Kharn- since a lot of points have been agreed too or settled, I am just cutting through some of this to make an easier points. If you feel that I have ignored something pertinent, please pm me or raise it in your response-
Kharn said:
I was referring to the fact that Europe isn't unique for having seen much strife, and that it could be seen more of a coincidence that we were so big at the time that our strife broke out.
Now a lot of continents have had wars in their history, but few had the oppertunity to have a war on this scale and including this many countries. Do you think Europe could've somehow refused war knocking at its door just because they're big?
But the question is whether the US should involve itself in European politics, and the reason why it should is because too much of it’s national interest is at stake at Europe. This is not a matter of whether there has been comparatively more or less war in Europe. Compare parts of Africa, Latin America and Asia during different periods of time and yes there have been brutal wars.
But Europe is central to the current international economic system. The simple reason is that Europe has some of the world’s most powerful economies and states. Because of the density of our interactions and for the frequency of inter-state conflicts between European countries, because they still define themselves as individual national states, one risks war. As that war affects US interests, the US has an interest in preventing those wars or stopping them. Thus World War 1, World War 2, NATO.
Yes and yes, but more places have been unified by conquest, and it's very hard to hang on to it on the long-term…. The moment you unify any area purily by conquest it's only conquest and violence that keeps the area together, which means it's not a long-term unification.
But as technology- not just capital technology like phone lines and computer networks but also know-how (how to run a bureaucratic state) becomes more widespread, the technology of holding together a large national state becomes easier. While war might have been the means to increase boundaries over a territory, often it was the creation of economic and administrative infra-structure that made that territory part of your national state. This was the experience of the US in expanding West, and that of Russia expanding East.
(on the uniqueness of World War 1 and World War 2)
Similar? Truthfully little separates the two, and I agree with the historic perspective that holds it that "1914-1945" should be seen as a single event, pretty much.
It was, however, just another war. Thing is, it was in all elements the same as any other war. The genocide wasn't unique, the firearms were a first, but not unique. The only thing unique about the two was the scale, or actually the people involved (because wars going across all Europe aren't unique, but a war across all Europe involving all countries is (not to mention Japan)). Scale alone may make it the bioggest war ever, but it's still just a war.
I think one can look at wars not merely as invents of conflicts and measured in scale of death, territory, money involved. Rather one can look at them in terms of historical significance. World War 1 not only took a generation of French men, but swept aside the Habsburgs, the Ottoman’s, the Prussian dynasty. It led to the rise of the first “communist” state, and opened the door to facism as democracy, authoritarianism and communism all became rival movements. Significant changes occurred in the political map of Europe as some powers were swept away and others were made stronger.
Historical significance has a lot to do with perspective. To the people involved who came home maimed, it was perhaps the only war that mattered. Looking at the history of the species, perhaps it was just a blip, comparable to the invasions of the Mongols. But to our events today, and on the history of Europe it was a major event. While I agree that, given the right perspective, one could see the 1914-1945 as a transitions period, it was a damn long and complex transition period which had significance that lasted well into the century- not only in the growth of a Communist block, but also in survival of Facism and the weakening of colonial empires. Significance is a matter of perspective.
welsh said:
Europe was unique and remains unique because you have so many rich, powerful countries standing over a little piece of land. Land and time are both unique. Both wars derive from an inherent problem- national competition between adjoining great powers for regional dominance and with the willingness to use war as a means of statecraft.
I would question how unique this is. The Middle East has always had the advantage of being very unified through a common history (moreso than Europe) and a common religion, but with the appearance of Israel and Western influences on Middle East countries, one might perceive a shift leading to a difference of opinion, which could lead to a situation similar to that of Europe
Again, a matter of perspective. The Middle East is significant primarily because of it’s oil. When the oil goes, so will our interest. Even the Suez canal is not so significant. Duringthe 1967 war we went around Africa to trade. In fact, if the oil runs out those countries will be even less significant than Latin America, Asia or Africa.
But then, look at Latin America- there has been significant moves towards unity, the languages are Portuguese/ Spanish, the culture is largely Roman Catholic/Hispanic and the countries share a history of State driven industrialization, young and weak democracy and recurring military authoritarianism.
Yet, it is not as significant as Europe. Why- capital. Europe still harness and controls a significant share of the world’s capital. Not just money, but information, technology. Europe is also a major market. Latin America may have room for growth, and could. But Europe is still central to the World System while Latin America remains in the periphery. For example, the Brits were probably more concerned with German and France than Argentina, and in fact ignored Argentine saber rattling prior to the Falkland Islands War. Only when the Argentines actually invaded (after giving significant warnings to the Brits) did the Brits decide to take them seriously and then handed Argentina a crushing defeat.
Now this is interesting, because the current position of the EU isn't like a single event in European history, it is very similar to several….
The fact in both cases is that you have a dominant power. In fact, you have to have a dominant power. But the moment national identities fade, the existance of a "dominant area" is no longer relevant in any way. Holland was the dominant province in the unification of Holland, together with Utrecht, yet neither can be said to be a dominant province in Holland now, neither for the way people think about them nor the way the law deals with them.
The question is; if Germany is truly to be the dominant power, which is likely if England keeps itself out of the race, since it's only competition then is France, what effect would this have. If Europe is unified under guidance of Germany, this'll be, in effect, a somewhat undemocratic way to deal with things, but in a way there's no other way to deal with unification...
And that's the core of the problem. How is peaceful and democratic unification possible if a leader is necessary to unify into a clear, single identity? Democracy is, sadly, the exact opposite of a single identity, it's very basis is diverse identities.
I don't like the undemocratic factors of the EU, but at the rate of expansion it's moving at, the only possible choice is taking one clear, undemocratic leader, which is shaping up to be Germany, especially after what it did to Poland last week. Now if we would only slow down the rate of expansion, chances are we could be more democratic and still unify clearly, and possibly with less chances of failure...
I see what you are saying here Kharn and will buy that in the long duration of history, identities can shift and change. I am not sure if one “leader” in unification is necessary or that these states have to group themselves under one leadership. I think, as mentioned before, that it is in one way easier to create a unified state because of existing technologies of penetration, extraction and coercion.
I also think that as long as states hold on to strong national identities it will be difficult for one single power to dominate the others. Eventually the smaller states will try to break away. Frederick Barbarossa of Prussia had this problem trying to hold together his version of a Greater Germany. I think the Nazis would have had their problems as well.
But state formation through coercion is only one means, and perhaps not even the best. Compare for instance the formation of France and Spain against that of England. While both France and Spain persued more repressive (despotic) means of state formation, the English lacked the coercive power and so developed their form of penetration differently, tieing together emerging lords and bourgeosie, and thus allowing them the opportunity to grasp more capital quickly. Michael Mann’s two volume discussion of state formation speaks to this but you can find the article in Hall’s States in History. My research on Botswana and Mauritius also points to this- state formation is better and can overcome ethnic differences without the use of coercive means, and perhaps is better without those means through effective bureaucratic infrastructures.
I think you have that opportunity in Europe today and perhaps, if so, through a democratic process. The problem though is one of national interest. It might still be the will of some groups of national leaders to be the “leaders” of a new Europe and thus become a threat to others (much like how Dubbya sees himself as the leader of a new world order but which is seen by many as a threat).
And that's your right. Foster away, but fostering actually excludes trying to manipulate a continent in the shape you want it, y'know...
The difference between foster, involve, influence and manipulate is a very shady one.
But Europe and the USA aren't about to go head-to-head, you know that, but it would be better for the relationships if people like Chirac, Schröder, Bush and Kerry would be out of the picture. Bunch of fucknuts.
Yep, this is perhaps the last stabs of an older generation. Will the new generation be better? I hope so.
welsh said:
A world war would engulf not just the regional but global powers.
This would've been said about World War 1 as well, but it wasn't. A lot of the situations I mentioned might have the potential to draw in a shitload of other people. Pakistan is tied to the Middle East oil powers. Europe and the USA are tied to those powers as well. China is next to India, would it like the threat of nuclear war next door?
Agree. But as mentioned before, the danger of being pulled into a regional war between Pakistan and India is, I think, light. Our interests there are limited and consequences could be contained. Palestine and Israel- I doubt it. Yes, it connects to the oil states but the oil states have kept their influence marginal. Only if Osama becomes more powerful and links oil, Islam and Israel together do we have much risk. China is another matter because of regional dominance in Asia, but so far it is fairly contained and it’s ability to force project is limited. So in the immediate to short-term, the dangers here are few.
But then the dangers in Europe are pretty thin too. But again-
welsh said:
]This is where that whole prevention thing becomes important.
Prevention? Heh. If prevention is pissing of other countries and causing national balances by pre-emptive strikes, as the US has been exemplifying so well; hell no
Prevention is different than preemption. Prevention has a long history in US policy, this preemptive crap is a new fade. Hopefully it will go out with GB.
Roight. Like I mentioned before, I think a lot of the USA's legislation, particularly the electoral college, has a very negative effect on national unity, which is bigger in Canada, which is the same size as you, after all, or even Russia and China.
Yep the last election kind of revealed those problems. That issue is still being debated. My guess is that while the Republicans are in office it won’t change, and the Democrats will only be able to change that, if they try, if they take both the Presidency and the Congress.
welsh said:
In a sense GB is that event in the US. For awhile the US was the strongest country and yet kept it’s power restrained. Now GB is pushing US power in places perhaps he shouldn’t. But part of that might be the response “Why not? We are the only remaining super power?”
Sure, that's probably the consideration that made him do it, but y'know...the long-term effect. Fact is, you guys are fucked for the next few years, especially since Kerry is also a fucknut
The last gasp of the old generation,- we can only hope.
No it doesn't. I think there's a miscommunication between us here. Might does not make right, might makes potential. Might gives you the possibility to do something, the oppertunity, it does not make it right. What does make right? Well, that's very hard to determine, but I think international law really does this a lot of good.
I think this is pretty incisive Kharn. Actually the issue of what is right is a story told about history. For instance, whether the US intervention in Iraq was right or not will depend on how it turns and how we are judged in the future.
I could quibble about your thoughts of might. Arguably, power means not only what you can make people do or what you can do yourself but also who sets an agenda and what that agenda covers, as well as the power to influence the ideals and values that are the basis for decisions. See Steven Lukes, Power: a Radical View, for a discussion of this- (although that is what convoluted and poorly written book).
This was only scale increasement. The 20th century was "worse" than the previous because the scale of events changed, not because the horror of events changed. If anything, the nazis were more civilized than many older movements (the Inquisition, the military wing of the Ottoman Empire, colonialists), but the scale in which they were enabled to act as they would meant that their acts were more horrible than anything ever before done. They themselves hardly were
You would get a lot of beef on how horrible were the Nazis, but I will generally accept your point. However, one could say it was the magnitude of the bloodshed that was, itself, horrible. Or perhaps the horror was the fact we are capable of such barbarity after reaching a higher ideal of culture. That people can be so civilized and barbaric at the same time- and that the people are ourselves. That’s horror enough.
Horror is, after all both a perception and a personal reaction. It’s one thing if a tribe of Mongols rapes and pillages a village, it’s another when the people who gave us Beethoven and Bach do it.
George Dubyah has the right to complain as he will, it's the attitude of "I'll tell you what you're gunna do" that bothers us so much.
Ditto
The US has the right to question France's actions, it does not have the right to put pressure on France. If France goes too far, the US has the right to try and do something, internationally, but it won't, and that's the problem; countries only criticise each other as far as is convenient, the mayor flaw in the UN, it's "power politics"
Actually that might be the blessing. The “do something” historically means war. There are few actions short of war that have had that much significance. Perhaps with more complex interactions there are other opportunities, but only until about the middle of the last century, war was a recognized instrument of state craft. As were alliance formation, embargoes, sanctions, unilateral action, covert action. History provides us few tools short of war for diplomacy.
And as discussed the UN was a creature of power politics and a means to provide an opportunity for powers to work out differences without recourse to violence. That’s why the ideal of the Kellogg-Briand agreement got incorporated in the UN Charter in Art. 2(4), limiting recourse to armed conflict.
Only with a UN mandate
Don't think the UN works well enough? Change it. The UN is essentially a "global democracy". Change it, but to destroy it calls for international anarchy. That's not good, not in a time when the world is under so much tension and has such power.
Regretfully, no. The UN isn’t global democracy. It has chambers that look like democracy, but which suffer limits in jurisdiction. A toothless general assembly, a world court with elective jurisdiction, and an executive Security Council in which 5 of the more power states (including 2 ½ European but no African or Latin American or Middle Eastern- see how these regions are not so important) have a veto. Why, the notion of sovereignty and the danger of war. Remember these are nuclear armed countries that have all the power they want within their own bodies.
Which raises the question of how difficult it is to change the UN. Not until you have a dominant state?- that’s your EU thesis. Perhaps when we share common values and are capable of dealing with it through institutions, that’s the hope, but also the problem with the EU.
The UN serves it’s functions best when it serves as a stage, not as an actor. That coming from a big supporter of the UN.
Germany is, historically speaking, newborn. It's democratic tendancies are new, it's shedding of the old "Holy Roman Empire" way of thinking and dealing with things are new, it's intention to become an international power is new.
Americans often miss this, but Germans are the youngest of the European powers, as long as you don't consider the Holy Roman Empire to equal Germany. Depending on when you say "this country is now a country", the oldest power is England, then France, then Russia, then Germany. Shame about the powers that didn't make it, like Poland-Lithuania and Austria, but that's how it is.
As for the US; unlike CC, who thinks that "the US did well and Europe was a colonial power" means it is the best country to deal with international relationships forever, I don't believe a country's past successes mean it can be trusted forever, especially not when the ruling body is unstable (i.e. a democracy).
In other words, I'm grateful for what the US has done, but I think it has the potential to be very dangerous in the coming years, what with the collapse of the state's dominant position means it'll snap (a cornered wolf, y'know), not to mention the extreme way of thinking in international politics thanks to 9/11
I will agree with some of this. Germany being an old or new power. One could say that German leadership is new, that the regime is new. But the attributes- large population, geographic position, economic output, capacity to develop economic and military power, are largely consistent. Relatively, it’s weaker than it was at the beginning of the 20th century.
This is not about trust- that seems more a matter of free will. I am referring more to constraints and circumstance. Agents have levels of free will depending on the constraints and conditions they face. I see Germany as having many similar conditions, and that conditions the range of actions for free will.
As for the US and it’s willingness to throw it’s weight around. I agree. And it’s a shame. Power is often strongest not when it is applied, but when it is held back. One can do a lot with potential power, often more than kinetic.
Non-economic tendancies of the EU are strong and clear, if not percieveable from the outside. The UN has already showed it does more than just stopping major wars, so your arguments aren't true.
Indeed, but it’s still economic issues that is cause for the EU. The other issues I think are nice and well intended, but not the EU’s reason for being. And yes, I actually articulated that the UN can do more than just stop major wars. But that is only because the major states that are participants elect to do so. In that sense the UN acts as a forum for action that makes the costs of cooperation lower. But it’s the will of states that makes thing happen.
welsh said:
No, they don’t because there is law out there that says they can’t. There is law based on a common perception of what is allowable and what is not, but that law also has sanction.
That's the point of international law, and that's why I'm so bothered at the fact that the US keeps breaking it up. And that's not just Bush either. The shit with Israel is really terrible.
If you keep preventing sanctions, how can you still be shocked when the UN turns out be inept? The hypocrisy of Americans in that aspect continues to shock me. First pull the rug out under the UN's feet, then complain when it's not standing. Tchyeah.
The problem with international law is that there is no sanction and the jurisdiction is limited. Perhaps if the nation state as the organizing entity of international life dies, maybe then something can replace it. But what? I don’t think there is anything on the horizon that makes a claim for the death of the state. (Although you might want to look at Susan Strange for some arguments on that).
As for US policy to Israel- yep, I don’t like it. But the Israeli’s have a strong lobby in the US.
But that distracts us from the purpose. I actually teach IL and enjoy it, but the problem of IL is that it’s weak and often merely codifies what countries do. The issue of positive and negative sanction needs to be achieved.
IL has been called primitive law and in a sense that metaphor works. What you really have is a system of principles that governs the behavior of a bunch of primitives in a tribe when there is no big Kahuna to lay down the law through might. There is law, sometimes it’s enforced, but generally people look at it and say, “oohhh you broke the taboo..Shame on you.” And nothing happens.
I partially agree with CC. Europe is lacking certain factors that would make it a world power. Some important aspects are this: economic power, political power, political union and the underestimated aspect; growth potential
Economic power the EU has, we know that
Political power "the EU" lacks, especially because it's not a political union before it's an economic union. Your article speaks of sneaky backhanded politics, also known as "the peacekeaper's politics". It's missing a fact; say France wants peace in a country. Does England want the same? Germany? Spain? Italy. Italy, Spain and Holland are all "peace-keeping" in Iraq. Is Germany? Is France? I know the article is a bit too old (right?) take this, but older examples exist. Vietnam springs to mind.
Fact is that this factors in with the second flaw, political union. The EU does not, especially not with its rapid expansions have any form of political union. Without political union directions that countries take often clash and work against one another. Iraq is a great example of this, but even Israel-Palestine works. You can't exert great influence if you're not headed in the same direction.
I agree, so far.
The last one that people keep under-estimating is growth potential. Growth potential basically means to other countries "will I have to deal with country in 10 years time". This is why Japan has been respectable since WW II, it's growth potential is scary. This is why China's influence has been growing, it's growth potential is enormous.
I once mentioned China's economic growth, and you replied "it's not even a fraction of the US's purchasing power". This is true, but the US is quickly running out of growth potential. This was a major problem throughout European history; you have several autonomous chops of land living side by side. One decides to grow. Maybe it's a small one, it doesn't matter, but if the other ones don't react to its growth, they'll be caught up sooner or later, and be destroyed
This strife led to the strife between dutchies and knighthoods, which led to the formation of nation-states.
Now the US is loosing its growth potential, except if it expands. Dubyah might not be far of in trying to violently force other countries, like Iraq, to support the flailing economy. The economy doesn't have any new inventions or countries to expand on, so it needs other countries
The EU only has combined growth potential. It'll be boosted, boosted and boosted by the fact that smaller economies are combined, but it also has no other growth potential. Once settled in its unification, it has nothing left, not like China, India or South-America.
OK, part of this is unclear to me.
But I also think you are mixing up a couple of ideas perhaps. Growth comes in two forms-
Extensive- basically means a farmer creates more output but breaking new ground, clearing forest or buying his neighbors plot. Historically countries did this by colonizing new ground or conquest. One grows by doing what you do over more stuff. A factory grows by building another factory, etc.
But then there is intensive growth. This is where you improve the efficiency and output of what you do by improving know- how and technology. Here the farmer makes more output by improving fertilizer, irrigation and strains of crop, the country does better by improving education and R&D, the factory improves it’s assembly line by updating technology and retraining it’s staff.
One grows by the desire to do better or when faced with outside competition. Part of what I fear in the US is the “we are the best, we are number 1” and ignoring that other countries have more efficient technologies, better qualities of life, better education. That’s what will pull the US down.
In the end it will be the intensive technology that wins out because one only has so much space to grow and you can’t kill your neighbors anymore. But more, it doesn’t matter how much land you have if the other guy can outperform you.
That or Bush will colonize the moon and mars.
I think the Europeans have a lot of room for intensive growth, and some for extensive. Eastern Europe is still transitioning from a command economy to a market economy.
Why, because you have all that education, all those cultures, all those nationalities crunched up next to each other and now working together. Even if the US were to unify all of the Americas as one big trading block, the EU would still have the edge in intensive growth.
Now add that a notion of mobile capital. Lets say the Euros do better and start making cars in the US. That money might get invested in US securities, but a chunk will go back to Europe. Thus the Europeans continue to become richer through FDI.
welsh said:
Honestly Kharn, I think most of European politics should be kept to the Europeans. Really. And I think, for the most part it is. My point was simple. If the US can prevent another conflict in Europe, it should. That’s why the US should stay in NATO.
and my point was that the US shouldn't, while NATO, under US leadership, and the UN, under US leadership, should.
Quibbles. The nature of the sovereign state system is that everyone has equal rights. That’s the idea. So the US in it is individual capacity has the same power as France in it’s sovereign capacity.
welsh said:
I actually don’t buy the need for an external enemy. If that’s what the Europeans are doing now by using the US as that enemy, it’s a mistake. I believe the domestic creation of dense interactions breeds its own forms of interconnections. One need not have an enemy. Having enemy doesn’t necessarily make you strong.
It makes it easier. That's basically what it is, laziness. Like I mentioned, the EU is unstable because it's growing too fast on a too shaky democratic basis. Holding the US up as its enemy might be the only thing holding it together on the long run.
Probably, but it just makes the challenge for interesting.
Now Jebus-
Jebus said:
Because insomnia is keeping me up and I'm too tired to work anyway-
Personally, I don't think Kyoto was an all too crappy deal. IIRC, the basic idea of the Kyoto plan was to limit the emissions of greenhouse gasses by all countries, based on their population and geographical magnitude. Therefore, the goal was to eventually level the emissions of all countries to a percentual equal level.
Indeed, but the end result that only the industrialized western states were to cut back and the third world was too get away easy. Much of it had to do with economic development.
But, a clausule was built in where countries who could not reach the required limitations in emissions could 'buy fresh air' from countries who were below their quota. Therefore, countries that polluted less would be rewarded, and recieve the monetairy backing they needed.
Which I agree was a good idea. That system began actually I in the US as part of the Clean Air Act.
And of course, the American industry would feature the biggest cuts. That's not because everybody in Kyoto disliked the USA though, but simply because America's industry is way more polluting than it could be, and is way more poluting in comparison to, say, the EU. The EU has much lower emissions of greenhouse gasses, although the economy in the EU is still way bigger (in sheer volume) then the economy of the US. IIRC corectly, the emissions of the TOTAL-FINA corporation alone were responsible of 5% of the greenhouse effect. I think that gives a clear picture of the ecological inefficiency of the American industry...
Jebus, no offence but I am doubting this. For one, while I can’t say how competitive the EU economy is to the US now, I think that that the difference between the two, at the time of Kyoto was fairly close. And while I will accept that European standards in some countries are fairly good, I would hesitate to say that’s true everywhere. As for US air quality standards, I do know that, at least until GB, US air quality and improved dramatically since the 1970s, in part due to penalties and standards related to the Clean Air Act.
The danger here though is that while you have companies in the US that are required to perform under environment regs, by creating Kyoto you have essentially created incentives for companies to relocate to developing areas and manufacture without those clean air standards, because those companies are not going to dry up and go away, but will continue to try to cut costs.
That’s the problem- you are asking the US to basically create greater incentives to it’s own industries to move out (creating unemployment in the US) and set up shop elsewhere where they can pump out the same output and more pollution at the same time. This is not about the environment, not really. It’s really about economic competitiveness and Kyoto is asking the US to shoot itself in the foot.
Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
I don't think the disappearance of NAVO would inavoidably halt the co-operation between Europe and the USA. After all, there are too much cultural, historical and economical bonds between the two to suddenly halt that partnership. It would only mean that the American army would have to deal with the European armies on a more equal level, instead of the more authoritical matter they deal with them now.
OK, now that’s silly. NATO can’t do anything unless all the members agree. Decisions by NATO are unanimous. SO if you are thinking the US controls NATO you are wrong. In fact, the problem might be that by incorporating more members into NATO you render the organization more impotent because it is difficult for all the states to agree. Thus if France doesn’t want to protect Bulgaria when Russian tanks go across the boarder, than NATO craps out and the other states will have to decide, ad hoc, whether to defend Bulgaria or not.
Should the US and EU have different military systems, than there will be incentives to plant your militaries around the world in a way that could be seen as competitive with the US. You could also be deploying EU naval forces to China. What you open the door to is arms racing and insecurity among other major powers, including China and any resurgent Russia..
It also means you will have to spend money on that army that could be spent on social program and economic programs- meaning your economy suffers. A competitive EU army and navy competitive with the US would be pretty expensive, considering that US force.
You would also have to be nicer to your immigrants. The reason why is that Europe is suffering from a baby boom problem similar to the US. People are getting old.
And who is going to populate this army? Which countries military-industrial complex are you going to favor? Which national interests are you going to protect?
Besides, as you pointed out, the EU states could get together and do something internationally if they wanted to. They have in the past (Congo) and they could have in Yugoslavia.
The French and Germans talk about an EU army, but it’s all talk and no action. Why? Because it would be too costly to actually do. Germany is downsizing it’s army for a reason. Armies are expensive, and given the choice between building an army or making payments to strategic domestic political interests, you go with the domestic political interests.
Now balance costs to benefits? What do you gain- a little national prestige?
What do you lose- arms racing, military competition, social spending, intra-EU competition….
The US, by participating in NATO, allows the Europeans to save their money that would be spent on military for other things. Why have an army if you don’t need it.
That was indeed an important factor to enable the creation of the active-welfare economies we know today. The only problem is that, informally, the USA is now throwing that in our face. And as Kharn stated before, there is something inherently evil in doing things like that.
Not sure what you are referring to. If the evil is that “the US fought a war for you, sacrificed it’s people for you and you owe us” then it hasn’t worked for a long time. Yes the French appreciate it, but they are not going to be kissing US ass forever because of it, nor should they. What have you gained- prosperity, development, the few welfare states that manage to survive? Do you feel guilty? What for?
If I were French I would be a lot more guilty about having a president that goes to a French former colony and says, “you’re not ready for democracy yet,” while that country benefits from neo-colonial ties.
Besides, for years the French weren’t even active in NATO. Why feel guilty now? All those years when the Russkies were at the German border and the French didn’t want to cooperate in the defense- cut the crap.
This is bullshit and part of the French policy of developing an independent policy separate from NATO, in which France leads the EU.
I don't think the countries surrounding the European Union would be realistically afraid of something like that. The days of European imperialism are over, after all. And plus, what country would the EU invade? White-Russia? Uzbekistan? There really would be no gain in that for the EU whatsoever. I think situations like you described, being situations similar to the one that happened in WWI, are quite impossible to happen on the European continent nowadays...
I will concede to you that the only real reason that the Europeans would need an army is peacekeeping. But what I am referring too the development of national militaries. Why would some countries build larger militaries than others- could be for purely domestic reasons- perhaps a form of subsidization of key industries or a means to take care of labor issues. But the perceptions of neighbors might be different, and for them there might be threats.
If Europeans are to build strong militaries, they have to do so as a cooperative body, not as individuals. If they do that, they have to have a common purpose and agenda, but the nature of European politics prevents that. Thus, stick with NATO- why not, your security issues are more or less resolved.
Jebus- so far the only argument you have thrown about building an army is prestige. It’s pretty shallow considering your costs.
The longer the EU unifies and becomes collective, and individual national interests diminish, than you have an opportunity to getting past that. But the EU could fail. States could revert to being more autonomous individuals, and as such become prone to look out for their own national interest and survival.
That could happened under NAVO too. But it doesn't. Then why the hell would it happen under a unified European army?
[/quote]
First, there is no unified European army, although perhaps there could be. But if there was one, than local European politics would decide how that army was to be constructed. What you are talking about is competitive politics among European states, rather than the creation of a European order. Truth is that many countries in Europe would question the utility of making a European army when you already have NATO. Bulgarians, for instance, would probably favor NATO than a hypothetical EU army dominated by Germany or France.
What makes NATO work better than an EU army is two things- One, the conditions under which NATO was built were different than an EU army. There was a threat, there was a need for an alliance system. For some countries in Europe there still is a danger from Russia- see Baltic states. There is a reason why NATO membership (security) came first and then came EU membership(not yet) for these states.
Secondly, there is the US. What makes NATO work, and remember NATO is a military defense alliance built around the notion of collective security for Europe and the US, is the US. By being so strong the US has been able to balance competing interests and has been able to force conflicts to become less tense. It also helps that the US is willing to lose New York for Frankfurt.
It might be true that as the EU grows than it is possible an EU army might help unify the continent. But if so, wouldn’t there be differences in power based on the countries that contribute and participate? By having NATO exist you have an outside power that has an interest in keeping the peace in Europe and which has a military that no single European state could compete with.
So, wait - here you are saying that no country in Europe should dominate others by the size of their army in an alliance; yet you state that it would be in the best interest of these very same countries if they would be dominated by the American army? And why is it so hard to believe that European countries actually have the most to gain from a peaceful Europe?
The Europeans have always had the most to gain from a more peaceful Europe. The problem is that historically that has not prevented them from war. What the US gains from this is peace in Europe, prevents war, means trade and economic ties. It also means that we have a common purpose amongst us- to keep peace, globally, by prevent possible conflicts from emerging regionally. And if you think that countries in Europe couldn’t compete militarily- let’s not forget it took Germany only 20 years to rebuild itself from World War 1 to launch World War 2 and for the second time conquering Europe.
This is about power balancing. No one can compete, so no one does. And because no one does, no security dilemmas, no arms racing. And if you think the EU is so safe from this, think again. ASEAN, also a an economic community, has suffered it’s bouts of arms racing. Why arms race- part of it is security, part of it is prestige.
I am sorry Jebus, but your arguments are still about prestige and are not that convincing. And frankly it was partially about national prestige that you had two wars in Europe in the last century. I would think that caution here is the better part of valor.
I think the problem has more to do with the danger of who and what will compose that EU army. Will it be a French army or a German one? Will it be used to protect French territories in Africa?
If a European army was to be formed, I think the control over it would be a democratic one, much like the political control over the EU is. It strikes me as logical that the purpose of the unification of armies is to employ that army for causes that would benefit all members of that alliance, and not the national intrests of one of those countries..
Depends on your definition of democracy….. and therein lies part of the problem.
Can you be so sure? It is not unusual for democracies to fall, to have some democracies dominated by tyrants (not necessarily of the GB variety), that under those circumstances the strong would dominate and the weak would suffer- as Thucydides tells us has been true throughout history?
What you have in NATO is partnership of what you are describing, plus the benefit of having the US force projection that no country or countries in Europe are yet capable of having, at least not without tremendous costs.
Wouldn’t that cost go better to reducing unemployment? To better social spending on things like education and the economy?
You already have an alliance that benefits all members, in which the decision to act is one of unanimous consent. That not only ties in all the major power of the EU plus those outside the EU, and which brings in the power of the strongest military in the world.
And you would sell this out, for what? Prestige. You would trash the most successful military alliance in at least 200 years for a hypothetical institution. Really? Seems silly to me.
Does the EU have a foreign policy? Or is it national policies of member states?
The EU is taking steps toward the formation of a unified, one-voiced foreign policy. (After all, we have a kind of Minister of Foreing Policy of the EU now.) We're not quite there yet, but we will be soon.
Since a national military is a tool of statecraft, don’t you think it would be better to find a common voice before you created the common weapon?
Would the US have less power in Europe? Perhaps. More practically it would mean the end of NATO. That would mean a limited US role in Europe, to be sure. But so far the role of the US in Europe is pretty marginal. Keep the peace.
The US abuses NAVO to achieve its political goals in Europe. Example: when Belgium opposed to the war in Iraq, the US threatened to move the NAVO headquarters out of Brussels.
I think that's clear enough.
And when things didn’t go the way the French liked it, they withdrew from NATO completely. During the heart of the Cold War. That’s called politics. Get over it.
What does Europe want to do with an army? Invade the middle east? Conquer bits of Africa? Doesn’t France already have soldiers in Africa and the Middle East?
What is the added utility and what is the cost?
What does the US want to do with an army? Invade the middle east?
... Oh wait. They have!
Indeed and it’s costing us billions. You want to pick up that ticket? How about the fighting in the Philippines? Military support for fighting narco-traffickers in Latin America, building a more cooperative regional military force in Africa, supporting ASEAN security, patrolling the oceans of the world to keep sea-lanes free.
I swear Jebus, you may think the US is the great villain of the world, but seriously, just because the French didn’t want to support the US in going to Iraq because it was afraid the loans would be defaulted, doesn’t make the US the great bad guy.
And what would happen if both EU and the US invaded the middle east- would they compete? If they compete would that mean that trade and economic ties between the two would diminish? That these countries might become competitors rather than partners.
Do you want partnership or competition?
Anyway, it's not because a nation keeps an army it keeps it for offensive purposes. Its main goal would be defensive, as is (in theory) the goal of NAVO. Anyway, armies are never *usefull*, but they do serve as an added weight to global politics.
Hypothetically. This is like the person who has a gun in his house for defense and then shoots the kids next door when they egg his house for Halloween, or he shoots his wife when she starts having an affair.
An army is a tool of statecraft, but a dangerous one, and the process of state craft is subject to the corruptions of human agency. The trick is to create institutions that control the evil that occasionally shows in human action.
You cannot foretell what an army would be used for, or how it would be used. Countries have historically used ideas such as self-defense and humanitarian causes to launch aggressive wars.
But again, look at your point- they serve as an added weight to global politics? But what weight? What gains do you get? What dangers do you raise? What are the costs of this weight?
No actually the French choice to build a nuclear deterrent mirrors that of the UK. But the problem with the French is that they dropped out of NATO, the UK didn’t. In the event of war (Soviet invasion) it was unclear if the French would come to the defense of Germany or not- why, because the French were willing to accept being dubious about international commitments as long as they protected their own self interest and Paris. That said, had the Russian crossed over the border, among the cities to be destroyed were London, and New York. That’s why I trust US commitments to the protection and security of Europe more than I trust the French.
Different times, different politics, different attitudes between countries now...
Yeah, bullshit. And how will the times change? The attitudes? Are you so sure things won’t go bad. Are you a fortune teller.?
I would prefer a country with a proven track record of sticking with Europe than one with a record of pursuing it’s own self interest over the security of Europe. The US could have told the Europeans to fuck off 50 years ago and fend for yourselves. Perhaps we would have been better off if you had to pay for your own security. But we didn’t because it was in our interest and because we didn’t want to see World War 3 start in Europe. We still don’t. That’s why we are still in Europe.
As for keeping facists in power- how strong is that European commitment to democracy, freedom, civil rights, etc.?
There are no more fascists in Europe now, though. Actually, I think Europe is more democratic than the US nowadays.
Yes, and without the carrots and sticks offered by NATO partnership a lot of the countries in Eastern Europe would not have cleaned up their act. SO yes, NATO has played a role in making Europe more democratic.
But anyways, that's all nothing but mudslinging. Serves no real purpose.
Indeed.
Sometimes I think Europeans have a shorter attention span to history than Americans do. Cold War ended only around 1989-1992. Last I checked the Russians were still in Moldova and mucking around in the “near abroad” and the countries of Eastern Europe would prefer to be protected by NATO than not because they, at least, have not forgotten what the Russians were like.
And why would a European army not be able to take over that role?
Well I am talking to my Bulgarian friend sitting next to me, a Ph.D. student in international relations, and he seems to think that the Bulgarians have more faith in the US and NATO (in which Bulgaria is a member) than the EU (which it is not). I can ask my Turkish friend (as Turkey is a long-time NATO member but denied access to the EU) and ask him which he prefers and I would guess NATO.
Why? Because a Western European army would be dominated by Germany and France to NATO.
But it also had significant class differences, an oppressive colonial army and an economic structure that favored continued Belgian neo-colonialism rather than Congo autonomy.
Well, it was a *colony* after all. But still, things were not that bad for the Congolese in those days. As far as being a colony to another country goes, I think they had it relatively well back then.
Who’s history books do you read?
Try-
Zaire : continuity and political change in an oppressive state, by Leslie, Winsome
Zaire, what destiny? Kankwenda M'baya.
The Congo-Zaire experience, 1960-98, O'Ballance, Edgar.
The Congo from Leopold to Kabila : a people's history, Nzongola-Ntalaja, Georges,
The troubled heart of Africa : a history of the Congo, Edgerton, Robert B
The History of Congo, Gondola, Ch. Didier
The rise and decline of the Zairian state, Young, Crawford,(excellent read)
Also read
Politics in the Congo; decolonization and independence, by Crawford Young,
The state-society struggle : Zaire in comparative perspective Callaghy, Thomas another excellent read- one of the best books in comparative politics ever.
That should bring you up- to- date.
