Английский язык для специальных и академических целей: Международные отношения и зарубежное регионоведение. Часть 1 - [46]

Germany's position is unpredictable. It is a nation that has learned, given its geopolitical position, that it is enormously dangerous to assert its national interest. In 1914 and 1939, Germany attempted to act decisively in response to geopolitical threats, and each time its efforts ended catastrophically. The German analysis is that engaging in politico-military maneuvers outside of a broad coalition exposes Germany to tremendous danger. Atlantic Europe sees Germany as a buffer against Russia and will see any threat in the Baltics as being irrelevant to their interests. Therefore, they will not join the coalition Germany needs to face the Russians. So the most likely outcome will be German inaction, limited American involvement, and a gradual return of Russian power into the borderland between Europe and Russia.

But there is another scenario. In this scenario Germany will recognize the imminent danger to Poland in Russian domination of the Baltics. Seeing Poland as a necessary part of German national security, it will thus exercise a forward policy, designed to protect Poland by protecting the Baltics. Germany will move to dominate the Baltic basin. Since the Russians will not simply abandon the field, the Germans will find themselves in an extended confrontation with the Russians, competing for influence in Poland and in the Carpathian region.

Germany will find itself, of necessity, both split off from its aggressive past and from the rest of Europe. While the rest of Europe will try to avoid involvement, the Germans will be engaged in traditional power politics. As they do that, their effective as well as potential power will soar and their psychology will shift. Suddenly, a united Germany will be asserting itself again. What starts defensively will evolve in unexpected ways.

This is not the most likely scenario. However, the situation might galvanize Germany back into its traditional role of looking at Russia as a major threat, and looking at Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe as a part of its sphere of influence and as protection against the Russians. This depends partly on how aggressively the Russians move, how tenaciously the Balts resist, how much risk the Poles are willing to take, and how distant the United States intends to be. Finally, it depends on internal German politics.

Internally, Europe is inert, still in shock over its losses. But external forces such as Islamic immigration or Russian attempts to rebuild its empire could bring the old fault line back to life in various ways.

(from The Next 100 Years by George Friedman Anchor Books: New York, 2010)

Speak Up

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. What do you think of G. Friedman's view of Russia's role in the past and future history of Europe?

2. Do you agree with G. Friedman's analysis of Russia's and Germany's intertwined destinies?

3. Which of the scenarios for the future of Europe do you find the more feasible? Can you suggest one of your own?

LISTENING 1

Unit III. EU at the Crossroads

A Brief History of the European Union http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgnXwrsMBUs

PRE-VIEWING QUESTIONS

1. Do you know when the idea of a European Community first appeared?

2. What organisations were the predecessors of the European Union?

3. How many members are there currently in the EU? What countries have acceded to the EU since 2004?

VIEWING

a) While watching the video jot down the words/phrases you may need to speak about the history of the EU (to be compared and shared after viewing).

b) After watching the video answer the following questions:

1. What made European countries strive for a union after World War II?

2. What were the successive stages of the EU formation? What was the aim of each?

3. Why were citizens of some European countries, including Britain, unhappy about being within the EEC/EU?

4. What do you learn from the video about the history of the UK-EU relations?

Speak Up

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. What is the procedure of joining the EU nowadays?

2. Do you think any countries are likely to apply for membership in the EU in the near future?

3. What problems has the EU enlargement brought about?

READING 1

PRE-READING QUESTIONS

1. Are the EU member states developing at the same speed? How many of them are members of the euro-zone?

2. What do you think the notion of a “multi-speed”/ “two-speed Europe” implies? Is it a reality or a concept?

3. Should the more developed countries sign a legally binding agreement giving them power to make decisions independently from the other EU members, what would be the consequences for the Union?

Look through the article to find out what the positive and negative outcomes of a formal implementation of the ‘two-speed Europe' model might be.

THE DANGER OF A TWO-SPEED EUROPE http://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/ECFR43_REINVENTION_OF_EUROPE_ESSAY_AW1.pdf By Mark Leonard⁴⁴

Unit III. EU at the Crossroads

Joshka Fischer, a long-time champion of the idea of two-speed Europe, predicts that the EU will divide into a vanguard (the euro group) and a rearguard (the rest of the 27 EU members): “This formalised division will fundamentally change the EU's internal architecture,” he wrote in July. “Under the umbrella of the enlarged EU, the old dividing lines between a German/French-led European Economic Community and a British/Scandinavian-led European Free Trade Association reemerge.” What Fischer envisages is some kind of legally binding intergovernmental agreement signed by members of the Eurozone outside the scope of the EU treaties (along the same lines as the Schengen arrangement on border-free travel).