BBC Blog Network

User Profile

ChangeOfState

Listed below are comments made by ChangeOfState between Tuesday, 11th November 2008 and Friday, 4th September 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Damaged Special Relationship? 02:20am on 04 Sep 2009 threnodio, I owe you a debt of gratitude because you have made my point better than I could make it myself. Given Europe's "collective GDP of $13.06 trillion...and...the largest economy in the world," it certainly makes no sense for the U.S to expend a single dollar on Europe's defence. I say, let this marvelous New Europe dedicate some reasonable percentage of its wealth on an annual basis to its own defence and let the U.S. dedicate what it has been spending on Europe's defence (and on the defence of those other countries I've named earlier) to renovating itself.

To Jukka_Rohila, I say hasten the day when the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency. From an American perspective, that is much to be hoped for. That would bring many benefits to the U.S. economy, among them the fact that we would be obliged to live within our means, i.e., we would no longer be in the position to borrow money from China to pay for the defence of Europe and other countries.

When the U.S. no longer has the burden of being the world's policeman and is finally free of the temptation to borrow beyond its means, that fine old republic can get back to being a normal nation - a large and hopefully prosperous nation, to be sure - but fundamentally a normal nation. Surely the U.S. deserves that privilege, the very privilege your nations, threnario and Jukka_Rohila, enjoy.
Damaged Special Relationship? 9:55pm on 03 Sep 2009 Not to make this a private dialogue, threnodio, but my point about pragmatism didn't have to do with the *relationship* between the U.S. and the U.K.; it had to do with how the U.S. needs to stop spending its money on the military aspects of its relationships with the U.K., E.U., Japan, Israel, So. Korea, etc. and (pragmatically) spend those dollars on itself. For the U.S., the only aspects of any of these relationships that pass the test of pragmatism are mutual investment, trade, and exchanges in the areas of culture, science, technology, etc. The military aspects of the relationships seem to benefit us very little at this moment in history and that is why we should abandon them.

I suppose there would continue to be some degree of "friendship" between the U.S. and the other countries mentioned. Perhaps those friendships might even improve a bit when they were no longer deformed by America's extravagant outlays for international policing, etc. It would cause me great pleasure to see some of those expenses and burdens being picked up by others. I know I would feel friendlier overall under those improved circumstances. It seems you would too. :-)
Damaged Special Relationship? 6:57pm on 03 Sep 2009 We should pay attention to "threnodio" and his wonderful, long post (#44), which I quote: "There are loud voices in the States these days harping about the huge amount of money you are paying out for the 'defence of Europe'. You are doing no such thing. You are making a huge - some would say disproportionate - contribution towards the cost of NATO. That is a very different thing. If you conclude that this is not money well spent, the[n] we can simply let NATO fade away. The total European financial commitment would be more than sufficient, if redeployed, to effectively defend Europe and, indeed, to pursue its own foreign policy agenda. Do not run away with the idea that the US is paying for the defence of Europe. It is funding an alliance which it sees as central to its foreign policy objectives. If those days are coming to an end, pull out by all means. Europe is not the poor cousin in need of American handouts that many on the American right would like to portray."

The analysis he or she provides is certainly correct in many of its particulars. It's true that the U.S. certainly has been funding (disproportionately) an alliance which it has seen as as central to its foreign policy objectives and its also true that those days are coming to an end (and none too soon). One of the principle reasons that the U.S. can and should terminate its support for NATO is precisely because Europe is not, as threnodio says, a "poor cousin in need of American handouts." In fact, Europe is quite prosperous and, by rights, ought to be paying for its own defence - as should Japan, South Korea, Israel, etc. Hasten the day, so that the U.S. can start spending its money on itself, just as Europe has been able to do for the last half century or so.

All Americans I know who are promoting a non-interventionism agenda would be very heartened to read threnodio's statement that, "The total European financial commitment [i.e., for NATO] would be more than sufficient, if redeployed, to effectively defend Europe and, indeed, to pursue its own foreign policy agenda." That is a marvelous recognition and one hopes that the EU will quickly do just that so that the U.S. can be spared the expense.

I would quibble with threnodio on only one point: there is no correlation in the U.S. between being a non-interventionist and being on the right. In fact, most non-interventionists I know (and I, myself) are decidedly on the left with respect to most political issues. Fortunately, non-interventionism can't be pigeon-holed in those tired old political categories of Right and Left.

Frankly, it's just a question of pragmatism at this point in the history of the U.S. We can't provide unlimited security guarantees to other nations which actually don't like or respect us very much while also doing all those things that are necessary to secure our own prosperity and quality of life. If we want to have the quality of life which Europeans claim they have, then we will have to repatriate our dollars and spend them on important things at home. It's time.
Damaged Special Relationship? 10:18pm on 02 Sep 2009 I'm an American who's frequently in the U.K. and have made it a point to ask friends and acquaintances in both countries about the so-called "special relationship". Based on my admittedly unscientific research, I can say that this relationship (if it ever really existed) is long gone. The degree of visceral and, I think, irrational anti-Americanism I encounter in the U.K. is breathtaking. For their part, most Americans I interview pretty much lump the British in with the Continental Europeans, whom they consider a cynical and feckless lot.

I'm saddened to see the trans-Atlantic relationship grown so sour but that's what I find.

One consequence of this here in the U.S. is an ever growing feeling on the part of many intellectuals that the country needs to embark on a new path of rigorous military non-interventionism. The view is that the U.S. has been bearing the immense costs of security arrangements benefiting Western Europe, Israel, Japan and South Korea for far too long - and that it no longer can afford those costs. These same intellectuals believe that the economic situation in the U.S. is such that the country cannot afford to "take care of itself and take care of others". In other words, they believe that the U.S. needs to reprogram the huge sums of money that now go to these security guarantees and, instead, spend them on critical needs within the U.S., like health care for all, repair of infrastructure, and other investments that will build American wealth.
EU considers its response to Obama 10:40pm on 26 Jan 2009 Yes, "fine words butter no parsnips" indeed! One suspects that Europe, for all its infatuation with President Obama, will continue as feckless as ever, which is to say it resolutely will continue to bear little or none of the costs associated with maintaining security in the world. Criticize the US for Guantanamo (as it deserved to be criticized)? Sure! But take any of those released? Sacre bleu, non! Criticize the US for arrogating to itself the role of Policeman of the World? Certainly! But bear any of the actual costs associated with their own security? Certainly not!

The truth is that the American people finally are awakening to the harsh reality that they cannot simultaneously afford to dig their country out of the economic and social hole it's in while simultaneously providing security guarantees to its so-called "friends." It's earnestly to be hoped that they will decide to spend such money as they have left on the former and not on the latter.

I, for one, think the US *must* walk away from these staggeringly expensive security guarantees. Why, after all, should it be guaranteeing the security of nations whose wealth, per capita, is as great as its own, if not greater? No, it's time for the US to start spending its money on itself for a change -- on improving its neglected infrastructure and dysfunctional social services.

No doubt its "friends" will cry that the US must keep its promises but the only rational rejoinder is that the US no longer can afford to keep those promises. It must finally take care of itself.

It's time, in short, for the US to become a "non-exceptional" nation like the nations of Europe. No, it shouldn't embrace a policy of isolationism. It should trade with everyone and participate from time-to-time in international humanitarian efforts. But it *should* embrace a practical and affordable policy of non-interventionism, like most European countries with the exception of the UK.

It needs to do this without delay.
Will the world respond to America's Moment? 8:32pm on 20 Jan 2009 Based on the cynical and jaundiced nature of the most recommended comments on the BBC's "Have Your Say" discussion on the Obama inauguration, I can deduce that there weren't any kisses or tears by most BBC readers as they witnessed this historic moment. It really was rather shocking to read how disdainful and dismissive they were - of President Obama and his qualities, of the office of the US President, and of the US in general. Oh well, so much for Obama's holding out the hand of friendship to the world's nations. It just got bitten by the English bulldogs.
Hillary and US humility 11:31pm on 14 Jan 2009 Were the Obama administration to take the course of wisdom, it would withdraw quickly and utterly from Afghanistan since it's abundantly clear from the "facts on the ground" and from a reading of history that it's futile to try to pacify that hapless land (certainly not a country in any modern sense of the word). In any event, the US is in no position to continue in the entire mad venture in light of the fact that it's broke. Indeed, it ought to withdraw from Afghanistan, Iraq, Europe, South Korea, Japan and all the other places in the world where it's conducting wars and/or maintaining garrisons. Likewise, it must abrogate its security guarantee to any nation to which it has extended one, including Israel.

All of these arrangements are simply unaffordable to the US at this juncture in its history. It desperately needs to repatriate its dollars and use them to rebuild its infrastructure and invest in its human resources. As I have said before, if the nations that have been enjoying a security free ride from America's security guarantees complain loudly that the US must keep its promises, the only sane answer is that the US no longer can afford to keep its promises. It needs to spend its money on itself for a change -- as those nations have been doing for decades now.
American power lives on 01:51am on 11 Jan 2009 The only rational argument for a nation state's holding and using power is to guarantee the quality of life of its citizens. America's overzealous and wrong-headed projection of power in military terms has had the opposite effect. Arrogating to itself (or being manoeuvred by its cynical "friends" into) the role of Policeman of the World has driven it to bankruptcy and caused a catastrophic diminishing of its moral stature in the world.

Because of the staggering costs associated with the role, this once mighty country has neglected the two things that would have increased its commonweal: building and maintaining a world class infrastructure (inclusive of a pristine natural environment) and nurturing its human capital through education, universal health care, etc. The sad effects of not having done so are there for all to see.

It can only be hoped that, now that it's on the brink of bankruptcy, the US will see that it has lay down the World Policeman role. Specifically, it must walk away from its unlimited and no-longer-affordable security guarantees to Europe, Israel, Japan, South Korea, etc. If some in those countries argue that America must keep its promises, the only possible rejoinder is that the US can no longer afford to keep those promises. The jig is up and, in any event, those societies are per capita as prosperous as the US and, in some cases, even more prosperous.

One can only hope that President Obama will realize that the days of Pax Americana are over. Let some other nation or that chimera the EU assume the role if it is eager and foolish enough to do so.

Freed of this insupportable burden, the US can repatriate its dollars and spend them on itself for a change -- as its "client" states have been merrily doing for some time now.
Obama aftershocks 8:27pm on 25 Nov 2008 Because of the perilous financial situation in which the US finds itself and also because of the relentless bad press the country has taken over the last eight years of the GW Bush presidency, President Obama will move toward a more non-interventionist foreign policy by the US. That great country no longer can afford the role of World Policeman and shouldn't have succumbed to the temptation to assume that role in the first place. This new non-interventionist stance by the US no doubt will force the hand of the EU in terms of whether or not it will be willing to police its own neighbourhood (e.g., Russia, Georgia, the Balkans) and do something other than posture with respect to other world crises. How the UK expresses its solidarity with respect to this pressure on the EU will determine how close Mr Brown and President Obama will be.
Stretching America 7:07pm on 11 Nov 2008 "The Obama years will stretch America. The nation will come to think differently about itself." Yes, quite right, though not in the ways Justin Webb supposes. An Obama presidency, thankfully lacking the pinched and paranoid mentality of the Bush world-view, opens the door for the U.S. finally to see how irrational and unaffordable is the role of World Policeman it arrogated to itself - or got manoeuvred into by its "friends", if you prefer. While the U.S. has borne the staggering costs associated with that role, it has neglected the rebuilding of its physical infrastructure, the restoration of its environment, and the social development of its people. During an Obama presidency, we should see a reversal of those policies. American will enter into a period of strategic non-interventionism in which it engages competitively in world trade and participates generously in international relief efforts, while abrogating the unlimited security guarantees it has extended for so many years to Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel. Those security guarantees are no longer affordable for the U.S. and, in any event, the countries in question are now plenty prosperous enough to shoulder their own defence burdens and should do so.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

ChangeOfState