A Europe of blocs?
The French President nearly upset the EU apple-cart when he proposed a Mediterranean Union including EU and non-EU countries around that sea.
How far will the Poles go when they make proposals for a similar Baltic-to-the-Black-Sea Union?
The idea was a little noticed result of the European Council meeting back in March.
Then, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk suggested that if Turkey and the countries of North Africa could link up with the EU countries bordering the Med, it was only fair the East should have the same opportunities.
He was given the go-ahead, perhaps to both balance President Sarkozy's brainwave, and perhaps to further down-grade it. Perhaps a rather brutal move, as it had already been thoroughly and efficiently eviscerated by Chancellor Merkel.
Polish diplomats do not see their plan as ambitious as the Mediterranean, but argue that if the French, Italian, Spanish and Greeks can link up with countries in North Africa and negotiate with the rest of the European union as a bloc, then they should be allowed to do the same alongside Georgia and Ukraine.
I presume the link-up would be between the 10 former communist countries of the East and those six in the relevant European neighbourhood policy.
As far as I know, there will be no invitation to Russia to join this would-be new power bloc.
The Poles point out that at the moment they, and the EU members in the region, can only talk to the European Union as individual nations.
The suggestion is those next to the Med would get an unfair advantage. Part of this is no doubt "there's gold in them there hills": such an organisation would of course get more EU money for the region.
More cash is a reasonable goal in itself, but I wonder about the consequences.
Sometimes countries do argue within the European Union as regional blocs, but more often they don't.
Mr Tusk's report, to be presented to the other leaders in June, is probably of not much moment in itself but is it the beginning of a trend?
And would that trend be a dangerous undermining of EU solidarity, or a realistic recognition of other identities and alliances ?
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~31~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Well, it's long been a fact that the Southern European nations (France, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Malta, Cyprus) often times stick together as a political bloc on many EU issues, something not yet successfully emulated by any other region of Europe.
However, Tusk's claim that the Southern EU members link up with Turkey and North Africa to form a single bloc against the EU is news to me; I don't think this have ever happened, unless I'm not as news-savy as I thought!
In fact, the Mediterranean Union is nothing else than a fantasy created by Sarkozy, perhaps a clever way of convincing Turkey to stay out of the EU. The already existing Euromediterranean Partnership includes all 27 EU members. And the Southern EU members are more than happy to have the rest of the EU join in to help solve Mediterranean issues...as they see these issues affecting not only them, but all of Europe.
In recent years, there has been growing cooperation between both sides of the Mediterranean, to try and tackle several problems ranging from environmental problems to energy to migration. But this doesn't come without occasional strains between Southern Europe and North Africa.
Tusk's claim that the Southern EU members frequently link up with Turkey and North Africa to create a bloc against Brussels sounds a tad ludicrous to me, unless there's something I don't know.
Yes, southern EU members tend to form a tight bloc within the EU; this is old news. But no, they have never linked up with non-EU members on the other side of the Mediterranean to form a bloc against Brussels. In fact, they have a history of loyalty to the European Union.
Complain about this comment
I absolutely agree with skye_eg. But ultimately, it doesnt really matter as Generation X is on its way and Generation Y is in the starting blocks.
Complain about this comment
We should have Ireland ,denmark,Norway, in our new union bloc and invite the rest of the commonwealth all over the world for our free trade black .That would get one at the soviet EU
Complain about this comment
France / Spain / Italy / Greece are facing huge waves of immigration from Africa and Asia, by developping the Coasts of North africa and Asia Minor, it is hoped to reduce demographic, security, economic pressure.
There isnt this threat, urgency coming from the Black sea at the moment.
Complain about this comment
¨From the Baltic to the Black Sea.¨ You are aware that in Poland, this recalls the glory days, for the Poles at least, of the Polish Empire, sorry Rzrespospolitca. Just don't ask the Lithuanians and the Ukrainians what they think of the old Polish Empire.
Is it like referreing the the British Commonwealth as the ¨sun never sets/government over palm and pine¨ bloc of nations.
Complain about this comment
Looks as though while citizens of the EU are seeing themselves more and more as 'Europeans,' the EU is starting to manifest some regions of its own, South and East represented here. The odd men out, the countries in the North(west) also tend to share similar attitudes in some areas, such as tending to be the more euroskeptic states (Ireland is an exception).
Interesting watching how the EU is evolving as a cultural--as opposed to economic/political--entity.
Complain about this comment
When the UK finally breaks up in the next couple of decades I'm sure the British Isles bloc of Scotland, England, Wales and (either a united or divided) Ireland will be able to influence the EU more with the much larger number of votes the independent nations will be allocated.
Complain about this comment
Let's not start slanging matches. The Polish Commonwealth was not an empire. The territories it gained were from the union with Lithuania, and not from conquest. Plus Georgia and that area were never part of it. The Lithuanians are said to be generally happy with it - they were an equal partner and it allowed them to survive the German/Teutonic invasions (Later the two fought a limited conflict over territorial disputes, but AFTER the break up of the Commonwealth and regained independence for both). So the comparison is tenuous - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was not an empire.
Plus this is a very fair proposal from Poland, if North Africa is considered for some kind of association (that area under French influence would be a closer comparison to an empire, the French one), why not eminently European country like Ukraine? Or Georgia with a European culture, but not in Europe simply because a cartographer decided to draw the division between continents in one way and not in another.
Aside, I agree that blocks within Europe detract from an overall unity. On the other hand they are a fact already, and a way for smaller countries to protect their interests with the EU voting changes forced upon Poland recently. It is in these reasons one should look for Poland's motivation, and not in some attempt at recreating the old Commonwealth.
Complain about this comment
It isn't anyhing new that it exists 3 main Europes:
- Estern Europe, mostly Slavic.
- Southern (better Soutwestern) Europe, basically Latin.
- Northern (better Northwestern) Europe, predominantly Anglogermanic.
However I find these blocks are complementary, and not antitetic.
I knoe there are countries like Greece, Albania, Finland or Hungary which don't fit in the above classification. But I said "main blocks", talking grosso modo.
This variety makes Europe richer rather than divisive.
Europe's most problematic border is over the Mediterranean, so it's logical to invest more efforts in this side of the Old Continent.
Complain about this comment
I am in favour of an EU of 27 blocs called 'nation states'. Each of these 'nation states' will have full independence and sovereignty and thus be able make trade and other agreements with whomever they so choose - within and without the EU.
Complain about this comment
Regional blocs within the European Union are not necessarily a bad thing. Nations in the same region with roughly the same problems cooperate. That's a fact. When you share a large part of your history and your political/economical problems it's logical you seek a solution together. For example: Southern European nations have in common that their populations are decreasing rapidly and they all suffer from massive illigal immigration.
I don't mind regional blocs like the Visegrad Group or de Benelux but they shoudn't undermine European unity. That's why I oppose something like a 'Mediterranean Union' or a 'Black Sea Union'. An Union within an Union is ineffective and potentially dangerous.
Complain about this comment
I am perplexed at how there are still people like ScepticMax, who oppose the concept of the EU. I suspect he might be British though, which would explain his anti-EU rhetoric but that is not the point I want to make. I am rather responding to betuli's comment that the Greeks do not fit in with the Latin group. Since the "Latin" group comes from exactly those who spoke Latin (the Romans), the Greek influence is rather large. Much of Roman thinking came from the Greeks, who then transposed it to other places. People always talk about Italy being divided into two parts. This is true. While the people in the North are similar to the French, Swiss and even Germans, Southern Italian culture and mentality is very much like the Greek and much of their language is incorporated in Latin and other European languages. The Greeks even use an Italian saying that goes: "Una faccia una razza", when referring to the Italians, which translates into "One face, one race". Lastly, Romulus and Remus were half-Greek. (J/k). Basically, all I am saying is that Greeks fit in perfectly with the "Latins".
Complain about this comment
Gheryando, You are correct in that I am British. Although the Ancient Greeks invented democracy, in modern times the British have been practicing - and defending it - for longer than most European nations. As such, perhaps we value and defend our sovereignty and liberties (and the right to determine our own future) more than other countries whose recent histories have been less favourable, and who see a strong EU as a bulwark against 'continental authoritarian nationalism' which blighted Europe for the past few hundred years.
Complain about this comment
Gheryando,
I didn's specifically say that Greeks don't fit in the Latin group. Actually I lived in Greece for 3 years, learnt and spoke your language and somehow I felt like home (I'm Spaniard).
However your Byzantine traditions, including the religious background, make you Greeks slightly different from the Latin European countries.
As I said, this difference represents more a complement and a bridge to other European blocs.
From this point of view, Greece glues the Mediterranean Catholic Latin bloc to the Orthodox Eastern Orthodox countries, or even to others like Turkey.
Complain about this comment
One poster said Georgia is "not in Europe simply because a cartographer decided to draw the division between continents in one way and not in another". My understanding is that Europe and Asia are separated by a natural physical divide, the Ural mountains. Georgia is to the east, so Asian. Ukraine is to the West, so European. If one is to ignore this definition, all Asian nations could consider themselves "European", Bar Arabian and Asian sub-continental nations (they have their own continental plates). If we are to have distinction between Europe and Asia, a line must be drawn somewhere!
Complain about this comment
Well yes, a geographical divide was chosen to separate Europe and Asia. Equally well a different dividing line could have been chosen. Hence the choice is arbitrary, and not based on indisputable logic or science... and no, a line must not be drawn anywhere, or does not have to be permanent. It is just something somebody thought up one day... you can take out a map and draw your own divisions that are equally valid/invalid.
The point is that in terms of the EU the argument that this or that country is not geographically in Europe and should not be part of a "European" Union is brought out often. This argument is nonsense as geographical divisions are arbitrary, as per my points above.
Thus I prefer to emphasise in terms of EU membership (not geography), that a country is or is not culturally similar to Europe, and base my views on its potential EU membership on this alone.
Plus, not all Asian nations could consider themselves European because not all of them share the culture, but some do.
Complain about this comment
Gheryando,
there are a lot of people like scepticmax (and myself) who feel the same way over how the eu is developing. Unfortunately our govt refuses to honour its manifesto commitment to allow us a say - probably because they would not like a 'NO' as it would derail the eu gravy train.
Complain about this comment
Those who feel like Scepticmax probably form the majority within the UK. That majority grows all the time, which is of course, why our politicians who so enjoy strutting on the biggest possible stage, refuse to allow us the promised referendum; that is only delaying the inevitable. With or without the UK, the EU will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own absurdity. What started as a commendable idea born of necessity in the aftermath of a devastating world war, simply outgrew its usefulness, but driven by politicians and bureaucrats who thrive within its privileged cloisters, it became its own reason for existence. There is no longer any logic in the organisation which acts like a huge black hole, devouring nation after nation with seemingly no limit to its ambition. It no longer even pretends to act with regard for the citizens of Europe or their wishes, and one only has to consider the recent vote in the EU "parliament" to ignore any vote in the Irish referendum with which it disagrees to witness that. The EU as it currently operates is diametrically opposed to everything for which countless generations of Britons have fought to preserve, namely democratic freedom under our own laws. We do not wish the rest of Europe ill, we simply wish to govern ourselves.
The greatest irony of all is that the original architects of the "common market" from which the EU was spawned freely admitted that it was intended as a direct counterweight to the trading might of the British commonwealth, something our spineless polticians casually discarded. And you wonder why the British people are angry?
Complain about this comment
sbennet,
Georgia is west, or southwest rather, of the Ural mountains. In the Caucausus region, it's the Caucausus mountains that separate Europe from Asia. and I believe Georgia lies mostly -if not entirely- in Europe.
betuli,
I agree with your main point. But just to point out: the cultural divide between Greece and Turkey -despite a few superficial similarities namely cuisine and music- is about as wide as the cultural gap between Spain and Morocco. Despite a major recent effort from both sides at reconciliation, I don't think that either the Greeks nor the Turks would ever consider Greece as a "bridge" between Turkey and Europe.
Complain about this comment
Why not an Atlantic bloc ? It could include those countries with an Atlantic Coastline from the EU and North America.
Complain about this comment
MalcolmW2,
The European Union was created as a counterweight to the trading power of the USA not the Commonwealth. I agree the Union has its problems but I'm convinced she will continue to exist. The UK will still be a part of it in the future. The most powerfull people in Europe, the businessmen, know how important the Union is for their business. They won't allow the Union to desintegrate.
The European Union isn't a monster which wishes to take away British sovereignty. The Union should reform itself which it will only do when all European peoples unite under one banner. It will not be the Europskeptic banner. It will be the banner of the European realists: people who know how important the Union is and the great achievements it made the past decades. They will also acknowledge that the Union needs more democracy.
Cynosarges,
Good idea. The USA and the European Union would have a combined GDP of 30 trillion dollar: 50% of the world economy and 60% of the trade. Together we will be able to compite with China and India. We should extend the Atlantic Alliance far beyond its current borders.
Complain about this comment
richardlith wrote:
"?From the Baltic to the Black Sea.? You are aware that in Poland, this recalls the glory days, for the Poles at least, of the Polish Empire, sorry Rzrespospolitca."
The slogan "From sea to sea" was indeed used back to the days of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but it referred then to different seas. Namely from the Baltic to the White sea. This comes from times when the Commonwealth had hopes of snatching up bits of Russia.
What Tusk is actually referring to is a much more recent idea. The Miedzymorze or Intersea was the brainchild of the Marshall of Poland Pilsudski in the 1920s. It was an idea for a multi-ethnic federation including the Baltic states, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. A strong central-European state that would have checked the expansion of Bolshevik Russia and later perhaps offered stronger resistance to Nazi Germany. While the idea was very noble and way ahead of it's time, Pilsudski lacked the practical ability to make this into reality and instead got himself involved in military quarrels with his neighbours.
Complain about this comment
Poor Gordon Brown worst PM in history ,Well Gordon this is what yo get at the local elections for selling us to the soviet EU bring on the General election.Get ready for the Tories again EU
Complain about this comment
Re #20 "Why not an Atlantic bloc ? It could include those countries with an Atlantic Coastline from the EU and North America."
There is such a block: it's called NATO.
And many people in countries which contribute most to it in both blood and treasure (US, UK, Canada) don't think Mediteranean nations which contribute next to nothing and are militarily a joke (Greece, Italy, etc.) should be in it.
BTW. There's also a PACIFIC trading block, much bigger and more important than EU: it's called APEC, and includes countries of Pacific Rim (Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, S. Korea, US, etc.) where, many feel, economic future lies.
Complain about this comment
Mr Brown says he is going to start to listen start with the EU and give us a referendum on this new style soviet union
Complain about this comment
Very good news this landslide defeat for Labour. And unlike what the biased BBC reporting is suggesting, the #1 reason for the defeat is that Labour betrayed Britain by not having a referendum.
British people, you must force this issue because once the Lisbon Treaty is in force, parliamentary democracy is gone for good. Because with the Lisbon Treaty (which is constitutional according to the European Court of Justice) most legislative powers would come to reside with the Commission/Council combination, who operate more or less outside the reach of parliamentary control. And the Lisbon Treaty also contributes to a blatant violation of the separation of powers (legislative, executive, judicial) by essentially concentrating more and more executive and especially legislative powers in the hands of this undemocratic combination Council/Commission.
Mr Mardell, why have you and the BBC never rang the alarmbells on this grave threat to 27 parliamentary democracies?
Complain about this comment
Hi im a Briton, quite proud of our Empirical past etc but the world HAS MOVED ON.
China and India are fast becoming the Leaders on an ever widening global stage.
If the UK ever wants to survive or be a part of the Future then it will have to evolve beyond nationalist ideals (tories, UKIP, BNP im speaking to U!). Sovereignty is not worth what will happen if Britian does not pull its act together.
I would like to point out to the Continental peeps on here that not all british people are secular minded, not all are Fascists.
Guys wake up to the Truth!
England...There never was, Frankish settlers arrived b4 the Romans, then the romans arrived and mixed their genes into the pool, then Vikings, then more Vikings and Germanic tribes, Celts and all manner of peoples! Then the Normans in 1066.
English is not english anylonger, never has, never ever will be!
Britain wasnt even that democratic..WOMEN ONLY GOT THE VOTE 80 YEARS AGO! and before the 1870s only the Aristocracy and Fat cats were welcome to vote.
The EU is nto a monster. Nor is it neo-soviet.
Many people have no idea how much it has impacted their lives. British agriculture would be non-existent now if it hadnt been subsidised in the 80s by the EU and there lots more things id love to remind u of but ive got 2 go and watch have i got news 4 u (lol).
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat, get over yourself. Just because some members of Nato choose not to keep finding bogeymen and enemies to attack "for the good of humanity" does not mean they are a joke. The fact is that a little investigation on your part would show you that they are far from that and one suspects that were THEY to be attacked you would find that they would more then hold there own against any bully. Just because some countries (especially Greece) are NOT american poodles does not mean they can't bite! By the way The days of getting an empire bigger then the Roman empire by just handing over a number of multi coloured beads to the locals is long gone....thats right there is more then one way to look at history.
Complain about this comment
Anyone notice the pattern here? In history, nearly every time a group of nations banded together to form an international powerhouse, a widespread war ensued. Political alliances never prevent war; they only encourage bigger and more powerful adversaries.
Another thought: according to the Bible, the joining together of nations in this manner is a foreshadowing of end times. Also, "there shall be wars and rumours of wars", according to the Book of Mark.
Just a thought that bears pondering.
Complain about this comment
I think that the idea of forging closer cooperation with Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova as well as Russia, Georgia and Armenia is not a bad think. Europe can be thought of in geographical or in cultural terms. From the latter view-point these countries are quite European, at least from an African, Middle East, Chinese or Indian perspective, for example. And as somebody already pointed out - numbers (population) matter. In a longer perspective, this may be an easy way to expand EU by another 200 million people and vast teritories.
I agree, though, that the Union as a whole, not a sub-union, should be involved in the decision making on ways of co-operation. The preparatory work, recommendations, studies may be done by current Eastern EU members.
cheers!
Complain about this comment
Gordon brown thinks he can win a 4th term hows that roy orbison song go dream dream dream lol The EU as sunk you your a joke gordon
Complain about this comment
we dont want EU
Complain about this comment
Georgia is not European. Geographically it is in Asia. Culturally it is Middle-Eastern. Some would affiliate Georgia with Europe because its religion is Orthodox Christian. However, there are a number of Christians in Syria or Ethiopia, which does not make them European in culture. Having said it, I should note that I do not consider European culture superior to other cultures.
Complain about this comment
Zhorka check your Geography and history on Georgia. It is partly in Europe, undisputable. History... well could be a matter of opinion, but go for the majority on this one.
Complain about this comment
Georgia is as European as Turkey
Complain about this comment
From my perspective, this is far more interesting than watching Gulliver deal with only two countries, Lilliput and Blefuscu. How many ways can Europeans rearrange their chessboard? How many combinations and gambits can they come up with? You can be certain that the French government has thought through every last one of them. Scheming, conniving, always the intrigue playing some off against the others to gain even the slightest advantage of the moment. So is the marriage with Germany on hold while France flirts with its neighbors on its southern borders to the left, right and south? What new arrangements can it dream up?
DutchNemo #21
The world is far more complex and different than you'd have it. Competition on a grand scale is not so much among nations as it is among multinational corporations which operate all over the globe. They manufacture where labor is cheapest and most disposable to produce their goods, engineer products where minds are keenest and best trained, and sell where there is the most money to be made from markets. In that sense, the US is not in competition with China and India the way Europe is. Many of these multinationals are based and run in the US. Europe's labor market is no longer very attractive, the EU has seen to that. Western Europe's vaunted social safety nets, the high taxes to pay for them, the rules and restrictions which make industrial flexibility which is a necessity to any business impossible, high wages paid in strong currency an unattractive manufacturing region especially compared to Asia in general and China in particular. Europe has no vast quantities of valuable natural resources to to exploit like Africa has. It doesn't have the technical prowess of America or Japan (still struggling to wire up a jumbo passenger airplane.) It doesn't have armies of software experts the way the US and India has. BBC's own web site problems which went unfixed for years is testamony to that. Frankly, it's hard to see where Europe has any niche advantage at all. Even in agriculture, it is inefficient being run mostly as vast numbers of small farms. Only the threat of world food shortages keeps that afloat but it cannot compete pricewise with say the Americans. So why would America want any part of it. America's new found business partners are in Asia. Europe is passe'. A Europe of blocs or a Europe of blockheads?
Complain about this comment
Not quite Zhorka. Georgians lived there for quite a while, and their culture is in the same spectrum as Europes. Plus, originally you said Georgia was not in Europe. You can't dispute geography. So, are you now arguing Georgia's culture and history are not European? Even though its people (at least partially were always even in the geographical Europe)? How are Georgians different from the Greeks for example in the way they fit into Europe?
Complain about this comment
Marcus you make a lot of comparisons about Europe. I think your point is that all these other countries are specialists in different areas, while Europe is a generalist... and to you it means that Europe is weak. I have to laugh. For example, look up the various extinctions in nature, or economic crises, any situations involving stress on an existing structure. The specialised organisms or structures go extinct, while the generalists like Europe survive adapt and take over. This is my comparison.
Complain about this comment
New Zealand's culture is predominantly European (with some maori influences, of course). As is Australia's... Canada's too...
So where does 'Europe' end?
Complain about this comment
Thank you Mark for the best blog ever.
It is difficult to know if Donald Tusk is kyke flying or not but I suggest that he is. As a European born near London and living near Barcelona, I am very proud if the progress that the European Community has made particularly in the last 20 years.
The Mediterranean is as immortant to the countries that border it, and always has been, as the North Sea / Baltic is to those countries to the North. As Rob_Hob says, it is the peoples of Europe that are important and leading the wave if intergration as the artificially created border crumble away.
However the relationship between North Africa Southern Europe is rather a special case. The Moors ruled much of Southern Spain for centuries and there are still great similarities between the South of Spain and modern Marocco. There is even a project to build a rail tunnel to link the two.
I have no idea where the Union will finish up. Maybe the old Roman Empire plus the Ottaman Empire plus Eastern Europe including the Russian Federation. Inpossible - Why?
To MarcusAureliusII I would say come and see, there are now direct flight from several US cities to Barcelona as to many other European Destinations. You would be very welcome and maybe learn a lot. You are about 20 years out of date mate.
Complain about this comment
Rob_Hob, that is not my point. You want a comparison in nature and natural selection? Survival of the fittest? Fine. Successful species survive and thrive because they have some advantage over their competition which gives them the edge at their competitors' expense. What is Europe's edge? Where does its advantage lie. Where some countries in Europe should have an advantage, they are diluted by being a small part of a huge aggregate bogged down by endless rules and taxes. Why for instance must UK taxpayers subsidize building roads and bridges in Hungary with nothing to say about it? To survive in economics, you have to produce. On a cost/risk/benefit comparison, Europe comes in far behind the leaders in every economic category. Were it not for having been nurtured by the US in what I call a protected economic hothouse where it was carefully and expensively rebuilt after WWII, given free access to the world's largest consumer market while able to protect its own domestic markets with high tarriffs, and largely freed from the cost of defending itself, it would be comparable to Latin America today. The hothouse is gone now and Western Europe must face the world's competing economies on an equal footing. Its political and social structures as well as its cultural heritige put it at a distinct disadvantage. Tony Blair said when he was President of the EU that he wanted to make Europe the best place in the world to do business. In fact it is far closer to the worst. You'd have to be out of your mind for example to invest in a business in France.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII,
'America's new found business partners are in Asia.' The economies of the Asia are fragile. Japan is in a longterm recession, China is instable/fragile and India hasn't even started to develop. The Asian Giants are only able to grow as long we in the West are able to consume what they produce.
'Europe is an unattractive manufacturing region especially compared to Asia in general and China in particular.' The European economies are specialised in products nobody else is able to produce. Take the European shipyards: a few years ago everybode agreed they were bankrupt and would disappeer in the near future. On this moment? The shipyards are expanding again. They're exporting and making profit again. Conclusion: they're fine. Nobody could predict this a few years ago.
'Europe has no vast quantities of valuable natural resources to to exploit like Africa has.' Europe has vast quantities of iron ore, coal, fertile lands, (decreasing)fishgrounds and minerals. The European continent is located between the huge Asian markets and Africa (which has huge quantities of natural recourses). We import African recourses to produce, for example, unique ships and export them to Asia. Let's not forget about the European consumers to: 732 million Europeans, 492 million citizens of the European Union, 90% is very/extremely rich and ready to buy.
'It doesn't have the technical prowess of America or Japan. It doesn't have armies of software experts the way the US and India has.' The USA doesn't have armies of software experts either. Windows Vista has mostly been developed in India or by Indians living in the USA (Green Cart). If we in Europe need more technical prowess we just import a few million Indian software experts (Blue Card).
They're still many problems: high taxes, high public debt, CAP, overfishing and a much to large and expensive nanny state. But problems can be solved. The USA has economic problems to.
Why the skepticism about Europe? Europe has changed since the last time you visited. Europe is still changing (for the good). Europeans don't dislike Americans, many Europeans dislike the current American foreign policy (a very small minority is just jealous). In the worst case they think Americans are nice people but badly guided by their politicians. Your information is clearly outdated. Come and visit us again. Your're welcome here.
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII:
What american propaganda are you eating? After the WW2 Europe wasn't utterly destroyed. Just to make a point, after the war 70 - 80% of German industrial capacity was still intact and usable. Yes, the cities and towns were in ruble, but most power stations, rail roads and factories were usable. The problems that emerged after peace was settled that the allies wanted and started to de-industrialize Germany and make it an agricultural state (See Morgenthau plan and JCS 1067). After there was some changes in US and allied leadership, Germany was allowed to recover and pull rest of the Europe with it. The recovery of Germany and Europe wasn't because of US aid, but because US stopped it's policy that prohibited Germany and Europe to recover. What comes to rest of your comment, it seems you really don't know economics nor history.
I don't know where even to start. Lets start from European industries. Europe produces and manufacturers a large variety of products ranging from industrial equipment to intellectual property. The reason why you and many other people see Europe's industry and economy so negatively is because most European heavy weight companies are in industrial and not in consumer business. Like how many have heard and know about of STMicroelectronics, BASF, Kone, Wärtsilä, ThyssenKrupp, Siemens, Alstom, Symbian, Areva, SAP, etc.. The fact of the matter is that Europe has large and variable industrial sector, it may not be as glorious or known as american consumer and media companies, but they too produce and are world class companies. It's weird that I'm even discussing this matter, it should be so obvious: a European company, BMW, makes the best cars in the world, and Nokia makes the best mobile phones in the world, end of discussion.
What makes Europe good now and in the future, is the European way of life which combines both individualism and collectivism into a workable balance. There is enough freedom for an person to live his life according to his and her own way, and enough solidarity to make sure everybody is taken care of and given a fair change to life.
Complain about this comment
Rob_Hop #37,
First, I can dispute geography (even though I find it a silly exercise). Whereas eastern border of the European continent is universally accepted (Ural mountains), the border on the south is not so obvious. The classical definition (e.g. in Encyclopediae Britannica) puts the border along Kuma-Manych Depression, which places all area between the Black and Caspian Seas in Asia. Georgia is deep in Asia according to this definition. Apparently you are accepting European borders sensu Wiki. In my opinion these are politically motivated.
Comparison of Greeks and Georgians is laughable. Greece is a foundation of Europe. Much of the European legacy came from Greece, first via Greece -> Rome-> Rest of the Europe connection, and later boosted by Renaissance. Nothing like that can said of Georgia. Their language is very distinct (not Indo-European), and so is their writing system. Most of their contacts throughout history were with Middle East. They did have some contacts with Greeks, and also were briefly a part of the Roman Empire, but so were other people in Middle East and Africa (Syria, Israel-Palestine, Jordan). Can Afghanistan be called European just because Alexander M. and British were there for some time? Christianity, which defines common European culture to some extent, was adopted by Georgia directly from Middle East, not via Europe, and so did not bring Georgia any closer to western European tradition.
So, to summarize, Georgia’s culture and history is not European. They have specks of European influence (incidentally, mostly via connections with Russia), but their history and culture is predominantly of Middle Easterm extraction.
Complain about this comment
#28 "Powermeerkat, get over yourself. Just because some members of Nato choose not to keep finding bogeymen and enemies to attack "for the good of humanity" does not mean they are a joke. The fact is that a little investigation on your part would show you that they are far from that and one suspects that were THEY to be attacked you would find that they would more then hold there own against any bully. Just because some countries (especially Greece) are NOT american poodles does not mean they can't bite!"
Oh really? Could I ask for specific examples of, Italian, Romanian, etc., military prowess in recent memory? ? Dates of battles won by the French against Nazi invaders, or by Greeks against Ottoman Turks?
Out of politness I won't mention a fact that just a couple of years ago mighty EU could not even stop a small local conflict in the heart of Europe (Balkans) and had to call US cavalry to the rescue. As usual.
Complain about this comment
Talking about borders to define Europe will be always a thorny subject.
Europe is more an idea rather than a locked geographical concept. Like someone said about the Euroepaness of New Zealand and Australia.
I've visited Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil and, indeed, you also find there "European" way of living.
As the Argentinian writer Borges once said "I am European, not American. My culture is European, nothing to do with the Precolombian Cultures natives in the American continent, which are the truly American cultures".
Coming back to the blocs: they are inevitable, since Europe is an open concept. As a Spaniard, I will always be more interested in cooperating with North Africa, remarkably Morocco, and Latin America rather than with Eastern European countries.
Spain shares these "geostrategic" concerns with other Southwestern European countries, above all, Italy and France: we all need a prosper Maghreb.
Germany and its "hinterland", on the other side, can work together in order to spread wellbeing until the Urals, the Caucasus or beyond.
One more thing: someone should ask Georgians if they identify themselves as Europeans. If they do so, like I guess, they are Europeans. What must count is the people's sense of identity. Geographic limits (see Cyprus case, which is technically in Asia) shouldn't apply.
Complain about this comment
DutchNemo
"The economies of the Asia are fragile. Japan is in a longterm recession, China is instable/fragile and India hasn't even started to develop. The Asian Giants are only able to grow as long we in the West are able to consume what they produce."
Very true. A downturn in the US economy will have a big impact especially on China. Europe's economies are also fragile. Many depend on exports to the US, if not directly then indirectly. In the short mild recession of 2000, America recovered far faster than Europe. All except the UK which was unscathed thanks to Thatcher's foresight years ago.
"The European economies are specialised in products nobody else is able to produce."
Pure rubbish. Most amazing of all, for the first time I saw American produced Roquefort cheese using the same cultures and conditions. Remarkably similar. Only one problem with it, it was more expensive than the original. Hopefully that will change. California's best wines are now superior to Frances. Not my opinion but that of a panel of French experts in a blind tasting in Paris a few years ago. It was reported by BBC. Very surprising. The shipyards probably survived because of orders from Carnival and Royal Carribean corporations and orders from Chinese shipping companies.
" Europe has vast quantities of iron ore, coal, fertile lands, (decreasing)fishgrounds and minerals."
Then why don't they use them. Russia can shut of their fossil fuels in a heartbeat. They are competing with the chinese in Africa for minerals. So why are they worried?
"The European continent is located between the huge Asian markets and Africa (which has huge quantities of natural recourses)."
Huge but impovrished. We send Africa billions in food and medicine so they won't starve or die. They are too busy fighting each other or dying of AIDS to make money to buy anything.
Let's not forget about the European consumers to: 732 million Europeans, 492 million citizens of the European Union, 90% is very/extremely rich and ready to buy.
Well I don't know how rich they are but what they are buying is mostly made in China. Clothing and electronics are virtually owned by the Chinese.
If we in Europe need more technical prowess we just import a few million Indian software experts (Blue Card).
Then why did it take BBC three or four years to fix its software disaster?
"They're still many problems: high taxes, high public debt, CAP, overfishing and a much to large and expensive nanny state. But problems can be solved. The USA has economic problems to."
Solved? I don't think so. Even Europe's favorite American candidate Barack Obama said Europe has a ticking demographic time bomb. When the most popular book in one of the largest nations and economies in the EU is "Bonjour Paresse" hello laziness and many of the best and brightest aspire to become mid level managerial flunkies in government while those with real ambitions leave for greener pastures elsewhere, there is no hope.
"Why the skepticism about Europe?"
It's not skepticism. It is recognition of the reality that Europe's opinion of itself and the image it tries to project is a pack of lies. Had I not seen it for myself I might not have believed it.
"Europe has changed"
Europe will never change. It is what it is. It has been this way for thousands of years. and it will stay that way.
"Europeans don't dislike Americans"
As long as they bring their Master Card, Visa, or American Express Card with them.
"Many Europeans dislike the current American foreign policy."
Too bad. It is the policy of a democratically elected government which is intended to serve its own population best regardless of the consequences to others. It's the same thing all nations do. America will not and must not Kowtow to European public opinion. Why should it?
"(a very small minority is just jealous)."
Hmm, at least about 99% of France. That is why they look for any and every sign of weakness or flaw in it. But the tide of emigration between continents is an ocean which perpetually flows the other way. Why?
"In the worst case they think Americans are nice people but badly guided by their politicians."
In other words Americans are stupid. After all those are the people Americans voted for, not just once but re-elected them. Has it occurred to you that Americans feel the same way about Europeans?
Jukka_Rohilla
I don't know what history you are reading but it is a fact that American GIs could get just about anything they wanted from Europeans after the war for a pack of cigarettes, a bottle of cheap perfume, a pair of nylon stockings, even a chocolate bar. Not just in Germany but in France, England, Holland, anywhere. When the war was over, Europe was crushed into the ground. Its population starving, its cities burned out hulks, it fields littered with dead bodies and unexploded munitions, it morale devastated. At first it was all the US could do to feed these millions to keep them from starving to death.
"Europe produces and manufactures a large variety of products."
Yes but by American standards, most of it is overpriced junk. It suffers the high cost of labor, high cost of materials, enormous taxes and regulations, a strong currency, and frankly often inferior engineering. I am well aware of many European manufacturers including many you mentioned. A lot of them bought foreign companies, and some of those companies were dogs. How nice to have seen Daimler buy Chrysler for 30 billion dollars and sell it for 6. Siemens and ABB each bought a piece of ITE. I'm well aware of BASF and SAP. On a sad note, Group Schneider bought Square D. I still buy that equipment anyway.
Personally I think the best cars are made by Lexus and Infinity. Accura too. And they are far less expensive than BMW. But a notch below and an excellent value for money are large American cars. Their reliability has improved enormously and they have all the comforts of the best cars. The one I missed an opportunity on, a fully loaded brand new 0 miles on the odometer (previous model year) Mercury Grand Marquis for $17,000 about two or three years ago from a local dealer. I don't think you could get a Nissan Altima for that kind of money. No other value quite like it I've ever seen. I just didn't need another car at that moment.
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII:
Oh god, read history please, seriously read history. The collapse of European industrial production and economy were more related to allied mismanagement and plundering of occupied countries. It just impossible to discuss about this in short when you need more or less need a book about history and economic theory to just model what happened. Basically in the US and other countries there was a large amount of people that wanted to punish Germany and Germans. Many people thought, like Morgenthau, that Germany should be passioned for ever by de-industrializing it. Some even suggested that all German males should be sterilized so to exterminate Germans and the threat they posed to world. Now what happened in the end was the decision to dismantle German industries both by moving factories off from Germany and destroying factories. In the same time it was thought that Germans should be educated by artificially lowering their standards of living much below their neighbors. To achieve this goal de-industrialization was combined with dismantling of monetary economy and sanctions trading. What this archived was rapid crumbling of German and whole Europe's economy, in 1945 there was enough food in Germany, but thanks to allied management in 46 and 47 there was a huge famine which killed millions of people. It should also be noted that after the war, Germany wasn't plundered just from equipment, but plundering also included intellectual property (Operation Paperclip) where competitors of German companies from allied countries came to Germany and confiscated all research done by German companies. You really have to read more than your high school history books to know what really happened.
Actually the second world war had more effects that are only today starting to disappear, mostly the effects of dis-integrated Europe and petrodollar. Now as Europe is being integrated into a one community under European Union, being the largest economy, it can influence trade negations effectively and enable more fairer stand for Europeans and European companies. This is a huge change as before, US had the position where it could dictate more or less terms, but now it just can't do what pleases it. Also as US oil production is declining, and Euro is gaining moment as an reserve currency, US no longer can print money without internal consequences. Currently 26,5% of reserves are in Euros and 63,3% in US dollars, as soon as this ratio comes closer to balance, the US loses the advantage that US dollar gave it EU countries, especially Euro countries, gain. It's also possible that Euro will takes dollars place completely in 2020 if all EU countries convert to Euro. That could mean that ECB could externalize inflation, in other words making the rest of world pay money to Europe as they are now paying to US.
In regards of American standards, it should be asked do Americans have standards when for American car companies it seems impossible to produce a car that goes to a curve without rolling over and exploding. And... well... Lexus is over glorified Toyota and Infinity is Nissan with an fake silver lining. Don't get me wrong, I love Japanese cars and how they make them, but Lexus and Infiniti are not best example of what Japanese car industry can produce, Mitsubishi EVO, Mazda RX-8 and Subaru Impreza and all reliable and economical compacts, but what they can't produce is pure luxury and pure driving experience. What comes to large American cars, I would never risk my nor my family's life by driving with one of them, nor would I feel any enjoy on driving with them. As I said earlier, going to an curve, rolling over and killing everybody, is not for me. Thought, maybe American car companies is not so beneficial when the average American consumers just wants a bigger car with an V8 that just burns fuel without any effect on delivered power.
PS. On a note about immigration. To recently many Europeans did indeed immigrate to US, but that is changing. Previously US companies and universities have offered bigger pay with less taxes and higher standards of living. Now thanks to US dollar plummeting the pay doesn't feel so huge after you calculate what heath care and educations costs, added to the fact that you more likely to be get shot. A friend of mine got an offer from an IVY league university to move to states to make an Ph.D. He refused in the end, an accepted an competing offer from UK because her wife, an American, didn't want to go back to states. Times change. It isn't of course all rosy here in Europe, but at least it's good and getting better.
Complain about this comment
"And many people in countries which contribute most to it in both blood and treasure (US, UK, Canada) don't think Mediteranean nations which contribute next to nothing and are militarily a joke (Greece, Italy, etc.) should be in it."
powermeerkat,
You're using false information and a misleading versions of historical events, in order to paint Southern European nations with a negative [and fallacious] image.
Actually, Greece and Italy are very active members of the NATO alliance, and Greece's military is by no means a joke for the country's relatively small size; it's widely regarded as a regional power in southeast Europe. Years of uneasy relations with Turkey have led Greece to invest heavily in defense; and they have one of the highest per capita expdenditures on defense. And Greece's geographical position has been of huge interest to the US and NATO throughout the Cold War as well as today. Don't forget the heavy US military presence in Italy (second in Europe after Germany) and the countless US naval and air force bases in that country; as well as Italian and Greek ports always acting as stopovers for the US Navy: Italy and Greece actually contribute *very heavily* to NATO.
However, strong public opinion prevents these countries from sending troops to some American-led ventures such as the invasion of Iraq, and rightfully so, as we all know this invasion was carried out under fabricated intelligence about WMD in Iraq (Italy -under Berlusconi- participated, but sent an incredibly small number of troops, due to widespread Italian public opposition to the war. Northern European nations, like the Netherlands, also sent incredibly few troops). Likewise, Canada and some northern European nations like Germany, openly opposed the invasion of Iraq, and Germany is also ambivalent about sending many troops to Afghanistan. Britain, where public opposition to the American-led invasion of Iraq was very high since the onset of the war (in contrast to public opinion in America which initially supported the war), also sent proportionally fewer troops to Iraq than the United States did; Britain could have sent more, but didn't. Refraining from sending significant numbers of troops to American-led ventures is hardly just a Southern European characteristic; it's also a very common Northern European tactic. In fact, people all over Europe -north and south- question NATO's existence today.
As for Europe's "dismal" response to the Balkans in the 1990s: the United States *also* refrained from significant involvement in the region until the Kosovo crisis of 1999: *very* belatedly. And during the bombardment of Serbia, the US was accused by other NATO members of taking it too far, and bombing countless irrelevant targets, ranging from bridges to civilian water supplies and radio/television studios, and incuding countless targets that were not military, and were very far from Kosovo.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
i loved the title of this blog update!
how many blocks will there be in the new europe?
thanks....
Complain about this comment
"As a Spaniard, I will always be more interested in cooperating with North Africa, remarkably Morocco, and Latin America rather than with Eastern European countries."
As a crude, primitive, uneducated Yank who is not a descendent of Moors I will eagerly await your next post from Sharia-based caliphate called EURABIA.
I do hope, though, it will not include yet another call for help from Great Satan.
I, for one, with many other US voters, will make sure that it'll not materialize.
Call president Chavez for help next time, or better yet - president/premier Gasputin. You know, the former (?) KGB chief who would gladly subjugate Eastern Europe again, including Georgia, if he only could.
--------------------------------------------------------
"WE NEED THOSE USEFEUL IDIOTS!"
(W.I. Lenin)
Complain about this comment
"Europe comes in far behind the leaders in every economic category. Were it not for having been nurtured by the US in what I call a protected economic hothouse where it was carefully and expensively rebuilt after WWII"
MarcusAureleiusII
Am i not correct in saying that..the EU has a higher GDP than the USA. USA is about $13trillion and the $EU's is 14+Trillion. And this affects world business markets so much that oil markets are cashing in their $$$ for €€€.
Also i remember that the US deprived the British Empire (including the UK) of aid after WWII so that America would prosper at British citizens expense (physical expense).
Complain about this comment
oh and MarcusAureliusII comparing America to Europe in Economic terms, THE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ON A MAJORITY HAVE FREE HEALTHCARE.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII,
'Russia can shut of their fossil fuels in a heartbeat.' Russia will never shut of its most important consumer. Without European money the rule of Czar Putin will be over.
'Yes but by American standards, most of it is overpriced junk.' Really? So why are companies like Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Total, Nokia, Siemens, Heineken, Nestle, Danone, Volkswagen, Unilever, Barclays Bank, RBS, Banco Santander, ING, Rabobank, Corus, Arcelor, Thales ect. making huge amounts of profit?
'Pure rubbish.' Then ask the Chinese to build dykes around New Orleans and watch them collapse. European, but also American products, are of high quality. China is producing the junk. Everybody can produce cars but Chinese cars will probably collapse while European cars and American cars are of much better quality.
' Even Europe's favorite American candidate Barack Obama said Europe has a ticking demographic time bomb.' That's very shortsightend of Obama. The European population will decrease and so will the world population (Europeon Union: 2022, world population: 2075). Europe's population will decrease from the current 732 million to 538 million in 2100. In 2300 we will have over 611 million inhabitants. Besides, the size of your population doesn't tell anything about your welfare. As soon the population of Germany and Japan started to decline their economy started to grow. Less people means you have to buy more, or more productive, machines.
The USA is a ticking time bomb to. Within 90 years the USA population will double to 600 million (immigration and high Hispanic/African-American TFR). The world doens't have the natural recourses for more then 400 million Americans so how can she feed 600 million?
'Hmm, at least about 99% of France'
Actually French people suffer from Anglofobia.
'In other words Americans are stupid.' No, everybody makes mistakes. The Germans made the mistake to elect Hitler. Does that mean all Germans are stupid?
This is the last I have to say about this subject. Your facts are about 20 years outdated. The world changes, America changes and Europe changes.
Complain about this comment
"We send Africa billions in food and medicine so they won't starve or die. They are too busy fighting each other or dying of AIDS to make money to buy anything."
MarcusAureliusII
Correction, the EU sends billions of aid to Africae. The EU is the largest donor of aid in the world.
Complain about this comment
When I first read of the 'Med block,' and the 'Eastern Bloc' I thought to myself, "Why not?" Such groups would test the fabric of the EU project, and if the project survives then Europe will be stronger. Primacy would be tested. Then I read on with growing alarm. Already large amounts of EU cash have been diverted to places outside the EU, such as the Canary Islands. Why? Why should participants pay anything to those who aren't? Compared with areas in the eastern new membership and even Liverpool, these are relative paradises. The whole management of the EU seems to use money for what may be legal but which are definitely corrupt purposes. I am movinv to the view that unless there is a timetable for a root and branch reform we should leave.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat,
Eurabia? Are you serious? Please, not that nonsense again. European Muslims are mostly secular and they're very diverse. Turkish Muslims are part of the liberal Alevi or Sufi sects while Berbers are more religious but not ultraconservative. Less then 10% prefers Sharia rule and less then 1% wants to impose Sharia on Christians and humanists. Besides, Muslims will never be a majority in Europe just like Hispanics in the USA. Turkish Muslims aren't able to replace themself and Berbers have a TFR slightly above replacement level. Muslim TFR is declining while native European TFR is rising. Islam is a part of Europe just like Christianity, humanism and Judaïsm.
'Out of politness I won't mention a fact that just a couple of years ago mighty EU could not even stop a small local conflict in the heart of Europe (Balkans) and had to call US cavalry to the rescue. As usual.' As far as I know NATO is responsible for the defence of Europe, not the EU (which tries to stimulate economic and political cooperation, not (yet) military cooperation).
Complain about this comment
Infering that from more cooperation with Maghreb we'll become Eurabia is simply understanding nothing, or even the opposite of my opinion.
A more developped North Africa means less immigration to Europe, and I think it is at odds further explanations.
I am afraid this person misunderstood in purpose my previous post in order to show his/her fears and prejudices, totally unrelated to what I wrote.
So apply yourself what Lenin said.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila
Actually the collapse of industrial production in Germany was related to the fact that the Americans and RAF bombed it around the clock. Every industrial installation was a target from ball bearings plants to munitions factories, to fuel storage and railroads. Germany was bombed to dust while many industrial plants around Europe were also damaged by the fighting.
I have no doubt that the American and Soviet governments plundered Germany not only for its industrail technology but for its best scientists and engineers. Actually they were quite happy to go. Why wouldn't they be happy to leave a graveyard. Who knows when America would have gotten to the moon were it not for Werner von Braun (although he learned much of what he knew in the early days from the American scientist Goddard whom the US military didn't take seriously.)
I wouldn't be to quick to be thrilled about a strong Euro. It puts European exporters and labor at a severe competitive disadvantage. Just ask Airbus.
Can America build a car which can go around a curve at high speeds without turning over? Yes, a Corvette for example. But the speed limit in the US is 65mph on major highways. A Lincoln Town Car or Chevy Caprice probably can't make a hairpin turn at 95 mph without turning over. Neither can most SUVs or minivans, their center of gravity is too high. Actually most cars made, sold, and driven in Europe could not be legally registered in the US because of their inferior standards. Those models made for export to the US (at least this is how it was, I haven't check in the last few years) were special export models with different lower emission higher power engines, special safety plate glass, and many other differences. Americans have very high standards, ANSI, ASTM, ASHRAE, API, NEMA just to mention a few. I am familiar with NEMA versus IEC. IEC was an electrical code invented in Atlanta Georgia after WWII for other countries where cost was a major consideration and lawsuits in the case of injury or death are not, the opposite of the US. For example, in many European homes, all appliances operate at 240 volts because it saves on copper. In the US it is 120 volts because the risk of death by electrocution is much lower. We are aware of ISO but rarely use it.
I think your notion that European emigration to the US is slowing or reversing is overly optomistic. They still seem to just keep coming. Same from everywhere else. Sometimes I think at any given moment, half of BBC's employees are in the US. Now what do you suppose they are doing in their spare time?
Complain about this comment
jameslikestheeu
You are correct, all of Europe put together has a larger GDP than the US. It also has far more people. By comparison it is significantly less efficient. If you included Asia with Europe, the total difference would be even greater.
BTW, Europe DOES NOT have free healthcare, nobody does. It just pays for it differently.
Complain about this comment
Dutch Nemo
"Without European money, the rule of Czar Putin will be over."
Russia will find it much easier and more convenient to export to China and even India than Europe. It will only have to deal with one or two entities and it will build pipelines directly without having to go through hostile countries like Ukraine and Estonia.
Why are so many European companies so profitable? Some like Shell and BP because the price of oil is so high although Shell got clobbered by Russia last year in a joint project Russia stole from them in the east. BP has had major problems in the US where its safety record is dismal. Criminal mismanagement resulted in a disasterous accident in Texas and they will pay record fines not to mention huge civil penalties in lawsuits. Others made a lot of money repatriating profits from abroad. They certainly didn't make much from their domestic investments.
"Within 90 years the USA population will double to about 600 million." Well assuming the world is still here in 90 years and this prediction comes true, the USA will still be practically empty. All you have to do is fly over it to realize just how vast and empty it really is. It becomes especially obvious once you get west of the Mississippi. It isn't until you get to the coast of California that you see high densities of people again. It doesn't matter what their demographic makeup is Dutch Nemo. By the second generation they are indistinguishable from all other Americans except by their physical appearance, their names, and to some degree their preferences for certain foods. In all other respects it is impossible to tell...on the telephone for example. The process of assimilation seems invariably just about 100% effective in one generation.
"French people suffer from Anglofobia."
Not according to BBC. They actually like the British people although for the life of me I can't see why :-)
"The Germans made a mistake to elect Hitler."
That's like saying accidentally walking off the roof of a 100 story building with a 1000 foot drop is a misstep. And I thought the British were the champions of understatement.
Complain about this comment
#57 "As far as I know NATO is responsible for the defence of Europe, not the EU (which tries to stimulate economic and political cooperation, not (yet) military cooperation)."
Nope, NATO is not responsible for protection of Europe from itself.
Traditional and clearly defined role of NATO has been to defend its members against attacks from the OUTSIDE
(primarily from Soviet aggression, so far); not to intervene in European internal, local conflicts, be that in Balkans, or in ...Belgium (if it errupts).
I think you also confuse a role of European Common MARKET with a role European SUPERSTATE ("United States of Europe", remember?), which, according to official proclamations of its leaders, should have had by now a common defense policy and a unified common defense force
("capable of rapid deployment" to boot) to "replace NATO, which outlived its usefulness". [sic]
However, so far, EU hasn't been able to agree even on a common energy policy, let alone foreign policy, although, I have to admit, its unelected leadership has agreed to create a position of a "Foreign Policy Coordinator".
"Islam is a part of Europe just like Christianity, humanism and Judaism"...
Nope, not yet, as far as I can tell, but if Islamic radicals in your midst have their way - it will be; and not only "a part".
And no, Islamists don't have to have numerical advantage: Bolsheviks and Nazis didn't have it either when they took over. All that was required was iron discipline and ruthlesness on their part and complacency of majorities which couldn't make themselves to oppose them decisively when there was still time.
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII:
For the last time, 70-80% of German industries were intact after the war. It's really hard to bomb a factory, and it's even harder to destroy it from air, let alone when talking taking a whole countries industries, let alone taking ones infrastructure. Please, go to English Wikipedia and search for article under "Industrial plans for Germany". And yes, most of the major German cities, thought mostly downtowns, were destroyed, but then again rural areas and smaller town were intact, and most importantly German industries were intact. Look, go find out.
It should also be noted that many German scientist and engineers didn't have any real choice to stay. In example Werner von Braun could have faced accusations of committing war crimes, as his colleague Artur Rudolph eventually did, if he had stayed in Germany or wouldn't have helped Americans. Now why do I find it so important to discuss about this issue? Personally I'm very sick and tired of hearing how the other side was the ultimate good guys and the other side were the ultimate bad guys. The fact of matter is that all countries committed war crimes, and if applied same standards to judge, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Churchill, Stalin, de Gaul and their subordinates would have been judged on war against humanity.
Now, world war two came and went. I'm not bitter about the conclusion nor about Americans taking part of it. Thank god you did as then Germans would have probably won or made an peace with Soviets eventually and whole Europe would have been undemocratic corrupted hell hole in that even. Europe does own a thanks for Americans on fighting Nazis and later on stopping Soviets, and thus saving democracy and human right in Europe. No question about that.
Now, I looked on a other post you had sent. I don't think that you understand on how difficult situation Russia is. Todays Russia is really afraid of China, they are worried the day China becomes a real superpower with abilities to perform military operations far away its borders. Their ultimate fear is that China will either directly invade Siberia or set up an armed local revolt that would form an independent Siberia loyal to China. For this and other reasons Russians don't sell fighters to Chinese that would have ability to strike Moscow. In the same time European Union is starting to flex its muscles, giving eastern European countries power to negotiate with Russia in more equal terms. NATO is near Russian borders, and if it would be up to US, Ukraine and Georgia would join NATO very soon. Of course European Union is for peace and prosperity in Europe and globally, and NATO is about common defense, but Russians have some historical paranoia about their European neighbors.
Now what does this mean in real terms? Well Russia has to balance between west and China, they have to keep their cards open in case one of the parties or both turns to sour. That is why Russian will sell oil to both Europe and China, the only situation where they wouldn't sell is under a threat of war. Thought current Russian regime is under power thanks to oil income, and if there is even a small time with out oil income, the regime will collapse. My advice to Russians would be to integrate with Europe and give up on their dreams of returning to a position of an world power. Russian people would perhaps be ready for this, but their rulers for sure are not.
And going back to Euro and Dollar. Having a strong Euro is not that bad, as stronger Euro means that imported oil and raw materials don't cost so much. Also as Euro is gaining strength as an reserve currency, it gives competitive advantage to whole Euro area. Of course European exports like BMWs to other countries come very expensive, but then again many European companies have either already production in US and China, or they are starting it. Yes, there will be some effects, but I would say that end result is that more European SMEs will diversify their production around world.
On American standards... Please... I don't know or haven't heard of anybody that has been electrocuted. I would say that Americans use 120 volts because Edison tried to scare hell out of them when marketing DC. DC originally offered was 110 volts, so I would say that this effected more that Americans have 120 and not 240 volts. Actually nowadays getting electrocuted is seriously hard as more and more houses have fault switches, that stop feeding power if there is any interruption or fault in electric device. It should also be noted that the reason European cars, mainly diesels aren't exported to US, is because US diesel isn't as low sulfur as in Europe, meaning that the cars can't handle emission standards of California. Also American consumer, or marketing directors of companies, are also to be blamed, as in example BMW doesn't export its diesel cars to US because it doesn't want their customers to equate their cars with tractors and trucks.
"Sometimes I think at any given moment, half of BBC's employees are in the US. Now what do you suppose they are doing in their spare time?"
Getting shot and car jacked because they used the wrong exit at freeway?
Okay, to be fair, I too have contemplated on going to US and studying an MBA in some of the better universities, and as dollar is weakening that is coming more lucrative. Still, I'm sorry to say, I wouldn't want to stay in US. I value personal and communal safety, public and equal health care and education more than having just more money. Lifestyle where I barricade to an suburban, drive to work with a tank being afraid of road rage and car jacking, being scared I get fired or become sick, being shafted out of health insurance or my pensions, is just not for me.
Complain about this comment
"Nope, NATO is not responsible for protection of Europe from itself.
Traditional and clearly defined role of NATO has been to defend its members against attacks from the OUTSIDE
(primarily from Soviet aggression, so far); not to intervene in European internal, local conflicts, be that in Balkans, or in ...Belgium (if it errupts)."
"I think you also confuse a role of European Common MARKET with a role European SUPERSTATE ("United States of Europe", remember?), which, according to official proclamations of its leaders, should have had by now a common defense policy and a unified common defense force
("capable of rapid deployment" to boot) to "replace NATO, which outlived its usefulness". [sic]"
powermeerkat,
Once again, you're using *partial* information to base your conclusions.
In the 1990s, there was a real effort in Europe to create a new -solely European- military alliance, to repalce NATO after the Cold War. It was called the WEU (Western European Union) which -as you mentioned- dates back to the protocols of the 1950s when the EU was in its infancy. After the Cold War ended, there was interest in Europe of reviving the 1950s defense agreements and creating a EUROPEAN alliance. Many nations had signed on, BUT THE UNITED STATES PRESSURED THEM TO SCRAP THE WEU, and convinced them that NATO still had relelvance and perfectly suited this role. The WEU was -de facto- scrapped. When the Kosovo crisis erupted, it was an opportunity for Washington to redefine NATO. Questions arose as to why Europe responded to poorly (despite the US's role in the demise of the WEU). The Europeans then started talking about a European "Rapid Reaction Force" that could handle Europe's internal conflicts like the ones in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, but with the US recruiting new NATO members from the former communist bloc, the Rapid Reaction Fornce -like the WEU- remained on the drawing board.
You can try -all you want- to portray Europe as some burden on an overworked America, but the reality that that *Washington* is using every means possible to keep NATO alive, and keeps trying to find relevance for it...perhaps this is because NATO serves the interests of *Washington* so darn well (military bases and potential missile program), that America needs NATO far more than Europe does. The US is the major driving force behind new recruits into the organization, who are joining for the incentives: fnancial aid for their militaries, and perceived stability which ensures foreign direct investment. Even at the reluctance of older NATO members, the US is adamant on expanding NATO up to Russia's borders. Hardly the picture that you are trying to paint, of a "dependent Europe" and an "overburderdened America".
Complain about this comment
"BTW, Europe DOES NOT have free healthcare, nobody does. It just pays for it differently"
Yes the government pays for it through higher taxes, or other means such as well, Smaller Military. Either way national (British/ French/( i think german) Health services) or regional health services are much much better than the American model. Ever seen the Michael Moore film Sicko, No? Well i suggest you watch it, or read a write-up, then comment about North European healthcare.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila
You don't think Hitler and the Nazis were the ultimate bad guys? Doesn't that get you dangerously close to denying the holocaust? Illegal in your country. You have to search the worst mass murderers in history to find anyone comparable. Stalin, Mao Tse Tung. Even Pol Pot and Idi Amin were pikers by comparison.
I agree with you on one point. I think you would be happier if you stayed in Europe. It seems to suit your temperment.
sky_eg
I don't know why the US needs Nato. It's supposed to be a mutual defense pact. America was attacked by al qaeda given sanctuary by the Taleban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. America's NATO allies with 2 million troops in uniform among them can't field 30,000 with sufficient equipment and put enormous restraints on most of them making them ineffective. With friends like that, you don't need enemies.
I am puzzled about one thing. France spends about 1/2 of its GDP, around one trillion of its two trillion dollars on medical care. Why so much? Are the French that sick? By comparison, I think the US spends only around a sixth.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurelius,
Even without much man-power from NATO allies, NATO is vastly useful to Washington's foreign policy, far more so than you'd think.
1. The United States has countless US military bases (and US troops) stationed across Europe -which has a geographical proximity to Russia and the Middle East. Europe acts as a logistical operations center, and the US bases in Europe (Italy, Britain, and especially Germany) have played a major role on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. Western Europe and Turkey have -throughout the Cold War- hosted US missiles aimed at the USSR, and now there's talk of a similar program, with the US "missile shield" based in the newer NATO members Poland and Czech Republic.
3. European ports (even French ports) harbour US navy ships on stopovers and NATO air bases do the same for the US air force. This is important, in an otherwise hostile region, as US military flights and ships cannot necessarily dock in North Africa. For both flight routes and shipping routes, Europe is on the path between the United States and the Middle East. Consequently, European NATO nations also lends airspace to US military flights toward the Middle East, and -if necessary- allow passage of US ships through their territorial waters.
4. The NATO alliance serves a PR role for Washington by legitimizing Washington's foreign policy based on the number of allies that back up Washington's stance on international affairs even if nominal and theoretical.
5. Washington can use NATO membership, or military funding for NATO members, or NATO political support for member foreign policies, as political leverage. One example -out of many- is Washington's precondition that new NATO member states agree not to extradite US nationals to the ICC.
Hence the reason why Washington strongly needs NATO.
As for the French health care system:
Actually, there was a recent report on CNN, and I remember they stated that the United States spend significantly more per capita on health care, than either France, Canada, or Britain. Yet, despite the huge amount of money thrown into US health care, people in France -generally- get much more out of theirs.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To MarcusAureliusII:
Well actually the only countries where it's illegal to deny holocaust are Germany and Austria if my memory deserves me right. In Finland, which is my home country, it isn't an illegal act, however I'm not denying that holocaust didn't happen: it did happen and there are amble of evidence of it. What I don't understand, and actually accept, is hiding behind holocaust as an final argument, or start comparing numbers on how many deaths has been caused by particular person or ideology: crime is always a crime.
Now where the Nazis and Hitler bad? Yes they were. Where the Soviets and Stalin bad? Yes they were. Where they the ultimate bad guys? No they weren't. Where Americans and Roosevelt good guys? Well, yes, but not exactly. You see, shades of gray. All sides committed acts, before, in and after the war that were war crimes, crimes against the humanity, it doesn't matter that the other side killed or plundered more, or used other tactics to kill. Crime is still a crime. If we want to live in peace with our history we have to acknowledge it fully, as if we don't and instead only see history as an black and white event, then we are continuing lying to ourself and thus not in peace with history.
Complain about this comment
Donald Tusk sounds like he's using Sarcozy's proposal to highlight damage done to cross Ukrainian/Polish relations since Poland accession into the EU and then ultimately since the shifting of the Schengen border up to Ukraine. Since then, Ukrainians have lost their right of easy and free travel between the 2 countries and businesses have been compromised on both sides of the border. Poland is also pushing for Ukraine's accession into the EU.
Complain about this comment
Re #67 "Western Europe and Turkey have -throughout the Cold War- hosted US missiles aimed at the USSR, and now there's talk of a similar program, with the US "missile shield" based in the newer NATO members Poland and Czech Republic."
As Ronnie Reagan would have put it:
"Here you go again!".
A possible deployment of 10 (ten) anti-ballistic interceptors in Poland ( nota bene closer to Sweden than to Russia) bears no similarity whatsoever to any Cold-War anti-Soviet effort.
1. AMD system does not and cannot target Russia or anybody else and has nothing to do with resurgent USSR II.
2. Small interceptors incapable of carrying any warheads (even conventional ones) have no offensive capability whatsoever.
Their purpose is to neutralize nuclear missiles launched northward by Middle-Eastern rogue states, such as Iran.
3. Anti-ballistic defense is purely US program and has nothing to do with NATO.
The only other country participating in AMD so far is Japan (because of the growing threat from Chinese and, potentially, North Korean nuclear missiles) with Australia considering joining the effort for similar reason.
4. A number of US military bases abroad is not increasing but shrinking as United States slowly but consistently acquires means of rapid long distance force projection.
And yes, planned base closures cause quite a panic in many a German town dependent on them for purely economic reasons.
5. US does not need any facilities in Europe to target Russia. They've had them for donkey's years much closer to Russian territory: MIRV-ed ICBM bases in Alaska, and X-band radars in Aleutians. Not that Russia (even in its putinesque, authoritarian form ) is considered at present a major threat to US or their interests.
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureuliusII
"I am puzzled about one thing. France spends about 1/2 of its GDP, around one trillion of its two trillion dollars on medical care. Why so much? Are the French that sick? By comparison, I think the US spends only around a sixth."
And i wouldn't be suprised if the USA spends 1/2 its GDP on its military.
"Why so much?"
For quality equipment thats free without the burden of life insurance or the lies that Bush aired about supporting Americas heroes after 9/11. He claimed to support the heroes for as long as they live, but in Michael Moores Sicko you can see that the woman with the 9/11 asthma problem has to pay $120 twice a week for her medication, which costs a measly 6p in the UK or 7c in the EU. The US govt doesnt pay for it, no, she does.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat,
I can proudly say that I am *not* well versed in Reagan one-liners.
Regardless of what the missile shield program's [stated] intentions and incapabilities (and I specifically called it the missile SHIELD program), how it compares and contrasts with Cold War-era programs, and who it is intended to target, Washington is relying on new NATO members in Eastern Europe; hence a heavy reliance on the NATO alliance.
Japan and Australia are also in NATO-like military alliances with the United States; and in fact, Washington uses similar political leverage tactics within its bilateral and multilateral relations in East Asia, not only militarily, but politically and economically as well. Washington needs these nations just as much as it needs NATO for its foreign policy goals, stated or otherwise.
The *proposed* base reduction in Germany includes -but is not limited to- some US bases trasferring from Germany to newer NATO members. Europe's role within US foreign policy doesn't change much; the continent's logistical and geographic roles remain intact. NATO's European leg remains of immense importance to Washington, otherwise Washington wouldn't have such a heavy concern for internal European affairs, ranging from European military alliances as discussed above, to American support for Turkey's EU accession.
During the course of the past several decades, the United States has built a global military presence serving its foreign policy. This global presence requires upkeep and maintenance, including political methods to maintain the status quo through changing times.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid the strong support for Turkey's EU accession by US, is not doing a favour to that country.
Although I support Turkey joins the EU, the American pressure is counterproductive for the Turks.
Like or not, this is perceived as an intolerable intromission in European affairs, at least across the so-called Old Europe.
Like it was the American pressure to Europe in order to accept Ukraine and Georgia inside NATO. Well, this policy failed.
Hope presidentiable Obama will improve Transatlantic relations.
Meanwhile, good luck to my Turkish friends.
Complain about this comment
I don't know who we are defending with these military bases. Certainly not the US. I don't see any reason for the US to defend anyone else. If Japan feels threatened by China or North Korea, let them build their own nuclear arsenal, they have the largest stockpile of plutonium in the world. I'll bet in 5 or 10 years, they'd have a nuclear arsenal to rival Russia's and America's if they wanted one. Let Europe defend itself and its sources of oil in the Middle East. The US has enough coal, uranium, and probably enough undiscovered oil of its own to be independent.
jameslikestheeu
I think the US spends around 4 or 5 percent of its GDP on its military. Probably about 500 billion in a thirteen trillion dollar economy. A lot of it is spent on salaries. Even so, it's probably more than the rest of the world combined. After Pearl Harbor, it's important for the US to have the most powerful military in the world. Too bad even when we are attacked, our politicians don't have the political will to use even a small fraction of its potential to obliterate America's enemies.
BTW, as I posted elsewhere, there is no such thing as free health care. Everyone pays for it one way or another. It is America's system of paying which is broken, not its health care system. There are no thousands or millions dying in the street for lack of health care because they can't pay. Not even illegal aliens.
powermeerkat
many in Europe and Russia hope the US is struck by a violent act of aggression. They do not want to see the US deploy a defense which might be effective let alone launch a pre-emptive strike to prevent an attack. We really don't need these people. They aren't worth defending. The best way to protect ourselves against a nuclear strike from Iran is to see to it that Iran never acquires nuclear weapons...no matter what that takes.
Complain about this comment
"US pushing for Turke's membership in EU".
As a long time student of Turkish affairs and a frequent visitor to that country I have to say there is no point of Turkey seeking membership in European Disunion.
It should instead create a Confederation of Turkic Republics with Ankara as its hub, combining huge resources (oil/gas) of Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan with Turkey's technological prowess and its 1 million strong army, leaving impotent EU at a mercy of USSR (under reconstruction).
Complain about this comment
"I don't know who we are defending with these military bases. Certainly not the US. I don't see any reason for the US to defend anyone else."
Marcus Aurelius,
The primary purpose of these military bases is to enforce US foreign policy and American economic and geopolitical interests.
Complain about this comment
I've been recently in Istanbul and didn't get the impression people there dream for a turcophone Union from Thrace to Xinjiang.
By contrast, there's still an overwhelmig aspiration to become a EU member.
I haven't been beyond the Bosphorus, but Turkish polls show most people want to become EU citzens, otherwise Erdogan would have cut off talks to EU over Turkey candidacy.
Turks may be sometimes put off by the oposition from some EU countries like Germany, France, Netherlands or Austria. But they take into account the support from others, remarkably UK, Italy, Spain and even Greece.
Turkey is a vital ally to EU. Its geostrategical position is fundamental for Europe, also in the unlikely event of a Euro-Russian confrontation.
Complain about this comment
t
Complain about this comment
This thread doesn't seem to be working.
Complain about this comment
Re #78 "Turkey is a vital ally to EU. Its geostrategical position is fundamental for Europe, also in the unlikely event of a Euro-Russian confrontation."
So it is, but don't convince me: convince short-sighted leaders in Berlin, Paris, Hague and Vienna.
As for "unlikely event of a Euro-Russian confrontation..."
What do think those new tanks and other conventional heavy weapons displayed today at Red Square again, after 20 years hiatus, are being built for by Russia's KGB rulers?
For a land invasion of US, Canada or Japan?
And why has Moscow recently suspended its participation in CFE?
To be able to move its troops to Island?
Complain about this comment
What a about land invasions of Central or South Asia, as Russians already did with Afghanistan?
Fears for Russians come mainly from the South: Chechnya, Ossetia, Ingushetia, Dagestan and the former Islamic USSR states. Islamist extremism is Russia's main concern,
Georgia is another question: the've got inside Kosovo, er, sorry, I meant Abkhazia, a de facto Russian province.
By the way, was not Bush who said that missiles to be installed in Central Europe would not point Russia, but Iran? Does he really know geography or just think Russians don't?
Complain about this comment
Re #82
Yep, "W" knows his geography. But you obviously don't know anything about military matters, particularly AMD.
And that's why you cannot comprehend that interceptors by definition cannot point at any country and they can't carry any warheads; and that heavy tanks and howitzers are useless against mountain guerillas.
And before mentioning an alleged threat to Russia from such minute republics as Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia learn some history of the region.
Perhaps then you'll start to wonder what Russians are doing in Caucasus in the first place. A hint: they have about as much right to be there as Moors to be in Spain. But then, judging by your comments about EU's alliance with North African countries, you wouldn't mind a return of the latter at all, would you?
[I recall that some Moors have already visited Madrid railway station about 2 years ago]
Complain about this comment
Re#77... "The primary purpose of these military bases is to enforce US foreign policy and American economic and geopolitical interests."
It is comments like this which make me and not only me regret that after WWII we haven't let Soviets protect Western Europe by allowing them to establish military bases all the way from Frankfurt to Lisbon (as Stalin had planned).
And instead of creating Marshall Plan haven't allowed you to benefit from a Molotov plan.
You'd obviously be so much better off if not forced to buy inferior American goods and technologies at gunpoint.
Sorry about that!
Fortunately now you're being forced to buy superior goods and technologies from GAZPROM (which holds you by short and curlies).
So, hopefully, not everything is lost.
Complain about this comment
R 83 [I recall that some Moors have already visited Madrid railway station about 2 years ago]
Your bad taste irony has no limits in calling "visit" what was the most lethal terrorist attack in modern European history.
You also show total ignorance over dates: this attack took place in 11th March 2004, so more than 4 years ago, and not 2 years ago as you wrongly again point out.
You finally "forget" to add that this attack was a direct consequence of the irresponsible and illegal invasion of Iraq.
Complain about this comment
Take Eurovision into account, for example. Those who have watched the song contest before may infer from the results of televoting that there is already a Europe of geographical blocs, at least when it comes to Eurovision.
According to the rules of the contest, each year a country grants points to the entries of 10 other countries. The usual trend is that neighbours exchange their points.
I do not wholly know of this year's entries, but I can predict that Turkey will give her points to the neighbouring Balkan (Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Bosnia i Herzegovina, Greece) and Caucasus (Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia) blocs.
But of course, Eurovision is not EU.
Complain about this comment
# 83 .." Perhaps then you'll start to wonder what Russians are doing in Caucasus in the first place. A hint: they have about as much right to be there as Moors to be in Spain"
Russians are living in Caucasus. And they have as much right to be there as US-americans have right to be in California or Texas.
Complain about this comment
In the USA people make jokes about Poles; in the EU Poles make jokes about themselves.
Complain about this comment
Turkey giving twelve points to Greece in Eurovision?
You sure about that AgaeansArk??
Complain about this comment
More about blocs;
If I'm not mistaken, when you go to the main train station in Göteborg, Sweden, you may see that Stockholm, Oslo and Copenhagen are among the listed domestic travel destinations, whereas e.g. Krakow is among the international ones.
At yaasehshalom, 89
If the Greek entry is a good one (extra points if it includes similar Anatolian tunes), why not?
For you I have searched for the results of televoting (2003-2007) between Turkey and Greece. If not twelve, the latter has so far received non-zero points.
Pts given to Greece by Turkey:
4, 10, 12, 4, 4
Pts given to Turkey by Greece:
7, 6, 0, 3, 0
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat,
I'm sorry the discussion was dragged to US foreign policy, but I'm not the one who steered it off on this tangent. Mark's blog is about regional blocs in Europe, but then someone mentioned a bloc that would include the US and exclude several European nations, and the tangent went off from there. I have nothing against Americans...I have dual US and EU citizenship, born in the US to European parents, and I grew up on both sides of the ocean.
Sometimes it's impossible to have a frank discussion with Americans on international relations. You are the perfect example: your entrance to this discussion was announced by your dismay at how the rest of the world [supposedly] is either out to get you or to take advantage of you...and then you get defensive when someone suggests that American foreign policy has some degree of self-serving political and economic interests behind the "freedom and democracy" rhetoric. No one in Europe walks around hating America all day. But when you make outlandish statements at how the US-Europe relationship is a one-way street which only benefits Europe and burdens America, then you merit a little lesson on American foreign policy:
The reality is that post-WWII American foreign policy has been a mixed blessing. On one hand, Washington -thankfully- kept the Soviets contained, and America's internal democracy inspired pro-democracy movements in many other countries around the world. But on the other hand, Washington had a covert foreign policy of propping up friendly dictators in the Middle East or financing and training right-wing death squads in Central America's civil wars. Or let's focus specifically on Europe: on one hand, Europe gets Marshall Plan aid to recover economicaly from the war, but on the other hand, we have Washington collaborating with right-wing dictator Franco in Spain during the Cold War (who was a Hitler ally during the 1930s-40s), and we have Washington supporting a right-wing military coup in Greece in 1967.
Often times, American foreign policy covertly does things that contradict Washington's stated goals of "safeguarding freedom and democracy". And the reason for this is because America -like every other country- has its own national interests which will take priority over -say- peace and/or democracy in a foreign country; the "freedom and democracy" rhetoric is just a PR effort aimed at legitimizing its foreign policy. And that is exactly the purpose of America's global military presence.
I'm not saying that the USSR was better; I'm not saying that China will be better; I'm not saying that the European powers didn't do the same in Africa a few generations ago. What I'm saying is that America always acts in its own itnerests -and this sometimes benefits other countries, and sometimes it *disadvantages* other countries. Remember, that Saddam Hussein was once a close American ally and his gross human rights violations were overlooked by Washington because he was willing to invade and fight Iran (whom America was covertly selling arms to). Remember the Iran-Contra scandal? Of course you don't, because it doesn't fit into the "America saves the world" narrative.
If America's global military presence was truly a burden without benefits to US foreign policy, then Washington would have closed its overseas bases and brought its troops home many years ago. But America benefits immensely from its bases scattered around the world, and America has -at times- taken great lengths to prevent the formation of regional economic blocs or military alliances that would undermine American dominance in the respective region. I already gave the example of the WEU (European military alliance that was to replace NATO in the 1990s); the US has also botched the Japanese-Korean effort to create an East Asian version of the European Union, again, because it would undermine America's political dominance in that region.
Complain about this comment
#91 skye_eg ,
I totally agree with the points you made: balanced, illustrative and respectful. Also, being Euro-American makes you very suitable for this response.
Complain about this comment
Fair enough then AA! I've gotta admit I'm quite surprised :D
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS