Skip to comments.What trans-Atlantic crisis?
Posted on 02/26/2005 12:00:53 AM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
U.S. & Europe, Inc.
EAST LANSING, Michigan The main purpose behind President George W. Bush's visit to Europe is said to be mending fences with European allies. Beyond the waxing and waning of rhetoric, however, the health of the alliance was never in doubt.
Alarmist analyses about the health of the trans-Atlantic alliance, so popular in the wake of the Iraq war, underestimated the ties that bind the affluent, industrialized, and powerful countries of the global North. They failed to recognize - or deliberately ignored - the common grand design that underpins the North Atlantic "Concert," the major industrialized democracies of Western Europe and North America.
The major objective of this Concert is to retain its member states' privileged position in economic and security arenas by concentrating wealth in the global North, controlling access to strategic resources, and retaining a decisive global military advantage.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
His tone is clearly critical about the situation as he sees it, but I can't help but agree with the premise.
If I was a citizen of a developing country I would see things this way.
Western power structures are not set up to create a global Utopia, but rather maintain the (im)balance of power.
Considering how others how (mis)used such imbalances in the past and the relative benevolence with which the West yields its power, this is a very acceptable state of affairs.
I dont buy this its pure Marxist Doctrine.
Mohammed misses the boat. The U.S. has a republican form of government...it is not a democracy. The Euroweenies are comprised of socialist states...not democracies. Given how flawed Mohammed's underlying premise is as to form of government, I'll readily discount the rest of his analysis.
Its dumber than a rock. MAN! This guy is a UBER-MARXIST.
What don't you buy? Makes sense to me as policy too. Do we want the Chinese and Indians calling the shots?
He's in over his head. Trying to get this man to explain the world is like asking a primitive man how cell phones work. You're just wasting your time. He may over a lot of words but they've no basis in reality.
One disagreement. "any differences are tactical"
The oil-for-food scandal (the reasoning behind the tension) is above that.
First, There is no proof that this concert of the "Global North" actually exist. He creates it out of thin air and then uses it as proof that it exist, i.e. it exist because he say so. Then he goes on to explain history as product of economic relationships of Abstract Classes of Countries which is straight out of Marx. The list goes on and on.
Well now, Assume that America wants to aspire to global domination for 100 years more, an alliance with Old Europe is not the way to achieve this.
Sorry, but you are just plain wrong.
The guy is talking about who controls wealth and resources. Considering that the 1 billion people in Europe and North America control about half of the world's economy, this is not speculation, but merely a statement of fact.
These nations (but really the US) has a huge lead in technology and eeven larger lead in military prowess.
We have created international organizations in which power is divided based on economic and/or military size, not population, thus ensuring that we control those organizations.
There is nothing wrong with this. But there is little value in denying that what this man purports (for the most part)corresponds to reality.
I agree with his analysis and support the status quo.
You are not making any sense just accusations. Or, I do not understand what you are trying to say.
When you start labelling something are "Marxist", you are just labelling without actually explaining what you mean.
If what you are trying to say is that the nations that comprise America and Europe and exercise power on behalf of the people who live in those countries, do not actually represent those people - I totally disagree, they do.
If you think that those governments do not represent those people in a manner that seeks to preserve and increase their power and wealth in relation to other peoples, you are also wrong.
So, assuming you are not trying to say the opposite of my above two statements, I am not really sure what you are trying to say. Fee free to enlighten.
If you assume the contrary then it must mean that history is determined by economic warfare between classes of countries, where one class exploits the others classes via systems it plans and creates.
You are missing the "filter" of Germany in your arguments.
Go to his homepage.
LOL, That makes perfect sense he is a German!!!! Where economist count work hours as they would count beans.
He/she may be German, but from the personal page this political stance could be called middle-earth, sustainability-EUer, leaning towards Peacenik. But we should remember, this stance is probably considered Right of Center or even hard-Right in the EU/UN world. OTOH, to US Conservatives this sounds more like watered down Marxism with a nice bottle of Envirope.