Obama and Europe
Almost a year ago I stood in Chicago and watched a tidal wave of celebration cascade through Grant Park as the screens flashed up an Obama victory. An African-American had defied the weight of history and had become the most powerful man in the world.
It was not just an American night, it was a global event. I met young Brits and Europeans who had made the journey to say they were there the night America changed. I got texts from far-flung places with just three words: "Yes we can".
On that night it was easy to dream, but looking back at my report I wrote this:
"Briefly, he (Obama) stood alone between the bullet-proof panels; a foretaste of the loneliness of power; the certainty that the burden of expectations will be impossible to meet. So history turns. The torch passed last night to a man of high ideals who will face daunting challenges from his very first day in the White House."
Europe had got the president it wanted. Earlier I had watched 200,000 people turn out for Obama in Berlin. He was only a candidate, not even the nominee. The crowd yearned for a Kennedy moment with a young politician full of energy and high-ideals.
Tomorrow in Washington there is a summit between the Obama administration and the European Union. German Chancellor Merkel will address both houses of congress.
The love affair with Obama was always one-sided. Europeans wanted Obama; he
was less certain what Europe offered him.
For some Europeans the Bush years had been brutal. There was the snide reference to "old Europe" when there was a reluctance to support the Iraq invasion. Some Americans wanted to take the "French" out of fries. And then there was the New York paper that replaced the faces of the French and German foreign ministers with that of weasels. A spineless Security Council was branded the "council of weasels". Europe felt marginalised as America rode off alone to settle scores and fashion the world to its own design.
Obama, however, made Europeans feel included once again. He offered the hand of partnership. He signed up to multilateralism. It was only 11 days after he came into office that the Nobel Committee nominated him for the peace prize.
But as Obama's first year unfolded, old difficulties began to re-emerge.
Europe liked the early commitment to close Guantanamo Bay, although it remains in business.
It applauded the decision of the Obama administration to re-engage with Iran although uncertainty remains to what the new policy will deliver and whether Iran will send its stockpiles of uranium out of the country.
In the Middle East, Europe had wanted Obama to throw his prestige behind
peace talks but progress remains glacial and the administration has said that talks should not hinge on freezing Israeli settlements. Many European countries would
prefer Washington to take a tougher line with the Israelis.
On climate change, Europe prided itself that it was leading the world to get a deal in Copenhagen. At breakfast last week I heard a senior European official say: "We urged President Obama to show leadership... and he promised to make an effort."
The Europeans have put some figures on the table as to the cost of fighting climate change but they have essentially fudged what they individually would stump up.
The reality is that in Washington climate change gets second billing to healthcare.
President Obama may not even travel to Copenhagen. One Member of the European Parliament, Joe Leinen, said: "The US is still looking inwards, while Europe is looking outwards." Old complaints are re-surfacing.
The key area of common interest is Afghanistan. After long being chided for unwillingness to commit forces the Europeans have over 30,000 troops in the country.
Yet Europe is essentially waiting on Obama to conclude his brain-storming sessions with his advisers. The fact remains that Europe has virtually no say in strategy.
A revealing analysis published today by the European Council on Foreign Relations goes straight to the point and asks whether Europe has wasted its Obama moment. It says that Europe got the President it wanted but Washington remains enormously frustrated with Europe to speak with clarity and conviction. "Washington is disappointed with Europe," it says, "and sees EU member states as infantile: responsibility shirking and attention."
The writers challenge Europe to develop their own strategy for Russia, for the Middle East, for Afghanistan if they want to be taken seriously.
And here's the dilemma. The European Union is focused on its new jobs, the President of the European Council and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs. To the apocryphal Henry Kissinger complaint that he did not know who to call in Europe, a senior official said last week that, in future, the call would be taken by the High Representative. But he or she can only reflect the views of the member states.
So there may be a new and popular president in the White House and Europe has not fallen out of affection with him but Obama, as presidents before him, finds Europe an uncertain partner. Whatever the institutional changes, Europe runs up against the old problem; the more they seek to speak with clarity, the more they risk diminishing the influence of the member states.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~54~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Can the BBC maybe explain slowly and clearly why Guantanimo is still open.
One of the major problems is that the majority of detainees come from fairly brutal nations like Saudi and China. If the US put them on a plane and fly them home they are extremely likely to 'vanish' the minute they arrive back. The US are trying to find neutral nations prepared to offer asylum to these prisoners (like Pelau who to their credit have taken some today) in the face of heavy Chinese pressure to hand them over to the Chinese authorities.
O.K the problem is of US making but the solution is rather trickier than just shutting the camp and sending the inmates home.
Complain about this comment
Gavin Hewitt.
"But as Obama's first year unfolded, old difficulties began to re-emerge."
much as I can be captivated by Obama's charisma, the fact is that, like one Tony Blair, he's a slick lawyer who savours the moment; so far Obama hasn't managed to impart real change to USAmerican 'business as ususal' politics and I'd be surprised he see things change for the better. they won't of course, Congress and Senate haven't changed and Obama is close to the big money, just like Blair. shame really.
Complain about this comment
It is not only from Washington that some EU member-states look infantile; responsibility shirking and attention seeking. That is the image from London too, and the image has a lot to do with people like Joe Leinen. Henry Kissenger is a man born in Europe who does deserve the utmost respect, but his idea that there should be one phone number for Europe is based on a serious misconception that any international figure can speak for a nation and have the legitimacy when saying something opposed by their own government and electorate. This is no more possible in Europe than the Americas, where no one would claim that Obama has a right to speak for Brazilians, or Hugo Chavez to speak for Americans.
The so-called European Council on Foreign Relations (which is a self-appointed clique of federalists) believe the answer to every problem is 'more Europe'. In the link that Gavin provides the ECHR appears to simply ignore that it is possible for one European country to happen to agree with Washington on an issue and disagree with the representatives of other European nations. Whenever this happens they believe it is a 'divide and conquer' strategy to make Europe disunited, but real unity comes a strong national solidarity which the Americans have by virtue of being a single people, and the Europeans lack by virtue of being multiple nations, who (if democracy means anything at all) will sometimes have their own distinct national voice such that their different representatives (if our politicians are to deserve that name, which currently they do not) will naturally sometimes differ with one another.
The EU, by virtue of being the only serious international organisation to exclude the Americans, has unfortunately become the arena of choice for all those who wish to oppose a US policy, but feel their argument cannot stand on its own merits without the artificial buttressing of the phony collective weight of Europe. In truth the argument that the ECHR make is the real 'divide and conquer' strategy that seeks to use the EU to isolate and neutralise any representatives of a European nation that happen to agree with Washington and then split the West by presenting their competing 'European' position as deserving respect due to a collective weight, when in truth it has typically been cobbled together in a backroom deal by a couple of European countries and presented to the rest as a fait acompli.
In the age of instant global communication and mass travel it should be possible for the leaders of the democracies to speak directly to one another in a global forum such as the G20, and do away with the middle-men in Brussels who pretend to be our voice, only in order to substitute it with their own irresponsible and attention-seeking agenda.
Complain about this comment
Europeans don't seem to understand the idea of Federalism.. That is when member states of a federation give authority on some matters to a regional power. The US has been doing this for years. Asking Europe to have a consistent answer is just like asking California and Texas (not the US and Brazil) to have a consistent answer. Obama is right, and Europe is often very infantile. The US had to have a very bloody war before it was able to have a credible Federal Govt.. Lets hope Europe doesn't end up doing the same, cuz somehow Americans always seem to be pulled into your wars...
Complain about this comment
What a warped view of America Mr. Mardell;
"An African-American had defied the weight of history and had become the most powerful man in the world."
Wrong! It was just one more step in a relentless process that has been ongoing for decades. Barack Obama didn't spring up from nowhere. He rides on the shoulders of countless people who changed America to "create a more perfect union." There would not have been a Barack Obama without a Martin Luther King or a Thurgood Marshal, or a Clarence Thomas, or countless other Americans of all races who changed the course of Amerian culture. America doesn't exist in a fixed state, it is an ongoing process. It is not paralyzed or rigid the way most other nations are, the way Europe is. It constantly grows and improves. It left Europe in the dust decades ago in far more ways than economically and militarily.
"the certainty that the burden of expectations will be impossible to meet."
That is because he made promises that could not be kept by him or anyone else in order to get elected. That's what politicians do, they create hope in people who vote them into power. Then reality sets in.
"Europe had got the president it wanted."
We have a saying here; be careful what you wish for, you never know when your wish might come true.
"Some Americans wanted to take the "French" out of fries."
Actually that isn't quite accurate. We would have preferred to fry the French...in boiling oil. Many of us still feel that way, we just no longer say it often, it's old hat. Sarkozy doesn't fool anyone here on this side of the pond.
"Europe felt marginalised"
It was just waking up to reality. It has been marginalized since WWII. That is one reason why the war was a seminal event. Since that time, Europe's only interest for America was as a security risk. For that reason America bent over backwards to hand Western Europe the world on a silver platter. The threat of the USSR is over now and the dining room is closed forever. Europe may not like having to serve itself but there is no longer any reason for the US to accomodate itself to European whims. America as always is focused on its own interests which no longer includes doing whatever it takes to keep Europe out of the Soviet orbit.
"Obama, however, made Europeans feel included once again. He offered the hand of partnership. He signed up to multilateralism."
Europeans didn't pay attention to what he said in Berlin in the summer of 2008. They may have liked his different tone and style but they ignored the substance of it. He essentially gave Europe another chance to reconcile its attitudes and actions with American interests. It hasn't. It has deluded itself that somehow America will exist to serve European interests in defference to its own. Now that it is learning that this won't happen, it seems surprised and frustrated. Soon it will be angry again. This is the result of waking up to its own delusions. That is Europe's fault, not America's.
"But as Obama's first year unfolded, old difficulties began to re-emerge."
No, the same differences never went away. That is because President Obama is not a European President, he is President of the United States. He is 100% American for America. His policies insofar as Europe is concerned are not substantially different from those of the Bush Administration becuase those policies are not Republican or Democratic policies, not conservative or liberal policies, they are American policies reflecting American interests. Europe had better get used to it. If they thought they had an easy patsy in Barack Obama they were mistaken. A change in style perhaps but the sum and substance remains unchanged. It isn't going away and if Europe does not come to grips with that reality, its conflict with the United States will only increase in scope and sharpen in intensity. It is a challenge that Europe cannot win, as an adversary America cannot be beaten by it.
Complain about this comment
Europe-US relations are far better than they while the USA was being led by an incompetent, far-right ignoramus. Let us get that straight. As I see by the previous comments, some people like the plain idea of confrontation and they do this by uttering blanket statements that seem to signify that the previous administration only found sheep of its own kind to lead.
To Mikey above: Europeans understand federalism better than you might think. Germany is a federal state, Switzerland as well, Austria is quite federal.... some countries do have a problem with centralism, and that is historic (I note France).
About the wars: The USA has gotten itself involved in European wras, but since 1945, it has gotten itself involved in ots own wars without the help of Europe, so please go back to the history books In fact, the USA has been involved in continuous wars for well over a century, covert and overt.
The reason why the French did not get involved in the Iraq adventure is because it was a fake from the start, and most people with half a brain knew it. Alas, the MSM found a good way to raise its ratings, and thus this atrocity that has become a 6-year war was foisted upon the Iraqi people. Afghanistan was political capital for 9-11, and it too was an error, combatting terrorism is police work, not military, hence the quagmire in Afghanistan.
And lastly, Markus Aurelius, those old jingoist sentiments went out some time around 1919. If American businesses and soldiers want to trample around the planet and ignore local feelings, cultures, etc., they are going to have to face resistance. Obama is far better at understanding the need to respect peoples' space and culture.
What appears extraordinary to me is that with all the information available, one still finds comments of the most striking ignorance. It makes me really doubt the value of the Internet.
Complain about this comment
I would also like to ask all those people speaking of "Europe" what they really mean.
The European Union consists of 27 SOVEREIGN nations, and Switzerland is not included, of course. I know it's a little complicated to understand that concept, but that's how it is and diversity is healthy.
Complain about this comment
U-Boat;
"If American businesses and soldiers want to trample around the planet and ignore local feelings, cultures, etc., they are going to have to face resistance."
Yes we saw that in the war against the worldwide spread of Communism and now in the worldwide war agaisnt the spread of Islamo-fascism. Europe is at best an indifferent ally in the defense of civilization and at worst an obstacle. It had no qualms in the now distant past about fighting for the empires which served only the interests of the elites of Europe but finds it next to impossible to defend what little freedom and democracy it has won largely through American sacrifices. It seems doomed to lose even that progress through indifference to its worth.
"Obama is far better at understanding the need to respect peoples' space and culture."
Yes I've noticed that too. He's stepped up the drone attacks in Pakistan and will agree to send the 40,000 troops General McChrystal has requested. He is aware that the enemy will be more difficult to defeat than President Bush had estimated.
Complain about this comment
are we seriously to believe that Obama is that stupid as not to understand that "Europe" is not one country, as the US is? that he doesn't understand the political realities here? there are many people in Europe who would love this continent to be able to speak in one voice, but many, including most Brits, don't. funnily enough these are exactly the same people who are the first to call Europe 'infantile and indecisive'. first obstruct progress towards one voice as much as possible, and then stepping on the high horse and calling Europe names. what a joke!
Complain about this comment
Interesting piece. Would be good to hear something about Klaus - given that he negotiated an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be tagged on to the Croatia accession treaty, do you see the accession as a possible vehicle for Cameron to create his own political 'win' for the Tories on Europe once he's in power? It's an alternative to holding a referendum on Lisbon after the event...
Complain about this comment
7. At 3:06pm on 02 Nov 2009, U5656350 wrote:
I would also like to ask all those people speaking of "Europe" what they really mean. The European Union consists of 27 SOVEREIGN nations, and Switzerland is not included, of course. I know it's a little complicated to understand that concept, but that's how it is and diversity is healthy.
Does it? With EU law now superceding national I think there's some debate as to exactly how soveriegn we are. Its rather like the state system in the US.... federal law overrides state law, but each individual state has immense state powers and many (such as Callifornia) have larger armies at the control of the governor than entire European nations can field.
Complain about this comment
U-Boat;
"The European Union consists of 27 SOVEREIGN nations, and Switzerland is not included, of course. I know it's a little complicated to understand that concept"
Actually it is a very easy concept to understand. Switzerland can't join the EU for fear of having to dilvulge its many nefarious activities as the world's leading center for the laundering and hiding of drug money, illegal arms smuggling money, blood diamond money, tax evader money, embezzled money, money stolen from victims of wars, and money from other crimes by the world's miscreants to the EU bank authorities. This money is the real source of Switzerland's wealth, not cheese, chocolate, wristwatches, and cuckoo clocks. Why else would people put most or all of their money into banks that pay no interest even in times when legitimate banks and other sound investments are paying very high interest rates? Yes, it is a very simple concept.
Complain about this comment
Meet the new boss - same as the old boss. The Americans DID get fooled again. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
Eddy Current;
"are we seriously to believe that Obama is that stupid as not to understand that "Europe" is not one country"
Whatever else may be said about President Obama, one thing you cannot fairly say about him is that he is stupid. I'd bet President Obama understands Europe better than Europe understands itself. After all, not only is he at a distance from which he can see both the forest and the trees, he has the best informed advisors money can buy. If they don't get it right, nobody else will either.
So far President Obama does not seem to have played the differences among European nations off against each other to America's advantage. I wonder when he'll get around to that strategy. Probably after one European nation or another crosses him one time too many. The UK made a good start with the release of Magrahi.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII #12.
Welcome to Delaware,
"..the world's leading center for the laundering and hiding of drug money, illegal arms smuggling money, blood diamond money, tax evader money, embezzled money, money stolen from victims of wars, and money from other crimes by the world's miscreants.."
oops, I mean Switzerland..
Complain about this comment
I think this fascination with an homogenous Europe is highly questionable.
So Kissinger complained that he was not able to call one person who had control over the whole of Europe. Therefore Europe was not structured properly.
OK. Applying this logic, we should demand the baltic states, and indeed all the members of the former soviet union, by reunited under a Russian federal state.
Why not?
Don't we want just phone number to call?
Ah! But that is an outrageous suggestion, because all those poor people from the former soviet union deserve their independence.... they need their freedom!
But the poor people of western Europe, they don't need independence or freedom. What they need is strong federalism!
And let us look at China: China is trying to ensure that Tibet and the people of the western provinces can all be controlled from the same phone number. They would also like the Taiwanese to become part of the federal super state.
But that is an outrageous suggestion! These people deserve freedom, and independent self determination!
And Saddam Hussein only wanted a single phone number for the Arab people. His actions were evil, his scheme was counter to freedom and glorious independence for arab states.
It seems that large federal superstates are only desirable if they are created by political parties "we" (ie Kissinger and his kind) approve of, and presumably if the banking system within that superstate is run by the right sort of chaps.
I suppose this becomes a questions of how a person perceives politics to operate. If you believe that politics is a war between good and evil folks, and that OUR side is always on the side of good, then concentrated power is a wonderful thing. We want concentrated power in the hands of OUR party and OUR banks, because this then becomes a potent weapon with which to strike down EVIL, and therefore please god.
Like Chinese writers, WE can all sing as one voice: Glory be to the one true god, and the one true party, and glory to the protectors of what is GOOD in the world, protecting US from EVIL.
However, if one has a different view of power and humanity, and one perceives that power tends both to concentrate itself and also to corrupt those who wield it, then large federalized states are something to be avoided, or at least if they are to exist then we should be especially careful to demand a constitutional framework that has checks and balances on power, and that does not allow power to become concentrated.
And this is where I part company with those who support the current EU structure, and particularly with those who trust the UK labour party.
I just watched Lord Mandelson speaking on HardTalk, and he looked into the camera and informed me that when Tony Blair was in office, it was he, Blair, who suggested the job of President of Europe once the treaty had been ratified.
Now the funny thing is this: At the time Tony Blair was not telling the British people that he intended to create this position, nor that his party fully intended to ratify the new constitution.
It seems to me that the current EU is a beast of of ever more concentrated power, and that rather than seeing a desire for democratic checks and balances on power, we witness instead the results of closed door secret meetings between party leaders who say one thing to each other, and another to the people they are supposed to represent.
The EU is becoming a means to circumvent checks and balances on political power, rather than a means to establish peaceful union.
I suppose we just have to hang on tight, and pray that this power will be used by the good guys to defeat the bad guys in an apocalyptic battle to save us from ourselves. Amen.
Complain about this comment
'Europe to develop their own strategy for Russia, for the Middle East, for Afghanistan if they want to be taken seriously.'
Translated into the US way of thinking, this would mean: Start thinking how to sort out the fine mess we created, because we do not know what to do anymore. Just do not mess with our military 'strategy' in Afghanistan, our 'defence' plans in Eastern Europe and for everybody's sake, do not ask us to stop our unquestioning support of Israel'.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, the last thing I wanted to imply is that Obama is stupid, I know he isn't. it was a dig at the analysis that he thinks Europe is as infantile. I don't believe that, he understand perfectly well why Europe behaves the way it does. infantility is not the reason. you can easily spin pretty much any country's behaviour into infantile behaviour if you want to, including the US. and Europe is not even one country.
Complain about this comment
junior 4412
"Welcome to Delaware...
...oops, I mean Switzerland"
So you think that tax incentives to attract legitimate business is somehow akin to illegal drug money laundering. Then I suppose we should not allow tax incentives for businesses to open shop in less desirable neighborhoods in inner cities. And of course Ireland's tax attractiveness to industry was akin to Switzerland's banks sheltering money deposited by tax evaders and Nazis who stole from Jews murdered in Germany during WWII. Interesting perspective. Perhaps the Irish government should be indicted by the ICC for these crimes.
Complain about this comment
Eddy Current;
"it was a dig at the analysis that he thinks Europe is as infantile."
Let's consider this proposition that Europe is infantile. Europe's behavior has been one of ignoring its long term best interests for the expediency of the moment. For example, it has been very reluctant to make any meaningful sacrifice to fight terrorists in Afghanistan even though ultimately those terrorist will pose a dire threat to Europe if left unchecked. Same with its positions on Iraq and Iran. It looked for any way possible to avoid military conflict in both areas even though it belived the threat of Iraq's WMDs to be credible at the time of the invasion (the governments did believe it even if the population influenced by Europe's media refused to acknowledge it) and at the same time it was protecting the illegal profits made by its wealthiest citizens illegally circumventing UN sanctions. France's government has said even under Chirac that Iran having nuclear weapons is unacceptable but what is it prepared to do to stop that from happening? What are the consequences it has considered if it is allowed to happen? Has it considered the consequences if Israel feels so threatened it launches a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran?
Europe says it is gravely concerned about global warming due to CO2 evolved from burning fossil fuels but everything it has done demonstrates that it can't possibly be taken seriously. For example, instead of trying to develop alternative large scale sources of energy, it has wasted its technological resources on a redundant space program and a useless super jumbo jet airplane among other things. Its leaders dismissed evidence that they personally drove the highest CO2 emitting highest fuel consuming vehicles available when it was revealed in the press about 3 years ago. And Europe has not spoken to China or India at all about the sacrifices they will have to agree to if the Obama administration is to have any chance of passing a treaty in Congress, the Senate surely unwilling for the US to make sacrifices that its trade competitors won't have to match in any way. Nor has it talked about population control and reduction which is at the root cause of climate change.
These are merely a few of many examples where Europe takes the easiest immediate course of action refusing to face the long term consequences. Is this the act of an infantile mind stamping its feet, screaming, holding its breath, refusing to eat its vegetables? Yes, decidely so. Utterly infantile. And it refuses to grow up. It had hoped Barack Obama as President of the United States would continue to treat it as a child and see to all of its needs. That won't happen, that can't happen. Europe had better grow up fast or it will die.
Complain about this comment
History directs change. The American right-wing is in an ugly act of dying. The Bush/Cheney neo-cons only cared about the accumulation of wealth and thought that would carry the day. The lack of attention to education, research and a more comprehensive view of the US is materializing in the reduced standing of the US in many areas. Europe saw the democratic/Socialism path as the best safety net. Failure by all to recognize that greed and corruption in the financial and political arenas would have such dire consequences. As China grew in production the US and Euro companies accepted that brand of corruption to create greater profits. The model has no ethical principals or social obligations, simply the accumulation of wealth. The world has been laid bare and what you see is a rotting system of competition with no human values. This is what you get. The HOPE message of Obama resonated with the people, worldwide, because they recognized that both the banks and the governments were corrupt and offered nothing related to promoting human values. The vested interest are fighting change at every step with lies and misinformation but what else would one expect from the corrupt and the legislators they own.
Complain about this comment
I can't wait till this recession is over.... some people will get a job.
Complain about this comment
I don't believe the Nobel Peace Prize Committee makes the nominations, as you state. The Committee awards the prize among nominations made by others.
Complain about this comment
Guantanamo is still operating as a detention center because closing it is a complicated problem which cannot be solved with precipitous action. Legislation was recently passed which furthers the objective of closing the detention center, and this was reported by the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8317520.stm
Complain about this comment
It must be convenient having the ability to have such a short memory as seems so very common to Europeans and people like #6. Since WW2 ignores hundreds of years of European aggression and imperialism and focuses on American ascendence. We have 50 years of questionable imperial aquisition, paling in comparison to European aggression. Moreover, much of our "own wars" are rooted in cleaning up the remnents of European imperialism after they went bankrupt and caused power vacuumes all over the world. Middle East (& Isreal), Iran (BP oil contracts), Banana Republics (after Spanish withdrawl during Franco), Vietnam (after French withdrawl)... They all are Americans trying to stabilize the remnents of EUROPEAN imperial screw-ups. Its quite rich that Europe has chosen to conveniently forget the roles they play in all of this, and the American sacrifices made to keep you from Fascist domination in the 40s. While cold war McCarthyism may seem shrill, American fear of communist expansion in Europe was a response to seeing the very real terror and consequences of Fascist expansion in Europe, and Americans were keen on avoiding WW3.
Federalism has advantages and disadvantages. To form a country that had a coherent voice (and to fend off European empirialism in its beginning), the SOVEREIGN states formed a Federal government with certain deligated rights (like Foreign policy). It really bugs me when people claim the EU is different than the US because the countries are sovereign because thats the point. To have a credible federal govt, the states can no longer be sovereign in that sense. There is as much cultural and political difference in an average person from Oregon and the average person from Mississippi as there is between a Dutch person and a Spaniard (I have been all of these places many times).
Im truely sick and tired of hearing Europeans whine about how slow American govt moves and how ineffective Washinton is.. How long has the EU tried to get the Lisbon treaty signed? Now you know what its like to get climate change legislation through Washington (but once its done,300000000 people will have to live by it).
Moreover, the hypocracy needs to stop. Most of the time, European and North American interests are very similar, and America contributes far more to obtaining the shared goals. Sometimes they are different, and, just as Germany is unwilling to quit trading with Iran (against American and with their own interest), America is willing be Saudi Mercenaries in Iraq or continue burning coal. All of these positions have negative externalities that are ignored for national gain.
Federalism in Europe doesn't make any huge difference to America, but Europe will be left in the dust if it is unable to form an effective regional governing body now that China, India, and Brazil have come to the table, and they know it.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII #19.
no, when I read your #5 and then #12 I was thinking about recent G8 and G20 meetings (re. curbing off-shore tax heavens), how the US is all in favour of dealing with off-shore but went very quiet when it comes to the local ones (Delaware, Florida, there's another one in the West, forget which). I guess, is all about people in glasshouses..
Complain about this comment
Just wanted to say how erudite, superbly considered and eminently clever this Blog is.
Hope I've got that about right for the BBC Moderation.
Complain about this comment
Though the Republicans among my country may see this as a continuation of the liberal tendency to 'apologize' for the US, to that I can only say - the world deserves an apology.. of sorts, but one with restrictions.
I've been thinking about what it is to be American lately.. and one thing I have boiled it down to is we are direct. We are very harsh in our terms, quite black and white. Even those of us in America who have multiple PhD's tend to be simple and straight forward with our views and intentions.
This attitude can be very abrasive to the rest of the world, It's seen as arrogant. To some extent I suppose it is.. but it also is just a matter of not 'beating around the bush'.
What I DO apologize for is the negativity I hear from Americans.. especially the conservative Americans. When you combine brash behavior with unrestrained cynicism it becomes a very ugly mix. We are not alone in this, since I hear a ring of cynicism towards Europe in this short article as well, and I then hear American commenters latching onto that slightly anti-european view and slicing open the exposed wound.
What is said in the article is true: Europe is not as much of a union as the one we have here.. it's more arbitrary. It's also true that our union was formed through blood.. I figure Europe may be able to avoid such an unfortunate path in their search for one organized state. See, in my view if their is one enemy it is pessimism. I share this view with Obama.. Let's take the kids who made Google as an example if you don't like Obama. The two guys that invented Google have the motto 'Don't be Evil', they pursued their goals with no real plan of an income and now have 25 billion US dollars in their pockets because of it.
Be a positive force in the world. My advice to Europe.. with time you can strengthen your bonds with member states and also your bonds with America. My advice to Americans, if you have nothing nice to say - don't say anything at all. There's much hope for our future.
Complain about this comment
#26 jr4412
" no, when I read your #5 and then #12 I was thinking about recent G8 and G20 meetings (re. curbing off-shore tax heavens), how the US is all in favour of dealing with off-shore but went very quiet when it comes to the local ones (Delaware, Florida, there's another one in the West, forget which). I guess, is all about people in glasshouses.."
You seem to be completely clueless to the business practice of incorporation. Incorporation allows creditors or anyone else to bring a law suit against a company but not the owners. Anyone can incorporate in any state, but there are some state that are more favorable to businesses than others-Delaware being one. It isn't a tax shelter.
Complain about this comment
Wow Mikey, you Do know everything :)
That was a good post, we are cleaning up Europe's mess and its a BIG one.
Who knew?
Complain about this comment
I mean, I knew about their colonies...
They would say this is what we get for making them give up their colonies...
Our ascendancy requires our bankruptcy now and then, it seems. :(
Complain about this comment
David Kennedy,
Sergey Mikhailovich Brin is a muscovite :o), so, in a way, a European. (about who designed Google)
But of course, should he stay in Moscow - like hell he'd have the Google as we know it now, it'd drown among thousands of small private ventures choked by the conditions for the small growing businesses here; for the soil you need the USA.
Complain about this comment
junior 4412, you don't know what you are talking about. Everyone in the United States pays the same Federal income tax no matter what state they are in. It is only state taxes that are more or less favorable depending on which state you are in. How each state raises and apportions revenues from businesses and residents in its own state to state funded projects is its own affair. Calling some of them tax havens in the sense of Switzerland aiding and abetting tax evaders to hide their income from national governments is an out and out lie.
Corporal Kennedy;
"...and I then hear American commenters latching onto that slightly anti-european view and slicing open the exposed wound."
Slightly anti-european view? Slicing open the exposed wound? How about the view that Europe is a sewer? Open enough for you? If not, let me know and I'll get a larger meat cleaver so I can finish hacking it off by being more explicit and giving concrete examples.
"My advice to Americans, if you have nothing nice to say - don't say anything at all."
"Philosopher, heal thyself." Get a grip on yourself man. The very creation of America was a commentary on how bad Europe is. Take a dose of your own medicine and when you have something worthwhile to say, naughty or nice, then come back and say it.
(This guy [or gal] is probably some feely touchy kumbaya kumbaya let's all just get along and make love not war liberal, left over from the nineteen-sixties.)
Complain about this comment
Yes, good opinion...No. 29, I apologize too, they are nasty--them Euro cynics in the US (we are not talking eu haters in europe)
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius, you will scare-crow all the decent contributors to the blog.
Like a hippo, heavy handed, basking in our "sewage".
And I will stay tete-a-tete with you oj.
Complain about this comment
Expectations of Obama were too high. It is as simple as that.
It is fair to say that many Europeans were dumbfounded, not so much by the policies that the Bush administration pursued, as by it's sheer arrogance. It was almost as though all Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld had to do was click his fingers and the Allies would come running - alas, in the UK's case, all too willingly. Of course, the famous Berlin funfair in the run up to the nomination was not for the benefit of Europe at all. Whoever was going to nominate then elect him, it sure a eggs was not going to the Europeans. It was tailored for the US market and it went down a bomb.
Why Berlin? Well it could not very well be Paris after the Iraq fiasco could it? Sarkozy was going to have to eat some very serious humble pie before that was going to happen. But why not London? Well to start with, Obama made it very clear that he was looking for a new partnership with Europe, not some offshore islands who could not make up their minds whether they were in or out (Cameron please note). Obama has been suitably graceful when he has to be, especially around the time of the London G20, but face facts - Mr. Brown has been treated with something verging on contempt by Washington. Is it that he has the kiss of death about him - doomed leader who can only damage the Obama image? Maybe Obama really does have some reason for holding Britain as a whole in contempt. (He could, after all, have put Churchill in the outer office as a paperweight rather than so publicly returning him to the embassy).
Be that as it may, anyone who seriously believed back in those heady days when Obama gave his brave words to his German hosts, that he was giving some kind of firm commitment to Europe as a whole were seriously deluded. Did anybody seriously expect him to introduce European style free health care, wind up GITMO, solve the Middle East, get out of Iraq, win Afghanistan and bring peace to the Middle East in 100 days? The President is not the candidate. He is now firmly planted in the real world and it is simply not that easy.
. . . . .
"The writers challenge Europe to develop their own strategy for Russia, for the Middle East, for Afghanistan if they want to be taken seriously".
Oh really? And what if that strategy involves being much closer to Russia (we want the gas), tougher on Israel (we don't have the same over-powerful lobby to worry about) or less strident about Afghanistan (we don't want victory, we want out)?
"The fact remains that Europe has virtually no say in strategy".
Indeed? Makes you wonder why we are wasting all that money and manpower.
Are we sure the Americans really want a more independent minded and and up-front Europe or are they really looking for a cosmetic exercise - more like a junior partner and less like a poodle and, above all, singing from the same hymn sheet? If so, both we and they are going to be severely disappointed. A triumphant German Chancellor, fresh from a good electoral victory and, secure in the knowledge that an increased majority of centre right MEPs in Strasbourg means the right is not dead in Europe, will address both Houses of Congress in the next few days. There is little doubt that this will be seen as an address on behalf of the EU notwithstanding that Sweden holds the presidency and Britain has traditionally been seen as the bridge between the US and Europe. Will she take the opportunity to chastise the President for lack of progress? No - she too inhabits the real world - but neither will it mark a seismic shift in US-EU relations. The seismic shift is taking place this side of the pond and those who would see the UK detach herself from Europe need have no fear. The process has already begun in the most unlikely of places - Washington.
Complain about this comment
The very blunt assessment of international relations by the European Council on Foreign Relations was curiously somewhat lacking in accurate knoledge of, and furthermore appeared to criticise the US and its relationships with other countries, to put it nicely. In particular, it states that:
"For Europe to become a credible and strategic partner for the US, Europeans need to shift their political psychology away from fetishising the transatlantic relationship. European governments need to get over the mistaken belief that their individual ‘special relationships' matter in Washington, and learn instead to act together and speak to the US with one voice."
First off, this statement alone, never mind the whole piece, is perhaps the most generalistic of certain groups of people I have ever read; and I've read a lot!! And as one who passionately aposes such generalisations because I believe it only leads to hurt feelings, but more importantly a damaged sense of self (or national) confadence, I feel the need to correct the ones in the above passage, if for no other reason than to help demolish some of the stereotypes out there, of both Europeans and Americans alike. So here goes.
I agree that "some" Europeans (and by that I mean both governmental officials and citizens alike) need to not worry quite so much, what the article describes as "fetishising" (a term which I believe is a bit too strong and misleading) about the transatlantic alliance. But note I said "some Europeans." Not merely "Europeans." The word "some" specifys that I don't think that "all," or even most, Europeans view the transatlantic alliance in this fashion. However since the authors (respected members of the body that is, if not will be soon, responsible for foreign policy on a European level, no doubt) wrote just "Europeans," then they must therefore think that "all," if not most, Europeans, or at the very least individual national governmental officials, obsess over the transatlantic alliance. That all Europeans view the transatlantic alliance this way is factually untrue, but more importantly that members of this most influencial body would honestly believe so is most sad and unfortunate.
But the part that frustrates me the most is the plea for European governments to "get over the mistaken belief that their individual special relationships matter in Washington" and "instead learn to act together and speak to the US with one voice." First of all, what right do these authors have to claim to know what "Washington" thinks of individual countries? Unless one of them has personally spoken to a very senior administration official, or president Obama himself, and unless they have specificly said to them that they could care less what certain countries in Europe do or want to do in the international comunity, then these authors have no just basis on which to stake their claim!! Since the "special relationships" that the US has with a few countries, most noteably the UK, are not based on specific ever changing foreign policy desires of the day, and instead are based on more permanint things such as values, culture, language, history, interests, and phelosophy, then yes, the relationship aught never be used as leverage by any government, either in the US or any other country, to get what they want from the other. Its simply selfish and rude. And if that is the basis on which the UK and others are conducting their foreign policy, then I agree, they are probably better off working more closely in concert with the rest of Europe to get what they want from us.
In foreign policy, countries act on the basis of mutual interests. So it is my firm belief that even if the European Union didn't exist, that the US would still work just fine with Europe in solving the problems of the day, because we both have an interest in solving these problems. But since in the wake of World War II, in order to avoid another such catastrafy, Europe decided to do something about it and form a union, I do believe that they should take a cohearant foreign policy stance of their own when possible when dealing with the US, instead of waiting around for the US to make its proposals quite so much. But this can be done in conjunction with individual European countries having a full fledged relationship with the US as well!! Its not an all or nothing game!! I think we can, and should, have a European-American alliance, just as much as a British-American, French-American, German-American, Italian-American, Austrian-American, Polish-American etc with each other!! And I don't understand those who argue for either one or the other.
But whatever happens, I just hope that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee doesn't take advice from the European Council on Foreign Relations on how to write opinions on American foreign policy that's for sure!!
Complain about this comment
WA;
"Mavrelius, you will scare-crow all the decent contributors to the blog.
Like a hippo, heavy handed, basking in our "sewage".
And I will stay tete-a-tete with you oj."
First of all two days ago was Halloween, scarecrow time, ya know?
Hey, my government wasn't the one that turned off the valves on the gas that shut down manufacturing plants and froze people in their homes all over Europe in the middle of the winter...not once but twice. (Imagine the uproar if it had ;-) However...I do admit a certain amount of admiration for Count Vlad. He may not look much taller that Angel Eyes but he's every bit as tough as she is and he's the one with his hands on the valves, not her.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat,
Your use of sarcasm to support your line against 'homogenous' Europe is getting tiresome. I believe you know it yourself that the membership in the EU is in no way comparable to the republics which used to make the USSR, nor to the state of Tibet within PR of China. Instead of bringing more 'examples' like that, why don't you instead describe what your vision of the future of Europe should be? So far you have not proposed anything, which is not a 'more of the same' policy, disguised behind noble words such as 'independent states' and 'democracy'. It is my opinion that you do realise the current state of affairs, with Europe's great number of independent states, only leads to the situation where Europe cannot exercise its befitting role in the world. Despite all the words to the contrary, Europeans have a lot in common culturally and all the European countries together have got the economical and political muscle to be a real world player. Something, which they in their current disjointed state they are unable to do.
So I would encourage you to put forward you proposals about how that could be achieved, without moving towards even greater union. I would like to know how the current situation, where despite having the second largest GDP in the world and 1/10 of the world's population, Europe lags behind not only the USA but also China in terms of space exploration, and political clout with both North Korea and Iran, could be reversed. If you could avoid mentioning Switzerland and direct democracy that would be a bonus. I must say that I fail to be impressed with Switzerland and its democracy, knowing full well that the Swiss have in the past consistently refused to take a stand on any issue, both good and bad, which is not connected somehow to their cuckoo-clocks, chocolate or pocket knifes with toenail clipper appliances. Or the fact that many of the world-famous Swiss banks would not be here today had it not been for the gold teeth and diamond rings of Nazi concentration camp victims.
Complain about this comment
#37 - PursuitOfLove
"In foreign policy, countries act on the basis of mutual interests".
Well actually, no. Mutual self-interest. In other words, when the self-interests of two or more counties coincide, then they will naturally act in their mutual interests but when they do not coincide, they will seek to frustrate the policy of the other. If - coincidentally - they happen in normal times to be allies, then they will attempt to subvert the policy covertly and maintain the appearance of solidarity but - especially in the area of foreign policy - altruism simply is not on the agenda.
This is precisely the problem with EU-US relations. The US can basically talk one voice because its administration is a single elected authority. Europe is a cacophony of differing views. The European Council on Foreign Relations wants the EU to speak as though it is a national entity and that is simply not possible in the present circumstances and it will not become so unless the EU can either bury some very deep seated and fundamental issues or shrink back into an inner core of like minded nations which are willing to pool their foreign and defence policies and that certainly is not on the agenda at the present time.
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius, your government flirted with Ukraine giving them hopes of "special relations". Which made (desoriented enough as she was) Ukraine even more, how to say, adventurous. American ships frequent visitors to Sebastopol still, what have you lost there, a pumpkin? :o))))
Halloween didn't root here well yet, though shops offered lots of orange things with holes and various decorations, but most customers didn't get the angle; I heard a woman saying "early they began with selling Christmas decorations this year". :o)))
Here is a Russian joke to you on the theme:
"The USA send rockets to place them in Poland.
Russia, in reply, sends rockets to place them in Kaliningrad.
God looks at it from the heavens, sends a comet to the Earth and says Well, my dear darling chess-players... :o))))
Complain about this comment
I resent the continual use of the word "Europe" on this blog and elsewhere when it is clearly the "EU" that is meant.
I consider that this is not a trivial matter and is quite sinister.
I take it to mean that the rubbish in Brussels and its supporters think that the "EU" has the right to extend its sick control freakery to every part of Europe.
German and British "EU"-fanatics have told me that the UK has no right to leave the "EU" even if 100% of its citizens so desire.
I have read reports at different times of three "European" military exercises. I each case it involved the invasion of another country.
The "EU" is doing for the word "Europe" what Milosovic did for the word "Serbia" andf Hitler did for the word "Germany."
Complain about this comment
37. At 8:48pm on 02 Nov 2009, PursuitOfLove wrote:
The very blunt assessment of international relations by the European Council on Foreign Relations was curiously somewhat lacking in accurate knoledge of, and furthermore appeared to criticise the US and its relationships with other countries, to put it nicely. In particular, it states that:
"For Europe to become a credible and strategic partner for the US, Europeans need to shift their political psychology away from fetishising the transatlantic relationship. European governments need to get over the mistaken belief that their individual ‘special relationships' matter in Washington, and learn instead to act together and speak to the US with one voice."
SB2: Thank you for this quote.
Just about everything from the reaction to the Falklands war to electric plugs shows that the British do not think like the continentals.
I take this to mean that the "one voice" will be the line agreed by the French and German heads of government in pre-meeting meetings.
I refuse to automatically go along with it.
Complain about this comment
27. At 5:58pm on 02 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
Just wanted to say how erudite, superbly considered and eminently clever this Blog is.
Hope I've got that about right for the BBC Moderation.
SB2: Thank you for your reference to my postings. I do my best.
Complain about this comment
#42 - SuffolkBoy2
"German and British "EU"-fanatics have told me that the UK has no right to leave the "EU" even if 100% of its citizens so desire."
All the more reason, I would have thought, for bringing Lisbon into effect. That does contain a mechanism for any country to leave - though in practice, if someone did pull out, short of starting a war, there is not a damned thing the others could do about it.
Complain about this comment
I am going to bang on about Carl Jung again. This month s Carl jung month, for democracy threat.
And for those who are uncomfortable with me referring to myself in the third person, I share your concern. But madness is the waters we swim in on this blog, and I am just taking the water.
First up: Marcus needs to learn his place. He is distributing needless certainties, and that is my turf. Stand down, sir. Do it for America if you can't do it out of decency.
Righto: Jung said ..... JUNG SAID THAT... the individual is the only reality, and that collective nouns are an abstraction. Now what did he mean, and why is it important, and how does it shed light on the madness that has gripped this thread?
Well, as I understand the man, what he means is that from a purely scientific perspective, you can measure the individual. The individual is real. You can speak to one, shoot one, lock one up. You can convince an individual to act a certain way, and you change ask an individual to respect certain laws.
Collective groups, however, such as "the people of America", or "the people of Europe", or "The supporters of chelsea football club", are a fiction. They are not fictional insofar as they do not exist, but they are entirely fictional insofar as this sort of group can be said to exhibit the characteristics of an individual. You can't say a group has a given point of view, and you can't reason with a group. You can't lock them up, and you can't shoot them.
Now some folks will say "What about the jews? How can you say you can't shoot all the jews, after the NAZIS?"
And that is an excellent example. Anybody can say they are a jew, or not, and so no matter how many were killed, it only remained for one individual somewhere in the world to say "I now belong to this abstract group", and thus the plan to shoot them all fails.
Now we can make statistical generalizations about abstract groups, but we ought to acknowledge that we cannot reasonably treat abstract groups like individuals. If we do, we end up in unlikely and insane chains of reasoning. We end up with wars, with pogroms, genocide and so on. Football hooliganism. Disgusting patriotism, Marcus.
And it seems to me that this tendency to assign individual sentience to abstract groups is the characteristic trademark of the charlatan in politics: this willingness to take statistics and create a fictional sentience that can be encouraged, punished, exterminated, praised or blamed.
This is the madness in this thread: we are all discussing "Europeans" and "the USA" as if these actors on the world stage have opinions, and as if they will react in certain ways to events.
At best, what we are doing with such analyses is predicting the statistical likelihood of group decisions, but I fear we do not even achieve this level of reason.
Because, coming back to Jung's one reality, the individual, it is actually the decisions of individuals which dictate the policies of governments and NOT the statistical average opinion of the masses.
That is worth considering in detail, so I will say it again: It is the decisions of individuals which dictate the policies of governments, and not the statistical average opinion of the masses.
Now the politicians will try and argue that in fact they are representatives of the masses, and that what they do is measure the statistical average response of the masses and then act in accordance with it. Therefore, they argue, the politician is the embodiment of the fiction statistical average, and the foil to the Jungian axiom of the one true reality of the individual.
But for my taste, this can't be right. It is not that I don't see the logic. Sure, i understand the idea that politicians represent the people.
But how do they know what the people think?
How do they measure what the people think?
Magic? Do they phone god and ask him?
And there is a fundamental logical flaw in the reasoning that says representatives express the will of the people. If they do,........ why do they disagree?
Not "why don;t they agree all the time?", but rather "why do they ALWAYS disagree?"
The answer can only be that the various political parties represent the various factions within society, and that politicians choose which sector of society they wish to represent, and then get to work on that task.
So if you believe this idea, then what you are claiming is that the founders of political parties have some secret access to the uniform thoughts and desires of pre-existing groups within society, and that party policy is thus fair representation at any given point in time. What you claim therefore is that the policy masters who manage the political parties have access to secret truths, and that they do not formulate policy to suit the financial sponsors of the political organisation in question.
And if you believe that, then i think you are a dumb as a bag full of hammers sitting on a short tree stump.
See, at this point you have to believe things about the political economy of your society that give fantasy a bad name. In effect, you have to believe that there is no such thing as a political economy.
So anyway, that is why I think this discussion is insane, in large part, and that we could try and get back to a more reasonable discussion of the political economy, and how things really work in the world. Children might read this blog, and we'll all be guilty of confusing them and making them idiots by way of example.
Perhaps this Jungian conception of individual reality and group abstraction is why the system of direct democracy, with citizens voting on law instead of for parties and representatives who claim to know the collective sentience, is the best method of government. If there is such a thing as the statistical average view of "the people", a referendum is the way you would measure that "thing".
Thanks for reading.
Marcus, SILENCE!
Complain about this comment
So WA, you are suggesting that the US government goaded or tricked Ukraine into not paying Russia for its gas and oil and that is why the gas was shut off to Europe. I'm afraid you are giving my government much too much credit. They don't play chess that well, not with missiles, comets, or lures to Ukraine. I'll bet it was all President Bush could do to play a credible game of checkers.
Evidently Ukraine wasn't much of a chess player either. Or a poker player. Were I Ukraine, I wouldn't have waited for the Russians to shut off Europe's gas, I'd have done it in Ukraine myself. The price for turning it back on? Immediate entry into the EU and payment for all of Ukraine's gas and oil needs from Russia for the next 25 years. Otherwise I'd have let them freeze all winter long. Don't forget this was at a time when Europe felt flush with money. How do I know? Because they kept boasting about how large their GDP was and how rich they were. What would the cost of Ukraine's energy bill have meant to 27 members sharing it. A few less lavish dinners in Strassbourg each month for the MEPs? I don't think it would have been even that much. They'd probably have cut it out of the French farm subsidies instead.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn, you demand that I set out my vision of a progressive Europe and a decent political economy.
At the same time, you tell me that I may not promote direct democracy or the Swiss model of government.
I do not know what I can say to you.
You say I am "tiresome". Well, perhaps.
Have you considered your own position?
You speak down to me from a very great height, and you make demands of my reason, and then you tell me what I may and may not say.
With as much respect as I can muster, I feel you are an intellectual bully and a political fascist. You don't want reason or debate, you want obedience and subservience.
You arguments do not inspire my respect, and your writing has about as much potential to convince me of new ideas as a whip upon my back.
I am trying to make a case for direct democracy because I believe it is the best form of government available to human society. I really believe that. And I care. I am like the guy who designs Apple computers. I really care.
I don't think you do. Intellectually, I think you are tired and looking for an easy place to rest your thoughts. I apologize for disturbing your peace, but then you are free to think me a fool and say nothing.
But do not pretend that your emotions can offset the reason that underpins this debate. Your emotional reaction is transient, and your disapproval of me will be as dust on yesterdays wind. But the reason that underlies my own position will eat away at your thoughts like a child asking why, and there will be nothing you can do about that. It will follow you or as long as you are prepared to think like an adult human being who cares about the structure of your own understanding.
Such is the power of reason. I urge you to reconsider your position. Marcus has, and it has improved him enormously.
Complain about this comment
dt;
"Collective groups, however, such as "the people of America", or "the people of Europe", or "The supporters of chelsea football club", are a fiction. They are not fictional insofar as they do not exist, but they are entirely fictional insofar as this sort of group can be said to exhibit the characteristics of an individual."
I've got a great suggestion for you to test your theory dt. Go into a pub some evening just after Chelsea has lost an important match badly to their most hated rival, say Arsenal(?) or Manchester United(?) and tell that to all the drunks crying in their beer after what they've just seen on TV and see how they react. If you are right, you have nothing to worry about. But if you are wrong, you may not make it out the door alive. They'll come after you like one big guy...27 times as strong and angry as any one of them is.
Of course when it comes to the EU, anthropomorphising nations may be overly simplistic. So when Kissinger says when I want to call Europe, what number do I dial, he'll now not only have 27 individual numbers to call but a 28th which presumes but does not (according to you and Jung) speak for any of them. So then what is its purpose?
Complain about this comment
I have a theory.
Marcus was an American living in France. We all know how the French can be and how the Americans can be. Hence, the way he is now ;-) .
Complain about this comment
One need not believe that representative democracy is a perfect, or even accurate, reflection of the will of the people in order to believe that there are advantages to it, principal among them being competence and stability.
Elected representatives who are too far away from the views of their constituents too often, will eventually be replaced, in a properly functioning representative democracy.
Many of the problems we face in California are directly attributable to an excess of direct democracy.
Complain about this comment
A few bones to pick with you, Gavin, about the following:
"Europe felt marginalised as America rode off alone to settle scores and fashion the world to its own design."
Don't you mean "half of Europe?" After all, half of Europe were successfully duped, guilted, pressured, whatever you want to call it, into joining Bush in his illegal crusade into Iraq. That is a fact. Perhaps you might try reporting them some time.
"But as Obama's first year unfolded, old difficulties began to re-emerge.
Europe liked the early commitment to close Guantanamo Bay, although it remains in business."
And just why does it still remain in business? Because closing it has proven much more problamatic than Obama had originally thought when he signed that executive order demanding its closure by January of next year. What with the trying those who are suspected of terrorism and deciding by what means, removing those from trial who's confessions were extracted through torture, finding places in the nation and the world to transfer the innocent, etc etc etc. So please don't peddle about generalistic and vague statements such as this invoking the notion that Obama is deliberately ignoring Europe's wishes the way an enemy would, not a friend. It is very unkind. And if the progress is too slow for Europe's tastes, you know they can offer to help it go faster by taking in some of the innocent X-inmates. I know I know, the overriding and overwhelming view of Europe regarding Guantanamo Bay is '"You broke it so you fix it," and I totally understand that sentament do to our grose betrayal of our founding principles, but we'll never move forward if we're continually seaking ways in which to embarriss and/or look for ways to say "I told you so" to one another. That only creates more bad blood between us. And doesn't everybody want a stronger transatlantic alliance not a weaker one?
"It applauded the decision of the Obama administration to re-engage with Iran although uncertainty remains to what the new policy will deliver and whether Iran will send its stockpiles of uranium out of the country."
And that's our fault? Are you seriously telling me that European officials sincerely believe that Iran's dithering is the fault of the US? Put yourself in the Iranian president's shews for a second. Your most bitterest of enemies is actually sincerely acting, not just talking, but acting as though they actually want to potentially be friends with you. You have built much of your own personal credibility on slandering this country throughout your entire political life. What would you do in this position? If Europe is unhappy about results thus far, then they should direct their anger at Iran, not America.
"In the Middle East, Europe had wanted Obama to throw his prestige behind peace talks but progress remains glacial and the administration has said that talks should not hinge on freezing Israeli settlements."
Really? That's not how they've acted. In fact not too long ago, they got into a very public dispute with Isrial over those very settlements. I doubt very much that the Bush administration would touch that issue with a "39 and a half foot pole!!"
"Many European countries would prefer Washington to take a tougher line with the Israelis."
And they are. Perhaps those countries could provide some direction by describing exactly what they mean by "tougher?"
"On climate change, Europe prided itself that it was leading the world to get a deal in Copenhagen. At breakfast last week I heard a senior European official say: "We urged President Obama to show leadership...and he promised to make an effort."
As they should be. Since they have already secured universal health care for all Europeans, they can now aford to turn their attention to climate change, and they should be immensely
proud of what they have achieved.
"The Europeans have put some figures on the table as to the cost of fighting climate change but they have essentially fudged what they individually would stump up."
So they lied. Perhaps then you can understand why America is periodicly frustrated by Europe? When we make international commitments, we try to make realistic ones that we can try to follow through on, not impossible ones in order to grab headlines.
"The reality is that in Washington climate change gets second billing to healthcare."
And so long as one third of our population is either uninsured or under insured, so should it remain. Europe should consider itself lucky that it found out how to care for its fellow man's health needs so early, that it is far more compassionate toward its less fortunate than America.
And regarding the Henry Kissinger comment, did it ever cross your mind that perhaps Kissinger's statement was made out of anger, as the "old Europe" one was made by Rumsfeld in the run up to the Iraq war? I seriously doubt that any American administration desires a completely federalist Europe, no matter what the Teligraph says.
Complain about this comment
#5 - GH1618
You have to remember that DT is posting from Switzerland, a country of some 7,600,000 people or just slightly more than London. Direct democracy is workable on scale such as these. It is a whole different ballgame when you write of units the size of California or the larger European nations.
Complain about this comment
I like the idea about one number to call Europe -
"Thank you for calling the European Union - for Germany, press 01 - for France, press 02 . . . for the UK, press 27 - we are sorry, all our operators are busy at present . . . please leave a message after the tone".
Where did this idea that Kissinger is the fount of all wisdom come from anyway? Domino Theory anyone?
Complain about this comment
45. At 9:51pm on 02 Nov 2009, threnodio_II wrote:
#42 - SuffolkBoy2
' "German and British "EU"-fanatics have told me that the UK has no right to leave the "EU" even if 100% of its citizens so desire."
All the more reason, I would have thought, for bringing Lisbon into effect. That does contain a mechanism for any country to leave - though in practice, if someone did pull out, short of starting a war, there is not a damned thing the others could do about it. '
SB2: There are matters on which I am not an expert. I know, you don't believe me, but it's true.
As understand it from the post of another who seemed top know what he or she was talking about any country can abrogate a treaty at any time although the other party or parties tend not to like it. So under the present arrangements the UK can leave at any time.
As I understand it from yet another who has posted here, the Lisbon Treaty does indeed have arrangements for leaving but it is a two year process in which time the would be leaving country gets all voting rights suspended but its still subject to the whims of the rubbish in
Brussels. They can stick it!
Complain about this comment
lochraven #29.
MarcusAureliusII #33.
I blame a poor education and the media...
Complain about this comment
junior4421
"I blame a poor education and the media..."
Don't complain to me about it Junior, I wasn't your teacher. If I had been, you might have learned something (as it is the poor guy can't even write a complete coherent thought in a gramatically correct sentence.) So if you wasted your time in school and sat at home all evening every evening and and all weekends watching TV, why is that anyone's fault but your own? Why not consider a government program to prepare you for exams to earn a high school equivalency diploma. It's not a college degree but it is better than nothing. It might even qualify you for a job.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII #57.
"Why not consider a government program.."
:-)
too late, old dogs & new tricks and all that.
TTFN
Complain about this comment
MA, OK. In truth, Ukraine is desoriented enough by itself, without the US help, to do silly things. Still, turning its head additionally around is way too extra. You don't need to plan a chess multy-steppie to figure out that a country, full of US attentions, might cheer up and become way to, how to say, risky brave. We've all seen the other example last summer, it's not a Newton's binom, and it's in anyone's mental ability to forecast the result. :o).
With the "one voice". Even Russia now speaks in 2 voices. :o) Well, just started. A little.
Somewhat cruel to ask of Europe to speak in 1, isn't it? :o)
I know. Mavrelius, you've mentioned, "be careful what you desire for, as your dream my come true", so imagine it will, Europe speaks as Kissinger once, on an impulse, desired, in 1.
Well, then so that life won't be boring for the USA, in compensation, say Russia gets 10 tsars :o))) One better than another :o))))) And Israel - a couple :o)))))) And Iran - two, and so forth and so on :o))))
Complain about this comment
That is fascinating to me, WebAlice, that
this Medadev (sp?) is acting so morally (in effect to the actual world) that Putin would have done, spelling out that this new Russia is actually different in action and ideology,
No Lies :)
He lays here, in the now. Whewwww :)
Also, if Obama and the USA fail to pacify and stabilize Afghanistan, Russia will have to act to deny the Taliban a foothold in its vulnerable underbelly, by
Moving in with its military (funded -- or compensated -- by Americans?) This would help with the long term area problems in that China could use the stability to invest -- where it walks flowers seem to grow (as of lately--they are todays 1980s Japan...hopefully)
This would be a faux paux by Obama ..to conservatives.."the humiliation, the un-glory"..but, frankly, I think this delegation to Russia, China and India (spheres of interest and money spent) should be considered...give this to people who care :) :)
Complain about this comment
Threnodio_II #36: '"But why not London? Well to start with, Obama made it very clear that he was looking for a new partnership with Europe, not some offshore islands who could not make up their minds whether they were in or out (Cameron please note)."
Wary of the fact that you think that the State Department wants to "run" Europe, nevertheless I courageously step out into the great unknown to respond to your comment. Yes Obama was seaking a new partnership with Europe. Yes then, as not even the Democratic nominee, he gave that speech
in Berlin of which he was treating like a campaign rally that just so happened to be on foreign soil, and not as a page turning event intended to start anew the American-European alliance. His speech was soly directed at the voters back home, because no matter how much the world may hate it, people first run for president of the US, not the world. So in these circumstances, in his pre-candidate status, Obama's pursuit of a better European-American alliance would have been problamatic, not to mention confusing, in London for two main reasons. One, he was trying to reach out to (renew relations with) countries who's relationship with the US were strained, to say the least, during the Bush years. London, least of all, fitted that bill. Two, your point expressed above, although I don't think that that was nearly as big an actor in the decision to deliver the speech in Berlin as you do. I'm sure he wants Britain to be part of Europe, but as any respectful international friend would be, wants Britain to figure the lagistics and specifics of it out for herself, without any interference from the US.
Obama has been suitably graceful when he has to be, especially around the time of the London G20."
"Has to be?" It was his first real trip abroad as the new most powerful person in the world!! Believe me, there was no fake politeness and gratitude in the way in which he comported himself then, nor would there be in anyone's manners in a similar situation! And on top of that he met the queen, the longest standing international leader (all be it powerless) but more importantly, the one person who has personally seen the US tare itself apart and put itself back together into some semblance of a republic, who has seen us morph and change more so than any other leader. Not something to sneeze at.
"but face facts - Mr. Brown has been treated with something verging on contempt by Washington. Is it that he has the kiss of death about him - doomed leader who can only damage the Obama image? Maybe Obama really does have some reason for holding Britain as a whole in contempt. (He could, after all, have put Churchill in the outer office as a paperweight rather than so publicly returning him to the embassy)."
I'm confused. How is him distancing himself from Brown and (perhaps once) holding him in contempt do to not only the fact that, as you say, he "has the kiss of death about him," but also because he 1. has repeatedly blamed the US for the UK's failings during the financial crisis and then turns right around and expects Obama to be his best friend and act as though everything is OK at financial crisis meetings of the international comunity such as the London and Pitsburg summits, and 2. Has released the Lokerbey
bomber, angering many American victums who, rightly or wrongly, believe that he was guilty for the murders and then trying to lay the blame for the release entirely at the feet of the Scottish, even though Brown desired, and worked for, the release all along the equivolant of holding "Britain as a whole" in contempt? You're going to have to help me out here. I personally don't think it very fair, and I doubt any sane person would, to blame an entire nation for the actions of one who happens to be in charge of it, do you? So why do you think Obama is doing it? And the last time I checked, there is no constitutional amendment or international treaty signed with the UK enforcing by law that the bust of Winston Churchill must at all times remain in the Oval office of the president, and presidents have the liberty to decorate their offices however they like, so did you ever think that perhaps Obama returning the bust of Churchill is not a slap in the face to Britain, and is instead just making room for the bust of the man who literally made it possible for him to be there in the first place; Abraham Lincoln? If Obama recalls our ambasidor from London (assuming he's got the position finally filled now) then you can worry. But until then, fret not. Friendships ebb and flow, and the US-UK one is no different.
"The writers challenge Europe to develop their own strategy for Russia, for the Middle East, for Afghanistan if they want to be taken seriously".
Oh really? And what if that strategy involves being much closer to Russia (we want the gas), tougher on Israel (we don't have the same over powerful lobby to worry about) or less strident about Afghanistan (we don't want victory, we want out)?
Well then Europe should pursue it with all its might. That's what independent entities do, after all. And as their friend we want them to be happy, do we not? We'll find common ground on which to work on solving these problems still, there's simply no other alternative. The world is just too interdependent now.
"Those who would see the UK detach herself from Europe need have no fear. The process has already begun in the most unlikely of places - Washington."
How exactly is that? Please explain.
Oh, and when Merkle addresses Congress, I believe she'll be seen as representing both Germany and Europe, not just Europe. What makes you think she'll only represent Europe?
Complain about this comment
Britain continues to dangerously delude itself that it has a special relationship with the United States. If it thinks that by somehow distancing itself from the EU it will be drawn closer to the US it had better disabuse itself of that notion quickly. Britain should consider its options objectively. It will never be an American state, probably never an American protectorate again. It should think for itself, act for itself and live with the consequences of its actions without blaming the US or anyone else when they don't work out as hoped for. Nobody in the US forced the UK to go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact the US waited far too long, six months too long to invade Iraq becuase the UK needed time to get another security council resolution to cover Blair's derriere politically at home. The strategy backfired and only resulted in Saddam Hussein having time to hide his WMDs if he had them. Hearing Britain's constant blame game against the US is nauseating. At least Russia takes responsibility for its own actions even when they blow up in its face. Right dachnya?
Complain about this comment
Marcus, you are deliberately provoking me. "Britain deludes itself", and should "think for itself". "the US waited", and "russia takes responsibility".
Well, two can play at that game. I have a puzzle for a engineer like yourself. You can solve it for me.
Everybody here desires representation because the expert is preferable to the ordinary person.
Now I also desire an expert to guide me through life, but only if I can be certain that the expert is indeed an expert, and not an ordinary person.
Now to be proven an expert, ordinary people must decide that the opinions of the claimant expert are superior to their own. But in order to be sure, the ordinary people must be expert at identifying the distinction between expert and ordinary. In which case, you see, they are not ordinary, but rather expert, and thus unfit to verify and designate the expert status of the claimant.
So then, where are we?
On this thread I have a whole set of experts claiming that they need expert representation, because they are not expert enough to know their own minds. I know these folks are experts, because they speak with certainty regarding the best course of action for themselves, and for others. If I beg to differ, and I am told with the certainty of experts that I am wrong, and that I really ought to trust an expert. And that expert is someone other than the person telling me with certainty, because that person claims to be insufficiently expert to constitute a valid political voice on any given matter. Except, of course, on the need for experts.
In short, everyone in this thread who claims that representation is superior to direct democracy is claiming to be the Barber who shaves only those men who do not shave themselves.
Do they shave themselves or not?
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8339297.stm
On this site I read:
" The Czech Republic is the only one of 27 EU states yet to ratify the treaty.
It is regarded as crucial if the organisation is to run efficiently. "
That IMUO is propaganda.
It is not about efficiency. It is about the creation of a European Superstate - a Greater European Reich.
It is about the love that dare not speak its name - the love of power, megalomania!
Complain about this comment
62. At 04:21am on 03 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Britain continues to dangerously delude itself that it has a special relationship with the United States."
I think that I have never heard a real person in the UK talk about the special relationship.
I have only heard it from the talking faces on the TV and read it opn websites and in the newspapers.
Being outside of the "EU" is perfectly possible if we have absolutely no relationship with the USA. I do want to have a relationship with the USA but we could survive without them as they could survive without us.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat,
I really should have expected a response such as yours. I long suspected that behind your beautiful writings there was no substance. Yet again you failed to bring forward any constructive ideas about how Europe could address the important issues it faces today, without moving to even closer union. It seems to me that my request (and it was a request, you could check the wording again) to you not to use Switzerland as an example was well placed, as you indeed could not find anything else to say to support your ideas. I have been following this blog precisely because I want to better understand where I stand regarding Unified Europe. You appear to be one of the most vocal writers here, with apparent strong feelings on the issue, and I merely invited you to actually describe your ideas for the future of Europe. What I did not try however, was to convince you in anything, despite what you claim. May be ‘the reason that underlies your own position’ will ‘eat away at my thoughts’, may be. However, so far you have not shown this reason and it appears my thoughts are quite safe at present. This blog is open to everyone, if all you want to do here is practice you literary skills, fine, but then perhaps you should come clear on that and not disguise your writings as a constructive discussion on the topic at hand .
Complain about this comment
#61 - PursuitOfLove
"Wary of the fact that you think that the State Department wants to "run" Europe . . ". No, I don't think that. What I do say is that the European Council on Foreign Relations wants to see a more determined and decisive policy direction and a greater degree of unity within the EU. They should be careful what they wish for. There is no guarantee that, were the EU ever to find that common voice, it would be happy to toe the Washington line on a range of issues. If a United Europe were ever to come about, it would on current figures be far and away the most powerful economic entity on the planet, a significant military force and at least as major a player as the US. This is why the administration is much more circumspect than the European Council on Foreign Relations and rightly so.
". . . he gave that speech
in Berlin of which he was treating like a campaign rally that just so happened to be on foreign soil, and not as a page turning event intended to start anew the American-European alliance".
Precisely my point. Europeans who detected a direct promise directed at them were seriously naive.
" "Has to be?" It was his first real trip abroad as the new most powerful person in the world!! Believe me, there was no fake politeness and gratitude in the way in which he comported himself then, nor would there be in anyone's manners in a similar situation! "
The President was graceful in performing the diplomatic niceties as you would expect any head of state to be. Moreover, he certainly was in sympathy with Brown on theory of boosting their economies rather than restraining them. By the way, you point about Brown 'blaming' the US for the crash is entirely unjustified. It is not often you will find me supporting Brown but, on this occasion I do. Mr. Brown said it started in the States, which it did. Sub prime lending you will recall was where it all began. Indeed, he went as far as to hint that his own enthusiasm for deregulation was partly to blame. He was far more circumspect in his criticism of the US than, say, Merkell or Sarkozy.
When I say he has the 'kiss of death' about him, I mean that the party he leads has fallen into such disarray and the reputation of the 'mother of parliaments' is at such a low ebb that his prospects of re-election appear non existent. His sudden new enthusiasm for EU unity has a distinctly hollow ring to it and the rest of the world's leaders know it. They do not want to be tarnished by association. He appears to be a dead man walking or a lame duck hopping. Obama sees this all too clearly. The confident newly elected Chancellor is a much better bet.
As to you final points, Washington appears to have come out in favour of a European entity with which it can do business on a collective basis. This may not be that far removed from Brown's vision but he does not appear to be carrying the voters with him. In the circumstances, Britain must be seen as marginalized and peripheral. Maybe Marcus is right - maybe the 'special relationship' is on its last legs. You also ask why the Chancellor should not speak for the EU and Germany. She does but the message is the same. Frau Merkell, in contrast to the straw clutching Brown, the loose cannon Sarkozy or the downright eccentric Berlesconi comes over as the voice of sweet reason. Where Germany goes, most of the EU follows. This is not lost on Washington.
In the past few minutes, we learn that Lisbon has been given the all clear by the Czech constitutional court. Brown will now almost certainly leave office with Lisbon as a done deal. It remains to be seen how Cameron reacts or indeed if anyone outside the UK really cares any more.
Complain about this comment
OK. So Obama has spaces for 10 'favourite' pre-set international telephone numbers on his mobile. So which countries are going to fill those spaces? Well, obviously Russia and China and the European Union to start with. Then some of the world's hot spots such as Afghanistan, Israel, and one of the friendlier Arab nations …well, that's six already. Then you have to include Canada and one of the more convivial Central or South American States (can't afford to ignore the neighbours) then Japan (for economic reasons) and India (can't neglect a population that big) so there are your top ten numbers.
Of course there may be reasons why you want to ring other countries such as one of the more cordial African states or Australia, perhaps Pakistan or Switzerland or Iceland or maybe even one of the individual EU Member States …(now, where did Michele put Gordon Brown's number? Was it on the post-it note on the fridge door?) but generally, Obama would only be interested in talking to the big players or people who can reliably represent the views of the big players. So if the EU 'High Representative' takes office, it's natural that he/she would be one of the top ten numbers. Of course a EU High Representative would not be able to represent the view of all Member States if there has been no agreement in Council, but consensus is normally possible on most issues. Obama has no time to get involved in the various nuances between UK, France, Germany, Spain or Latvia. He wants to know what 'Europe' thinks.
Complain about this comment
8. At 3:37pm on 02 Nov 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Yes we saw that in the war against the worldwide spread of Communism and now in the worldwide war agaisnt the spread of Islamo-fascism."
I think the last time the European culture was at stake must have been the siege of Vienna in 1529. Whenever it was really that neccessary, European nations (kingdoms more likely back then) worked together to help each other.
The problem with modern Islamo facism is Marcus that as long as you try to stop it by killing all fascists, then for each one you kill there will be 2 moderates turned into fascists. So if you would want to go that road till it's end you would end up killing quite a number of people on this earth. Many Europeans disagree with that being a valid way to ensure freedom.
Frankly I have to agree with them as even IF we would erradicate Islamo fascism from this earth by killing a couple hundred millions individuals, then there will appear another terrorist alike grouping. (Just think if you had ever imagined to be in this war with Islamic fascists 30 years ago.) It is not that we would need no safety regulations then whatsoever and hence the freedom we get wouldn't improve much, which is why I don't think these wars are going to lead us anywhere.
"Calling some of them tax havens in the sense of Switzerland aiding and abetting tax evaders to hide their income from national governments is an out and out lie."
Nevertheless there are 2 trillion dollars parked there by foreign (not having their HQ in Delaware) companies. What do you call it then if the yearly GDP of Italy is parked in such a place if not a tax haven?
That speech in both houses of the American congress is quite an honour I guess. First the one in front of the Israeli parliament and now that - Merkel really gets a lot of honours lately. I doubt she will misbehave there though by being too open minded. She knows which things can be spoken out loud to get closer to one's goals and which are probably better not spoken out (maybe that is because she is a woman though).
@ SB2:
I don't think it is impossible at all for the UK to leave the EU. However what you will have to do is to elect a goverment that shares your thoughts. If in your coming election the parties that are pro EU or at least against leaving it win again then you should probably face the reality of being that part of a democracy that has to comply with the will of the majority.
The latest by then it would also be nice if you would stop spamming with your Anti Eu and Anti LT posts. Though hardly anyone seems to give a rats ass about them, it is still a nuisance always having to scroll up and down that much because of them.
Complain about this comment
stellarbeloved, not "Medadev" :o))) , Medvedev:o))) I'll explain so that you can lecture on it.
Mead (that ancient honey drink) + wed (to know, in Russian.) Mead-wed - the one who knows where there is honey. A bear.
Even, another discovery! :o) The great difference btw Russian and Ukrainian languages !!! In Russian a bear is "med-wed", and in Ukrainian a "wed-med" :o))))
Complain about this comment
Sorry, forgot to explain. So, if you come to a Russian shop to buy honey for your toast, on the glass jars will be written (in Cyrillic) something uncomprehensible for you, but in fact, by sound, 3 letters: med.
We didn't invent "honey" on top later, like the English language did, but stayed at the "mead" stage, the old name.
And then come the options, "buckwheat honey" (bees flew over buckwheat fields) (brown honey), "flower honey" (ordinary light yellow), and other specialities like the one which is good for bronchitis, colds and flu? what's the English of that tree? ??? Unter der Linden street in Berlin, that tree.
Complain about this comment
@46 - "The group took over the city, the loner was left standing" quote by grandmother not Jung :)
As valuable as Jung's saying though!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
stellarbeloved, re your suggestion/option at @60. Yes it's old agenda, in USSR now in Russia's interest to move radical islam away off push it beyond Afghanistan, move it away from us. We tried once all know :o)
Still, an issue.
But likewise calling for us is the other pressure, Turkey is very active in the region, live and kicking :o) so to say; with their political agenda of a "belt" of the allliance of turk-speaking countries, which belt includes, as is openly stated, Azerbajan, Uzbekistan and parts of modern-day Russia, West-East stripe quite a long decoration, which I don't think Russian dress quite requires :o)))
The much spoken about "belt" passes through Crimea, for a sec, which is not ours, and must be none of our business. Turkey might, just might :o))) think it's noone's at present, but for grabs. There is a trend to revise the result of all Russo-Turkish wars, one hundred of them, or how many there were in total, from Moldova and woosh - to the East.
So I'd really won't know what to worry ab more. Un-lovely. From both directions. Shorten Turkish appetites :o) - we'll shorten Afghanistan. How ab a swap? :o))))
Complain about this comment
Only - no wobbling around. The word must be as good as gold. Russia can't focus on 2 fronts if let down.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio _II #67 : '"If a United Europe were ever to come about, it would on current figures be far and away the most powerful economic entity on the planet, a significant military force and at least as major a player as the US. This is why the administration is much more circumspect than the European Council on Foreign Relations and rightly so."
Yes I can understand why the administration is wary of this prospect, and let me take this opportunity to say that it is one that worries me greatly as well! But if Europe is our ally, and we want them to be happy, then 1. we really don't have a choice in what Europe decides to do, so no matter what we privately think, what will happen will happen anyway and 2. even if we did, we shouldn't interfere in its decision making process because that wouldn't be in keeping with our values of a respectful international partner, but more importantly, Europe would never interfere in a dispute between, say, South Carolina and New York.
If Europe would get to this state, then they wouldn't have to worry about "toeing the Washington line" anymore because they would then be able to pursue their own line. "Washington" would then be forced to work with Europe on the areas we have in common and it would no longer be tempted to pretend as though the world is its own personal playground. And lets be honest for a second. Mainland Europe has never really liked the United States. If I may use an annalogy, France and Germany are like the popular cheerleaders in high school whom the bully boy United States wants to be friends with and eat at their lunch table, and whom they pursue relentlessly (sometimes nicely, sometimes nastily) but who always in the end, never gets anything more than a passing "hello" in the hall. I should think that this "European superstate," as many Brits call it, would be the answer to the majority of Europe's prayers. Rid of the hypocritical and bullying actions of the United States all at once, finally freed to pursue their own interests without having to worry about what "Washington" thinks, what more could they ask for?
Regarding Brown. I didn't say that he blamed the US unjustly for the financial crisis's orogins. Everyone knows it "started in America." But what he did, and what frustrated many people, both in and out of the UK, was that every time he was asked about why his government (in power for the last 12 years) didn't do X, Y, and Z to help lesson the risk of a crisis emerging, or at the very least, help cushion the blow from it when it did occur, he didn't apologize. He didn't say something to the affect of '"We took the steps that we thought were necessary, but obviously we mispredicted, and noone could have correctly predicted the scale of what was in store for us in the future." No. He either 1. blamed it all on the previous (by 20 years) Tory government or 2. informed everyone of what they already knew; that the crisis "started in America," and so therefore that its impact on the UK wasn't really his fault. I disagree with that. Yes it started in America. Yes as a result of the interdependent nature of the world today it spread, with astounding rapidness, around the world. But each individual country had the opportunity to do things in the past to avoid such a situation occuring. Each individual country had an opportunity to take steps, once it had hit, to make its impact felt as little and quick as possible, and Gordon Brown didn't seem to understand any of that most elementary of knoledge. That is what I was refering to, and what is what, I'm willing to bet, had angered Obama so much.
Complain about this comment
WA;
When the US pulls out of Iraq, this will be the go-ahead signal for the PKK to begin the process of building Kurdistan. This will send shivers down the spines and bring nightmares to the sleep of Turks, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, and Russians. Turkey will have its own second front. What are allies for anyway? Iran is plagued by a high incidence of drug addiction, the result of imports from Afghanistan just the way Russia is. It is one weapon that serves American interests well in conflict with both countries. Last week tribes from Pakistan attacked the elite Royal Guard in Iran with the impunity of Islamic terrorists. Iran has been denied permission by Pakistan's government to send troops there in hot pursuit for revenge. Ironically it was Britain that drew many of the border lines of these modern nations, entirely indifferent to where they would cut through existing tribal territories. As a result, they straddle these countries and the people cross back and forth across international borders with ease and security, their cousins on the other side only too happy to see them, they speak the same language. Looks like in reality, Iran is surrounded with enemies both seen and unseen. And Russia? That's how it has always been. Small wonder Russia wants to be feared, hates being pitied. Seems to me there are a lot of swarms of flies drawn to its honey.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat, I know what you'll tell about present Russian vogue/facination with Turkey; but you should also understand Kremlin.
You can't leave the population so much without an enemy. So much at once, without anybody, this is, how to say, un-Christian :o)
And all the best ones are grabatised by the USA! And Afghanistan, and Iran, and int'l terrorism; it's un-becoming to Russia to savour someone's left-overs. :o) That's why I think we can't energize ourselves about Afghanistan.
We tried to have Baltic states for an enemy; then Georgia, then Ukraine, you search high and low, but this is all simply a no-go and clearly unsatisfactory :o( Cheap substitutes that no one gets winded up about in truth. And what the army is for and all. Turkey is at least "something" :o).
Granted we are not only ones such eh eh, anyway. Look up the BBC's front page article about Milliband visiting Russia. All goes well, then there is an interval and the end of the page ends by the much-meaning phrase like "But then there are still many areas of grave concern for both sides." Approx.
Oh yes - which ones? That's for the people in the knowing.
No, I mean, of course we live like, oh well, but then it seems to harm us only, mostly? Not the pressing problem for the British public, one would think.
Complain about this comment
MA, as you see I'm in double mind about this Turkey business. On one hand I know I am brain-washed, since I had no clue Turkey is our enemy now, that is until I returned from 2 months' hols in the dacha and switched on TV.
On the other hand, it is reasonable it is, because how will this peaceful turk-speaking "belt" driven by the Turkish cart gets along with Russia - hell knows. Based on the past experience - another 100 wars. But temporara mutamur et nos with them etc together in illis.
To be on the safe side, I'd care to pull a brooch out of the belt - Crimea :o) To say nothing it's the most painful loss of ours in the whole USSR loss. On no reasonable grounds entirely - mind it - no one in his right mind would want this bare dusty peninsula swept by winds but Crimean turks and Russians. On abstract articles of "faith", it's of symbolic meaning to both sides.
Either way, as the matters stand - for assistance with Crimea I think any country can safely ask from Russia, how to say - approximately - for any thing.
Mavrelius! You print dollars anyway! Why won't you buy Crimea from Ukraine for us and trade for any military assistance any where? Ukraine is in deep need of cash exactly now, gas things, elections what's with this and that - and aren't a very principled girl :o))))
Complain about this comment
WA;
"Mavrelius! You print dollars anyway! Why won't you buy Crimea from Ukraine for us and trade for any military assistance any where? Ukraine is in deep need of cash exactly now, gas things, elections what's with this and that"
I already told you, Ukraine can have anything it wants...if it acts now before other pipelines are finished. Then its power will be sharply reduced. All it has to do is shut off the gas and oil Russia sends to Europe. Then it just demands that the EU make it a member immediately and agree to pay for Ukraine's oil and gas for the next 25 years if it wants it turned back on. What choice would Europe have? To the EU that money is what we call "chump change." With about 16 trillion dollars a year GDP a few tens or hundreds of millions means nothing to them. MEPs spend that much on lunches in Strassbourg every year. But they are so greedy, if they aren't forced into it by Ukraine making it in Europe's own self interest, they couldn't care less if Ukraine freezes to death.
The main reason Armenia is Russia's ally is because of Turkey. Who are Turkey's allies? Not Europe. Not Russia. Not Roumania whose hero Count Vlad Cepes impaled the Turks and left their rotting corpses as a warning to would be Turkish invaders. America. And now Turkey cozied up to Iran, America's enemy. I'll bet China is no fan of Turkey either. Russia's number three enemy according to a KGB defector who wrote a book is China. With Russia's population diminishing and China's population and thirst for resources and arable land increasing, those areas around the borders of Southern Siberia will look like a very tasty morsel for the Chinese government to gobble up. Nice bit-o-honey for them.
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2: On post 55, regarding the Lisbon process for withdrawal from the EU, it is two years from the notification to withdraw only if the withdrawal agreement does not specify an effective date of withdrawal. My layman’s understanding of the text is that the withdrawing country is only excluded from participating in the Council for purposes of negotiating the withdrawal agreement, but I could well have misunderstood that part.
WebAliceinwonderland: In post 71, the English name for that tree would depend upon which English. I believe that it’s called a lime tree in the UK; on this side of Bermuda, for some reason (German immigration?) it’s called a linden tree. Stranger still, the wood from this tree is known as basswood. This is why the corresponding honey can be called either lime honey, linden honey, or basswood honey in English.
For post 79, perhaps an offer to the Japanese of the four Kurile islands closest to Hokkaido would draw giga-yen to the Crimean purchase fund?
Complain about this comment
MA I know it's useless to tell that that's what Ukraine exactly did last winter gas war. Only dear "on the edge" (literally - "U-krain" country chose a wrong party to black-mail :o), namely they thought they can as you say, "Vlad Putin."
Complain about this comment
Jan-Keeskop, wow wow wow. How do you know, I must have mentioned somewhere, my very first Grand Plan No 1 how to get Crimea back :o).
I don't really count on Mavrelius to cash up some money :o)))) cough and all :o))))))) but then you never know, your United States are energetic and may suddenly desire to fancy very fanciful wars, so may be something will work out , of the Plan No 2... One has to have a back-up plan any way.
Yes, I thought if Japan wants, say, 2 out of 4 islands - and approaches Ukraine to buy Crimea from them - because to Russia alas they won't sell, the matter has to be done more elegantly :o)))))))) and without hurt national pride for some, those, any way - on the edge!
- we'll swap with Japan eagerly.
Thus, 2 hares (American - rabbbits?) are shot with 1 shot.
1. We will finally end 2ndWW with Japan, sign that peace treaty, pending these 70 yrs :o)))) Very un-elegant to last and last the 2ndWW.
2. Ukraine becomes a more compact powder :o) and processable for the EU, and gets rid of one half of Russian population that they don't know what to do with anyway as are pulled apart by various forces- and go go - lighted from the burden :o) - burdenS - into the EU embrace. At the Russian applause and cheer and heartfelt best wishes, mind it. With no back feelings and rocks in the bosom.
Russia - grunts from happiness, gorgles, and googles, and quietly clasps at the corner at its dear darling Crimea, glancing behind the shoulder - if any one else to approach - grrr :o))) and basically is fed for a 100 yrs ahead. Because when you lose something and then get it back - it doesn't happen to normal people, and if such a happiness suddenly fell on you from the skies - be content, don't anger God, and don't desire for more. Shut up and google/gorgle grunt and smile in your lucky corner under your lucky star.
Mind it - this also gets Russia out of various int'l politicians' hair, concerns for a long time ahead, and they can relax about our occasional hilarious ideas to restore the Emporium and concentrate on more calling issues, as the bear is busy embracing what it believes to be the world's Jack Honey Pot (its dusty semi-island so much desired) :o).
The fact is we can't war Ukrainians to get Crimea. Alas they are family, and a war with them is an attempt at? some pillars? that the fabric of the society won't survive. Will tear. Total incest or I don't know what. :o)))) When you can't kill someone to get what you want - time to recognise it and sit down start do thinking how to buy what you want.
An additional benefit will be it'll do for a "national idea", so much puzzled about now in Russia, as we don't know what we are doing any more :o)))
"Russians! If you don't want to live normally to survive. If you are not inspired to fight corruption for the sake of fighting corruption :o)))) Let's put it simply - we will live like normal people to be able to buy back Crimea!"
_________
:o)
- "First we believed into the God's divine tsardom, next we believed in Communism - and now - what? We don't have faith in anything?
- What do you mean, "no faith". Ugh. Repeat after me:
I - believe - in the tube - in the bottom - of the Baltic - Sea
:o(
:o))))) !
Complain about this comment
Mikey: It's not that Europe doesn't understand Federalism. It would be more correct to say that Europe understands Federalism, and doesn't want it.
Of course it would be convenient for the USA if Europe would speak with one voice, but Europe doesn't want to, not because it's 'infantile', but because it consists of many different countries with different voices. I suppose the USA would be satisfied if Hitler had succeeded in setting up his Thousand Year Reich, and the USA could talk to his successor; but that's not what we want here, so I'm afraid you will have to go on putting up with this inconvenience.
The USA was able to unite relatively easily because all parts of it speak the same language and have much the same history. Nevertheless, it remained united only through the bloody civil war that you refer to, in which southern aspirations to a distinct voice were squelched by military force. We've had wars in Europe and we don't want any more of them.
If you actually want a dialogue with Europe, you would do better to avoid insults in future.
Complain about this comment
I've noticed in the past that Americans tend to see the EU as a flawed version of the USA and wonder impatiently why it can't be more like the USA. Well, the fact is that the EU is not the USA and may never become much like the USA. It's a loose association of many different countries, speaking many different languages, that are far more diverse than the states of the USA. Only a small minority of Europeans want a United States of Europe.
You might as well ask why the USA doesn't join in a federal union with all the other countries of the American continent. Why do Brazil and the USA speak with different voices, although they sit on the same continent? Because they're different and separate countries. So it is with the different and separate countries of Europe.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS