Peace in Western Europe

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

I am writing this in response to a comment by someone who -- quite sincerely, I assume -- believed the age old propaganda mantra according to which the European Union (or its previous incarnations) has "kept the peace," turning Europe, from, I quote, a

paranoid, always on the brink of war, hellhole

into an Eden of peace, and, our author manifests that

It scares the hell out of me to think what will happen if most people forget the grim reality of Europe before that "horrible" EU.

What our friend has just quoted is one of the most effective arguments employed by europhile propaganda. By drawing from the fact that there has not been, indeed, any armed conflict between the major countries of Europe since 1945, the Europhile propaganda assures us that this happy situation comes undoubtedly from European integration, and that therefore only crazy, dangerous warmongers could challenge it.

It is an argument that is as compelling as it is intimidating, and yet it is faulty, flawed, and dangerous.

First of all, the European Union (or rather, the process of European integration) has had nothing to do with keeping the peace in Europe since 1945.

Why?

First of all, even though the Schumann Declaration was pronounced on May 9th 1950, the Treaty of Rome was only signed on March 25th 1957 and the institutions were built, gradually, since then.

This simple reminder can already disprove that the EU may have served to keep the peace between 1945 and the early 1960's, as we cannot attribute benefits to something that didn't even exist at the time.

Therefore, it is not thanks to the primitive, early ECSC or the Treaty of Rome (since it didn't exist) that the Berlin Blockade in 1953 or the Hungarian insurrection in 1956 didn't degenerate into global conflicts. If there had been a war in Europe at the time, in any case, it certainly wouldn't have opposed either side of the Rhine, but rather, the Western side, led by the United States, and the Soviet bloc.

However, what DID keep the peace has a name: the Balance of Terror. It is the perspective of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) between NATO's troops and those of the Warsaw Pact, and of a possible nuclear apocalypse, which kept the peace.

Therefore, if there has been peace between 1945 and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1991, it is because Europe was, on either side of the Iron Curtain, armed to the teeth. It is a sad, yet undeniable truth: Nuclear bombs, missile-launching submarines, strategic bombers, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles kept the peace in Europe, not the mountains of paper generated by the technocrats in Brussels attempting to harmonize the percentage of fat in yoghurt.

As for nowadays, we must look at the world as it is, and not as it was 50 or 100 years ago. There have been three great structural evolutions in Western Europe since the end of the Second World War which prevent any conflict.

1 - The first structural evolution is the end of conventional warfare between developped countries.

European history has been marked, since the Rennaissance, and especially since the 30 years' war and the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, by conventional warfare, opposing the armies of different states.

Nevertheless, these conventional conflicts have been disappearing from the most developped countries, even though they still exist in other regions on the planet.

Why? Not because of the EU. Do we have a greater urge to wage war against Norway rather than against Finland because the former isn't in the EU and the latter is?

The reasons for which conventional warfare between states is becoming extinct are

1 - A deep change in social habits due to our high standard of living and education

and

2 - The widespread use of means of communication, mainly TV and the internet.

The United States left Vietnam in 1975, first and foremost, because the American people couldn't bear seeing young American recruits dying on their TV screens day after day, and that universal conscience wouldn't have allowed the government to use nuclear weapons. It is the readiness and omnipresence of information which makes conventional warfare unacceptable to the public opinion of developped countries, NOT the bureaucratic institutions in Brussels.

What are the consequences of this state of affairs?

First of all, developped states can't really wage conventional warfare between each other. This doesn't mean they don't wage warfare at all -- it just means that warfare is of an entirely different nature. Wars between developped countries, nowadays, are invisible, but far more insidious. It is mostly invisible to the common man, conventional weapons don't appear, and there is barely any material and human destruction: wars are waged through propaganda, manipulation, disinformation, fearmongering...

Secondly, when developped states do make use of armed force, they do so in the more backward regions of the world, remote and often less accessible to the media. They don't use conscripts anymore; professional armies and aerial bombardments make sure the job is done as quickly as possible and without too much backlash from public opinion.

This is the kind of war that is being currently being waged in many parts of the world, particularly in A-Stan and Iraq, where, by the by, many European Union countries have got troops of their own...

2 - The second structural evolution is the decline of birth rates in Europe, which leads to populations growing older.

This is particularly obvious in Germany, where it might lose up to 13 million inhabitants in 2050, despite a large immigration rate of over 100,000 persons per annum. In 2050, over 40% of Germans would be over 60 years old, and would outnumber people under 20 years of age at 3:1.

These demographic figures are crucial as it is a recurrent fact that wars generally occur between poor regions with a strong birth rate and in rich zones with little demographic pressure. From this point of view, it is implausible that there could ever be a war between Western European countries, whereas these countries are threatened by their own slow birthrates?

3 - The third evolution concerns the demographics of North Africa.

For the reasons that we have recalled, it is important to notice that the disparity between the demographic and economic situations between both sides of the Mediterranean constitute the most tangible and real risk of war for Europe in the future.

And, tragically, the very principle of "European" integration consists in isolating the countries of North Africa to the outer perimiter of European prosperity (Morocco's entry bid to the EU, was, by the way, formally rejected).

To that the Europhiles will answer that African countries have no place in a "European" construction, as if a conventional and purely geographical definition of both continents should weigh more than a proper pragmatic evaluation of the situation on what should be done to keep the peace for future generation on both sides of the Mediterranean.

And yet, actually, this cynical and hard line of thought by the europhiles proves that the EU, far from offering us peace, is slowly bringing us towards conflict. If the europhiles did actually sincerely believe that tens of thousands of directives from the Commission actually "prevented" wars in Europe for half a century, then they should logically attempt to integrate the southern countries as quickly as possible in this allegedly "peace-keeping" organization.

In short, the EU isn't "peace," the EU is, ultimately, WAR.

[antaeus]

i fail to see, from the information you provide, how the european union is war.

so they prefer to keep north africa on the periphery, this is no different to the relationship between mexico and the united states or the central asian republics and russia. the fact that there is a set of poorer countries being held at arms length by a larger power does not mean there will be war between the two, rather its more likely that the situation will continue as it is now as morocco, tunisia, egypt etc all rely on the wealth of europe for their manufactured goods and tourism.

a more likely scenario is the gradual increase in wealth and the increase in middle classes in north africa along the same lines as what has happened in south asia where tourism and industry have combined to improve the wealth of those societies. after travelling extensively in morocco, it's plain to see it's happening already

to address your point re: there being no war between western europe and the soviets... mutually assured destruction certainly did play a part in the fact that no war between the two eventuated... but the end of war between nations was not simply because they were all too scared to attack each other because of how armed they were. for example, no such nuclear threat exists between south korea and japan, or malaysia and indonesia... the common thread that exists between all these nations who have experienced endemic conflict historically and western europe, is the increase of educated middle classes who see the global economy as more important than regional squabbles. this is combined with the fact that all these nations now belong to international dispute resolution forums such as the wto or the UN etc etc which enable the resolution of minor disputes before they become major ones.

that is why most wars now happen in poor backwaters... there are exceptions... but they are rare.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

i fail to see, from the information you provide, how the european union is war.

so they prefer to keep north africa on the periphery, this is no different to the relationship between mexico and the united states or the central asian republics and russia. the fact that there is a set of poorer countries being held at arms length by a larger power does not mean there will be war between the two, rather its more likely that the situation will continue as it is now as morocco, tunisia, egypt etc all rely on the wealth of europe for their manufactured goods and tourism.

a more likely scenario is the gradual increase in wealth and the increase in middle classes in north africa along the same lines as what has happened in south asia where tourism and industry have combined to improve the wealth of those societies. after travelling extensively in morocco, it's plain to see it's happening already

to address your point re: there being no war between western europe and the soviets... mutually assured destruction certainly did play a part in the fact that no war between the two eventuated... but the end of war between nations was not simply because they were all too scared to attack each other because of how armed they were. for example, no such nuclear threat exists between south korea and japan, or malaysia and indonesia... the common thread that exists between all these nations who have experienced endemic conflict historically and western europe, is the increase of educated middle classes who see the global economy as more important than regional squabbles. this is combined with the fact that all these nations now belong to international dispute resolution forums such as the wto or the UN etc etc which enable the resolution of minor disputes before they become major ones.

that is why most wars now happen in poor backwaters... there are exceptions... but they are rare.

Re: the point about North Africa, it was more about outlining the hypocrisy of the Europhile line of thought, primarily, and, secondly, about the underlying demographic boom and relative lack of prosperity. I'm not stating that war is necessarily inevitable, I'm simply stating that in the future (perhaps a few generations) it is one of the most likely hot spots for war.

Secondly: as for MAD, you have correctly pointed out that it mainly applies to war between the big blocs, and hence to the 1945-1991 period. I addressed the world post-1991 in the second part of my post, namely when I explained that conventional warfare has become practically impossible between highly developped nations due to several other factors (information, greater weight of public opinion, low birthrate, high prosperity...)

[antaeus]

Re: the point about North Africa, it was more about outlining the hypocrisy of the Europhile line of thought, primarily, and, secondly, about the underlying demographic boom and relative lack of prosperity. I'm not stating that war is necessarily inevitable, I'm simply stating that in the future (perhaps a few generations) it is one of the most likely hot spots for war.

Secondly: as for MAD, you have correctly pointed out that it mainly applies to war between the big blocs, and hence to the 1945-1991 period. I addressed the world post-1991 in the second part of my post, namely when I explained that conventional warfare has become practically impossible between highly developped nations due to several other factors (information, greater weight of public opinion, low birthrate, high prosperity...)

so you acknowledge that pan state organisations help prevent conflict by providing alternative dispute resolution paths? you do realise that the european union is a pan national dispute resolution mechanism? that it prevents war simply by offering it's member states an alternative?

so i'm not totally sure i get what you're trying to argue, other than "the eu wasn't the reason there's peace in europe'

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

so you acknowledge that pan state organisations help prevent conflict by providing alternative dispute resolution paths? you do realise that the european union is a pan national dispute resolution mechanism? that it prevents war simply by offering it's member states an alternative?

so i'm not totally sure i get what you're trying to argue, other than "the eu wasn't the reason there's peace in europe'

Whereas I do acknowledge that these organizations do have a role to fulfill, I believe that the reason why these organizations are effective is that, because of the reasons I have outligned above, war isn't a cost-effective (or even feasible) option to solving conflicts between developped states. Whether the said conflicts are resolved unilaterally or via pan-state organizations is beside the point. What I am arguing is that, even without the EU, I am absolutely certain that there would have been no armed conflicts between European states, and that there would have been no armed conflict in Western Europe (considering that the Warsaw Pact troops had never actually invaded).

[antaeus]

Whereas I do acknowledge that these organizations do have a role to fulfill, I believe that the reason why these organizations are effective is that, because of the reasons I have outligned above, war isn't a cost-effective (or even feasible) option to solving conflicts between developped states. Whether the said conflicts are resolved unilaterally or via pan-state organizations is beside the point. What I am arguing is that, even without the EU, I am absolutely certain that there would have been no armed conflicts between European states, and that there would have been no armed conflict in Western Europe (considering that the Warsaw Pact troops had never actually invaded).

perhaps, but there's no way of knowing.

EU nations and nations hoping to join the EU have to conform to basic principles with regards to governance and economic policy. these principles tend to produce states which are democratic, socially free, and economically integrated. while france, west germany, and italy may have already had these value sets during the initial founding stages of the EU - the EU after all was started by them based on their values... nations which sought to join the EU sometimes did not necessarily have these values and so had to moderate themselves and change into states which matched those existing members - thus making them also less likely to fight.

a prime examples of this are serbia and croatia. 15 years ago, they were nations who used conflict and violence to solve inter-state disputes, the serbian government was corrupt and authoritarian... but now that both nations want to be a part of the EU, they have had to enact domestic social, economic and political policies which make it less likely that they will ever use conflict to settle disputes without going through the EU dispute resolution processes - both domestically and internationally, and less likely that an authoritarian government will ever come to power threatening regional security.

so perhaps you're right when discussing the first generations of member states - it was unlikely that france, west germany, italy etc would ever fight as they had done prior to and during ww2... however, in the greater scheme - the modern EU, it is not the case for nations who joined later or who want to join - who have been involved with conflict within europe since ww2... Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Greece, the Czech/Slovak Republics, Croatia, Macedonia, Turkey, Albania, Kosovo, Moldova, Georgia etc etc... who have all, or are moderating their internal policies to make them more acceptable to the EU and less likely to fight between each other.

[Razor]

I am writing this in response to a comment by someone who -- quite sincerely, I assume -- believed the age old propaganda mantra according to which the European Union (or its previous incarnations) has "kept the peace," turning Europe, from, I quote, a



into an Eden of peace, and, our author manifests that



What our friend has just quoted is one of the most effective arguments employed by europhile propaganda. By drawing from the fact that there has not been, indeed, any armed conflict between the major countries of Europe since 1945, the Europhile propaganda assures us that this happy situation comes undoubtedly from European integration, and that therefore only crazy, dangerous warmongers could challenge it.

It is an argument that is as compelling as it is intimidating, and yet it is faulty, flawed, and dangerous.

First of all, the European Union (or rather, the process of European integration) has had nothing to do with keeping the peace in Europe since 1945.

Why?

First of all, even though the Schumann Declaration was pronounced on May 9th 1950, the Treaty of Rome was only signed on March 25th 1957 and the institutions were built, gradually, since then.

This simple reminder can already disprove that the EU may have served to keep the peace between 1945 and the early 1960's, as we cannot attribute benefits to something that didn't even exist at the time.

Therefore, it is not thanks to the primitive, early ECSC or the Treaty of Rome (since it didn't exist) that the Berlin Blockade in 1953 or the Hungarian insurrection in 1956 didn't degenerate into global conflicts. If there had been a war in Europe at the time, in any case, it certainly wouldn't have opposed either side of the Rhine, but rather, the Western side, led by the United States, and the Soviet bloc.

However, what DID keep the peace has a name: the Balance of Terror. It is the perspective of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) between NATO's troops and those of the Warsaw Pact, and of a possible nuclear apocalypse, which kept the peace.

Therefore, if there has been peace between 1945 and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1991, it is because Europe was, on either side of the Iron Curtain, armed to the teeth. It is a sad, yet undeniable truth: Nuclear bombs, missile-launching submarines, strategic bombers, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles kept the peace in Europe, not the mountains of paper generated by the technocrats in Brussels attempting to harmonize the percentage of fat in yoghurt.

As for nowadays, we must look at the world as it is, and not as it was 50 or 100 years ago. There have been three great structural evolutions in Western Europe since the end of the Second World War which prevent any conflict.

1 - The first structural evolution is the end of conventional warfare between developped countries.

European history has been marked, since the Rennaissance, and especially since the 30 years' war and the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, by conventional warfare, opposing the armies of different states.

Nevertheless, these conventional conflicts have been disappearing from the most developped countries, even though they still exist in other regions on the planet.

Why? Not because of the EU. Do we have a greater urge to wage war against Norway rather than against Finland because the former isn't in the EU and the latter is?

The reasons for which conventional warfare between states is becoming extinct are

1 - A deep change in social habits due to our high standard of living and education

and

2 - The widespread use of means of communication, mainly TV and the internet.

The United States left Vietnam in 1975, first and foremost, because the American people couldn't bear seeing young American recruits dying on their TV screens day after day, and that universal conscience wouldn't have allowed the government to use nuclear weapons. It is the readiness and omnipresence of information which makes conventional warfare unacceptable to the public opinion of developped countries, NOT the bureaucratic institutions in Brussels.

What are the consequences of this state of affairs?

First of all, developped states can't really wage conventional warfare between each other. This doesn't mean they don't wage warfare at all -- it just means that warfare is of an entirely different nature. Wars between developped countries, nowadays, are invisible, but far more insidious. It is mostly invisible to the common man, conventional weapons don't appear, and there is barely any material and human destruction: wars are waged through propaganda, manipulation, disinformation, fearmongering...

Secondly, when developped states do make use of armed force, they do so in the more backward regions of the world, remote and often less accessible to the media. They don't use conscripts anymore; professional armies and aerial bombardments make sure the job is done as quickly as possible and without too much backlash from public opinion.

This is the kind of war that is being currently being waged in many parts of the world, particularly in A-Stan and Iraq, where, by the by, many European Union countries have got troops of their own...

2 - The second structural evolution is the decline of birth rates in Europe, which leads to populations growing older.

This is particularly obvious in Germany, where it might lose up to 13 million inhabitants in 2050, despite a large immigration rate of over 100,000 persons per annum. In 2050, over 40% of Germans would be over 60 years old, and would outnumber people under 20 years of age at 3:1.

These demographic figures are crucial as it is a recurrent fact that wars generally occur between poor regions with a strong birth rate and in rich zones with little demographic pressure. From this point of view, it is implausible that there could ever be a war between Western European countries, whereas these countries are threatened by their own slow birthrates?

3 - The third evolution concerns the demographics of North Africa.

For the reasons that we have recalled, it is important to notice that the disparity between the demographic and economic situations between both sides of the Mediterranean constitute the most tangible and real risk of war for Europe in the future.

And, tragically, the very principle of "European" integration consists in isolating the countries of North Africa to the outer perimiter of European prosperity (Morocco's entry bid to the EU, was, by the way, formally rejected).

To that the Europhiles will answer that African countries have no place in a "European" construction, as if a conventional and purely geographical definition of both continents should weigh more than a proper pragmatic evaluation of the situation on what should be done to keep the peace for future generation on both sides of the Mediterranean.

And yet, actually, this cynical and hard line of thought by the europhiles proves that the EU, far from offering us peace, is slowly bringing us towards conflict. If the europhiles did actually sincerely believe that tens of thousands of directives from the Commission actually "prevented" wars in Europe for half a century, then they should logically attempt to integrate the southern countries as quickly as possible in this allegedly "peace-keeping" organization.

In short, the EU isn't "peace," the EU is, ultimately, WAR.

The EU is created for several reasons. The most important one being economical integration of former national economies (that caused the previous wars because those national economies acted as isles and were living in their own world/cocoon) creating a unified economic bloc that can compete with the American and the Soviet bloc.

As for the North-African countries and demography: the EU can't invite new member states forever just like that. States have to meet certain demands before becoming a member state. Add to that the fact that it should be investigated whether the EU is capable of expansion or not and the many legislative issues surrounding expansion (states' interests and acquis and opt-outs) etc. etc. It's far from simple.

However states bordering the EU can have a form of partnership with the EU through a European Union Association Agreement under the European Neighbourhood Policy. It seems the North African countries already have formed a partnership with the EU through which such issues are being dealt with.

I think the real problem we're talking about mostly is illegal immigration from not just North Africa, but also from sub-Saharan Africa. That's not a problem that's being dealt with through agreements alone...

All in all I don't think it has to do with war, but I think it does have to do with social and ethnic tensions in Europe...

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

The EU is created for several reasons. The most important one being economical integration of former national economies (that caused the previous wars because those national economies acted as isles and were living in their own world/cocoon) creating a unified economic bloc that can compete with the American and the Soviet bloc.

Competing with either the American or Soviet bloc was never an objective. I would advise you to read what its main inceptors thought about it at the time -- Monnet, particularly, envisaged European unification as an auxiliary to the United States (he actually developped most of his ideas on the subject whilst he was residing... surprise, surprise, in the US). He and his various movements were actually funded by the United States, and particularly by the American Committee for a United Europe, created in 1948.

As for economies before the EU, I heartily disagree that it was a cause for wars. It is according to Loucheur's outdated theory, but that theory is over a century old and only valid for a very particular scenario and context.

As for the North-African countries and demography: the EU can't invite new member states forever just like that. States have to meet certain demands before becoming a member state. Add to that the fact that it should be investigated whether the EU is capable of expansion or not and the many legislative issues surrounding expansion (states' interests and acquis and opt-outs) etc. etc. It's far from simple.

However states bordering the EU can have a form of partnership with the EU through a European Union Association Agreement under the European Neighbourhood Policy. It seems the North African countries already have formed a partnership with the EU through which such issues are being dealt with.

Much poorer countries have been granted membership; it's a question of "Europe" vs. "Africa".

I think the real problem we're talking about mostly is illegal immigration from not just North Africa, but also from sub-Saharan Africa. That's not a problem that's being dealt with through agreements alone...

Illegal immigration is a short-term concern, and yet, far from being a problem, it's European countries' only lifeline. With our slowing demographics, there won't be much left of us in half a century...

All in all I don't think it has to do with war, but I think it does have to do with social and ethnic tensions in Europe...

How so?

[intel]

(wall of text)
And yet, actually, this cynical and hard line of thought by the europhiles proves that the EU, far from offering us peace, is slowly bringing us towards conflict. If the europhiles did actually sincerely believe that tens of thousands of directives from the Commission actually "prevented" wars in Europe for half a century, then they should logically attempt to integrate the southern countries as quickly as possible in this allegedly "peace-keeping" organization.

In short, the EU isn't "peace," the EU is, ultimately, WAR.

I always wondered why a good and reasonable articles always have to be destroyed by author making a completly wrong and extreme final point.

Almost +rep, Lance. Almost.

[Slaytaninc]

I always wondered why a good and reasonable articles always have to be destroyed by author making a completly wrong and extreme final point.

Almost +rep, Lance. Almost.

Agreed. Sounded reasonable until then.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

I always wondered why a good and reasonable articles always have to be destroyed by author making a completly wrong and extreme final point.

Almost +rep, Lance. Almost.

Agreed. Sounded reasonable until then.

I fail to see how fostering a belt of poverty around the EU doesn't constitute a risk for conflicts in the future (in the next 50-100 years), especially considering the EU's "allegedly" peace-keeping mission.

[Watchman]

I fail to see how fostering a belt of poverty around the EU...

Uh, mind explaining - in detail - who's supposed to be doing this and how exactly ?

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Remind me again, why did various European powers fight each other tooth and nail for millenia ? (Rhetorical question.) Over conflicts of interest, that's what; economic ones in particular, though what was sufficiently economically relevant has varied. Now, what has the succession of Euro economic and political unions done ? Harmonise and interwine the subcontinent's economics and create frameworks within which conflicts can be solved...
Yeah.

There are still deep and profound conflicts of interest within the EU; there are, likewise, conflicts of interest, say, between Canada and the United States.

The difference is that nowadays -- looking at the world in 2010 as it is, and not as it was 100 or 500 years ago -- highly developped states don't wage conventional warfare between each other. It isn't feasible or cost-effective.

Anyway, the Great War already taught most people with some sense that given modern technology it plain isn't anymore sensible for first-world states to try to settle their disputes by military means - even in the best case the costs are just too high. Even the Nazis actually sort of grasped the basic idea, but since they were kind of delusional lunatics...

Indeed.

What I don't get is the bit in the OP about some kind of unresolveable conflict with North Africa in the future - doubly so as he doesn't cite any reason for such to develop - and, further, the idea that it would take on the character of a military conflict which seems like a downright bizarre scenario (seeing as how the NA's wouldn't have a prayer, making it a rather pressing question whyever they would pursue such policy). Plus, uh, don't the various Mediterranean European states have their own more-or-less bilaterally cooperative policies with various North African states, on top of all the junk entailed in a little something called the European Neighbourhood Policy in which the entire Mediterranean North Africa seems to be in - which includes something known as the EU-MEFTA...
Now one can be of many opinions about free-trade agreements, but that certainly doesn't particularly look like NA is getting excessively cold-shouldered.
It's also rather difficult to see what either party would stand to claim from picking fights with basically nonthreatening trade partners.

Frankly, unless the OP has something more solid to bring to the table than vague musings that don't really even make any sense, this sounds approximately as rational and convincing a scenario as predicting a military conflict between the USA and Mexico becuase of the NAFTA, or somesuch.

I am not predicting a conflict, I am predicting the likelihood of a conflict. When we look at where conflicts can develop, from a realistic perspective, it is important to look at regions that are both poor and with highly dynamic demographics -- in this case, North Africa. This is a potentially highly conflictive region, and if the rift between Europe and North Africa grows, this risk can only increase in time. Allow me to remind you that WWI started because of troubles in the Balkans, which had already, on several occasions, threatened the balance of peace.

It would not be unlikely for a conflict to erupt in this region which could degenerate into a local or global conflict; hence, North Africa, in my opinon, should be a priority to avoid wars in the future.

Now, as to your second point, the European Neighbourhood Policy is but a feeble effort. Morocco's bid for accession was denied without any second thoughts, and yet countries in Eastern Europe that are dirt poor were admitted without question. This is due to both economic interests, particularly German interests (seeing how swiftly Germany relocated large swathes of its industry into Eastern Europe after the accession) and to the preference of "European" countries over "African" countries.

Do note that, when I say there is a risk of conflict, I do not necessarily mean "North Africa attacking Europe" -- but in our world, a local conflict can quickly balloon into a regional or global conflict, and, in that case, Europe would undoubtedly be affected.

Uh, mind explaining - in detail - who's supposed to be doing this and how exactly ?

As I explained above, several extremely poor Eastern European countries were admitted without second thoughts -- and several others are having their accessions prepared even though they aren't even remotely ready to enter -- whereas North African countries aren't even given a thought.

The fact that EU tariffs deliberately punish foreign exports is furthermore very harmful to this region, as it would be (mutually, in fact, except for CAP-spoiled French farmers) for African products to have fair access to European markets.

[intel]

I fail to see how fostering a belt of poverty around the EU doesn't constitute a risk for conflicts in the future (in the next 50-100 years), especially considering the EU's "allegedly" peace-keeping mission.

EU peace keeping missions? You mean EUFOR, right? Well, I don't think that Chad or Democratic Republic of Congo can ever threaten EU. Also, "poverty belt" isn't really a consequence of EU policies. So-called "poverty belt" has it's burden of civilisational backwardness, lack of stability and so. There's no common policy of destroying African coast's economy; if there is, please enlighten me. African coast simply doesn't benefit from being in EU, and I really don't see a reason why it should be in. Further destabilising this organisation perhaps?

Really, we should rather help African Union to develop and see how it will all turn out.


Next question: what would be the casus belli of such conflict? Being poor and backward usually doesn't constitute a good reason to attack much richer and more powerful enemy. If the enemy is unified, then worse for you. What would unite the "poverty belt"? Poverty? There's nothing that would divide them more. Envy? I doubt so.
The only political entity that had united north african countries is Arab League. And that's on national and religious ground. I hope we aren't really getting into all this "clash of civilisation" rubbish. If we aren't, then your point about future war in North African Coastline is void.


Also, saying that a war in perspective of 50-100 years will be a direct consequence of current policies is speculative beyond reason. Let's abstain from creating a political fiction scenarios.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

EU peace keeping missions? You mean EUFOR, right?

You know what I mean.

Well, I don't think that Chad or Democratic Republic of Congo can ever threaten EU. Also, "poverty belt" isn't really a consequence of EU policies. So-called "poverty belt" has it's burden of civilisational backwardness, lack of stability and so. There's no common policy of destroying African coast's economy; if there is, please enlighten me. African coast simply doesn't benefit from being in EU, and I really don't see a reason why it should be in. Further destabilising this organisation perhaps?

Really, we should rather help African Union to develop and see how it will all turn out.

I answered this in my answer to Watchman above.

First -- deliberately discriminating against North African entry bids

and second -- preventing African products from freely accessing EU markets.

Next question: what would be the casus belli of such conflict? Being poor and backward usually doesn't constitute a good reason to attack much richer and more powerful enemy. If the enemy is unified, then worse for you. What would unite the "poverty belt"? Poverty? There's nothing that would divide them more. Envy? I doubt so.
The only political entity that had united north african countries is Arab League. And that's on national and religious ground. I hope we aren't really getting into all this "clash of civilisation" rubbish. If we aren't that your point about war is void.

You don't understand (I also addressed this in my answer to Watchman). You are imagining a conflict of "Europe vs. North Africa," but that is absolutely not the case. The scenario is a possible local conflict ballooning into a regional or even global conflict, in which case Europe would undoubtedly be sucked in.

Also, saying that a war in perspective of 50-100 years will be a direct consequence of current policies is speculative beyond reason.

Perhaps, but talking about the future is always so.

[Watchman]

Remind me again, why did various European powers fight each other tooth and nail for millenia ? (Rhetorical question.) Over conflicts of interest, that's what; economic ones in particular, though what was sufficiently economically relevant has varied. Now, what has the succession of Euro economic and political unions done ? Harmonise and interwine the subcontinent's economics and create frameworks within which conflicts can be solved...
Yeah.

Anyway, the Great War already taught most people with some sense that given modern technology it plain isn't anymore sensible for first-world states to try to settle their disputes by military means - even in the best case the costs are just too high. Even the Nazis actually sort of grasped the basic idea, but since they were kind of delusional lunatics...

What I don't get is the bit in the OP about some kind of unresolveable conflict with North Africa in the future - doubly so as he doesn't cite any reason for such to develop - and, further, the idea that it would take on the character of a military conflict which seems like a downright bizarre scenario (seeing as how the NA's wouldn't have a prayer, making it a rather pressing question whyever they would pursue such policy). Plus, uh, don't the various Mediterranean European states have their own more-or-less bilaterally cooperative policies with various North African states, on top of all the junk entailed in a little something called the European Neighbourhood Policy in which the entire Mediterranean North Africa seems to be in - which includes something known as the EU-MEFTA...
Now one can be of many opinions about free-trade agreements, but that certainly doesn't particularly look like NA is getting excessively cold-shouldered.
It's also rather difficult to see what either party would stand to claim from picking fights with basically nonthreatening trade partners.

Frankly, unless the OP has something more solid to bring to the table than vague musings that don't really even make any sense, this sounds approximately as rational and convincing a scenario as predicting a military conflict between the USA and Mexico becuase of the NAFTA, or somesuch.