THE politics of Western Europe center around two great achievements-the Atlantic Alliance and the Common Market. At this point in time, one would be blind not to see that both are in danger. How could this have come about?
A NEW EFFORT TO BUILD EUROPE
THE politics of Western Europe center around two great achievements-the Atlantic Alliance and the Common Market. At this point in time, one would be blind not to see that both are in danger. How could this have come about?
The Atlantic Alliance was concluded in Washington in 1948, born of the fear aroused among the Western democracies by Soviet imperialism, and particularly by its recent and spectacular demonstration in the coup d'état in Czechoslovakia. The signers aimed to defend the free world against possible Soviet aggression. They intended, in any event, to raise what they hoped would be an insurmountable barrier against any Soviet advance in Europe and North America.
The idea of a united Europe came back to life at a congress at The Hague in 1948, after a state of unconsciousness into which it had been plunged by fascism, Hitlerism, Communism and the Second World War. Its advocates (who included some of those who had signed the Washington treaty) aimed to lift Europe out of weakness to its former level of strength and influence, so that it might become a full-fledged partner of its great American ally.
There was no contradiction or conflict between the concept of the Atlantic Alliance and of the European alliance. Rising from its ruins, Europe rallied to both ideas, and-let it never be forgotten-found peace and prosperity.
How is it possible that a system which brought peace and prosperity can now be in danger? The answer is perfectly clear. The enemy we thought we had defeated raises his head once more, not yet strong enough to win but vigorous enough to cause serious trouble. The enemy is nationalism.
Obviously, I do not mean to cast aspersions on a reasonable love for one's fatherland and its traditions, a legitimate reverence for the memory of great historical events, and, for that matter, a preference for certain features peculiar to one's own community. What I wish to condemn is an idea which is untenable in the twentieth century-the idea that individual peoples, no matter how strong, can solve by their own efforts alone the political, military and economic problems they encounter.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
The recent emergence of nationalist and populist forces in eastern Europe, coupled with the rise of Russia, now threatens to derail efforts toward further EU integration, weaken NATO, erode the continent's stability, and damage U.S. interests. Washington must ensure that the region's new politics do not damage the European project, for a strong and cohesive EU is in everyone's interest.
After the Cold War, NATO and the EU opened their doors to central and eastern Europe, making the continent safer and freer than ever before. Today, NATO and the EU must articulate a new rationale for enlarging still further, once again extending democracy and prosperity to the East, this time in the face of a more powerful and defiant Russia.
In a penetrating new book, Ernest Gellner examines an old Enlightenment idea that could be the key to the success of democratic reform in Eastern Europe.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.