|
 |
|
Esta página no está disponible en español. CommentaryLos Angeles TimesDude, Maybe They'll Throw In An Awesome AccentBy Peter H. Gleick
December 29, 2002 Proposals have been circulating for years to split California into two separate states. These proposals are misguided. In truth, it is time for California to become a member of the European Union. Earlier this month, after difficult negotiations, an agreement was reached to eventually add 10 new members to the European Union, making it the largest confederation of national bodies ever, with more than 450 million people. The addition of California would be far smoother and less costly -- indeed, economically, California would bring tremendous advantages to the EU. As an independent nation, we would be the fifth-largest economy in the world, and our addition would help stabilize the European currency, the euro. More open access to industrial and agricultural markets would bring lower costs for trading goods and services to all parties. California is far more politically and culturally similar to members of the EU than to many other parts of the U.S. We have a diverse, multilingual population, with strong universities and educational institutions. Many visitors have noted that San Francisco is the most European of American cities, and the state has a classic Mediterranean climate. European wines are almost as good as ours, especially some French wines. Like most governments in the EU, California has acknowledged that global climate change is a real problem -- something the U.S. government has failed to do. And the position of most members of the EU on medical marijuana is similar to that of California. What do we have to offer the EU? Our national parks and wilderness areas are unmatched anywhere and are already heavily visited by European tourists. Our environmental standards can serve as a model for improvements elsewhere. No other EU member can offer major ports on the Pacific Ocean or as vibrant an agricultural community. Film critics have been complaining that Hollywood movies are too "American" -- now they would be "European." Open markets would ease access to European goods for more than 35 million relatively wealthy California consumers as well as improving access for Europeans to our own markets. There would, of course, be practical difficulties, but these can be worked out. The U.S. government would have to build new military facilities in other Pacific Coast states and set up customs stations along our new borders with Nevada and Oregon. To keep the same number of stars on the flag and the same number of senators, statehood would have to be offered to Puerto Rico , Guam or Washington, D.C. We'd have to start calling soccer "football" and football "American football," though the World Series would become truly international (no offense to the Blue Jays and Expos). No doubt reaction to this proposal would be mixed in the U.S. After all, we send far more money to Washington than we get back in federal funding and services -- and the loss of this revenue would further exacerbate the ballooning federal deficits. Some policymakers may balk at the thought of losing so many citizens and resources. But others may look upon this change favorably. The Republican Party would lose an annoying thorn in their political side. For millions of Americans, the ease of taking a European vacation without having to fly across the Atlantic would be a big plus. And frankly, plenty of Americans already think of California as a foreign country. Let's make it a reality. *Peter H. Gleick is director of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security in Oakland.
|