By Zubair Khan

Note by Editor. In March 1996, in a question answer session, Late Mirza Tahir Ahmad r.a. the 4th spiritual head of Ahmadiyya when asked about ECC narrated following details.

The fact is that behind the working of the mind which conceived of this plan or minds which conceived of this plan were hanging the swords of two world wars. Europe as a continent, having so many different states with independent authorities, despite all the best efforts got split again and again on the issues which in fact were economic issues, the interests of various states were at loggers head with each other concerning certain economic issues. This has always happened and these things when they grow further, if not always, most often, produce wars. So, having read whole this they must have gone in the entire history, background and reasons why these wars took place and they must have inferred that Germany seems to be the centre to the whole issue. And as long as Germany has that capability of building itself a very powerful economic machinery and causing or posing threat to economic interests of other countries and also gaining so much strength that it should go in their heads that they must emerge supreme now and take revenge of what the rest of Europe had been doing to them in the past history. They must have thought that this is a logical inevitable conclusion which should work exactly the same way as it worked previously.

So, the first answer to this question was presented by Churchill which is mentioned in his Memoirs of the World War II. He suggested to president Roosevelt and also to Stalin that as long as Germany remains united it will always pose threat to peace, so let us divide it in two parts. He willingly gave half of it to Russia, “ All right take it and do whatever you like with it, and we have control over the other part, we will defend it and a polarisation will begin. ” He didn’t say it in so many words but this is exactly what he said very clearly ­– that to save peace in Europe this county must be divided into two. And apolarisation must result from that. So, German pitched against German. That would give peace to the rest of Europe or guarantee some manner of peace for them. But times changed, this no longer suited the political environment of the entire world, America included So, as the Berlin wall fell, we can see that until up to that time already Europe must have realised that it was a folly to divide Germany. It became absolutely clear during the collapse of the German wall, but it was not news to Europe only at that time ­– they must have calculated long before that this people, if kept divided and one half of it handed over to the USSR, would create havoc with the peace of the whole world because they are very special people, very industrious and disciplined; they will play a vital role in favour of USSR in the next world war whenever it takes place because they were idolised. As such, there were already second thoughts of this issue. So, these factors must had given birth to, politically, the concept of one united Europe in which Germany should be absorbed as one entity. Not independent but as a part of one united Europe.

The second were the economic compulsions related to the outside world more than the internal requirements. Germany could economically compete with the rest of Europe but the problem was not just that. The problem was that, with America at one end and China and Far East on the other, individually European countries could not have build their economies so powerfully as to compete with America on the one end and Far East on the other by themselves independently as small countries.  So, to work a plan of economy, whereby the united might of European economy could stand on its own and compete fairly with advantage with other big countries of the world in the world market. This also must have been a very powerful idea which drove them to forge some sort of unity. Other small factors of convenience for instance, travel to European countries without passports, do away visas and all this nonsense, behave as civilized people and let us enjoy jointly all that we possess and share the possession of others as us. This psychological factor must also have inferred in making of this idea. These are the good points.

The bad points are that this game has already created those very jealousies which they wanted to avoid. First of all, this did not bring into the focus of the attention perhaps obviously as is feel the factor that national loyalties in Europe have sunk so deep and have rooted so deeply in the history and thinking that you simply cannot sever the ties of their national growth from their roots and plant them elsewhare as garden with new roots to it. This new identification with Europe is a very serious problem, more so for the British because they have a very glorious past of independence, of diplomacy which not only match but match more than diplomacy of any other people in the world. Politically conscious people of the world know that and would agree to this claim that the British political awareness and diplomacy is rooted deeply in the history of colonisation and no other nation shares it equally with them. That is why America, despite being a very great country, has always been dependent of British advisers on such matters until Ms. Thatcher came. Then a new era began, of British giving in, handing in their own right of superiority in diplomacy and world politics to the elder brother America, which was resented by many other politicians of course and they are trying to return back to their own independent identity. But yet, despite the fact of too much leaning to America, causing such differences in many parts of British society, one thing they know and that is certain that history has put them in the bracket of Americas more than the European bracket. Americas belong originally to the British more than to any other nation, by Americas I mean North America including Canada. They have natural affinity towards each other, a sense of deep association, so it is very difficult for Britain to ignore those historic ties and to create and accept a new identity for themselves which is limited to European confines. When they accept it they also have to give in voluntarily their rights of an independent nation because majority of European countries would always tend to gang against Britain because deep inside they have some disturbing experience of the historical British superiority in politics and having their own way. So, these thoughts are not brought to the focus of attention clearly as I’m defining them but they go into the human psyche and work without even noticing them so clearly. So, something disturbing is happening to the British, “shall we be completely resigning ourselves that historic authority that which we gained with so much labor in the past?” Then, there will be lobbying, naturally it has already started, French lobby, German lobby that lobby that lobby what is ingredient in that lobbying when the continent as a whole conceives itself to be the main representative of European land. Britain, of course is an island, accepted as European but still step-European like stepchild.

So, these factors are going to play a role in the future. It’s impossible to avoid or to bypass them. The second bad point is that a pole would be created in Europe ultimately against America. With the passage of time American authority would be weakened and as EU gains strength in its own economy they are going to reject over much American authority exercised on European land. Then, the race for the market will not be a race between one European country and another, it will be a race between America and Europe as such. On the other hand, America will bypass Europe and bring Japan, Korea and some Far Eastern countries closer to itself, offset the loss  of its authority upon Europe. So, there are very grave efforts to be witnessed in the near future whereby that economic solution found is going to turn into economic problem for the entire world. Russia cannot be absorbed into Europe as a single European entity completely losing its identity. It’s not possible. Russian history has always been independent. When there was British Empire there was also Tsarist Russian Empire. They always go along with other small states around them, comparatively small states but economically very powerful states, and they cannot survive economically without interdependence on each other. The industry throughout the communist period has been so well planned and designed or badly planned and designed that one part of the USSR was productive part and the other part is industrial part. So, they cannot survive independently of each other. Raw material comes mostly from Muslim states and the food also comes mostly from Muslim states like Kazakhstan etc. They are manufactured and processed in  Russia, not in USSR as a whole. Of course there is industry everywhere, but I’m talking of the highest concentration of industry to be in Russia, within USSR. So, they are going to come to their own, after surviving the shock of the change for their economy. They will ultimately settle down. Other nucleus will be created next door to Europe with very strong economic machinery, so powerful that they can’t realise it at this moment actually how far that machinery will go if put into operation because the economic machinery of the USSR is highly technical. If you speak of technicality and scientific education Europe cannot compete with USSR in the area of fundamental industry. They can, of course, compete with USSR in sophisticated items of daily use, but per capita Russia has far more scientists and technologists than any country in Europe, even if you put them all together still USSR has edge over this . So, once their economy falls into steps, then they are going to turn into a very powerful economic machinery. Previously it failed to produce impact because most of the production of industry was directed at war machinery. If there is no threat of war anymore, it will dissipate naturally within the next few years to begin with, then it will come back later. But this initial removal of the immediate threat of war will give Russia ultimate advantage to divert its industry to other common day to day usages of Russians themselves. They have been deprived of this and this is why they are so much suffering, but no more so. Already, the shift is taking place.

So, these and so many other factors speak of a gloomy future of EEC in relation to immediate advantages we can see and some of which have been counted.