Posted on 7/17/2002, 9:16:26 AM by JohnHuang2
Whatever the current burning issue is - trade with Iran, war with Iraq, support for Israel, building a missile defense system, accepting the International Criminal Court - Americans and West Europeans often find themselves on opposite sides of the argument.
Americans tend to dismiss the Europeans as soft-minded appeasers lacking moral fiber or strategic vision. In turn, Europeans depict Americans as cowboys under the sway of a "culture of death."
These current attitudes tend to be seen as immutable facts of life, arising out of the respective national characters. But these differences are hardly permanent. Two centuries ago, when Americans acted cautiously around the tough-guy Europeans, the roles were roughly reversed.
Today's attitudes, Robert Kagan writes in a brilliant analysis in the Hoover Institution's "Policy Review," follow logically from deeper realities. In particular, they result from two post-1945 developments so momentous they tend to go unnoted:
* Europe is weak: For 500 years before 1945, Europe dominated the world. Tiny Portugal and Holland took turns ruling the seas. Mid-sized Britain and France built empires that spanned the globe. But that was then.
Today, the European Union spends far more on social problems than on arms. Despite a population and an economy roughly similar to America's, it is a "military pygmy" that lacks the ability to project force or even handle a minor problem in its own neighborhood (as the Balkan fiascos revealed).
In contrast, Americans have continued massively investing in defense, creating a true superpower no other state can challenge. "In military terms there is only one player on the field that counts," observes Yale historian Paul Kennedy. Looking at the contrast between the United States and the rest of the world, Kennedy finds that "Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power; nothing."
This huge gap in capabilities causes Europeans and Americans to approach problems very differently. In their strength, Americans predictably see it as normal and legitimate to use force against enemy states such as Iraq. In their weakness, Europeans no less predictably find this approach worrisome and even immoral.
* Europe is post-modern: For the 80 years before 1945, the demon of German aggression haunted Europe, causing two world wars. Then, through a lengthy process of negotiation, multilateralism, building commercial ties and applying international law, the Europeans engineered what Kagan calls "perhaps the greatest feat of international politics ever achieved" by integrating Germany into a totally peaceable Western European state system.
As the German lion lay down with the French lamb, Europeans widely congratulated themselves on a world-historical breakthrough and concluded that their future global mission is to develop a "postmodern system" that resolves problems without even the hint of force. (Along the way, they conveniently forgot that this transformation was only made possible because U.S. forces defeated Germany.) They aspire, Kagan argues, to replicate their success on a global scale, by taming a North Korea or an Iraq as they did Germany.
From this vantage point, American use of force challenges the universal validity of Europe's soft approach. Worse: if the European methods of cajoling and paying off adversaries do not always work - as they clearly do not - this suggests that Europe's own hope for perpetual peace among states may be illusory. The European Union's highly emotional reaction to American use of force derives in large part, then, from its horror at facing war again in Europe.
The differences, in brief, are stark: Americans are from Mars; Europeans, from Venus. Europeans spend their money on social services, Americans continue to devote large sums to the military. Europeans draw lessons from their successful pacifying of post-1945 Germany; Americans draw lessons from their defeat of Nazi Germany and of the Soviet bloc. Kagan's insights have important implications:
* U.S.-European differences are not transitory, but long-term.
* They are likely to grow with time.
* Europe is highly unlikely to develop a military power to rival America's.
* As Europe settles into strategic irrelevance, Americans need pay it less and less attention.
* Contrarily, because Washington so predominates, it should make gestures to win European goodwill.
* NATO is little more than a shell.
* Americans should look increasingly to countries outside Europe - Turkey, Israel and India come first to mind - for meaningful military alliances.
Why is the alternative to Europe, Israel/Turkey/India, countries already cozy to one another ? I agree with Kagan's assessment regarding Europe. But because of this last statement, this sounds more like PR job for Israel.
... and most of all, Russia!
The USA probably won't remain the only superpower for more than a decade or so, but that doesn't mean someone is going to whip us. It means there will be other superpowers arising, though we will probably be the biggest for a long time.
I expect the next superpower to be Russia (again), but this time we won't be enemies.
...I really doubt that,... let History show that the Germans never surrendered, it was no armistice, just lay down the weapons. In principles Germany, based on 1945 agreement to the allies, did not promised to anyone, that is not going to eventually resurect itself to the former Weimarer/Prussian Empire and back to the boundaries from 1915.
Everything is open, as of now...
I finally got this across to someone last night. This person has always maintained that China would not attack the US because it had to have our money buying their products in order to stay viable.
My final convincing argument was:
The United States does not have to dominate or destroy anyone in order to maintain our lifestyle. China('s leaders) must destroy any example of the success of liberty in order for China to survive as it is.
Europe? Where's Europe?
Maybe because the biggest foreign policy challenges in the next 50 years will be containing China and radical Islam. The interests of Israel, Turkey and India are largely coincident with the interests of the US in this regard. Plus, those three countries are not afraid of force, like the europeans.
The shape of things is already writ large: The axis will be an uncomfortable alliance of China, Korea, and militant islam. The allies will be the US, Turkey, India, Israel, and probably Russia. The Europeans will wring their hands from the sidelines during a long, mostly cold, war. They will constantly argue that, if we just throw a little raw meat China's way or Osama's way, they will grow up and learn to behave. Didn't work with Hitler or Stalin, won't work with the Middle Kingdom or Osama. The unreality of their position will not affect, in any way, their devotion to it.
That said, I find it amazing that the important thing you gleaned from this article is that someone might develop a favorable impression of Israel because of it. Seems to me the author made an observation about three countries, one of them Israel, that was completely consistent with reality. So your complaint must be that a true observation should not have been made because it might reflect favorably on Israel. Sounds pretty pc to me. What's your beef with Israel?
Besides, what's so bad about PR for Israel that is correct? They are our ally (mostly) and their interests in the middle east largely coincide with ours. That is, unless you are a Buchanan kind of guy, in which case, there is no reasoning with you about Israel.
Because there is no mention of other possible allies in the world. No mention of Russia. No mention of S. Korea or Japan or other SE Asian countries such as Singapore, and Taiwan.
As for the Israel angle, if he is going to argue for it, do it upfront. Argue that Israel can be the best ally instead of dragging whiny Europe first and proposing Israel and her two most close allies in the region as an alternatives. As you said, Russia is not in the list either. That was rather selective. Dropping a country which can check all potential enemies of world.
I think the only omissions from THAT list were England. In the context of the article (which slagged the Euros), I understand the omission. But my personal belief is that England always has to be viewed differently from the rest of Europe. Granted they do a lot of whining. But when push comes to shove, they are there and they are not afraid to break things and shoot people. Arguably NZ and Australia should be there but their military capabilities are pretty pathetic.
So why not include South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Russia? In my judgment, the jury is still decidedly out on Russia as ally. I hope it happens. But I think that is about 50/50 today. As to SK, Japan and Taiwan, they are allies but can you imagine them sending actual troops to shoot people 1000 miles away? I can't.
So except for my disagreement with the author about England, I think the author got it square on the head. We have four allies who will fight, and he named three of them.
So I still have a tough time seeing this as cheerleading for Israel. But then, I don't mind cheerleading for Israel. They get little enough of that as it is, they are our ally and they will fight. Most of the world is very anti-semitic. Seems to me that a little cheerleading doesn't hurt.
So why not include South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Russia? In my judgment, the jury is still decidedly out on Russia as ally. I hope it happens. But I think that is about 50/50 today. As to SK, Japan and Taiwan, they are allies but can you imagine them sending actual troops to shoot people 1000 miles away? I can't.
But they are really useful in containing China, one of twin grand axis, MidEast and China. If China is checked, MidEast fundies are on their own without big allies to help them out. These countries do not have to send any troops anywhere. They stay where they are and defend their national interest, which results in the containment of China.
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.