John R. Houk
© November 21, 2011
Tony Newbill sent an email that contained an article written by Paul Joseph Watson entitled “It’s The End Of The Eurozone As We Know It”. Displaying my ignorance of European politics and economics I equated “Eurozone” with European Union (EU). After reading the Watson article I had a feeling there was a difference between the Eurozone and the EU.
When discussing the Euro (€ or EUR for short), the scope of Europe referred to is that covered by the European Union (EU), this is a more restricted area, for example it excludes Russia.
This geographical region using the Euro is known as the Eurozone (sometimes hyphenated as in Euro-zone) or Euro area.
There are 16 countries that are regarded as officially part of the Euro and others that have adopted the Euro but do not have a full representation within the European Central Bank.
It is important to get the differences between Europe, the European Union (EU), the Euro, and Eurozone.
· Some countries in Europe chose to use the Euro but are not official members of the Eurozone: Kosovo, Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, Vatican City, and Montenegro.
· Some countries that are part of the EU (European Union) system but do not use the Euro: Denmark, Sweden, the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland), Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania.
· Countries that have pegged their currencies to the Euro with a view to joining the Euro: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Denmark.
· The European Union (EU) is a project of common economic and political union. This covers a more restricted region than the geographical area of Europe. That is, EU excludes countries to the eastern and southern regions of wider Europe: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, and Macedonia. (Europe for Beginners – European Union (EU), Eurozone, Euroarea, and the Euro (€))
In essence the EU is the loose confederation of European nations both politically and economically. I say loose confederation because each member nation still has their national sovereignty, national laws and national taxes.
The Eurozone are those nations that have committed to make the Euro currency its legal tender. Not all EU nations thus are a part of the Eurozone (e.g. the UK), yet some non-EU nations are in the Eurozone (e.g. micro-States like Andorra, Kosovo, Montenegro, Monaco, San Marino, and the Vatican City).
A collapse of the EU would entail the disintegration of that political confederation.
A collapse of the Eurozone would entail a crisis surrounding the Euro currency.
Most people that are watching this European crisis unfold believe the collapse of the Eurozone would send Europe into a catastrophic depression making economic standards of living comparable to Latin American nations. This would freak out Europeans of the EU that have become quite accustomed to a government managed socialized life. Latin American standards of living would terminate entitlements in Europe in such a way that would make the USA look like a socialist nation to Europeans.
What would happen in Europe?
Undoubtedly social chaos would ensue. Does anyone know what happens in Europe when social chaos overtakes the capability of governments to manage their internal affairs? Can anyone say that a national savior was sought whose name was Adolf Hitler? Hitler came to power in Germany after the depression made currency worthless and rebuilt the German economy. Unfortunately for Jews and others considered inferior by Nazis, Hitler rebuilt the German military also.
Is there a Hitler waiting in the wings looking for a Eurozone collapse to be the man everyone looks to lead Europeans out of chaos? At this time I would have say no.
However, there are indications the governments of France and Germany are working some back-door politicking that might include a couple of possibilities:
1. There is talk of making the Eurozone more elite by eliminating slacker economic nations like Greece and Italy.
2. There is also talk of allowing the Euro to collapse enabling stronger economic members of the Eurozone (i.e. France and Germany) to dictate terms that anemic economies give up significant portions of their national sovereignty making a stronger central government within the EU that looks more like a United States of Europe with a federal style government.
I am a novice to the nuances of modern back-door politicking in Europe so I am certain there are different layers of elitist ruling possibilities that relate to a coalescing One-Europe Order.
If France and Germany intend on saving the Euro (hence the Eurozone) by limiting nations to the European Central Bank (ECB) then that would make France and Germany the de facto powers of the EU, right? If the ECB becomes elitist in membership yet EU nations continue to use the Euro as their legal tender, then that will have significant repercussions to non-ECB members of the EU. The ability to manage monetary concerns for an EU member nation would be in the hands of the non-State ECB. The ECB might actually have the ability to force economic policy for a member EU State that is not part of the Eurozone. This might be a step to uniting Europe under one government via monetary policy rather than the age old act of war.
Then there is the outright goal of making a United States of Europe with a central government. There are some that believe allowing a Euro crisis to continue to its worst possible outcome will allow the guidance of France and Germany to institute a one government United States of Europe.
The UK is a member of the EU but has gone to great lengths to maintain its national sovereignty. For example the UK does not use the Euro because it still has its own national bank (Bank of England) with the Pound Sterling as the British currency. I am not quite certain how British national interests would deal with the French and Germans dominating a U.S. of E.
History has shown that the UK has not liked the idea of continental Europe calling the shots of British policy. I predict if Continental Europe draws toward a central government that the UK will not participate in a United States of Europe. So then Geopolitics comes into question. If the scenario is an independent UK, a central government of the USE and various Eastern Europe nations not a part of the USE but are a part of NATO then a different relational balance of power must ensue.
For one thing the existence of an American led NATO would not be in the national interests of a new USE. The NATO as we know it would have to be disbanded or realigned. For there to be a viable NATO it might look like the USA, the UK, the USE and various new NATO members of Eastern Europe (of the old Soviet bloc). Frankly because a more powerful centralized USE, I doubt that the one Europe order would enjoy playing the back-up role in NATO.
I see two possible shifts in geopolitical alignments that might even further change if the first tier is successful.
· The USE would withdraw as an active member of NATO and begin to take on its own defensive strategy that would at least be friendly to the USA in the beginning.
· The USA, the UK and Eastern Europe nations would continue in NATO or develop a new charter redefining an alliance strategy for belligerent invaders from the East like Russia or nuclear armed nations perhaps like Iran or even Pakistan.
Then the U.S. foreign policy ticket might be completely overhauled.
Perhaps the USA would begin to view the USE as a viable buffer. This would mean the USE would be the buffer between a reemerging Russia and American national interests in European markets. America would begin to solidify Latin America as being off limits Western and Eastern powers as in the old Monroe Doctrine updated to the 21st century. With Russia buffered by Europe then American would be able to focus its interests on America’s greatest Eastern competitor – China.
It would behoove America to drop untrustworthy Pakistan and cultivate a friendship with India. Cultivation with India could be tricky since Russia has been an ally for India for some time; however except for a penchant for socialism India has nothing in common with Russia.
India is a nation of democratic institutions with a huge infusion of socialistic government management. India’s natural enemy is Muslim Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan are nuke powers. Pakistan’s government is ironically a bit byzantine and unstable as to who calls the shots on policy. India demonstrates all the growing pains of a third world nation moving up the later to economic strength yet with a stable government which is amazing considering the diversity of religious elements inside India. Hinduism is the big dog, yet Islam is still a large element in India.
I bring the plusses and minuses of India to attention because of the Global War on Terrorism, Iranian saber rattling, Russian demands to be a geopolitical military player and China’s desire to be a shaker and mover economically on a global level which in turns would require a shaking and moving military back-up Chinese national interests. This in turn connects to America’s national interest to protect her citizens physically and economically which again goes to military power.
To bring my rambling all together I need to point out that a collapsing Eurozone and a restructured European Union has a definite affect on America’s future via the policy choices America would have to make. Let’s be clear. Those America choices are more than just concerns over deficits and debt and the economy. Those American choices will determine America’s traditional strengths of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness which in turn frame Constitutional Rights and laws that have become embedded in the American psyche almost like a spiritual persona.
Just as a side note I realize these thoughts gravitate more toward nationalism and American Exceptionalism than toward global elites pulling strings to form a One World Government or New World Order under an international power. Personally I believe the NWO conspiracy theory has some viability as an agenda; however as far as human nature goes I also believe human differences of opinion cannot sustain a One-Government NWO. Even in an oligarchical fashion, spheres of influence that will look more like cooperating nations will happen in Earth’s future rather than the executive power of One World Government.
Many will find another irony in my belief system. I BELIEVE IN A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!
My view of a One World Government/New World Order is not at the hand or hands of mankind. Rather my view is that of the Parousia of Jesus Christ that will initiate the thousand year rule of the Lord’s Kingdom on earth. After the thousand year rule of Christ, human nature will again be tempted away from God’s covenant with Satan’s release from his supernatural prison to again deceive humanity into believing that Satan’s leadership can defeat the Creator’s power to make twisted ungodliness normal and godliness to look like evil.
Once again that old dragon Satan will get whooped upon and his deceived followers. God Almighty then creates the New Earth and the New Heaven which merge together as Jerusalem as the capital city. Then human nature will longer be tainted by the fallen nature of the first Adam but will be like the nature of the last Adam – Jesus Christ the Son of God and Savior.
So, do I think a Eurozone collapse is imminent? A lot of pundits think so. There is disagreement though. Niall Ferguson senses the European Union will collapse while the Eurozone survives by restructuring somewhat as I mentioned earlier. Making a strong Euro thus means making the European Central Bank an elitist organization expelling or refusing to allow weak links (i.e. weak economic nations) to be a part of the ECB Board of Directors. Incidentally the ECB Board of Directors functions somewhat like America’s Federal Reserve. The weak links that continue to use the Euro as their currency would in essence make their economic policy subservient to the ECB Board of Directors.
Whether the EU collapses or the Eurozone collapses, the most likely outcome will be a restructuring of Europe. If everything goes south then Europe returns to a bunch of fractured nations. I am guessing on a global scale this would not be beneficial for the global economy affecting big economies outside of Europe. This is why people should pay attention to the other alternative; i.e. the existence of a United States of Europe fits the bill to keep global economic standards on an even keel.