Before the Establishment of the European Federation
— Freedom Thrives in Division, Unity Breeds Enslavement
The rapid shifts and dramatic reversals in recent geopolitical developments have been truly astonishing. Moved by these changes at midnight, I find myself compelled to write another essay.
Over the past week, calls for the establishment of a "European Federation" have been growing louder. Given America's return to isolationism, this renewed aspiration for closer European integration is understandable: the future of Europe must be determined by Europeans themselves, whether in matters of defense or public welfare. However, to what extent should European integration progress? Should it evolve into a highly centralized "United States of Europe," or should it maintain a loose confederation of independent states? Perhaps union, rather than fusion, is the wiser path. History and reality alike remind us that this is a question demanding careful deliberation.
Throughout history, Europe has never truly achieved full unification. From the expansion of the Roman Empire to Charlemagne’s coronation, from Napoleon’s conquests to Hitler’s "Third Reich," every attempt at European unity has ended in failure—often at an immense cost. Time and again, history has proven that attempts to forge a unified Europe through force have never led to lasting prosperity; instead, they have brought about deeper internal conflicts and disastrous consequences.
On the contrary, Europe’s enduring divisions and competition have been the very source of its innovation, vitality, and spirit of freedom. It was within this fragmented landscape that new ideas and inventions emerged and flourished. The Renaissance blossomed amidst the rivalries of Italian city-states, where competition spurred artistic and scientific progress. The success of the Protestant Reformation was possible precisely because the German princes and Northern European nations were beyond the direct control of the Papacy. The Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution took root in a Europe composed of multiple independent states. The Industrial Revolution, sparked in Britain, rapidly spread across the continent as nations vied to industrialize. A multi-centered political structure ensured that innovation was never stifled by authoritarian rule. History unequivocally demonstrates that extreme unification exacerbates internal conflicts and erodes liberty, whereas a diverse and fragmented landscape provides fertile ground for prosperity and progress.
Lessons from China’s Millennia of Centralization
As someone from the only civilization in the world with an unbroken tradition of centralized rule spanning over 2,000 years, I would like to share some personal insights into the consequences of such a system.
The past two millennia of ancient Chinese history can be roughly divided into three stages: Pre-Qin (Warring States), Qin, and Post-Qin.
After the unification by the Qin Dynasty, free intellectual exchange and philosophical debate—hallmarks of the Warring States period—ceased to exist. The rich diversity of thought that produced the Hundred Schools of Thought was systematically suppressed. Confucianism was elevated as the sole orthodoxy, while all other schools of thought were dismissed as mere trivialities, unworthy of recognition. The long-lasting combination of Confucian dominance and the imperial examination system led Chinese scholars to focus solely on mastering classical texts and composing poetic verses. The prevailing societal belief was that "all pursuits are inferior, only scholarship is esteemed"—not for the sake of knowledge itself, but as a means to secure an official position. Becoming a government official was the only legitimate path to social status, wealth, and power. It was the ultimate ambition of almost every educated individual for nearly two millennia—until modern gunboats forcibly opened China’s doors and shattered its illusions.
Even then, China’s scholars sought to preserve their traditional way of life by adopting the "Chinese learning as the essence, Western learning for practical use" approach. They utterly failed to recognize that the scientific advancements of the West were not merely technical innovations, but the natural outcome of intellectual freedom. Scientific progress was a consequence of free thought, not its cause. This discussion could be expanded, but the key point remains: the very foundation of modern science emerged in a divided and free Europe. The reason? Europe’s perpetual political fragmentation preserved freedom, freedom nurtured innovation, innovation drove scientific advancements, and science ultimately reshaped the world.
Extreme unification inevitably leads to extreme stagnation. Across millennia of history, there has never been an exception.
The Mechanisms of Centralized Control: Qin’s System of Governance
Following unification, the Qin Empire established a highly centralized administrative system: prefectures and counties replaced feudal states, officials were appointed directly by the emperor, and the population was systematically registered and monitored. The emperor held absolute ownership over all lands and people. A famous saying encapsulates this idea:
"Under heaven, all belongs to the emperor; beyond the borders, none are not his subjects."
This power structure led to a deeply ingrained mentality: "What belongs to my family is mine; what lies beyond my home is none of my concern." Society became atomized, structured around individual households and ancestral clans. Since the empire itself belonged to the emperor, people gradually became indifferent to who ruled them—so long as they were not personally sent to war. Their duty was simply to pay taxes, provide labor, and obey the sovereign.
Alternatively, those who wished to climb the social ladder devoted their lives to studying for the imperial examinations, hoping to share in the emperor’s power without ever needing to fight for it. Consequently, values such as courage and honor faded from society. They were no longer virtues to be pursued but remnants of an obsolete past.
To maintain control, emperors deployed "itinerant officials" (流官, liú guān)—bureaucrats who were sent to govern regions where they had no local ties. This prevented governors from developing loyalty to their provinces and ensured that all power remained centralized in the emperor’s hands. These officials were accountable solely to the emperor, not to the people they ruled.
Additionally, the "household registration system" (编户齐民, biān hù qí mín) systematically dismantled all independent civil organizations, including religious groups and social associations. This atomization of society ensured that no collective power could threaten the emperor’s rule.
In simple terms, for most Chinese people, the best political outcome they could hope for was "equal enslavement" under an omnipotent ruler.
Europe Must Treasure Its Freedom
The lesson is clear: freedom thrives in division, unity breeds enslavement. This is a profound historical truth.
Europeans must cherish their long-standing traditions of liberty and diversity. They should not impulsively abandon their precious legacy of autonomous governance for the mirage of centralized security.
Beware of the first rolling snowball, for it may trigger an avalanche that buries the last bastion of modern civilization’s freedom. Perhaps.
Let us hope that the flowers of liberty and diversity continue to bloom across Europe.
March 6, 2025 – WX