Sociology

According to the historical convention, Europe and Asia are considered two different continents even though there is no natural barrier separating these two continents. This lack of a natural boundary between Europe and Asia often leads to confusion as to which countries are parts of Asia and which are European. The generally accepted boundary of Europe runs down the Ural Mountains, follows the Ural river into the Caspian Sea and then eastwards along Caucasus Mountains, across the Black Sea and through the Turkish Strait (Roskin, 2009). Unfortunately, this geographical boundary is more of an arbitrary line and runs across several countries so that countries such as Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan lie partly in Europe and partly in Asia. Historically, this ambiguity was not of much concern, but with the formation of European Union (EU), the debate over which countries are European has taken on a new turn. If the traditionally accepted boundary of Europe is used than Cyprus should not be part of the EU. On the other hand, there are those who feel that Christianity unites Europe and so Europe should extend as far as Christianity does. This would bring Russia within the European folds, even though the nation has no desire to join the EU. Besides using religion as criteria would exclude millions of non-Christians who call Europe their home. When deciding the membership for EU, one must remember that the EU was formed primarily for economic reasons. Hence, the criteria for a country to become a member of the EU should not be geographical, cultural or religious but an economic one because it is the advanced economies of the EU which make it possible for them to have such close and meaningful association.

Traditionally, there are seven continents in the world. Five of these continents are surrounded by water bodies on all sides and hence there is no confusion about their boundaries. However, Europe and Asia do not have any such natural or artificial water body separating them. Indeed, many people have referred to Europe as a peninsula of Asia (Bassin, 1991). The only reason Europe and Asia are classified as two separate continents is because of tradition which was started by ancient Greek geographers who had very limited knowledge of the real world geography. But as the real geography of the region became better known, many geographers began questioning the division of Eurasia into two continents. To uphold the ancient tradition, Urals were designated as the boundary between Europe and Asia. However, this boundary was completely arbitrary and different geographers had completely different takes on where Europe ended and Asia began. The ancient Greeks saw the European boundary at the river Tanais and this continued to remain the accepted boundary among the scholars until as late as the seventeenth century. But the Tanais river was nothing more than a stream and it did not serve as a good reliable way to divide a land mass into two continent. Certain political considerations meant that by eighteenth century, the need to clearly define the boundary between Asia and Europe had become imperative. This led several scholars to try and come up with a boundary which was more reliable than a small river. The Ural Mountains became the obvious choice for defining this boundary because they represented a substantial landmark. However, their remained significant differences in how the boundary was drawn south of the mountains with different scholars drawing entirely different boundaries. And it took some time before even the Ural Mountains were widely accepted as the natural boundary. To complicate the matters further, in the nineteenth century, many Russians refused to identify Russia as either a European or Asian country, instead representing it as an independent geographical world (Bassin, 1991). Given this geographical, historical and political ambiguity in clearly defining the European borders, it is obvious that geography cannot be successfully used to define what constitutes Europe. Hence, in the absence of a clearly defined boundary, geography cannot be used as reliable measure for deciding the European boundary.

To counter this geographical ambiguity, many scholars have insisted upon a religious and cultural definition of Europe. The argument for such a division of Europe is that the continent is united by a common Christian culture. This argument is also used to deny European membership to the predominantly Islamic Turkey. The problem with this religious argument for definition of Europe is that it does not take into account the millions of non-Christians who have been leaving within the accepted European boundaries for generations. While it may be argued that these non-Christians are a minority this may change in future. In an increasingly globalized world order people from all kinds of religious and cultural backgrounds travel to wherever they can find good employment opportunities and a generation later the adoptive country becomes their home. If religion is used to define European boundaries, the next step would be to expel all non-Christians from Europe. This is neither practical nor desirable. In an increasingly secular world, there is no place for a theocratic political order. If EU is allowed to have an exclusively Christian identity, its long term fallout could be very dangerous. This tendency to think of Europe in terms of reaction against something else (Moisio, 2002) is a negative concept which would turn Europe in to an exclusive society formed on the basis of such a reaction against non-Christians. Nothing should ever be founded on such negativity, least of all a grand idea like EU which is based on the concept of inclusiveness. Hence, religion as the basis for EU membership is definitely not acceptable.

The problem with defining culture as the common denominator of Europe is that after the collapse of the Cold War, many of the formally communist countries have now joined the EU. The culture of a country like Czech Republic can never be similar to that of say France or England. Indeed, there are vast differences even between the cultures of France and England and Germany. On the other hand USA is culturally much closer to Europe than some of the East European members of EU. Each one of the member countries of the EU is a separate nation state which has its own unique identity, language, history and culture. Historically, these countries have, at various times, been both enemies and allies. Any talk of cultural similarities between these countries is nothing more than wishful thinking. Also with the increase in the number of asylum seekers and the in-flow of migrant labors from former colonies of France, UK and Netherlands, Europe has become culturally and ethnically much more homogenous than at any point in the history. The cultural definition of Europe gets even more complex when we include the various colonies of the European countries. When France signed the Treaty of Rome, Algeria was still an integral part of France and Spain continues to have possessions in North Africa, Guyana (South America), Martinique and Guadeloupe (Caribbean). The inhabitants of all these places are considered citizens of Europe and payments are made in Euro (Hansen, 2004). Neither are these places geographically in Europe, nor do they have cultures similar to what may be called European culture. Hence cultural similarity can never be the common link between the EU countries and cannot be used as a criterion for new members.

Before the end of the cold war, the iron curtain provided the de-facto boundary of Europe. However, this resulted in artificially shifting the European boundary westwards since many countries which were under the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union had a cultural heritage more similar to Western Europe (Moisio, 2002). Nations such as Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary, which were geographically in central Europe were under Russian influence and hence not eligible for EU membership. With the end of Cold War, these countries were reclaimed by Europe, making political ideology a criterion for their Europeanness. While this may be an acceptable way to decide EU membership, this cannot be the sole criterion. Such a uni-dimensional definition of Europe is definitely not conducive for the future of Europe.

The reason why it is difficult to define the boundaries of Europe is because since the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957, the EU has been continuously expanding (Moisio, 2002). The European Union which started with six countries in 1951 today has twenty seven member countries and negotiations are underway to include more countries in the EU. EU cannot continue to expand indefinitely and at some point the Eastern border of Europe will have to be decided. The problem is that there is simply no feature which is exclusively European which can be used to decide the Europeanness of a nation, be it religion, culture, history or political ideology. Europe is more of a concept than a geopolitical entity.

In view of all the ambiguity, the question of Europe cannot be satisfactorily answered by any single concept or a set of rules. Hence, instead of trying to define what constitutes Europe, a more fruitful endeavor would be to come up with clear cut requirements for EU membership. Several attempts have been made to lay down criteria for entry in the EU. The most significant attempt in this regard was made in the 1993 Copenhagen European Council. The council laid down exact criteria which must be fulfilled by a country in order to gain entry into the EU. These criteria included democracy, rule of law, human rights and a functioning market economy (Moisio, 2002). This political-economic framework provides the most practical standards for deciding EU membership. And yet it raises problem because it allows any nation which considers itself European to apply for membership but the decision to accept them into EU rests with the current EU members. This can result in hostility and frustration among the states which consider themselves European but are excluded. And this hostility beats the very purpose of EU, which was formed to ensure greater economic cooperation and to avoid European wars. Hence there is this urgent need to come up with objective criteria which can help applicant countries to judge for themselves if they are eligible for EU membership.

As discussed above, although there are a number ways in which Europeans can define and distinguish themselves, each one of these criteria of Europeanness is subjective and open to negotiation. And in the modern world, religion must never be used as criteria for anything since it only serves to further the tensions rather than unite. One such objective criterion is economy. Economy can be successfully used to unite Europe because from the very beginning, the dominant assumption behind the formation of the alliances between European powers was that the self-interest of enterprise can be harnessed in the public interest through a liberalization of trade and capital and labor markets (Hudson, 2000). This economic basis of cooperation was further strengthened after 1980s with projects such as Single European Market, Economic and monetary Union and the creation of a single currency in 1999. So, since economy has been the basis for the formation of the EU, all future memberships should also be considered purely on economic basis.

Some people may argue that with open borders within the EU, allowing people from a completely different culture to freely enter Europe would destroy the European culture. This is a typical xenophobic argument which is neither practical nor suitable in the current globalized world. First, culture is not something static but is constantly changing. Outside influences only serve to enrich the culture of any given place rather than destroy it. Hence Europeans must welcome people from what they perceive as a different culture and seek to share and exchange their cultural heritage rather than shun them as outcasts. In fact, no country or region can think of itself as an island and completely avoid outside influences. And if a region were to succeed in such an endeavor, it would stagnate their culture. Culture is meant to constantly evolve and hence any restrictions based on culture should be avoided at all times. A second reason to avoid such cultural identity is because when multiculturalism is seen as a threat, people try to preserve their ethnic and national identity by closing out outside cultures and avoiding cultural hybridity (Hudson, 2000). This results in bitterness which can lead to a rise in fundamentalism with a strong demand for reverting back to national identities. And this cannot be conducive for the future of the EU.

So in conclusion, countries which are approximately within the traditionally accepted geographical European boundary and practice some form of market economy should be eligible for EU membership. Since capitalism is a proven model which has helped many countries rise above mediocrity and develop into advanced economies, adopting a market economy as the common uniting feature of EU should find no opposition. Hence an advanced economy, based on capitalism should be the number one deciding factor for EU membership. Other issues such as democracy and a commitment to human rights, though important, should not be the limiting factors. The EU was formed with the aim of economic cooperation and economic cooperation can be successfully carried out only between countries which share their economic ideologies. Having a common economic ideology is imperative for membership to EU. All other so-called integral aspects of Europeanness such as Christianity, culture, history and political ideologies do not really form European identity, much less criteria for membership to EU. These matters should be left to individual nations to decide internally among themselves, while the EU should concentrate on economic homogeneity to decide on membership.