It should be remembered that France, together with Germany, was one of those countries that pushed for the removal of frontiers and the signing of the Schengen Agreement. Today, in the wake of this terrorist attack, the country may appear to be backtracking on its European values. On the other hand, on Monday, the President of the French Republic, François Hollande addressed the two French Chambers, which solemnly met at Versailles. In his address, there was one point, which is relevant to all member-States of the European Union, including Malta. He pointed out that, in line with the Treaty of Lisbon, an EU country can ask for military support from all other member-States should it suffer an external attack. The French President has declared war against ISIS. It is expecting that all the Member-States, including Malta, join her war effort. Should this fail to materialise, the European Union risks becoming history.
Thus the Union will be facing two options. Either it follows the Federal model. This would mean that there will be a reduction in the number of States, as not all countries would accept such a model or else there is the total disbandment of this concept and, as the extreme right parties in Europe are advocating, there would be a return to European borders.
I think that there can be the third way, which no one is exploring in Europe. This third option became more relevant in the wake of the Paris events. This is the setting up of a Confederation of European States.
This model was never taken seriously in history because those States that proposed it were defeated in the American Civil war. I am firmly convinced that the success of the Northern American system of Government in the American Civil War has somehow determined and conditioned European integration. Europe had two main options. It could either have copy the victorious model of a Federal State or else try to recreate a sort of endogenous political model, which is unique and European. Europe opted for the second.
The reason for this could be the fact the American Civil War presented the model of a victorious North, which appeared to be powerful and authoritarian. It was then the turn of paid historians to depict the victorious States and their model role as idealistic and that of the losers as diabolic. A movement started in literature and continued in politics to depict the North to be superior to the South. This was not just an issue between North and Southern Europe but also within countries themselves. In England, for example Elisabeth Gaskell presents this paradigm in her novel North and South. In history, Scotland is branded as the harbinger of the Industrial Revolution and the capitalist system.
Certainly, for many in Europe, this appeared as an imposed model after a bloody war. Europe too has had its wars but for various historical reasons, it has failed or was lucky enough not to have any country impose its hegemony over the rest. Therefore, despite the fact that this American model of Federal States is now a success and tested story, Europe still thought it wise to discard it.
The American model came to mean the bringing together of a number of different States under one common government but at the same time allowing respect for the individual legislation provided that this did not go against the American Constitution. The common purpose is achieved by having a common foreign policy and a common defence system and monetary union. Europe sought to emulate this model without seeking to impose one prime minister or president for the whole of Europe. Even the figure of its European President has never been a unifying figure as is the case of America. It has successfully introduced the Euro and the Greek crisis shows that Europe wants to save it at all costs.
The Federal State, as emulated by America, has another element. It was built on the concept of Roman Law, and even if they do not say so, America's founding fathers used the model of the Papal States as their model of government. In fact, America, like the Vatican, has no prime minister, but this function is taken over by the Secretary of State.
Yet, there is another model that has not been explored, and I am sure that this is due to the fact, that this model is associated with the losers of the American Civil War. I am here speaking about the confederate model. The term confederate has not been historically tested, despite that it was in practice in early modern times. It also holds a concept of conglomeration of independent states, wherein these States enjoy even higher respect for their cultural and political peculiarities than in the Federal State. I think that Europe should look thoroughly at this model, in particular now, after what has happened in Paris. It is the model that best suits Europe's current condition and history. This model is sometimes referred to as a League of Independent States.
The concept of league is today associated with the unsuccessful League of Nations that came into existence after the First World War. Yet this term was politically important in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and it was the only political model that worked at the time, in front of a common enemy. At least, politically, the concept of league was created to bring small and big nations together on an equal footing. The concept of confederation, in my opinion, developed out of this political state. Thus, united together - even if there could be cultural differences - the League brought about the common values, which in the sixteenth century, were linked to "religio." They could present themselves as one strong "single great power" in confrontation with a bigger one, which at the time was the Ottoman Empire. Times have changed, but we all agree that Western Democracy is a common value which we should all cherish and should unite Europe. This goes beyond the concept of Laicité, as preached in France or any other political ideology.
I strongly think that this model of confederation is the best for contemporary Europe. Perhaps, in this concept of confederation there could be the answer to the difficulties that some European countries are facing today with the result that their allegiance is more to America than to the concept of European unity. Thus, instead of dreaming of one powerful union, made up of different nation-states, Europe is today made of two-tier political structures. These consist of those countries which are wholly loyal to the European dream and the rest who see their future in closer alliance with America. In this equation, Russia is destined to come in. Until the Parisian attack, Russia was seen as complicating the political equation. Russia is now proving itself Europe's only reliable ally as America is caught between the support for those countries who are supporting terrorism and its western democratic ideals. In this scenario, the Confederate model becomes again relevant as this offers a good prospective for Russia to join.