Posted on 03/16/2003 4:56:34 AM PST by conservativecorner
In 1898 Sir Wilfrid Laurier, prime minister of America's northern neighbor, declared that just ''as the 19th century was the century of the United States, so shall the 20th century belong to Canada.''
The line caught on. ''The day is coming,'' predicted another prime minister, Sir Charles Tupper, ''when Canada, which has become the right arm of the British Empire, will dominate the American continent.''
Now, if you'll quit laughing and wipe the tears from your eyes, I'll get to the point. Sir Charles was talking to the historian John Boyd, who fleshed out the soundbite: ''Canada,'' he explained, ''shall dominate the American continent, not in aggression or materialism, but in the arts of peace, in the greatness of its institutions, in the broadness of its culture, and in the lofty moral character of its people.''
Does that sound familiar? It's the European argument today: Just as the 20th century belonged to America, so the 21st will belong to Europe, a Europe that cannot--and, indeed, disdains to--compete with the Yanks in ''aggression'' (military capability) or ''materialism'' (capitalism red in tooth and claw), and so has devised a better way. We've all had a grand old time these last few weeks watching Jacques Chirac demonstrate his mastery of ''the arts of peace'' and his ''lofty moral character,'' but it would perhaps be fairer to choose a more representative Euro-grandee to articulate the EUtopian vision. Step forward Finnish Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen, who says that ''the EU must not develop into a military superpower but must become a great power that will not take up arms at any occasion in order to defend its own interests.''
No doubt it sounds better in Finnish. Like the Canadians a century ago, the Europeans are claiming that the old rules no longer apply, that they've been supplanted by new measures of power, not least the ''greatness of institutions'' (EU, UN, ICC, etc.).
To hasten this new age, the world--or, at any rate, ''old Europe''--is anxious to know: What will it take to nobble the Yanks? Or, to be more accurate, what will it take for the Yanks to nobble themselves? As Matthew Parris of Britain's Spectator put it the other week, ''we should ask whether America does have the armies, the weaponry, the funds, the economic clout and the democratic staying power to carry all before her in the century ahead. How many wars on how many fronts could she sustain at once? How much fighting can she fund? How much does she need to export? Is she really unchallenged by any other economic bloc?''
Parris is falling prey to theories of ''imperial overstretch.'' But, if you're not imperial, it's quite difficult to get overstretched. By comparison with 19th century empires, the Americans travel light. More significantly, America's most obvious ''overstretch'' is in her historically unprecedented generosity to putative rivals: Unlike traditional imperialists, she garrisons not remote ramshackle colonies but her wealthiest allies. The United States picks up the defense tab for Europe, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and of course Canada. As Americans have learned in the last 18 months, absolving wealthy nations of the need to maintain their own armies does not invite gratitude in the long run. If Bush wins a second term, the boys will be coming home from South Korea and Germany. So the EU will begin the second decade of the century with an excellent opportunity to test Lipponen's theory: It can either will the means to maintain a credible defense, or it can try to live as the first ''superpower'' with no means of defense. The first victim of American overstretch will not be America but Europe.
I doubt the Continentals of a decade hence will be in any mood to increase defense spending. By 2050, there will be 100 million more Americans, 100 million fewer Europeans. The U.S. fertility rate is 2.1 children per couple, in Europe it's 1.4. Demography is not necessarily destiny. But it will be for Europe, because the 20th century Continental welfare state was built on a careless model that requires a constantly growing population to sustain it.
According to a UN report from last year, for the EU to keep its working population stable till 2050 it would need another 1.58 million immigrants every year. To keep the ratio of workers to retirees at the present level, you'd need 13.5 million immigrants per year. But the developing world's fertility rate is also dropping fast. Newborn Third Worlders will reach adulthood with a range of options, of which Europe will be the least attractive. The EU will have the highest taxes not just in the West, but in most of the rest. A middle-class Indian or Singaporean or Chilean already has little incentive to move to the Continent. If the insane Bush-Steyn plan to remake the Middle East comes off, even the Muslims may stay home. If it doesn't, the transformation of Europe into ''Eurabia'' will continue.
Best case scenario: The EU winds up as Vienna with Swedish tax rates. Don't get me wrong, I love Vienna. As remnants of greatness go, it's very pleasant. I quite like Stockholm, too--well, I like the babes. But they're gonna be a lot wrinklier by 2050, and Sweden's already got a lower standard of living than Mississippi. Its 60 percent overall tax rate is likely to be the base in the Europe of 2020 and fondly recalled as the good old days by mid-century.
Worst case scenario: Sharia, circa 2070.
For America, it doesn't make much difference whether the Austro-Swedish or Eurabian option prevails. This is nothing to do with disagreements over Iraq: You can't ''mend bridges'' when the opposite bank is sinking into the river. The death of Europe in its present form is a given.
This presents a difficulty for the French. France is a weak country, and for half a century it believed its glory could be restored by creating a Europe in its own image. But now the Frenchified Europe is heading for disaster. So Paris has opted for a bolder gamble: Why not Europeanize the world?
Nice idea. Except that when Chirac says he wants Saddam to be ''contained,'' what's containing him are not French troops, but American and British ones. Chirac says he believes in the UN, but the United States pays 25 percent of the organization's costs. The fact is that all the supposed alternatives to U.S. hegemony also depend on U.S. ''aggression'' (guns) and ''materialism'' (money), to put it in that Canadian historian's terms. Chirac will not be able to buck reality any more than those Victorian Canucks could. The sooner he understands that, the better for all of us.
Are ICBMs+exports enough for China to challenge us? We'll soon see. ICBMs alone were not enough to float USSR. But if they had a China-like bursting economy....
Great article!
Notre Dame in Paris will become a mosque.
Yes; The Europeans themselves deserve the whirlwind they will soon be reaping.
The tragedy will be the Louve, the Riechsmuseum in Amsterdam, all the historical
treasures and art of Europe....the Islamists will destroy them.
We can look forward to seeing a new Grand Mosque of Paris rising on the site
of the former Cathedral Notre Dame..
Perfect capsulation of US/EU diplomacy.
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.