super national integration?

The question addresses global challenges through economic and political integration through the creation of a super national network of states. Super national integration is seemingly the obvious form of organization that can address these problems; however, such an organization will never work.

Consider the moniker stressed by Dr. Jacob Buksti in describing the European Union; an Unidentified Political Object. Simply considering the EU as a super national organization- that works together to tackle economic and political problems- does not do justice to its true nature. The function and role of the EU cannot be captured by any definitive evaluation, hence it being a UPO. People look to the EU a template for future integration of other states, however, the EU is a unique European organization that functions within the parameters of European politics. The future of the EU is also of ambivalent concern.

Recent developments triggered by the crash of 2008 have created friction between member states. As Dr. Buksti mentioned, Germany is the most important and influential member of the EU. Its national ambitions play a significant role in the actions that the EU takes. To stave off Greek bankruptcy, the EU, primarily Germany, had to pump in billions in to the Greek economy conditioned with austerity measures.

Consider the domestic response in both countries. German tax-payers had to bail out the government of another nation that was fiscally irresponsible. Greek citizens would see across-the-board cuts in government funding including job cuts and higher taxes. The bail-out did not mesh too well with either population. Super national integration would require, and as empirically demonstrated, larger and richer states to compensate for the shortcomings of smaller and economically weaker states.

In a global economy where systemic collapse is all too certain, super national organization would only exacerbate a potential collapse. With a common currency and banking system, dire consequences can expected if a hazardous situation would arise.

The U.S. would never be a party to a super national organization of economic and political nature. NAFTA is an exceptional treaty that enables U.S corporations to benefit through free trade between Canada and Mexico. In no sense does it compromise the U.S’s economic stature; therefore, any mentioning of NAFTA as an indicator of the U.S’s move towards super national organization is invalid. Fundamental to Dr. Buksti’s presentation of the nature of the EU was a transfer of sovereignty. The political climate in the U.S treats any ceding of U.S sovereignty to super national organization as anathema. Congress would never ratify such an organization and a presidential administration would never propose it; doing so would be certain political defeat.

The U.N. and other major world organizations operate under a liberal make-up; rational self-interested states coming to the table to solve global problems. How would a super national organization with the U.S. and other states like China utilize a problem-solving apparatus when coming to the table with disparate interests? It would never work.

With a $660 billion defense budget, security obviously means a lot to the United States. When looking towards military threats the U.S. would be in a precarious position under super national integration. NATO is a U.S dominated alliance that allows the U.S to pursue its military interests and spending without obstacles from member states. A super national organization with the possible capacity to restrict U.S. defense interests would never gain acceptance with the United States.

The EU is a spectacular economic bloc of European countries; its genesis was in tying two essential industries of Germany and France to prevent war. Problem-solving in world politics can still be accomplished through a hegemon and international organizations serving as a means for collaboration.