Can one compare the EU and the US?
This is a difficult question. The logic of such a comparison rests on that premise that they are the same types of units trying to achieve the same functions within the world. Anyone who has had World History deeply inflicted upon them knows that this type of comparison is difficult. To what would one compare Ming China? Early modern Britain? Or early modern Europe? That the Empire was able to hold itself together was always a miracle in itself, but the empire always served a different function than the state. The fact that we can imagine a Chinese nation-state must be credited to the empires that preceded it.
That said, the EU has different challenges and traditions than the US. Many of the states have existed for some time as geo-political units, but are much younger because of the failure of governments due to wars and revolutions. Even as a unit the EU is only fifty years old (if one counts from the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community, which I do.)
During that time its progress has been shaky. Perhaps it has grown too fast, bringing in states whose stability is not assured (especially within the last ten years.) But its institutional development has been phenomenal. Could the US have talked about developing a large common army before the Civil War? (I leave the answer open.)
The CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) is the most controversial part of the EU, but it is not more unique than farming subsidies given to American farmers. It is problematic because it represents the greatest aid given by the EU to its member institutions. Wealthier states have wanted to decrease its scope while poorer, mostly Slavic, states have joined.
I believe that the EU has done more to develop democracy and federalism in the world than any American institution. I would be difficult to talk about democratization in Turkey without referencing the pressure that European states have put on it. They have taken consideration of the various ways that individuals align themselves: nationally, socially, regionally, by gender, etc.
Is there anywhere in the world where people ask ?Are we more democratic now?? There is evidence that the EU is making collective progress in environmental policy at a time when the Kyoto accords are failing due to the rejection by individual states.
The limitations that are placed on sovereignty are not as important. The EU offers a context in which the policies of individual states can be discussed and negotiated. The Euro, for instance, ahs not simply been forced upon people. Various states have been able to talk collectively about changes in financial and monetary policy to their own benefit and to the benefit of the entire organization. Currently, the Euro is experiencing strength, gaining ground as a global reserve currency (however, it is uncertain that Europeans want the Euro to play this role.)
Similar flexibility was not to be found in the short lived dollar zone. What was once considered a strong alternative to the Euro has been failing as an international currency. When Argentina needed to make financial changes no one in Washington was willing to listen. The result: collapse of Argentine finances.
Furthermore, there are different levels of involvement and integration into the EU. Different states are involved to different degrees. The original six state?Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and Netherlands?will probably always be the most dedicated and most integrated states.
Finally, as integration proceeds (and it will) should we still compare the EU to the US? What should we make of the individual states themselves? Even these states are in transition due to the EU. Regional entities are becoming more important, finding ways of acting out in diplomatic affairs. Policies are discussed in terms of how they affect neighbors, leading to a gentile interdependence. And, as Alan Millward points out, the EU allows the European nation-state to survive.
