It is easy to wrap this convergence into an economic argument and simplify the concept of Europe to a trading block. In my view, however, such thinking is obsolete, and misses the point.

Ever since the Treaty of Paris in 1951, European nations have sought opportunities for a fresh approach. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 signalled an opportunity. Europeans seized the moment and within two years launched the European Union in its present form, through the comprehensive Treaty of Maastricht. A new political structure provided the framework for common foreign, security, internal administrative, justice, economic and monetary policy. A common currency became reality. A hand of genuine friendship and generous aid was extended to neighbours in Eastern Europe. Most foreign direct investment flowing into Eastern Europe now originates from Western European companies.

Europe’s American cousins have been either undecided or in denial of many of the new realities in Europe. Perhaps with optimistic nostalgia, Europeans awaited a new Marshall Plan for Eastern Europe, but Americans shied away from an IMF rescue for Russia. Uncle Sam busied himself with obsolete military structures and the expansion of NATO at a time when the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union were dissolving, and new NATO members could hardly afford military hardware. Throughout this process, Americans heaped praise upon themselves as the “winners” of the Cold War. (Iraq may be a repeat performance of similar American errors—declaring “victory” and botching the economic plan that follows).

America’s position prompted Europeans to choose their own path. A mere five years later, Europe reaffirmed its common principles in the Treaty of Amsterdam and removed some of the previous treaty’s ambiguities. The EU 15 agreed to expand the union to the east and accept 12 others. The union subsequently agreed to begin negotiating membership for Turkey, a large Muslim nation that would add about 85 million to the EU’s 310 million population.

Many have observed that Europe’s dismissal of U.S. objections to a Russia-Europe gas pipeline in 1980s was in fact a strong step towards an independent European foreign (and environmental) policy. Realpolitik simply trumped stubborn, alien ideologies that had expired long before.

Moreover, the unification of Europe has not challenged its diversity of political thought. Political parties have continued to develop a wide spectrum of politics –despite the one-size-fits-all brand broadcast from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. New EU members that assisted U.S. detention of suspects within its war on terror have been swiftly reminded that the EU has only one foreign policy, and no secret unilateral activities ought to stir controversy between them.

As with other parts of the world, Europe has many challenges: evolving demographics, religious diversification, immigration, organised crime, both European and foreign terrorism, instability in the Balkans and global warming. Nevertheless, the founding principles, consensus decision-making, and realistic coalitions at the negotiation table have towered over emotional and violent reactions to the challenges they face.

As Europeans parted ways with their age-old habits of intra-continental conflict and bloody wars a half century ago, Europe today is on the cusp of yet again another renaissance. It has apparently learned the most obvious lessons from conflict, and it has refrained from simplistic “crusades” of good vs. evil in intervening militarily around the globe. Let us all hope that it can once again export its renaissance to the rest of the world.