It would occur to no American that `Pan-American' and `international'
were synonymous, though the American continent is almost seven times as
great as the European. Americans have long been used to characterising all
institutions, organisations, or problems which are confined to their
continent as `Pan-American' or `inter-American'. Only Europe still suffers
from that form of megalomania which leads it to believe that it rules the
world and is more or less identical with it. This is the reason why a whole
series of important European institutions, such as the International Chamber
of Commerce, the International Union of Agriculture, and the Trade Union
International, are simply called `international'without any European
sections being organised separately from the international institutions.
Only when seen from this false perspective can the failure of world union
be advanced as an argument against the possibility of European union. In
fact, the union of Europe stands on today's agenda, while the question of
world union is an item for the distant future. It was the fundamental
mistake of Wilson and his collaborators to overlook this allimportant
difference.
Thus the League of Nations has become a disappointment while Paneuropa
remains the greatest hope of our generation - the only reasonable issue of
the present war which can compensate us for its terrible sacrifice.
Such a union is often given the name `the United States of Europe'. This
name should signify no more than that the problem is one of unification of
the states of Europe. It should in no way suggest an imitation of the United
States of America, the political foundations of which are, and will remain,
totally different from those of Europe.
