¿Nosotros, el Pueblo? The case for North American integration
In 1993, the European Union was born at the Treaty of Maastricht. However, European integration began many years earlier, with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1951, which established the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), followed by the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which created a broader economic partnership, the European Economic Community (EEC), essentially a free trade zone which formed the backbone of the present European Union and was eventually absorbed into the EU apparatus pursuant to the Treaty of Lisbon, signed in 2007.
For decades, free trade and the elimination of economic barriers allowed the Western Bloc to resist Soviet influence and protected American interests in Europe. Upon the demise of the Eastern Bloc, along with its own economic alliance, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON, est. 1949), the West wanted to cement its victory over communism by not only maintaining and expanding existing institutions, but by transforming the simple economic alliance of the EEC into an authoritative, political organization, one with the ability to efficiently consolidate not only economic, but also political and cultural interests, in a comprehensive system based in Brussels.
The immediate goal of the EU was, naturally, to promote European unity, specifically a shared civil identity conducive to the defense of common political, economic and cultural interests. Through initiatives like Erasmus, a beloved European institution that encourages cross-cultural exchange through state-subsidized study abroad programs, the EU attempted to foster the creation of a novel, universal European identity. However, such policies have come into constant conflict with prevailing sentiments surrounding both national identity and economic policy.
While many member states had grown accustomed to American economic and cultural liberalism, many others resisted the new policies that seemed to undermine their traditional way of life. Socialists began to see the American lobby in Brussels as a threat to their independent economic agenda, and the universal, liberal identity based on the American ideal of uniformity (aka “melting pot”) contrasted greatly with the great cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity of Europe. While in many ways a success, the European attempt at constructing a “United States of Europe” has been seriously undermined by questions surrounding immigration, religious and political freedoms and economic policy, and the ideal of European integration seems, at best, a distant dream, at worst, a failed, dystopic reality.
As an American, I feel a certain responsibility for the failures of the EU, however, I’m also preoccupied by the unprecedented instability that my own country is currently experiencing. The political, cultural and economic turmoil currently engulfing the US public sphere threatens to undermine many aspects of the post-WWII global order. A new cold war has begun with China, domestic social and racial tensions are rising, and America’s stubborn, corrupt alliance with Israel threatens her reputation as a stabilizing, responsible force for good on the world’s stage (even inside NATO!). While it has become clear to many, including ranking generals of the IDF, that the Israeli political establishment cannot survive without the continued support of the US government, most have avoided discussing the uncomfortable, but undeniably logical consequence of such a conclusion: that without supporting Israel, the US cannot possibly remain an independent and coherent political entity.
For years, the US has internalized Israeli interests in order to maintain its leading role in Western affairs. Where during the Cold War the US had defended its military presence in Europe as a protection against external Soviet influence, following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the US changed the predominant Western narrative and began to emphasize the internal threats present in European countries: Islamic terrorism and European nationalism (and now, of course, Russia). Israel, in turn, supported this narrative and expanded upon it by often exaggerating threats against European Jewish communities for political gain, thereby creating the false illusion of an “axis of evil” that demands constant American surveillance. While ignoring the rising tide of extremism and antisemitism in the US, the historical consciousness of WWII was reinforced in Europe, recalling the US to her former glory as liberator of Europe and protector of the Jews.
The untenable nature of such an unfounded, unrealistic, and immoral civil ethos, engineered for foreign domination but intimately linked to domestic politics, has led to the observable disintegration of the American identity which has remained unchanged since the end of the war in Vietnam. America’s uncompromising obsession with civility betrays a weakening, complacent morale, an evasion of martial duty, and a totalitarian, imperialistic outlook on global politics (a revelation on Western society that has occurred to many Israelis in the wake of the October 7th massacres). The traumatic suppression of the protest culture, along with the gradual infantilization of American society through the subversion of significant cultural and economic norms led to a generalized paralysis that disrupted the transmission of what had once been an American birthright, identity. The resulting exaltation of the individual success of the few, and of avarice itself, severely impeded any attempt to reestablish a viable, shared ethos, and many, myself included, feel robbed of both ourselves and our fatherland.
If I were more politically inclined, I may have subscribed to the superficial patriotism of Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again.” At some point, I may have even appreciated his unabashed bluntness and entertaining narcissism. However, I don’t see Trumpism, or any other form of a reengineered American identity (i.e. woke liberalism) as possible solutions to America’s current predicament. These false messiahs may appear to represent the genuine interests of the people, but if The People have, indeed, lost their cohesiveness, their basic identity as Americans, then democracy cannot function. While galvanized by the tragic events unfolding in Israel-Palestine, and further bolstered by the strategic errors that Putin has made in his bloody invasion of the Ukraine, the political establishment in the US cannot possibly maintain its interests in both Europe and the Middle East and will need to decide between two of the most treasured jewels of her empire. Europeans will begin to pressure the US government into choosing between the EU or Israel.
Owing to the immense economic, political and cultural ties that Americans have with their European brethren (the majority of Americans are still of European descent), it would seem that Europe would be the most strategic and logical choice for the US. Nevertheless, as previously demonstrated, American dominance over European affairs relies on the historical narrative promulgated by Israel’s Foreign Ministry. In other words, if the US chooses Europe over Israel, it will gradually lose its grip over the EU, as its distancing from Israel would render much of the outdated anti-fascist propaganda impotent. Conversely, if the US should choose Israel over the moral dissent of European governments, it will surely find itself at odds with many powerful European institutions, possessing considerable influence in the US and extremely embarrassed by the West’s unconditional support of Israeli aggression. Without the moral high-ground, it would become increasingly difficult to keep order in the West and would require the US to gradually divest from its holdings in Israel in order to compensate. Thus, for both Israeli and American political establishments, the current crisis poses an immediate, overwhelming existential threat which cannot be avoided, or beaten. Barring WWIII (a real threat!), they will not survive as independent entities.
What fate, then, awaits the huddled masses of America? I suggest that Americans learn from the successes of the EU and apply what they have learned to their own situation. Curiously, a similar organization to the EEC was founded in the same era of post-Cold War optimism/American expansionism: NAFTA. While initially constructed as a ploy for the exploitation of low labor costs and natural resources of Mexico and Canada, NAFTA, or USMCA, as it’s now known, represents a seamless, natural political alternative to the overburdened federal government of the US. By combining forces, Canadian and Mexican leadership could work together to help reinvent American identity in a post-colonial context. The remnants of the traditional, strictly White-Black American (mostly Protestant) identity would be replaced by a stronger regional North American identity, integrating [mainly] Hispanic culture.
We should embrace this Latin-American identity and work to build the necessary institutional framework for a real, functional North American Union (NAU), using the same blueprint that the Europeans used for their own. While their union has only been partly successful, I believe that the underlying sociological characteristics of North America makes it even more amenable for such a solution. Unlike Europe, which abounds with many distinct linguistic, national, and cultural identities, the US, Canada and Mexico all already speak the same two languages, and, in many ways, share the same culture and histories. Unlike Europe, North America hasn’t suffered a violent implosion since the 1860s, making it possible to create a system of cooperation without having to resort to the fear, or threat, of violence. Additionally, and, most importantly, Mexico desperately needs the stability that the American government could provide in order to deal with its internal disarray, and Canada, currently experiencing an overdose of wokeness, would stand to gain much from the social vitality that such a proposed union would bring.
Even today, American culture has begun to accept Latino culture. Latino Americans make up a growing demographic that influences all aspects of American life, from the music and entertainment industries, to religion (mostly Catholic), and, of course, politics. Growing up in a changing, cosmopolitan New York, I never saw Latino culture as foreign or “un-American.” Though a “gringo” myself, I felt that by exploring Latino culture I gained an important foothold in my own American identity, a fact that became more obvious when I eventually visited Spain and surprised the locals with my knowledge of their language. When they would ask me where I learned my Spanish, I would proudly respond: “¡Soy de Nueva York!” For me, it was more than picking up a foreign language, it was coming into my own.
