Posted on 12/24/2003 8:00:21 PM PST by Shermy
American policymakers should now proceed on the long-term assumption that a European superstate, with a common foreign and military policy, is not going to emerge. The collapse of the constitution conference and talk of a "two-tier" EU means unity has been abandoned. The joint decision of the French and German governments to destroy the stability pact that underpins the common currency must, in the end, mean the destruction of the euro as well. Smaller countries, such as Portugal and the Netherlands, have endured considerable economic pain in order to hold to the rules or have been massively fined for minute infractions.
Now the two biggest EU powers have engaged in a joint conspiracy to not only break the rules but also insist that in their cases the stability pact does not apply. At a stroke this kills the egalitarian basis on which the EU is supposedly founded. It echoes George Orwell's sinister tale Animal Farm about the evil pigs: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." France and Germany have emerged as the big bullies, the lawless thugs that terrorize the European street--as, of course, they have done in the past. France, under Louis XIV and Napoleon, and Germany, under Bismarck, the Kaiser and Hitler, were guilty of greedy wars of aggression, causing the smaller countries of Europe repeated suffering. Now, at the bidding of the Paris-Berlin axis, these countries are to suffer yet again.
Corrupted by Lawless Paris
But there are differences. France is undoubtedly the senior partner in this fraud. President Jacques Chirac has long regarded France as being above the EU's rules and has authorized blatant defiance of them on a score of occasions. Germany, on the other hand, being a law-abiding nation except when under control of a monster, has been punctilious in keeping the rules up to now.
Unfortunately for the French, Germany, now that it has been unleashed from moral restraints, is unlikely to end its defiance with the stability pact. There is rising resentment among Germans that their country is by far the largest net provider of EU funds, while France, though rich, is one of the largest recipients, through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the most generally hated institution in the union.
The Germans are feeling the pain of a stagnant economy, an overvalued euro, actual recession in many sectors and a dramatic collapse in East German property values. A number of German banks are technically insolvent, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to borrow the money necessary to keep German industry up to date. Given these circumstances, Germany's funding of the EU makes no sense to the German taxpayers or to the politicians who represent them. Now that Germany has blatantly broken the rules over the stability pact, what is to prevent it from reneging on EU payments? Nothing.
Coming Unstuck
If Germany cuts off its funds, various EU doles that hold the union together--not least of which is the CAP--will become bankrupt. The CAP was France's original economic reason for creating the EU. Without it, the smoldering rage of French farmers may well burst through the thin crust of France's pseudodemocracy, encouraging other disaffected groups (which are legion) to take to the streets, roads and harbors--possibly to be joined by France's Muslims, who now constitute close to 10% of the population and are huddled in poverty in slums on the edges of France's cities.
I've always maintained that the moment France finds theEU to be no longer of use, it will break it up. A German revolt against the payments system could provide that moment. Hostility to the EU is rising in France anyway, to the point where no referendum on the proposed EU constitution can be held there for fear it would be voted down heavily.
U.S. policymakers' aims should be to forge close links with in-dividual countries that have strong common interests with America in wide areas of policy. Such nations include Britain, obviously (though not Ireland, which is sure to do the opposite of anything Britain does), Spain and Italy. The latter two are deeply resentful of French-German behavior and are anxious to have a powerful friend outside the EU to redress the internal balance of power.
There are other states the U.S. should cultivate in this new situation. Poland is still afraid of both Germany and Russia and regards the U.S. as an essential ally in times of trouble. Then there are Denmark, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria--all of which have good reason to fear Franco-German bullying and are eager for a close friendship with the world's policeman. And if, as I predict, a split opens between France and Germany, astute U.S. policy could persuade Germany to become again, as it was in the days of Konrad Adenauer and Willy Brandt, a reliable American ally. That would complete the isolation of France and severely inhibit its ability to sabotage America's war on terrorism.
In the meantime, the U.S. should keep a tight grip on NATO (news - web sites)'s plans and strategies, ensuring that no sensitive information passes into channels to which the French military has access. The U.S. should also increase its intelligence efforts in Paris and Berlin.
Paul Johnson, eminent British historian and author, Lee Kuan Yew, senior minister of Singapore, and Ernesto Zedillo, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, former president of Mexico, in addition to Forbes Chairman Caspar W. Weinberger, rotate in writing this column. To see past Current Events columns, visit our Web site at http://www.forbes.com/currentevents.
Michael, what's up with this? The Russians themselves admit that Reagan's policies broke them. This is not to say that others were not involved and do not have credit coming to them. But to say that Reagan was not one of the most important players in this respect is just not correct.
Nobody says this. There were many many people and different American Presidents that contributed. We are all aware of this. 'Ich bin ein Berliner' anyone? Do you think this is lost on anybody here? The Berlin airlift was also a key moment.
And I would remind you that you are a Freeper as well. So, it isn't 'you Freepers'. You are one of us. Don't create a dichotomy where one need not exist... It just isn't wise. It is better to discuss matters where we agree. This is what friendship and alliance is all about. Focusing on our differences is a recipe for more disagreement. You are a Freeper too.
Historical determinism, or the idea that history somehow has a natural ("scientific") direction of its own, is an old Marxian fallacy. History doesn't decide anything, people do.
And Reagan was not only one of such people, in the case of the coup de grace dealt to the Soviet system he was DA MAN.
It wasn´t that bad at all that the left here got a chance to govern.
Ever after the WW II the Left were the real elite of West Germany, with a status similar to that of aristocracy of the time of Frederich the Great. Their very specific, German kind of Marxism was regarded as true polar opposite to Nazism.
Etablierte Linke dominates German universities, where it repoducts itself and populates the offices of the country with its disciples whose main political task is to uproot 'reactionary ideas', that is any conservative or right wing ones.
You see, they still believe in Germany that Nazism and fascism were extreme right movements. In reality however they were... er, read my tag-line.
Of course, history cannot change the past. But he who controls the history holds the key to the future (Orwell). People learn, don´t they? We learn by judging actions of the past in the present. That´s what we´re doing in this case, too.
We´re judging Reagans policy of the past TODAY. And we must come to the conclusion that many factors were decisive for the end of the Soviet Union. If it were not for Gorbatchov, the Communist Empire could still exist - because of a bloody oppression of its people. Economic collapse doesn´t mean political collapse.
I was a child during Reagans presidency, I´ve only heard from TV and books of his presidency and the criticism he faced by the Left.
By admitting that he was not the main player in the end of the soviet empire, which is a matter-of-course because he wasn´t in office then, you are in no way giving him less credit than he deserves. We can say that the Soviet Union would not have fallen so fast if it were not for Reagan. But we can also say that the Soviet Union still could exist if it were not for Gorbatchov and Bush.
Ever after the WW II the Left were the real elite of West Germany, with a status similar to that of aristocracy of the time of Frederich the Great.
Hardly. Adenauer ruled for 14 years, that was longer than Hitler reigned. Until the 70´s, the Conservative-Liberal people had a structural majority in our society.
Etablierte Linke
They´ve NOW lots of power here, but not back in Adenauers times.
My personal theory regarding extreme left and extreme right is that we can view the political ideas as a circle. Let´s say those who want the most freedom (pure capitalism, no state authority, anarchism) are at 360°. Then those who want most of state control, the totally socialist/communist state are at 180°. I´d say that the Left and extreme Right would be at 200° respectively 160°, and the normal Democrats/Republicans are at ca. 335-350° respectively 10-25°. Well, this is just my idea on how to deal with the terms Left/Right. In the end, both (extreme "right" and extreme "left") want the state to control it all - and the state would be governed by a few dictators.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.