The Economist published a fairly interesting piece on the Sudentenland that's causing more headaches for the growing European Union. I'm not all that concerned about anything that causes troubles for the EU, since it's increasingly apparent that the Europeans are trading a mishmash of conflicting national policies for an oppressive, illiberal, antidemocratic centralized bureaucracy. I suspect that the benefits of a single stable currency are the only real benefit Europeans will have from the EU.
But I think the story also illustrates a broader issue: if you look at most of the world, ethnic conflicts and carping over things that happened generations ago are fairly normal. This can be seen reflected in Northern Ireland, Israel and Palestine, Kashmir, and countless other places where people are fighting over land they say belonged to their ancestors. Conflicts like this are never resolved; they either result in war, or slowly fade away. (Link courtesy of Paul Fallon.)
"I suspect that the benefits of a single stable currency are the only real benefit Europeans will have from the EU. "
And that's not looking like much of a benefit. See
http://economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1291571
" Germany's GDP grew at an annual rate of only 1.1% in the second quarter of this year, leaving it just 0.1% higher than a year ago. Italy's economy also grew by a paltry 0.9% in the second quarter, but the other two big economies, France and Spain, are expected to show stronger growth. Even so, a recent slide in business confidence has caused many economists to trim their forecast for growth in the euro area in 2002, to around 1%. Germany will be lucky to achieve half that. By contrast, the United States is still tipped to grow by over 2%."
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000796.html
"Back in the years between when the Maastricht Treaty was negotiated and when it was implemented, I would occasionally find an international economist and ask them why European Monetary Union was thought to be a good thing--"For," I would say, "it's hard to think that western Europe is an optimum currency area, in Robert Mundell's sense."
Now comes the Economist with one of its focuses. What is the point of the focus? That western Europe is not an optimum currency area, and that as a result the macroeconomic policy problems of its governments now that EMU is a reality are knotty and difficult--and made more difficult by the fiscal "Stability and Growth Pact." "