When Czech president Vaclav Klaus signed the Lisbon treaty on Tuesday 3rd November he concluded a project that has been 58 years in the making. Since the end of WW2 Europe through various agreements, treaties and political manoeuvring has attempted to unify as a block in order to maintain influence in the world.
The Lisbon Treaty is Europe’s effort to create a decision-making structure that will turn the EU’s disjointed political reality into a coherent whole. The European Union is not Europe’s first attempt at unification, Charlemagne the 8th century leader of the Frankish empire first attempted to unify Europe through conquering large swathes of European territory. Napoleon then attempted the feat in the 19th century only to be defeated in 1815 at the battle of waterloo. Hitler also attempted to conquer Europe and bring the continent under Nazi rule, this was halted due to WW2.
The Soviet Union and the US emerged the world’s powers after WW2, replacing Britain and France who were devastated when the war ended. France perceived the US and particularly the US dominance of European foreign and defence policies through NATO, as a threat that could make Paris irrelevant. At the time, the French saw their country as a key world power that did not need hefty alliances, and that needed to stand apart from the US. In 1950 French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed a community to integrate the coal and steel industries of Europe – two elements necessary to make weapons for war. France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, West Germany and Luxembourg signed the Treaty of Paris (1951) creating the European Coal and Steel Community, the origins of the European Union. Whilst the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was modest in its scale it set the precedent that Europeans have followed ever since – establishing supranational institutions in the sphere of trade and then spreading over into the ream of security and politics.
During the détente between the Soviet Union and the US, European nations individually posed little challenge to the two world powers. As a unified bloc however Europe had the prospects of challenging the supremacy of the USSR and the US. Such realities were the impetus for further European political coherence and during the 1970’s the European Union was enlarged and Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom became members – the first of many enlargements. In 1993 and 2004 a number of former Soviet republics joined the EU making the EU a union of 27 member states.
Over a period of nearly 60 years the European Union has become an integrated whole through unifying its markets, through a single currency and now through the Lisbon treaty which will streamline decision making and empower Europe to emerge as a continental entity. Whilst many ridicule the concept of a pan continental Khilafah, in over half a century European states have managed to attain a level of integration which places it as a force across the world. There is however a number of obstacles that will always keep the EU disjointed these can be summarised as the following:
– The European Union has today expanded well beyond its original founder states. Consensus on how far enlargement should go and how deep integration should be continues to plague the union. Member states are reluctant to relinquish their sovereignty to bureaucrats in Brussels or leave key decision making to the two nations that dominate the EU – Germany and France. A union based upon a confederation makes the EU a mere customs union – so whilst from an economic perspective the EU acts as one block, political sovereignty means the union will always remain disjointed. The Lisbon treaty is in fact an attempt to overcome such differences by replacing unanimous voting with qualified majority voting (QMV), this practically means most EU issues can no longer be vetoed by a single nation.
– The US has worked to actively weaken the EU. The US has managed to maintain NATO as the worlds default security organisation, European attempts at creating an alternative security force has met numerous challenges by the US. The Balkan conflict clearly showed the US had superiority over NATO. Without the ability to construct its own security the EU will always be reliant upon the US, the very nation the EU was created to challenge. A leaked version of the Pentagon’s 1994-1999 Defense Planning Guidance report advises that the United States “must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO … Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for U.S. influence and participation in European security affairs.” EU enlargement into central and Eastern Europe has brought US influence into the union as many former Soviet republics have been brought under the NATO umbrella and hence the US is already providing their security.
– The British view of Europe will always ensure the union remains fragmented. Britain views the EU through the lens of achieving its own interests. It joined the EU only when the détente was agreed between the USSR and the US in order to challenge the two giants. Britain refuses to melt into the EU like Luxemburg and at the same time Britain has ambitions to play a leading role in Europe. As this is currently not possible Britain essentially has one leg in the EU and one in America. Thus, when its interests are parallel to the US, Britain sides with it and hence weakens the EU. This suits the US who does not want Europe to compete with her as a unified block.
– France, Germany and Britain have dominated European history, whilst they colonised the world much of central and Eastern Europe was on the receiving end of colonial expansion. As a result whilst Europe went through the enlightenment and as a continent challenged the Christian church, Europe’s common history ends here. All European states have differing identities and this continued obstacle means the powerful nations within the EU are pulling the union in a direction different to the other member states.
– Fundamentally a union of smaller states into a larger political union is a weak method of amalgamation. It lacks the characteristics found in full unification where a people become one nation. A union as a method of binding peoples and nations is always prone to political differences as it continues to recognise the sovereignty of constituent nations, this leaves it open to penetration from the outside.
Islam and unification
Islam has a very specific method of binding different peoples and nations. Islam has a number of rules which outline clearly the method of enlargement, integration annexation and unification. Primarily this is through establishing the Khilafah which is one state for all the citizens under its authority.
The Islamic way of ruling is to establish equality between the subjects in all the regions of the State. Islam grants non-Muslims who hold citizenship, the full rights and duties that Muslims have. They enjoy the same fairness as Muslims and are subject to the same accountability as them.
Furthermore, every single citizen, regardless of his or her creed, enjoys rights that even a Muslim living abroad who holds no citizenship does not enjoy. Islam considers every single region as an indivisible part of the State and its citizens enjoy the same rights as those in the central region. It also makes the ruling, its system of governance and its legislation the same for all citizens. In this way over a generation different peoples will become a homogenous entity and this gives it strength, makes the nation move in one direction – which leads to progress.
The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم established Islam in Madina and he ruled over a people where the Ummah was a minority. Treaties were signed with the surrounding Jewish tribes and the rights between the Muslims and non-Muslims were clearly defined in the Ash-Shifah document, which was in effect a constitution. When the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم passed away the whole Arabian Peninsula was under Islamic authority and the Sahabah then expanded the Islamic lands to North Africa, the Sub-continent and Central Asia. By ensuring no region had separate legislative, political and economic rules, this created a sense of unity and resulted in the conquered to fully embrace Islam, make it their own and then carry the call to the surrounding lands. Muhammed bin Qasim embraced Islam when under Umar (ra) Iraq came under Islam, Muhammed bin Qasim then carried this call to the subcontinent. In a similar manner it was under Mu’awiyah that the Berbers of Egypt embraced Islam, the Berber turned Muslim Tariq bin Ziyad then took Islam to Spain.
After the Abbasids the weakness that overtook the Ummah in understanding the deen resulted in some regions’ becoming semi – autonomous, some of the conquered territories such as Eastern Europe were never fully absorbed and on some occasions the Islam method was not fully adhered too. This is why there is a vast difference today in the Islamic orientation of the lands that came under Islamic authority in the earlier period to those lands that the latter Uthmani Khilafah conquered.
Conclusion
The EU will inevitably be disjointed as the major powers such as France and Britain view Europe form the perspective of achieving their own national interests. Germany on the other hand weakens its prospects by viewing the world from a European perspective, this in effect contains the economic giant.
Europe continues to be dominated by two differing spectrums of thought on the future direction of the union: there are the Eurosceptics such as the UK and Denmark who view the EU with suspicion due to the larger nations who dominate it, for them is it worth giving up national sovereignty in return for being led by Brussels, but at the same time want to benefit from the Customs union and trade opportunities a united EU brings. Then there are those who want to see a strong, united and integrated political union such as France and Germany, which can manoeuvre at a global level and protect their national interests in a world with rising global powers such as China and India. National interests will always halt progress in the EU.
The Khilafah offers a unified approach to global affairs through the Islamic methods of a unitary state, with one ruler, one foreign policy, one economy, one adoption globally and the absence of customs and tariffs domestically. A nation or people wishing to join the Khilafah are welcomed, they would come under the authority of the Khaleefah who would have to provide their security in return for their loyalty. They become subjects of the state like any other citizen irrespective of their beliefs.
The Organisation of Islamic conferences (OIC), Arab league and every other attempt at unifying the Ummah, where, all in origin colonial projects which protects the individual and territorial integrity of the 52 or so nations the departing colonialists created. Some have viewed such useless organisations as the first step to ultimate reunification for the Ummah. Islam has clearly designated the Khilafah as the method of unifying the Ummah, anything else is destined to fail, a deviation from Islam and will turn the global Ummah into another EU – disjointed and unable to progress.