Madrid were magnificent,
but there were still no great souvenirs to be bothered with. After three days Derek moved on
to Italy. The Spanish currency was never as valuable as the Italian lira but the past week had
seen a notable drop. A Madrid bank charged 1.5% exchange fee but Derek bought 242000
lira, plenty enough to shop with. Rome was more vivid and grand in reality than in any movie
he’d seen, but Derek couldn’t bring himself to buy picture books that he could get back in
London and after a week of superb dining he chose to move on to Germany. A bank in Rome
charged a 1.5% exchange fee and the German Marks were quite a bit more valuable than the
lira. Still, DM 3666 was plenty enough to shop with. The divided Germany was remarkable,
the Berlin Wall cut through the city like a sword slashing history and culture, families and
memories. After several days of sight-seeing and strolling through Tiergarten Park, Derek
decided to head home. No souvenirs, no new clothes, and no books or coffee mugs were
bought, but it was a fantastic trip. Derek returned to London and cashed in his Marks where
the bank charged 1.5%. Without having bought so much as a single postcard Derek went
home with £852.50.
This account, based on currency statistics at the time, illustrate a problem of multiple
currencies coexisting in a relatively small trade, travel and business area. And consumers and
travelers were affected in much the same way that businesses were. Companies,
manufacturers and business people would also have to deal with the challenge of varying
exchange rates. The common currency, the Euro, came into effect in 1999 as an attempt to
solve this problem and to make travel and business more efficient.
ANALYSIS, ISSUES, PERSPECTIVES
Economic union and the creation of a single currency were intended to make commerce,
trade and travel easier; in essence, to advance the goals of international free trade. An
argument is made that if businesses and citizens could move across borders with fewer
regulations then profits and efficiencies would increase. Workers would be free to apply for
employment in any part of the Union, consumers could purchase goods and services from
anywhere without paying additional tariffs or fees. More people do more work, buy more
products and generate more income. This would benefit everyone living within the economic
union.
Although a single currency does work toward solving a problem of trade, travel and
consumerism, other challenges emerge. What if growth in Germany is particularly strong,
resulting in rapidly rising wages, costs, inflation and a need for higher interest rates? Should
Italy also expect rising costs even if many people don’t have jobs at all? The government of
Norway has such a staggeringly large savings fund that it can offer generous social programs
that France cannot.
There are other concerns about a single currency that are not even related to economics or
trade. If there is a common currency does it imply any common identity? What pictures
should be engraved into, say, the €10 or €20 or €50 notes? Are there scenes or famous people
that all Europeans would regard as representative of their culture, language or heritage?
ASSESSMENT
1. Create a promotional poster and brochure advertising a new NAFTA common
currency.
design the front and back of the bills and coins to be used
explain why the different images were chosen and what they represent
2. Stage a “press conference” role play
2 – 3 students will play the role of officials presenting a new currency and will
explain to the rest of the class how a new currency was established and what
the benefits are perceived to be
2 – 3 other students will play the role of civic or business leaders who are
opposed to the new currency explaining why we should not proceed with a
common currency
both groups of presenters should be prepared to answer questions
the rest of the students in the class will play the role of reporters who will
record arguments presented and ask questions of the presenters
3. Conduct some on-line research to find reasons for currency fluctuations.
Choose three currencies: Canada, US and one other, then compare exchange
rates
Track the value of the Canadian dollar for two weeks
CASE STUDY #2 – Migration
Andrei's Story
Andrei is twenty-three years old. For most of his life, he has suffered from abject poverty in
the small Romanian town he grew up in. In this, he is not alone. Romania and its neighbor on
the Black Sea, Bulgaria, are amongst the poorest nations in Europe. More than 20% of the
people live below the poverty line – but even that doesn't tell the whole story as poverty in
Romania is much worse than it is elsewhere. The richest 10% of Romanian citizens would be
within the poorest 10% of British wage-earners.1
Unemployment is a major problem in Eastern Europe, especially amongst young people.
Almost 1 in 4 young Romanians lack meaningful employment. This means that, for people
like Andrei, it has been difficult to begin an adult life. He has been living in his parents' home
and has been unable to purchase a car or consider marrying his girlfriend.
Life changed for Andrei this year when he and his brother, Dinu, took advantage of the rules
of the European Union's Schengen agreement and moved to Germany to find work.
Following in the footsteps of many of their friends, they became two of the over three million
Romanians who live outside of their home country in order to find a better life.
When they arrived in Dortmund, they were limited in the types of jobs that they could seek –
when Romania and Bulgaria entered the European Union in 2007, the wealthier countries put
restrictions on economic migration, fearful of what they called 'benefit tourism', when
migrants from poorer countries seek to move to nations with more advantageous social
welfare programs. But, as of 2014, those restrictions are gone and, like any other of the more
than 300 million working age Europeans, Andrei can be hired for any job in Germany.
Andrei now works as a delivery driver. He makes more in a week than he could make in six
months back home. In Romania, when he could get work, he earned less than €250 per
month as compared with more than €2800 in Germany. While the cost of living is certainly
higher in his new home, there is no doubt that Andrei lives much better than he did before.
Yet there are problems. Far from home, Andrei misses his family and sends quite a bit of his
earnings back to support them. His German, while improving, remains a barrier to integrating
into German culture. He thus spends most of his time with other Romanians. He lives in a
neighborhood that contains many other migrants from his home country where it is easier to
communicate and where he feels comfortable. Romanian food and music remain an important
part of his life.
It is this that brings him into conflict with a growing number of Germans who worry about
the economic migration into their country. They see Romanians and Bulgarians as stealing
German jobs and putting strains on the German social system, filling schools and hospitals
while applying for welfare benefits when they are not working. This concern has led, as it has
in countries around the EU, to an increase in xenophobia – a fear of foreigners, and
discrimination against economic migrants. Andrei has experienced name-calling and, a
1 Poverty in Europe: the Current Situation, Inequality Watch (26 January 2012)
http://www.inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article99 accessed March 10, 2014. Stats are from Eurostat, the EU's
statistics gathering arm.
couple of times, physical violence from gangs of young unemployed men who blame him and
his friends for their problems.
Yet his life is so much better than it was before. He has a small apartment of his own and is
saving for a car. He has brought his girlfriend and her young daughter to Germany and they
are thinking of getting married. In essence, because of the opportunities offered through the
Schengen Agreement, Andrei has a future
Background: the Schengen Agreement and European Migration
In 1985, the European Union began to gradually reduce, then eliminate, border controls
between their countries. This means that, for all intents and purposes, Europe operates as a
single nation in terms of international travel – no visas are required, no passports are needed
and border controls have largely disappeared.
As of 2014, 22 members of the EU and four
non-member states have signed the Schengen
Agreement (named after the small town in
Luxembourg where the agreement was signed),
with four more countries scheduled to do so in
the future. Only two EU countries have opted
out completely – Ireland and the United
Kingdom.
In this way, citizens of these countries have
become citizens of Europe. They don't have
national passports, instead carrying the passport
of the European Union issued in their own
country. The European commission argues that
“free movement of persons is a fundamental
right guaranteed by the EU to its citizens. It
entitles every EU citizen to travel, work and live
in any EU country without special formalities"2
This is a significant reduction in the national
sovereignty of member states. Throughout
modern history, one of the major powers of a national government is control over who is
permitted to enter their country and under what conditions. Under the Schengen Agreement,
governments only have this power over individuals from countries outside the 'Schengen
Area'.
But the advantages are huge. Think of the differences between travel between Canadian
provinces and to foreign countries. When you go to British Columbia or Ontario, there are no
border controls to deal with or visas to obtain. However, when you travel to a foreign country
you are required to show passport identification at a border crossing, often forcing you to
wait for hours if you are driving or face long line-ups at airports. Europeans can travel
between member states just like we can between provinces. This is more efficient and
cheaper for everyone.
2 Schengen Area (European Commission) http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-
and-visas/schengen/index_en.htm accessed March 10, 2014.
The Schengen Area as of 2014
The EU's Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding told students in Belgium recently: "Today,
as European citizens... you can travel 3,000km (1,860 miles) across Europe - from Vilnius in
Lithuania to Valencia in Spain - without once stopping at a border."3
Even more importantly, the citizens of Schengen states can live and work permanently
anywhere they wish. This common labour market allows citizens access to jobs throughout
28 countries, vastly increasing options for European workers. By 2014, over 14 million
Europeans lived and worked in member states other than the one of their birth.
The basis for this was the desire to encourage the free movement of people (labour), money
(capital), goods and information throughout Europe, thus improving economic prospects for
both individual Europeans and countries as a whole. Countries that lack domestic options to
fill job vacancies benefit as they have access to a broader pool of talent. When the economy
slows in one member country, the unemployed can find work in others – such as the case
during the recent Euro crisis in which Greek, Spanish and Italian workers found employment
in economically healthier Germany, Poland, Scandinavia and the Netherlands.
The right to travel and work throughout Europe is very popular for many Europeans who
consistently rank it to be the most positive accomplishment of the EU (ahead of peace, the
Euro and democracy, in a 2013 EU survey).4
Yet it is also controversial. Borders allow for national governments to control the make-up of
their populations – for many years, this has been considered an important element of national
independence. For many European nationalists, the Schengen Agreement has resulted in a
watering down of their national cultures as well as a threat to the economic security of their
own populations. They see economic migrants as competition for jobs, social welfare
programs and spots in schools or hospitals. Germans refer to this as 'poverty migration'; in
Britain they call it 'benefits tourism'. They are angry at what the influx of people from other
cultures means for the survival of their own way of life.
The reality is that poverty does drive migration. Just as happens in Canada when one region
of the country experiences higher unemployment or lower income, people migrate to where
prospects for a better life appear greater. Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia have large
populations of Newfoundlanders and Saskatchewanians for exactly this reason. In Europe,
the movement is largely from the East to the West. Since 2004, eight Eastern European
countries have entered the European Union (most recently Romania and Bulgaria in 2007).
All of these countries are poorer and have higher unemployment than Western Europe. Thus
hundreds of thousands of people have taken advantage of the free labour market to improve
their lives.
The result has been growing xenophobia in many countries. One of the more negative
expressions of nationalism, xenophobia reflects the belief that national citizenship should be
limited to those belonging to the dominant ethnic and/or civic nation within the country.
Xenophobes generally desire to limit immigration and even to expel ‘outsiders’ from their
homeland.
Political parties that wish to restrict immigration are getting far more support throughout
Europe than they have in the past. In the 1980s, very few xenophobic parties earned as much
as 5% of the popular vote in national and regional elections. Today many of these movements
have representatives in parliaments. Some of these parties are extremist, raising fears of a
resurgence of fascism or neo-Nazism (such as the Golden Dawn party in Greece who want to
eject all non-Greeks from the country and received 7% of the vote in 2012 or the anti-Semitic
Freedom Party in Austria which denies the Holocaust and got 26% of the national vote in
3 Laurence Peter, Q&A: EU freedom of movement (BBC News Europe, Dec. 5, 2013),
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25237742 accessed March 8, 2014. 4European Commission, Public Opinion in the European Union (Standard Europebarometer 79: Spring, 2013)
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb79/eb79_publ_en.pdf accessed March 8, 2014.
1999). Yet the majority of the xenophobic parties are not racist. They are conservative,
traditional and democratic, but wish to limit migration in order to protect their national
culture and economy.5
Canada, as with most states, firmly controls its own immigration. There are strict rules about
who is permitted to enter the country and who is allowed to live and work here. This is
considered to be an important element of Canadian national sovereignty. Our national culture,
however, is one that encourages migration and tends to feel less threatened by the existence
of cultural diversity than is the case in some European countries. Official multiculturalism is
a key element and reflection of this. These policies appear to have worked successfully in our
country, yet this is not necessarily the case elsewhere. Britain has also attempted to promote
multiculturalism, but, in recent years, this has led to significant criticism as a ‘failed
experiment’ due to the perceived failure of many immigrants to integrate into British society.
Are such critiques present in Canada? Certainly not to the degree that they exist in Britain
and other European states. Yet evidence exists that there are many who are worried about the
influx of cultures considered ‘foreign’ to traditional Canadian culture. In 2013, the Quebec
government introduced the Quebec Charter of Values, which limited the wearing of obvious
reflections of religious belief while working for the provincial government. Since the most
evident examples of this were Muslim in nature (bourkas, nikabs and turbans), the Charter
has been criticized for discriminating against the beliefs of non-Christian immigrants.
This is a fairly mild expression of anti-immigrant beliefs and is limited to one portion of the
country (although individual viewpoints vary everywhere). However, our government
5 James Mayfield, Explaining the Rapid Rise of the Xenophobic Right in Contemporary Europe (GeoCurrents,
To what extent does a country, whether it is an European Union member state or a sovereign
nation in the world, have the right to place their perspective of their own country’s common
good (vis-à-vis the development of their economy, industrial growth, environment or culture)
over that of the larger collective?
To what extent does a national government have the right to place their particular interest
over that of the supranational organization interest that it is a member state of?
Assessment
1. From Anatol’s perspective, write a letter to the editor of the local newspaper presenting
your opinion on the issues facing Polish’s coal miners.
2. Role- play debate/press conference: Should Canada have the ability to back out of
legally binding climate change policy in favour of the government’s perceived
national interest?
Students act as stakeholders in a parliamentary committee meeting - Canadian
MPs (including Minister of Environment, Minister of Finance), Canadian
business people (from different provinces and industries. E.g. Albertan oil
company executive), Environmentalist, Canadian nationalists concerned about
the violation of national sovereignty
Students use knowledge about Poland and the impact of their European Union
membership has on their ability to exercise their government’s perceived
national interest in regards to climate change policy
3. Create a government public service announcement promoting the move towards
nuclear energy in Poland and the ratifying of the European Union’s policy on climate
change.
4. Create a “peaceful protest speech” – Students take the perspective of the unemployed
coal miners and create a speech outlining the issues they have with the EU policy on
climate change, the impact on their government’s energy sector and economy and the
consequences for themselves and their families. Students need to explore both sides
of the issue to provide critical and thoughtful arguments to support their position.
While Britain decided to participate in the trade agreement it decided not to join the currency
union and has continued to use the Pound Sterling. Former British Chancellor of the
Exchequer and later Prime Minister Gordon Brown offered some observations about joining
the single currency. For him, a chief concern was how to deal with potential crises. If one or
two Euro zone countries faced an internal crisis all the others would be affected by it.
Deficits, growth, interest rates, investment and even home ownership in Britain would be tied
to economic problems in Spain or Greece and Britain would not be able to stabilize its own
economy. Brown also argued that since unemployment rates and government social programs
were not the same across Europe, policies in one area would not necessarily be appropriate in
another area.
WHAT CANADA WOULD DO
The idea of a common currency is an attractive one from the point of view of simplifying
travel and trade, but we have seen that it is also fraught with potential hazards. Canada and
the United States each have a single currency used by millions of people spread out over a
large geographical area, and each has a central bank and central economic policy. And some
regions enjoy stronger economic growth and prosperity than others, not unlike Europe. So
what is different in North America and why would Canada not join a currency union with,
say, the US?
In a sense, Canada can address its own economic imbalances internally in a way that Europe
cannot or does not at this time. In Canada people simply move from one region to another in
search of work or better economic opportunities. In contrast, very few citizens of one
European country live outside that country (only about 2.5% in 2010).
The dilemma of culture as seen in Europe is noted in Canada. The recently re-designed
polymer notes all reflect some element of Canadian history. If Canada joined a currency
union with the United States, would Canadians embrace currency with engravings of former
presidents rather than prime ministers, Lincoln Memorial rather than Vimy Ridge?
THE FINAL ASSESSMENT TIES BACK INTO THE THREE CASE STUDIES.
What questions does EU answer?
What would we need to give up to get what benefits to achieve union with US?
What should we learn from each other – Canada and EU?
Develop a set of symbols that would reflect Canada-US union.
Timeline 1939 Start of World War II in Europe 1945 Creation of the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and World Bank 1947 Benelux Treaty Marshall Plan speech 1948 Creation of Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), becomes
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1966 1951 European Coal and Steel Community Treaty (signed by Belgium, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands, France, Germany and Italy) 1955 Messina Conference to plan the European Economic Community (EEC) 1957 Treaty of Rome 1958 Treaty of Rome comes into effect creating the EEC 1968 European Common Market fully operative 18 months ahead of schedule 1971 Member states agree to plan for Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) by 1980 1973 Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom join the EEC 1981 Greece joins the EEC 1985 Schengen Agreement on frontier controls (signed as the Schengen Treaty in
1990) 1986 Spain and Portugal join the EEC 1986 Single European Act signed 1990 Beginning of Stage 1 of EMU 1992 Maastricht Treaty on European Union (TEU) signed 1994 Beginning of Stage 2 of EMU 1995 Austria, Finland and Sweden join the EU 1999 Beginning of Stage 3 of EMU; euro launched as a currency of account in 11
states 2002 Euro bank notes and coin replace national currencies in 12 members of
Slovakia and Slovenia become members of the EU, which now has 25 member states
2007 Bulgaria and Romania join the EU 2013 Croatia become member of the EU 2013 The EU and Canada sign an agreement in principle on The Comprehensive
Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)
Essential Terms Bilateralism – Negotiation and coordination between two nation states. Multilateralism – Negotiation and coordination among several nation states, generally for policies common to all participants. Nationalism – Focus on the interests of one’s own nation state. National sovereignty – A legal expression of the right to self-government by a state or nation. It entails the declaration by a political system to operate independently. Internationalism – Political, economic and cultural cooperation among several nation states without sacrifice of national sovereignty. Supranationalism – A sharing of sovereignty in an international institution (such as the EU) that has power delegated by nation states to decide and coordinate policies common for all members.
Glossary (alphabetical) Allies – The countries that opposed the Axis powers (Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) during the World War II. The chief Allied Powers were Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, the United States, and China. Atlantic Charter – The joint declaration issued by F. D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in August 1941, resulting from a conference at sea, and setting forth the peace aims of their governments for the period following World War II. Benelux – The abbreviated name for Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, who began common policies to integrate their economies in 1947. Bretton Woods – The resort town in New Hampshire where an international conference decided in July 1944 to create the IMF, the World Bank, and the system in order to stabilize international currency values by their exchange rates with the US dollar and thus to gold at $35 per ounce. The Bretton Woods system lasted until 1971. Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) – A monetary union with a common currency, first discussed in the Werner Report in 1970, its terms decided in the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, and the common currency, the euro, launched as an accounting unit in 1999 and as a currency in circulation in 2002. European Central Bank (ECB) – The bank responsible for monetary policy in the euro zone, based in Frankfurt. European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) – Announced in 1950, commenced operations in 1952, supranational cooperation to organize coal and steel production among six countries: Benelux, France, Germany and Italy.
European Commission – The executive body of the EU; initiates legislation and implements EU policies. European Council – Comprised of heads of state or government from member states, provides political direction for the EU. European Economic Community (EEC) – Created in 1958 to establish a customs union (no tariffs between member countries, common external tariff); the first step in economic integration for Benelux, France, Germany and Italy. It joined with the ECSC and Euratom in a common administration in 1967; known as the European Community since the 1993 Maastricht Treaty. European Parliament – Elected from member states; members serve five-year terms and sit in European party groups. Parliamentarians vote on EU legislation and approve appointments to the European Commission. European Recovery Program (Marshall Plan) – Announced by General George C. Marshall in June 1947; US aid to European countries to assist economic recovery and modernization 1947-1952. European Union (EU) – The economic and political union of member states established by the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty) signed in 1992 and in effect starting 1993. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) – A series of trade negotiations beginning in 1947 to reduce tariffs and barriers to trade on a multilateral basis. International Monetary Fund (IMF) – An international fund established at Bretton Woods in 1944, located in Washington, DC, to provide credits to countries experiencing international payments difficulties. Treaties of Rome – Two treaties signed in 1957, in effect 1958, creating the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). United Nations (UN) – Established in 1945 to provide a forum for discussion to resolve disputes between nations. Its Security Council, whose purpose is to maintain peace and security amongst all countries, has five permanent members – the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China – and ten non-permanent members who are elected for two-year terms.
Images Image 1: German occupation of France: Strasbourg - Alsace, Karl Roos Platz (Place Kléber in french), 13 October 1941.
Churchill’s United States of Europe speech (Zurich, 19 September 1946): Text: http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html
Video (sound only): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8oUyFS556s
Marshall Plan: Text of George C. Marshall address (Harvard, 5 June 1947): http://www.oecd.org/general/themarshallplanspeechatharvarduniversity5june1947.htm