Jebus said:
But perhaps, you are right. Perhaps this is all a sceme for Germany to create its third Reich. Perhaps it is a plot for industrials to erect a government like the one in the US. Perhaps the EU will one day implode, when these see that their goals might not be achieved.
But for now, I will keep to my dream.
This is where we get off on the wrong foot. My arguments on Germany are less about the desires of individual agents, than the tragedy created by structures.
Personally I don't see Germany going back and doing another Reich. Nor do I see the US as a plot by industrialists. That's all too much conspiracy theory. (Although Ratty is good for conspiracy theory).
Rather we can break this down perhaps to three elements- (1) agents- those individuals doing the planning, plotting, diplomaticing, that lead to peace or war.
(2) structures- the conditions and imbalances in the world that constrain or empower agents, or even motivate agents to act.
and perhaps
(3) ideas- perhaps these can stand alone as the concepts that we take for granted and don't even challenge because we have so incorporated them into our life that challenging them would be impossible.
What you are suggesting Jebus, is that I might suspect a plot of individuals. I don't. In fact I would doubt such a plot possible currently, or perhaps not until the current generation of German leaders departs and the next comes in.
As for ideas, I don't think the ideas of Europe or the EU have matured to the point where the idea of EU unity is guaranteed. It may become the ideal world that you outline above. However, it's not there yet. That's not to say those ideals are impossible, or should not be strived for. What it does mean is that we can't take agents or structures for granted.
That leads me with structure and agents.
Agents-
Since agents are so varied we have to be able to generalize. So lets make them rational fiduciaries of the state they represent. In that sense they are shaped and influenced by pressure groups and constituents. Briosa pointed out the French farmers, but perhaps you can also look at German manufacturers/industrialists, English bankers, Northern Italian industrialists, whatever. There are lots of constituents. Some have more influence than others.
What you point out to (industrialists setting up the US government) perhaps overstretches the point but does recognize that strong business and financial interests probably have more sway on the President and the Congress than the overage Joe. Europe is not immune to similar pressures.
Thus we can generalize that these actors will all seek to further their national interest, as recognizing that each has constituent supporters and to betray these supporters risks political danger.
Thus actors- rational self-interested actors seeking to satisfy constituents of their national governments. Yes, everyone is unique, but up to a point. By generalizing on this principle we overcome some problems in making predictive theory.
That leaves structure.
Kharn will drop in and say structures change- yes. They do. The structure of the world's political system has changed drastically over the past 100 years.
The structure shapes the power that the actors bring to the table when they negotiate, the power of their constituents to influence them. Structure determines were you are in the heirarchy of nations. It determines not only power, however, but constraint.
Turkey, for all its desire to be part of the EU, is still primarily a middle eastern nation, divided by Kurdish seperatists, distinctive for it's Islam which has become political, strategically important by virtue of it's geography. Turkey may one day parlay it's geographical position as a bargaining chip,(access to central asian oil via pipeline and the passage past istanbul) for admission to the EU, especially should the EU put higher value on Central Asian Oil. Likewise Saudi Arabia might sit on one of the largest oil deposits in the world, yet it is only home of the religious cities of Islam, which creates political consequences.
Structure is, at a particular time, unique. It allows for variation in objectives, policies and goals.
My position to you has not been that the Germans are especially imperialistic, or nationalistic or plan to resurrect Hitler. Rather, that because of their position in Europe, because of their power and interests, they have the recurring problem of being in the place to attempt political domination. Happily the Germans have realized that and part of their strategy, through the EU and NATO has been to reduce the fears of other European states that Germany is not a threat, but potentially a leader.
The question for Germany for the EU, is not quite dissimilar to the US over the UN, should we continue to participate, and that leads to the simple questions- do we have to, what's in it for us, and what do we get if we drop out.
Now you mention idealism. Fine. This is one of the oldest paradigms of thinking on international topics. The idealists wants the world to move in ways of peace, more interconnection and community, less conflict, more humanitarianims. That's the ideal.
The problem though is that wishing for it doesn't make it so. An alternative view, seeks to understand the world as it is, that the structure of power matters, that we can assume people are selfish rational actors, and the structure of power matters. This is loosely the "realist" paradigm. Realists don't necessarily like this world, but believe that it is a more valid historical understanding of the world than the idealist camp.
Frankly, I am not that much a realist but more a liberalists- people matter, especially constituents and institutions. But that's me.
Aspiring towards that ideal world begins with accepting the world as it is, and if there is doubt, predicting the worse. Why? I don't have a good answer for that. Perhaps because if you anticipate the worst you can plan for it and avoid it. Not idealistically hoping that people will do what you hope, but realistically hoping they might do the right thing but planning for what happens if they don't.
*EDIT* And perhaps, the thread I started a few days ago (the one about 'the time of small stories'; who never really took off because nobody seemed to understand what I meant) might shed some more light on how I see the world. Thrust me, I'm not trying to troll anybody.
Actually I liked that thread, but it got derailed. Maybe it needs to be reincarnated.
