The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

Another Perspective

(Page 2 of 2)

Where Europe goes from here is unclear. In any case, Washington should say little. But it is hard to see how further centralizing continental policy would benefit America.

FORTUNATELY, THE U.S. CAN provide options to individual countries that decide they want out, or at least a better alternative. For instance, John Hulsman of the Heritage Foundation has suggested expanding the North American Free Trade Association to any interested European countries.

They could try to renegotiate the Treaty of Rome, allowing them to join NAFTA. Failing that, they could shift from the EU to the European Free Trade Area and European Economic Area (which include Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway), and sign up with NAFTA. Creating a broader free trade association also would offer nations now seeking to join the EU a better, freer alternative.

Or the U.S. could unilaterally lower trade barriers against select European nations -- most obviously Britain, but others that indicated an interest in pursuing extensive economic liberalization irrespective of the state of Europe. That would benefit Americans by expanding commerce while encouraging stronger bilateral links.

The U.S. might be today's hyper-power, but future challenges can be seen on the horizon. China is the most obvious eventual peer competitor to America. India could follow. A united Europe conceivably still could become another.

Although Washington can do little to prevent any of these future rivalries, it could offer expanded economic ties to help discourage development of a centralized, monolithic Europe arrayed against America. That might be the most important lesson for Washington to draw from the French and Dutch votes against the European constitution.

topics:
Trade, Business, Constitution, Military, Iraq, European Union