Regards, Ivan
Posted on 07/18/2004 2:58:38 PM PDT by MadIvan
If the neoncons make it back to the White House, the old world is history
WHILE EUROPE sleeps, plans for its marginalisation in world affairs move forward. Europe’s leaders ignored the scribblers that inhabit the Washington think-tanks when those scholars were developing the neoconservative foreign policy ideas that eventually became the Bush doctrine. Now, they are again blind to a gathering storm that may wash away their dreams of playing a consequential role in the 21st century.
It matters little whether George Bush or John Kerry occupies the White House after this November’s election. Both are bound by one hard fact: for Americans, September 11, 2001, changed everything. Yes, Kerry is gambling that he can persuade France and Germany to be more agreeable in dealing with the US. He will probably fail, given France’s long-held policy of forcing the US to seek approval from the the UN Security Council, in which France wields a veto, and rampant anti-Americanism in Germany.
But no matter: there is little difference between Bush’s declaration: “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country” and Kerry’s statement: “We will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake . . .”
Which should give pause to those in Europe who are chortling over Bush’s belated appeal to the UN for assistance in setting up elections in Iraq, and his request that Nato contribute something to establishing security in that terror-bedeviled country. It is indeed true that the Bush Administration has learnt, to its surprise, that the UN possesses a sort of international moral authority. This, the Administration now recognises, makes it impossible for the US to withdraw from the UN, even though Bush and his top advisers know it to be corrupt and dominated by nations whose leaders fear democracy. After all, an agency that loots the proceeds of Iraq’s oil sales, puts Colonel Gaddafi in charge of its human rights programme, and stands by as Sudan’s Arabs slaughter their non-Arab fellow Muslims, hardly warrants being treated as a moral exemplar.
But Bush now concedes that the UN is so regarded. However, Europeans who think that this bodes well for them had best think again. With withdrawal impracticable reform becomes essential to American security. Bubbling up in the think-tanks of Washington, in policy discussions with Republicans gearing up for a second Bush term, and in meetings with politicians already preparing for a run in 2008, is a new thought — every bit as revolutionary as the proposals that emerged from the neoconservatives in the run-up to the 2000 presidential race. New, and blindingly simple.
Reform the international institutions of which America must remain a part. Start with the UN. The European Union’s constitution calls on member states to “unreservedly support . . . a common foreign and security policy . . .” Moreover: “When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the UN Security Council agenda, those member states which sit on the Security Council shall request that the union minister for foreign affairs be asked to present the union’s position.”
Better still, goes the talk around Washington seminar tables, have the minister replace those EU member states that sign the new constitution. Exit France as a permanent member, and European nations as rotating members of the Security Council. If they are to be permitted any representation other than through the EU, it will be as members of the 191-nation General Assembly. Enter India, with a population of more than one billion, more than twice that of the expanded EU.
The Bush team believes that such a reform would be enormously attractive to developing nations, a fact that cannot be lost on whoever would be helping Kerry to find a way around French and German obstructionism.
WHERE DOES that leave Great Britain? If, as now seems likely, British voters reject the EU constitution, and Britain retains control of its foreign policy, the UK would retain its permanent seat in recognition of its independent foreign policy and its importance as a US partner in the maintenance of world order. But were it to adopt the constitution and the euro, the pressure from America to drop it from the UN, and to restructure still another international organisation, the G7, to exclude currency-less nations, would mount. Only the US, EU, China and Japan would be able to influence interest and exchange rates, and meetings without Chirac and Schröder in attendance would certainly be more pleasant, although Bush would regret the absence of Tony Blair! Next in line for reform is Nato, which Europe has starved of resources. The redeployment out of Germany of half the US force stationed there is the first step in reducing America’s commitment to Nato. Resources will instead be concentrated in such “coalitions of the willing” as will emerge, and in implementing regional pacts in Asia and the Middle East. The Franco-German decision at the recent Istanbul summit to deny Nato a significant role in training Iraqi defence forces may have been the final nail in the coffin of Nato as we now know it. Since “Nato has not kept its promise” in Afghanistan, according to The Economist, there will be few mourners at its funeral.
If all of this sounds far-fetched, remember how implausible it seemed just a short time ago that America would invade Iraq over the opposition of the UN, that Bush would defend pre-emptive strikes against America’s enemies and that America would decide that spreading democracy is in its vital security interests. Europe slept through that neoconservative revolution in American thinking, and is contentedly dozing through the further revolution that is now in mid-gestation.
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
BTTT
there is little difference between Bush’s declaration: “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country” and Kerry’s statement: “We will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake . . .”
Little difference?
One is President of the United States,
the other is a pandering hack who's history is one
of saying ANYTHING to be elected.
LOL! France, Germany and the UN have already played their hand. Bush trumped them all. Go Bush! Dump the UN!
Regards, Ivan
Regards, Ivan
Sounds like a plan.
Europe is a continent in decline. With an aging population, declining birth rates, and an expensive social welfare system that limits defense spending, Europe is becoming less and less influential as a global power. They also have a distorted view of the world, a product of living under the US security umbrella for sixty years. This is not a matter of Europe dozing through a revolution, but rather, real politic.
There is a huge difference: Kerry will be far more reluctant to conclude 'our safety is at stake.'
Hey Ivan,I wonder how many reading this,besides you and I,know what I meant by that. LOL
That kind of behavior is evident in even his everyday conversations. If he were addressing "Old Europe" it would be a different story altogether.
Not sure, shall we tell them? :)
Regards, Ivan
Winston sends a message to the Nazis...
No one can be this stupid unless they're getting their political advice from "Sex and the City".
No,please don't. This'll be our private "joke".:-)
Regards, Ivan
A logical outcome. And very wise!
I've got to say, Ivan, you post some great articles I wouldn't otherwise see. Thanks.
Ahh, you see that too. :-)
Kerry is so phony and transparent, it's beyond pandering.
I agree, start cutting funding and watch it wither to nothingness.
I do :)
France and Germany become mere states in the EU. They are thus reduced to the same level as Massachusetts. Voila, they become irrelevant on the world stage. Nice.
However, I doubt the creeps at the UN will allow this to happen. Those creeps need the likes of the French and Germans.
Nah, The Germans would be the ruling people in the EU.
yes.. please dont tell.. its private like you say. much to public already.
Lemme guess. mmmmm .. the index finger is redundant? Or the 'V' is facing towards Churchill?
I used to think that the stupidest thing Bush proposed was his illegal alien amnesty propasal.
I was wrong.
His worst idea was/is to try and pressure the Europeans to take Turkey into the European Union. Notwithstanding the fact that 90% of Turkey is in asia, his idea would immediately move the Islamics from a troublesome 3-5% of europe's population to something like 15-20%, overnight!
AND GROWING!
So what's better..a declining sleepy Europe, or a revitalized Islamic Europe.
a bit far fetched, but given the disasterous birth rates in western europe, 20% could grow to 51% PDQ.
I dunno.. seems to me it's the same damn thing.... Americans do the heavy lifting, while the the rest either meagerly help or vehemently critique.
Not so private. We use the (one) middle finger over here.
The Turks are already pouring into Europe as guest workers. There are at least 120,000 Turks in Berlin (Gasterbeiter) and 2.6 million in Germany alone. With the formation of the EU and the Mastricht Treaty, most of the countries in Europe have lost control of their borders.
I like your site. But, the very freakiest freaks become apparently normal, and can no longer identify with freakiness. What to do?
Being a Goth is freaky. Try being a conservative one...and you'll be called a freak by fellow freaks. ;)
Regards, Ivan
Exactly! :-)
And I love your nic! :-)
Ultimately there is little difference for EU. If Kerry is elected he will either continue W's war l=olicy or he won't. If he dismantles our side of the war he will also dismantle the Patriot Act or will turn it against the "militias" (which will include most radio talkers). The paynim will gain in strength and in countries under their sway and will hit us with several mega-911s. Kerry will then act and it will be blind swinging and will probably include a universal draft that will put 50% females in all combat roles and 10% homosexuals and it will include a formal Declaration of War Which will constitute a government takeover of the allocation of resources a la WWII. EU will find itself shoved behind the door and won't even register as it whines and complains.
If a presidential candidate were to come out unequivocally for the US quitting the UN and for the UN to be booted out of the US, that hardy soul would probably win all 50 states.
They were already pouring into Europe in 1962 when I was there as a student. The labor shortage ended some time ago, so why would they still be pouring into Europe?
"Nah, The Germans would be the ruling people in the EU"
The economic center of gravity in the world has shifted away from Europe and will remain so in the forseeable future. The 21st century will be an Asian/North American century and the US is already positioning itself to retain a high-degree of infulence in Asian affairs. America retains the cold-war structure of the last 50-years and has expanded it's presence to places thought impossible just a few years ago - namely the former Soviet republics of central Asia. Further, talks are underway with India for establishing a long-term, stretegic partnership that will help contain Chinese influence which is in both nation's interests.
This leaves the intregration-obsessed, declining European nations as spectators watching as other nations determine the tenor of world economics in the next century. Any illusions of acting as a pole to keep American power in check must be tempered by the fact that the German and, to a lesser extent, French, economies are export-based - They must rely on American and other "patrons" for their economic well-being. This leaves Europe structurally in a second-string position, dependent, and unable to lead. Remember, in the post WWII era, no European nation has lead the way out of any world recession. This is not about to change.
Further, militarily, with the exception of the UK, Europe continues to decline as it's armed forces are starved to fund the ever-increasing hunger of the welfare state. Note that the intervention in Kosovo or the NATO deployment to Afghanastan would have been impossible wothout the assistance of the US. The starving of NATO by EU "nationalists" who want to shake off American influence in European affairs only furthers the decline of Europe as a military power even as it serves their short-term interests.
All of this leaves Europe with only one option - to tie the US up in a web of multilateral agreements that will allow them a veto over American action. Post 9/11, the American government appears to have woken up to this threat. Europeans hope that Kerry will reverse this.
Of greater note is the large number of Americans who have woken up to the ranpant anti-Americanism being spewed from European mouths. Grass-roots boycots of French products and travel to the continent have exposed the vulnerability of the European economy. In short, the assumption that Europe retains the American people's good will is no longer a given. In fact, large numbers of Americans increasingly do not see continental Europeans as allies and visa versa.
For all Chirac's, childish bluster about becoming a pole in opposition to American power, Europeans cannot risk alienating the American public who buys the European goods and are declining in their ability to influence world events militarily. American marginalization of the UN kicks out the last leg of European hopes of retaining their fading glory. Socialism and demographics will prevent them from acting until it is too late.
That's my $0.02, anyway.
I have lived in Finland (two years), Germany (four years), Greece (three years), Italy (two years) and Poland (two years), plus traveling extensively in many other countries in Europe. Please educate me on what you think I am saying is nonsense. Please be specific.
Although not in the top twenty, Germany has a negative population growth. 23.2% of the German population is over 60 and only 15.% of the population is under 15. Compare that to the US, i.e., 16.1% of the population is over 60 and 22% under 15. Germany still needs foreign workers and will need more in the future if the current trend continues. Turkey has a much higher birth rate than Germany (2.4 fertilty rate per woman compared to 1.4 for Germany) with 32% of the population under 15. There is already a substantial Turkish population in Germany so it is natural that Turks will gravitate mostly to Germany.
The number of Turks living in EU countries, which amounts to 3.4 million according to 1999 data, is about seven times the population of Luxembourg. This figure is above four fifths of the population of Ireland, more than half of Denmark and of Finland and is equal to one third of the populations in countries such as Austria, Greece, Portugal and Sweden. In addition, there are 80,000 Turks living in Switzerland, in addition to the Turks living in EU countries. Turkish-Cypriots and Greek citizens of Turkish descent living in Western Thrace are not included in this figure.
Most Turks in EU countries live in the Federal Republic of Germany. They constitute 70% of the Turks living in all of Europe. The Turks in The Netherlands follow Germany with 9%, France 8.7% and Austria 4.4%. The countries mentioned above host close to 93% of the Turkish population living within the boundaries of Europe.
Since Germany makes it difficult for the Turks to acquire citizenship, the Turks have not been assimilated despite living there for generations and reproducing in higher numbers.
Europe will continue to need more and more immigrants (even Ireland is trying to attract immigrants) to maintain their economies as their populations age. Except for Japan, the top 23 oldest countries (median age) are European. The absolute numbers will also decline. Currently, there are 6 european countries among the top 25 most populous. By 2050, there will only two--Russian (18) and Germany (21). Turkey will be number 19 with 98 million compared to 68 million today.
Europe is dying and it will need immigrants from Turkey, North Africa, and elsewhere if it hopes to maintain their current standard of living and be competitive in the world economy.
That has little to do with the geopolitical strategy package that has been wildly mis-labeled "neocon." It is, to all outward appearance, as bipartisan as the Kennan Containment doctrine and as forward-looking. I will go out on a limb and suggest that it is also as bilateral with Great Britain as Containment was as well. That portends considerable difficulty, because France and Germany have definitely NOT signed onto this approach. For one thing, it requires a commitment of funding, military resources, and overall political consensus that the EU either cannot, or will not, offer. It also requires the will.
It isn't entirely obvious to me, if the social-democratic, collectivist approach to popular government typified by Brussels is in fact the wave of the future, why France and Germany aren't onboard with the export of representative government to the Middle East. Surely the proliferation of freely-elected member governments in international organizations such as the UN should constitute the "counterbalance" to U.S. policies to which France and Germany aspire but cannot attain? I suspect the difficulty isn't one of any theoretical counterbalance, but one of practical control. They should give it up. The days of a world order dictated in the drawing-rooms of Paris and Berlin are over.
More than likely, the EU will align itself with China to offset the US, the world's lone superpower. Militarily, the EU offers very little. NATO couldn't even handle Bosnia and Kosovo without US assistance. NATO has yet to meet its commitment of troop strengh in Afghanistan.
I see. Perhaps that is also the reason the Mexican border is open.
You got it. Without immigration, legal and illegal, we would be in the same boat as Europe when it comes to an aging population.
Not *completely* private lol....
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.