The European Union Expansion Paradox

More growth means learning the truth that borders and locals matter.

It's a common belief in recent history to say that imperialism is bad. The basic idea being trying to subjugate those around you is not considered civilized in the modern era. One of the catches is that most imperialism in history has been more foundational on ideals of resources or population base as much as anything. If I need something that my own country doesn't have, you simply took control of somewhere that did.

Now the idea of trying to bring everybody under a common ideal is entirely unique. One of the better known empires was in some ways based on that. Rome's expansion was as much about the idea of a universal ideal it was almost any other.

As the idea of philosophical arguments becomes more common no one stopped to think that it's similar. If you try to suggest that everybody should be living under a common line of thinking that's not radically different from an imperial concept of universal governance.

Now most people don't think of current countries as being empires. That's predominantly a leftover line of thinking that most boundaries have been set because of common cultural heritage dividing where the lines get drawn. That's not inherently a perfect model. But it holds out not too badly.

So what happens when a political entity takes shape that fundamentally says it is post-national. Welcome to the current climate of the European Union. One of the corner questions when it began was whether or not there were restrictions on where it would go. Of course calling it European would suggest that it had some limitations, but that wasn't necessarily held to be exactly correct. The idea of a liberal order that circumvented local interests was always held within the basic confines of the European ideal. From that standpoint there was always the concept that the boundaries of where it might go would always be fluid.

Probably fair to say Easter Island might have asked for membership and been turned down because of geographical thoughts, but it wouldn't necessarily be beyond the realm of possibility a northern African country might at some point end up part of the group.

One of the biggest questions that is now constantly being asked with the outbreak of the Russian Ukrainian War is whether or not Europe should consider reasonable boundaries to where it goes. And the question is more complicated than it might seem.

Among those things that has come up is that with every new member you've not only brought in different security interests, it also compels those in the organization to begin with to commit resources to something that they might not have originally imagined. Most defense alliances historically have always had a component of status quo to them. People knew the boundaries they were dealing with. Even something like NATO always assumed that the boundary was going to be somewhere in the middle of Germany for most of its tenure.

The EU now has a major dividing line between those that want to continue the original project, that is producing a liberal organization that would spread to anyone that would have it. The ideal would be beyond any traditional geographic boundaries that would mean you were bringing more into the fold. By contrast you now have increasing pressures that suggest maintaining current boundaries might not be a bad idea. Too many of the new countries that might enter it would be substantially different. There's already the situation where a number of current members are promoting values that run counter to the image.

Most empires in history have learned the hard way that expanding too far means that you no longer have the capacity to manage what is under your control or reasonable control of the borders. By contrast, maintaining something that has been largely brought into your own orbit is always far more stable.

One of the bigger issues that has come up in the current climate is it started to counter the body's primary purpose. A number of Eastern European States, Moldova as an example, are up for EU membership but carry with them an increased emphasis on the security point. Those who value the body's expansion see this as spreading the liberal values that were at the core of the original project. However it's impossible to view some of the current prospective members without recognizing the security function as being a core.

Moldova's interest in the EU is as much because it doesn't want to be steamrolled by Russia or any interest in actually being part of the European project. That should give anybody already inside of Europe pause. You're asking for a security issue without really gaining anybody who agrees with you.

In short, expansion now means that making the external border a real thing is actually undermining the idea that a liberal universal order could exist. Instead those inside the body increasingly want protection from those that think differently outside of it. That is much closer to traditional geopolitics than it is to any new concept of transforming the human race into a universal body.

In fact there's increasing pressure from some of the original zealots that the European Union shouldn't consider finite borders. What makes this amusing is the same people that would argue traditional national governments shouldn't be able to have their own say but through the bigger defenders of borders to those that have different cultural views that are outside of the Union.

Do some borders matter more than others?

In many respects it's a case of what a political body believes it can control. There was always the belief most of the central organs of the European Union could bring those under its purview into its own orientation. Internal backlash was never seen as a plausibility even though it's now become common. By contrast they've seen external points as being threats.

This contradiction that on one hand they think that you can produce everything under one common order and yet not allow those ready for admission doesn't seem to compute seems completely lost on those trying to drive the train.

The very attempt to try and produce a common order needing everyone to comply should have set off alarm bells that you were trying to produce the modern version of an empire. An element of political conformity was always going to be necessary. No one just wanted to say it out loud.

You now sit at the situation where we're recognizing those on the outskirts producing increased risk because they might not be completely oriented to how the central government would want them to have started to exclaim that point. The idea that you could produce a political entity where everyone would be the same inside of it has run into the problem of not wanting outsiders or outside influence at the same time. In fact the thing that has started to slow down in the European Union's expansion is the concern some of the countries on its borders might be disruptive if allowed in.

This isn't a perfect example of the empire of yesteryear. But it carries a lot of the same ideals. and the same generic contours as far as advantages and disadvantages. In some ways it's amusing watching some of the intellectual think tanks trying to orient themselves around what the answer should be.

It's probably most likely that the argument of unless you can maintain a common cultural or philosophical underpinning your political structure is not going to suffice. This has become a problem for so many in the past. Those that wanted the European Union to try and propagate an image or slowly starting to learn the same problem. Real politics, and real issues on the ground always supersede your aspirations.