regions. In other words, it seems that a united Europe wouldnstill offer unbeatable advantages to the northern countriesnover those of the south. Unity would thus mean exploitationnnot only of Eastern Europe by Western Europe, but of thensoft southern underbelly by northern industry.nMme. Marie-France Garaud, who used to be Pompidou’snand Chirac’s chief advisor, now admits in Geopolitique thatnunity remains an empty slogan when reality is preparing ancontinental shift from west to east (including Russia),nwhether fragmented or unified. There may be in this anhistoric justice. A united Europe did exist, under thenChurch’s aegis, in the Middle Ages; it was the Christiananrespublica. It broke up around 1500 A.D., when thenTurkish invasion detached east from west. During thensubsequent centuries the west profited by the Renaissance,nthe age of discoveries, science and industry, while the eastnfell into stagnation, devastations, wars, and poverty. “Unity”nunder these conditions has been a historical misnomer, anmere geographical fact. It appears now that the east is takingnits revenge: while Western Europe has nothing to offernexcept more consumer goods. Eastern Europe reentersnhistory, thanks partly to the recapture of the national ideanand to the historical imperative of Russo-Cerman cooperation.nMany, mostly outside, fear a recrudescence of nationalnfeelings and other strong emotions, eventually ideologies. Ifnso, this cannot be helped; it is primarily the fault of thenWestern Allies after the Second World War, which insteadnof integrating the “two Europes” pushed one into thencrushing arms of the Soviet Union. Resistance and accumulatednsuffering created new national energies that will bendifficult to channel because the only alternative channel is an20/CHRONICLESnNocturnenby Rudolph SchirmernNo horns, no bells, the city fastnAsleep, complex machinerynBemused, no malcontents abroad.nBut I, portentously awake.nIndustrious while prone, care-fed.nPreoccupied—a modern man.nContemporary fin de siecle —nSurvey the unsurpassable.nRecount the unrepeatable.nLament the irreplaceablenScenario of buried pomps.nDead, out of reach, extinct, foregone.nYet visible, still tangible.nIn certain moods absorbable.nThey exercise a valid spellnEnduring past endurance’ bound,nDrawing the witness up or downnTo deeds ignoble or sublime.nTraining his gaze upon the whole.nWith an impartial emphasisnThat leaves him free to overlooknBut not disown his provenance.nnndemocratic-liberal model unsuitable for Eastern Europe.nIn this perspective — which is not that of the eternalnillusionists and late-regretters — the “unity” of Europe is anlast-minute trick to pour the east in the mold of the west.nThe goal is a continent-wide supermarket, without a soul,nwithout an identity, without the lessons of the past, andnabove all without protection from future dangers. EastnEuropean populations aspire understandably to all thosenthings from which they were deprived for five decades,nwhether it be easy travel abroad or imported luxuries, orneven (why not at this stage) pornographic literature. Thusnthey give the impression of being as frivolous as theirncounterparts in the west. But, do not underestimate the willnto national sovereignty and the power of symbols andntraditions. This is the reason (which we in the west try not tonsee) why Cerman unification is regarded by Eastern Europenas a positive thing. Over against a vaporous “united Europe”na Cerman hegemony is not really feared, particularly ifnRussia also envisages her own modernization throughnGerman know-how. Contrary to recent history. EasternnEurope sees in the cooperation of Berlin and Moscow anpotent factor for peace in the area, or at least a period innwhich the small countries will not have to take sides betweennthe two continental “superpowers,” and will not have tonsuffer devastation by one, then another, army. In this light, an”united Europe” seems like a paltry, technocratic dream, annunnecessary complication. Conflicts would still remain,nexcept that they would not be called “foreign wars” butn”civil wars.” What is the advantage, except, as Talleyrandnsaid after the Vienna Congress (which also gave birth to an”united Europe”), a new but just as hypocritical verbiage?n<^n