The twelve-member nations of the European Community are agreed on the principle of economic integration. There is no consensus yet on all the details, but it is expected that even­tually the remaining disagreements will be resolved, if not by 1992, then at a later date.

A more divisive issue is the ques­tion regarding the political conse­quences of economic union. For some Europeans, it is self-evident that po­litical unification will be and ought to be the next step. National sovereignties are to be surrendered to a common European government, so that Europe can enter the ranks not only of our economic but also of the political superpowers.

Not nearly everyone agrees, how­ever, that the benefits of political unification outweigh the disadvan­tages. There are those, in fact, who would prefer to see the common mar­ket agreements reduced to a mere free trade agreement, whereby participating countries retain their full sovereignty. Others, who do opt for economic in­tegration and realize that the member nations will have to pool some of their sovereign powers, nevertheless insist that every effort be made to safeguard national independence. The Prime Minister of England appears to belong to that category. So does the leadership of the Reformed Political Alliance or GPV in the Netherlands. As I prom­ised last time, we will have a look at some of the arguments which this party uses to defend its stand. In doing so, I will refer especially to a report on the issue which the GPV published last fall, in preparation for the elections for the European Parliament that are scheduled for this month.

The New Internationalism⤒🔗

The reason why this report de­serves our attention is not that the GPV has all the answers. It does not. The party's recommendations do not even command the assent of the entire membership. There is a quite vocal group, containing a fair number of younger GPV members, that criticizes the report as too conservative, too cautious, and too fearful, and that ad­vocates a far more positive approach to the issue of European unification. The discussions have been heated, and the outcome is not clear. It is not at all impossible that the party will, in time to come, adjust some of its recommendations.

In other words, the recommenda­tions are not necessarily infallible, and they are not etched in stone. They nevertheless deserve our sympathetic attention, for here at least an attempt is made to evaluate the entire issue from a biblical perspective. Such an evaluation is needed, and we ought to take notice of the attempt and join in it. We live in an era when interna­tionalism is on the increase, and when the process of bloc-forming is gaining momentum. In Europe there is the European Community and the (much more loosely organized) European Free Trade Association or EFTA. In North America, we have the recently concluded free trade agreement be­tween the U.S.A. and Canada. The countries of the Asian Pacific are seriously considering to respond to the challenge issued by Europe and North America by establishing their own trade bloc, while eastern Europe is hoping for closer economic (and po­litical?) ties with the West-European community. De Gaulle's old slogan of "One Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals" (that is, to the mountain range which divides European Russia from Asiatic Siberia), is heard again these days. The pope, for one, has been pleading for the inclusion of Eastern Europe, and Gorbachev is hard at work trying to drive a wedge between the U.S.A. and its European allies, and to convince the latter that they share "one house" not with North America but with Soviet Russia.

Possible Benefits←⤒🔗

Bloc-forming can have beneficial consequences. It has the capacity of bringing about a great increase in pros­perity, witness the experience of the European Common Market countries. It can also serve as a deterrent to war. That consideration is one of the argu­ments used by advocates of a United Europe. For centuries, the continent has been plagued by ruinous and often widespread wars, the last two, those of the twentieth century, surpassing in ex­tent and destructiveness any other war in the history of our civilization. In view of this tradition, it makes sense to try to bury international rivalries and join together in one body politic, so that peace may prevail at home and a strong defence established in case of aggression by outsiders. Should Gor­bachev's policies lead to a pluralistic Russia — a thing that is still very much up in the air — the prospect of peace and prosperity for Europe could in­crease even further.

But at What Price?←⤒🔗

These are some of the benefits that may fall into a united Europe's lap, and advocates of unification like to talk about the possibility of a millennium of peace and prosperity for the old continent. Questions do arise, however, in connection with this op­timistic scenario. One of them con­cerns the price that will have to be paid for such a millennium — always as­suming that it can be achieved.

To determine that price one will have to consider the weakening of the participating countries' national and cultural identities — especially those of the smaller nations; the prospect of cultural and political domination by the larger member states; the possible loss of civil rights and social programmes that have been won in certain countries; the political, cultural, and military consequences of the expected weakening of the Atlantic connection, as well as those of the possible in­clusion of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

For the Christian there is, of course, also the question as to what the Bible says on the issue of national diversity. Is this diversity a gift of God's grace and ought it therefore to be defended at all costs? Does it, in all cases, offer the best possible guarantee for the subjects' political and civic freedoms, including the freedom of religion? Is the surrender of national sovereignty necessarily a step in the establishment or strengthening of the antichristian state of which the apoc­alypse speaks? Or could the opposite well be true, and can this type of international cooperation safeguard (and in some cases enhance) religious freedoms?

And finally, there are questions about the global repercussions of European unification. According to the more optimistic prognoses, Euro­pean unification may be expected to lead to an increase in global trade and prosperity, and therefore also help diminish the chances of global war­fare. Others point out, however, that it is just as realistic to expect the op­posite to happen. They draw attention to the oft-mentioned possibility that the European community turns protec­tionist and develops a "fortress Eur­ope" mentality, thereby inviting other regions of the world to follow suit. This type of prognosis calls to mind George Orwell's picture of a world divided into three totalitarian and ever-warring power blocs (Eurasia, Oce­ania, and Eastasia). It may seem overly pessimistic to draw parallels with Orwell's nightmarish vision, but it must be admitted that the potential for such a development exists.

The GPV Report←⤒🔗

We could go on raising questions and discussing possible consequences, both positive and negative ones, of European unification. Enough has been said, however, to show that developments in Europe are of signifi­cance not only for that continent but for the entire world, and that it is well for us to be acquainted with what is happening. We will, therefore, turn to the GPV guidelines and try to find out what are some of the questions being asked and some of the answers being proposed by Reformed Christians who are even more closely involved in the developments than are most of our readers.

The report containing the GPV guidelines is entitled, The Netherlands in Europe: federal state or independent kingdom?¹It deals with both econ­omic and political integration, but, as the title suggests, the emphasis is on the political aspects of European union. Already in the introduction the authors make it clear that it is their aim to issue a "political warning" against the dominant opinions on European politics.

Rejection of the Superstate←⤒🔗

The report begins by rejecting the idea of world union and of all kinds of power concentrations that are en­gaged in at the expense of the nation state system. The authors admit that such concentrations would probably help prevent war, but are convinced that they would also increase the possibility of oppression, and they point out that one reason for Hitler's and Stalin's failure to divide the world between them was precisely the na­tional rivalry that existed between Ger­many and Russia. The authors further refer to Augustine's preference (in his Of the City of God) for small nations over large empires, and to the biblical account of Babel in Genesis 11. When after the flood man tried to bring about a power concentration that would enable him to "reach into heaven," God frustrated the attempt by dividing mankind into different groups which later developed into separate nations. The authors do not state outright that this account is normative for present-day political action, although they seem to imply that it is. They admit that national diver­sity has its disadvantages. In addition to the fact that it seems to encourage warfare, there are examples, also to­day, of small states that are able to perpetrate and perpetuate injustices which would probably not be per­mitted within a larger political context. It is nevertheless felt that, on balance, smaller political units provide a better guarantee for the maintenance of free­dom and justice than do larger ones.

This conclusion is not to be inter­preted, however, as an argument against political cooperation among separate states. Political treaties, economic agreements, and the estab­lishment of power balances that dimin­ish friction and the possibility of war are to be encouraged, according to the report. But such cooperation must be the work of independent states which retain their sovereign powers.

This retention of national sov­ereignty is also necessary, the report points out, because governments have the duty to rule their countries as God's stewards, and to His glory. This implies, among other things, that gov­ernments must protect the Christian church, ensure religious and political freedom for all, and promote justice and righteousness. It will be difficult for a government to fulfil these duties if it relinquishes much or all of its sovereignty. In this connection the authors point out that it is important for a country like the Netherlands to strive for cooperation with nations that have a similar political and cultural tradition. This means that ties with predominantly Protestant democracies like the U.S.A. and Canada are to be preferred over close cooperation with countries with different cultural, poli­tical, and religious backgrounds, such as those in southern and eastern Eu­rope. In other words, the GPV pleads for a retention and strengthening of the Atlantic connection.

The Atlantic Connection←⤒🔗

The GPV or Reformed Political Alliance of the Netherlands agrees with the Prime Minister of England that Western Europe must maintain its special ties with North America. Its report on the implications of European integration, which I introduced last time, attacks De Gaulle's slogan of "One Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic" as unrealistic, arguing that both boundaries are wrongly drawn. It objects to the eastern one because it in­cludes Slavonic eastern Europe with its own cultural background, which is in many ways different from that of the West. It rejects the western one because it excludes the transatlantic region — specifically Canada and the USA — which has always been part of western civilization. Especially important are, in the authors' view, North America's tradition of parliamentary democracy and civil and religious liberties, and also the fact that it has been strongly influenced by Protestantism. In these and other respects it has close affinities with a country like the Netherlands, and the authors imply, that Holland would be wise to seek cooperation first of all with predominantly Protestant nations, rather than with those that have a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox background.

There are no doubt other reasons for the GPV's Atlanticism. The maintenance and even strengthening of the Atlantic ties can also be considered a safeguard against domination by a major continental power. The Dutch have always looked to the west for help against aggressive neighbors. Tradi­tionally they sought and found it in England. It is true that England was often engaged in colonial and commer­cial rivalry with the Dutch. But like them, it was interested in maintaining the European balance of power. It was especially fearful of seeing a major country gain control of the North Sea coast, and consequently it has over the centuries been one of Holland's staunchest allies in its struggles to maintain its independence.

USA and NATO←⤒🔗

It is understandable, therefore, that the Dutch were anxious to see England join the European Communi­ty, and that they continue to rely on it as a counterbalance against the in­fluence of continental heavy-weights like France and Germany. Militarily, however, England's role has largely been taken over by the United States of America, the major partner in the North Atlantic Alliance. It is this alliance, the NATO, with the USA as senior partner, that the report considers to be of paramount importance. The authors fear that an adversary situation between the European Community and the USA may lead to a reduction in the American military presence in Europe. America's increasing strategic and commercial concerns with other areas of the world tend to increase the danger. The result may well be a grow­ing inclination, especially in Germany, to adopt a neutralist position. A primary concern of European and Dutch politics should therefore be, according to the report, the removal of whatever threatens the North Atlantic unity and the smooth operation of the alliance.

Two Extremes: Nationalism and Federalism←⤒🔗

Having dealt with the Atlantic connection, the report returns to the matter of national diversity. It states that Christian politics must guard against two dangers. On the one hand there is the tendency to make an idol of one's country — the ideology of doc­trinaire nationalism that has caused so much havoc in Europe in the past. This type of collective egotism, which denies the unity of the human race and demands a superior position for one's own group at the expense of others, is contrasted to a legitimate concern for the defence of one's country. Govern­ments may and must provide protec­tion for their citizens, so that these citizens, in peaceful cooperation with those of other countries, can fulfil the task that has been given them on this earth.

The second, and opposite, danger that Christians must fight against, ac­cording to the report, is that of a global federalism which denies national diversity and strives for one world culture. The report admits that nations and peoples are not ends in themselves. They exist as means for the achievement of a goal beyond themselves: the glorification of God.

The concern of the Christian politician is therefore not with one na­tion, but with all nations. But it is for that very reason, the report states, that it is important to keep one's national base intact. To oppose the erosion of national sovereignty is not to embrace nationalism; it is, rather, to maintain the proper framework within which to execute God's mandate both national­ly and internationally. And while it is not imperative to retain all national ac­complishments, it is important to pro­tect those that are of significance in the fulfilment of this mandate. In this con­nection the authors mention such mat­ters as the Dutch electoral system which makes it possible for small parties to participate in parliament, the system of Christian education and Christian social, cultural and political organiza­tions, the Dutch tradition of religious tolerance and religious and civil liber­ties, and also the influence of the con­fession,

which has pointed many generations to the Bible as source of justice, freedom and peace.

These national achievements may not be sacrificed, the authors insist, on the altar of European unity.

Summary of Concerns←⤒🔗

The question still remains, about the goal to be served. If the purpose of governments and peoples is the honor of God, the Creator and Source of all life and well­being, then one of the government's duties is to oppose lawlessness and a rampant materialism in public life. On these topics very little has been said by Euro-politicians and by national par­ties involved in Euro-politics. It is especially for this reason that the GPV has typified its report as a warning against the "dominant opinions" on European politics.

The concluding section summar­izes the GPV's main objections to these policies. Firstly, it mentions the danger of Euro-materialism — the tendency to make areas that cannot be qualified as economic, subservient to politico-economic ideals. This even leads to the proposal that the sovereignty of the member states be sacrificed if that is necessary for the sake of economic progress. But to establish a United Europe on such a basis is dangerous. It provides insufficient guarantees for spiritual vitality, and it lacks the necessary antidotes to all sorts of ideologies that may arise, including totalitarian ones.

Another danger which the authors mention is that of Euro-nationalism — the political equivalent of economic protectionism. They warn that such Euro-nationalism will cause interna­tional tensions and may lead to a weakening of the NATO alliance. The authors once again stress the necessity that America remains fully involved in the defence of Europe, and they warn that the reforms of Gorbachev do not end the threat of domination by the Soviet Union.

In the authors' view "even a non-communist Russia ... will continue to be a superpower with which Western Europe has little in common, and against which the rest of Europe will have to continue to protect itself".

Postscript: the European Elections←⤒🔗

So much for the GPV report, which was issued in connection with the elections for the European parlia­ment. Those elections have now been held (on June 15th and 18th). The media informed us that gains were made by the socialists and the en­vironmentalists (the Greens). The left will have a majority in the European Parliament, while the extreme right, in­cluding the neo-fascist Republican Par­ty in Germany, also gained. One of the main losers was Margaret Thatcher. It appears that in majority the English object to her cautious policy with respect to Europe. Thatcher's loss is Brussel's gain, and the realization of the federalists' dream has come one step closer.

If the federalists succeed in establishing a United States of Europe, it will be a momentous achievement — one which reverses a trend in European history that has lasted for a millennium and a half. Western civilization arose on the ruins of the Roman empire, and Rome was the last of the great world powers in the Mediterranean area. The barbarians who defeated and succeed­ed Rome established separate "na­tions" with their own tribal backgrounds, their own kings, and soon with their own national lan­guages. Ever since that time, attempts to restore the unity once imposed by the Roman Empire have come to nought. They failed in the Middle Ages, when the attempts were made by Charlemagne and the German emperors. They also failed in the modern period, when Charles V and Philip II of Spain, Louis XIV of France, and later Napoleon and Hitler, tried to unite Europe under their rule. And it has happened only rarely in European history that separate nations voluntarily gave up their identity to join a larger whole. Far more often, especially in the modern period, we see the opposite: groups trying to separate themselves from larger units — because of religious, linguistic, economic, ethnic, or other differences — to form their own independent na­tion state.

For Better or for Worse?←⤒🔗

That this stubborn, 1500-year old tradition now seems to be in the process of being reversed, and that this is being done voluntarily, is one of the most astounding developments in the modern age. How is one to interpret it? Do we applaud it as a healthy develop­ment, one of the most promising ef­forts ever made to banish disunity and war? Or do we agree with the GPV leadership that the dangers — to the member states individually and to Europe as a whole — outweigh the advantages of European unification? Is it even possible that in the rising tide of internationalism we have to see a return to the system of power concentrations of ancient times? In other words, should we interpret these developments in eschatological terms, as the fulfil­ment of apocalyptic visions?

This has been suggested by some authors. The GPV report, although it opposes European unification also on biblical grounds; does not explicitly refer to such an eschatological explana­tion. I think that it rightly refrains from doing so; mankind has too often gone astray trying to put dates to the proph­ecies of the Apocalypse. But this is not to deny that the present-day striving for unity involves dangers, also for the Christian church, and that the GPV report is right in pointing this out. To quote once more from that report:

Nations and peoples form no un­changeable entities with unchangeable frontiers. They are means to reach a goal: the glorification of the great King. But if the peoples reject that high goal, then their power concentration often signifies also a concentration of sin: And who can deny that this goal is indeed being rejected?

We cannot predict the future. We are told, however, to understand the times by the light of the Scriptures. In a period of great upheaval and rapid change, of the rise and fall of ideologies and empires, Christians will the more eagerly turn to the Bible. They will do so in order to be in­structed about God's dealings with the world in the latter days, to be taught about their political calling, and also in order to learn how to pray for the Com­ing of the Kingdom, and for the peace and wellbeing of the nations.