May 20, 2008
Column: Irrelevance, Europe’s logical choice
“In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love – they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.”
Harry Lime’s speech – delivered by Orson Welles – at the end of the The Third Man (1949) is a great cinematic moment. It also poses an interesting choice.
For roughly 500 years, Europe was the political, cultural and economic centre of the world. But bloodshed and suffering accompanied all this power – culminating in two suicidal wars in the 20th century.
Since 1945, Europe has become increasingly prosperous, peaceful and comfortable – and irrelevant. So should a united Europe attempt to reclaim its place at the centre of world affairs? Or should we settle for comfortable irrelevance?
The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.
Gideon–A very important topic and question. I will dismiss the conventional Washington wisdom that Europe is a self-indulgent old lady. Arguably, Europe (the EU states) delivers more value per tax dollar to its citizens than Washington and her fifty state capitols do. We likely disagree as to whether Washington’s tax payers fund value in the current array of Neocon adventures that dominate discussions and cause depression amongst those who were trained to believe in the Common Man and Democracy. Crisis of faith. So be it. (Also, it must be noted that US taxpayers are funding a lesser bit of these bills than its cash-rich friends or European and Asian taxpayers/consumers.)
The real question in your piece is what constitutes an international crisis. I certainly do not agree on Washington’s criteria, and when I do agree, i.e., Burma, I join the many who cannot stomach Washington’s newfound arrogance, self-righteousness and wanton lust to extend its control. You seem to trust Washington; many who did no longer do. I am one.
Posted by: WCM | May 20th, 2008 at 9:48 am | Report this commentI reckon Bob Kagan had it right: Europeans really are from Venus. We have benefitted from 60+ years of US protection, latterly bitterly resenting it, but at the same time impotent to do anything about our increasing irrelevance.
I agree with your point about threats to Europe today however, there are issues today where Europe could be better placed militarily - piracy for example. But I think what we are seeing today we have seen very many times in European history - people enjoying a so-called peace dividend, whilst they watch their enemies arm. All too late they realise they have wasted years dozing. Leadership is about assessing medium term threats as well as short term ones.
Regarding your point that “It is at least arguable that involvement in Afghanistan actually increases the terrorism (sic) threat to Europe”. That’s fair enough, if you are short sighted enough to only take a snap shot of where we are today and decide that is the whole picture. You can’t really be suggesting that there is a bigger threat today than when OBL’s training camps were churning out terrorists at full pelt? Or that if we all left SE Asia, that the camps wouldn’t be back inside 10 minutes and we’d be facing the same threat again? Seriously?
The only way to buy into this argument is to buy into the Ummah theory. And the Ummah theory is in turn supported by the relativism which has become all pervasive in Western societies. But one fact you haven’t mentioned is that Muslims are by far the biggest victims of terrorism worldwide (by numbers) and recent polls show this has started to register. Not sure how long they will continue to be “radicalised” when they themselves are the primary victims. Kind of counter-intuitive, isn’t it.
Posted by: AYC | May 20th, 2008 at 9:49 am | Report this comment>>AYC’s comment. Interesting that Israel really only wants Europe to police, but not to have a strategic role beyond their control. Europe still holds some illusions of commonwealth (Joseph Cotten’s narrator in The Third Man); Israel and the US (Harry Lime) have formed their own Superclass Realpolitik. The problem is that their idea of lasting style is manifested in plastics and virtuals; not the stone of the Borgias and Medicis.
Posted by: WCM | May 20th, 2008 at 10:07 am | Report this commentI wouldn’t call it irrelevance when the EU model of economic (and then political) integration is being envied and then copied all over the world.
Unfortunately, Washington has forfeited its moral leadership and even US citizens seem to have had enough of the enormous price paid by the most vulnerable in their society in order to fund this military adventurism.
Maybe Europe will be forced to become ‘relevant’ again - or maybe the West in general will become increasingly less relevant (the natural state of affairs in most previous centuries, after all).
Posted by: David | May 20th, 2008 at 10:37 am | Report this commentWCM: I’m really not sure what you are talking about. What I am sure about however, is that the economic, cultural and political malaise at the heart of Europe’s decline can be clearly traced back to the hypocrisy and arrogance at the heart of the sclerotic French system.
Posted by: AYC | May 20th, 2008 at 10:48 am | Report this commentBrilliant article - well done GR.
Switzerland has been a big success because it has a small state and embraces capitalism. It’s not perfect - its agricultural protectionism is even worse than the EU’s, for example - but it is a rare instance of a rich country avoiding both costly foreign wars (America’s problem) and an oppressively large state sector at home (Europe’s problem).
Note that China also avoids wars, and its state sector is less burdensome than many people think - its welfare state is smaller than America’s, let alone Europe’s. And look how well China is doing.
Posted by: M | May 20th, 2008 at 10:56 am | Report this commentGideon, “It is at least arguable that involvement in Afghanistan actually increases the terrorism threat to Europe” is not a valid point to make. It is wrong to try and appease terrorists. When an angry dog is barking at you, the worst possible response would be to turn your back and run. That way you would be done for.
Posted by: RCS | May 20th, 2008 at 10:56 am | Report this comment>>AYC said: I reckon Bob Kagan had it right: Europeans really are from Venus.
… and Americans are from Mars, right? C’mon AYC, work that grey matter of yours a little harder than relying on someone else’s cliché!
For one, Americans are divided, with many Democrats being more closely aligned with Europeans on foreign policy issues than their Republican compatriots.
Secondly, Europeans are divided. While you have neo-Gaullist tendencies among many of the French (and some of the German) political elite who want Europe to be a counterweight to the US, you also have the UK, Denmark and many new accession states who support a more vigorourous engagement in world affairs.
Third, many would argue that the European focus of international engagement is, broadly speaking, better targeted on the current and future root causes of radicalisation - e.g. poverty, inequality, climate change (though these positives are critically undermined by the EU’s rising protectionism and torpedoing of the Doha round due to its/France’s support of an indefensible CAP). The point here is that muscular military intervention targeting only the symptoms of radicalisation will be as counterproductive as Iraq has been.
AYC, my beef here isn’t so much the broader thrust of your comments, but rather your perpetuation of a fatuous and unhelpful stereotype. The Mars/Venus thing just emphasises and exaggerates differences when we need to build on shared goals.
I agree with your other points about Europe’s idleness in the face of emerging threats. The lack of commitment to help in Afganistan is woeful, as is the EU’s (and US’) response to the growth in organised crime.
Posted by: DKM | May 20th, 2008 at 11:07 am | Report this commentI apologize in advance for veering wildly off-topic, but I’ve always resented that remark from The Third Man. Switzerland, a small country with a tiny population, produced Euler, the Bernoullis, Klee, and Giacometti. Switzerland was too small and isolated to give birth to the Renaissance, but it more than pulled its weight in the Enlightenment and in Modernism.
(That said, I don’t see how Europe as a whole can become quite as neutral, and therefore “irrelevant”, as Switzerland.)
Posted by: RWB | May 20th, 2008 at 11:41 am | Report this commentEurope as a whole should look at two European countries’ comparative performance and make up its mind:
1-) Britain with disproportionately high military expenditure and a lot of political and diplomatic “noise” generated so that she can “punch above her weight” and remain relevant.
2-) Germany, post World War, with a somewhat pacifist stance that has avoided meddling in faraway places and has minded its own business.
Britain is a messs with collapsing infrustructure and an industrial base that has been wiped out. Germany rose very fast from the ashes of WWII, is much richer than Britain, and despite the high Euro, is the world’s largest exporter.
In whose image would the Europeans like to shape their continent?
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 20th, 2008 at 12:00 pm | Report this commentHarry Lime’s speech as delivered by Orson Wells is a powerful indictment — of American’s disregard for history and their boastful ignorance of the world they hope to govern.
A search of Wikipedia’s “List of Swiss people” will reveal a long catalogue of high achieving Swiss citizens – including Rousseau, Jung, Marat, Federer and many etceteras in a wide variety of fields – not including the almost two dozen Swiss winners of the Nobel Prize.
One could credibly say that, proportionately, Switzerland has produced one of the highest numbers of “great men” of any modern nations. There is also the small matter of Switzerland’s achievement of probably the highest standard of living in the world and all the freedoms and opportunities that come with it.
I’ve always thought that ignorance of a subject inspires the mind and frees the tongue. Orson proves the point wonderfully.
What happens to a position if the premise is absurd?
Posted by: Paskalis | May 20th, 2008 at 12:02 pm | Report this commentDKM: “…better targeted on the current and future root causes of radicalisation - e.g. poverty, inequality…”. Ok, I accept that the Venus thing was a shorthand way of making the point, and could reasonably be called a cliché, but I think the thrust stands.
The US is demonstrably more muscular than Europe in defending its perceived interests and looking ahead at future threats. I don’t disagree with you on shared goals / consensus building, and there is nothing I’d like more, but it seems the gap is just too big at the moment - just look at some of the comments on this blog, for example from the Europe-to-his-core WCM.
But one thing I would like to pick you up on is the statement copied above. I’d like to make a forceful point about the common assumption (one might call it a cliché of your own) about poverty and inequality being at the root cause of terrorism. There are many drivers - indoctrination, societal pressure, revenge - but if you look at profiles of the actual perpetrators, they are generally better educated and better off than the society from which they come.
In general, the worse off people are, the less time they have to spend on this type of activity as they are more focussed on feeding themselves and their families. The point is that military intervention does not cause terrorism; indoctrination, propaganda, and the misappropriation of the billions in petrodollars does.
Posted by: AYC | May 20th, 2008 at 12:05 pm | Report this commentMilitary power != international relevance
Or, to put it another way, Europe’s influence is not about (or not only about) the places where its armies go.
Much as I disagreed with Chirac when in office, his multi-polar world seems to be coming about, and in that world the EU cannot and should not try to do military one-upmanship with the US or China. Instead it should push, as it does, for international law and collective international action by the key powers, itself included.
Posted by: Anthony Zacharzewski | May 20th, 2008 at 12:07 pm | Report this commentHi RCS, to continue with your dog analogy when an angry dog barks at you sometimes the smart response is to try to find out why it is barking and why it is angry. If the cause of the barking is hunger or a thorn in his foot, the appropriate answer might be food or pain relief. There might be no need for the shooting down option. Many of those who argue that involvement in Afghanistan actually increases the terrorism threat to Europe tend to believe so because the root causes of terrorism are not receiving due attention, and that is not necessarily a weakness or a sign of “appeasement” which seems to be the new insult around.
Posted by: TM | May 20th, 2008 at 12:12 pm | Report this comment“Note that China also avoids wars”. Let us hope that this remains true for the people of Taiwan. I am not sure that they would have a great deal of confidence in that statement. Given China’s rapid military buildup, it is not clear that the rest of us should, either.
Posted by: algasema | May 20th, 2008 at 12:53 pm | Report this commentI agree with AYC. Terrorism is not caused by poverty or the like. The root causes of terrorism are the disorientation that certain societies had suffered when confronted with modernism. Of course, many societies had modernism thrusted at them, they did not all react the same, so due regard must also be given to the pre-existing cultural matrix.
Posted by: RCS | May 20th, 2008 at 1:15 pm | Report this comment.
Where have you got this idea that the swiss confederacy is pacifist ?!?
It’s one of the most militaristic country in the world , totally commited to maintaining a strong military structure to protect their rights and independance ,
They kicked the German emperor repeatedly ,then the burgundian duke later hired themselves as top class mercenaries ,
in 1940 after the fall of France the chief of the Army had the swiss officers ( quite a few with nazis sympathies ) swearing on the Rutly meadow to give serious grief to any power ( nazi germany ) who would attack them ,
Hitler was told it would take a good portion of the german army one year to take the place .
Swiss are not pacifists , they mind their own business !
.
Posted by: jeannick | May 20th, 2008 at 1:19 pm | Report this commentThere is no reason to participate in American-made Wars or Wars to defend their national interests.
I would support a European Defense but not an American II Defense to save money to the American taxpayer and lifes to the American Army.
Schroeder was right not to participate in a War of Agression. The same goes for Chirac and Zapatero.
To be just an American Protectorate without Sovereignty with our Defense under SACEUR Dictator Bantz J. Craddock…To be, like Tony Blair, fourth in the Chain of Defense behind George W. Bush, Colin Powell and Bantz Craddock….that´s not European Defense but American Defense.
We need our own Defense Global Possitioning System. Galileo is just a first step (the US established hard limits against our interests)
We need European Defense Headquarters changing the present situation with a European Defense First and NATO second…
Posted by: Enrique | May 20th, 2008 at 1:25 pm | Report this commentThis column is so over-simplistic I don’t know where to start (has the author not read all the literature on the subject?)
But to save time if I were to articulate just one idea, I think it would be the following: Europe is old, and was made up of relatively small countries that became empires, projecting their power all over the globe, shaping the world as we know it (isn’t globalisation actually the “europeanisation of the world” in the end, or the result or a continuation of it?) and that then became powerful states which, precisely by desiring relevance based on flawed ideologies or absurd (given their individual sizes) aspiration for ultimate power, ended up in mutual destruction.
Now that, at long last and with the help (or under the protection) of the US, Europe is finally (re)united and peaceful (and only now can we say this - EU12 from the other side of the Curtain or the Balkans just joined!), give time to the EU to consolidate, get its act together, and build a common desire to be relevant again without making the terrible geopolitical mistakes that the US has made in the past 40 years.
Posted by: Man in the City | May 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pm | Report this commentIt is really hard to argue EU is a strong entity while many countries have foreign military bases on their soil.
Posted by: jin | May 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm | Report this comment“the terrible geopolitical mistakes that the US has made in the past 40 years.” Without these “mistakes” we’d all be speaking Russian.
Posted by: AYC | May 20th, 2008 at 2:46 pm | Report this comment‘Europe’s political leaders are forever swearing to turn a united Europe into a new superpower.’ Ah bon, really? I seem to remember that in 2003-04 some of Europe’s political leaders (Blair, Aznar, Berlusconi, Barroso - then Portugal’s PM - et alii) did very little to contribute to the emergence of a common European position on a crucial foreign policy matter - i.e. the Iraq war. At that time public opinion across Europe was massively against military intervention. This was a clear illustration of the fact that ‘Europe’s political leaders’ tend to stand in the way of the shaping of a common European foreign policy.
Gideon Rachman claims that ‘European citizens seem unconvinced’ of the need to end Europe’s ‘comfortable irrelevance’ in world affairs. This contradicts the findings of the latest Eurobarometer opinion surveys, which have consistently shown that about 70 per cent of EU citizens believe that the EU should have a common defence policy, and that it should be more active in trying to solve conflicts in the world.
My point is that public opinion in the EU is ripe for the emergence of the Union as, if not a global superpower, at least a ‘relevant’ actor on the world stage. Contrary to Mr Rachman I don’t think that ‘irrelevance’ is a logical course of action for the EU - and I don’t believe it is the option favoured by Europeans. There is a need for greater involvement of the EU in world affairs - whether it acts as a counterweight to, or a solid partner of the US (depending on Washington’s foreign policy orientations), as a honest broker in the Middle-East or as a magnetic pole of democracy and prosperity vis-à-vis its immediate neighbours, the EU can and should be more of a force for good on the world stage.
Posted by: Antoine Delord | May 20th, 2008 at 3:07 pm | Report this commentI agree very much with Antoine Delord’s last paragraph.
It is just possible the vote to be taken on the MU that is coming up will energize the EU …Further, Merkel’s revisions that she rightly insisted on make the idea of a EU/MU alliance more interesting and could with the right leadership finally turn EU into a far more relevant political entity… France’s announcement that it is holding talks with Hamas…EU letting US know that they would not suppot a US attack on Iran….the recent rejection of McCain’s League of Democracies…all were helpful actions to circumvent very bad behavior by the current US administration …. Why the EU dropped the ball on the Israel-Palestinian conflict after supporting Annapolis allowing US to dominate the direction of post -Annapolis is beyond me…the EU will remain powerless if they do not speak in one voice. It is not military role that should get the emphasis, but instead in an age where there is little to no real diplomacy exhibited by leaders and countries …that is where they should put their efforts and their voice.. .There needs to be an EU president with a term that allows time for the EU to have real political impact.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 20th, 2008 at 3:56 pm | Report this commentI cewrtainly dispute that the only contribution of Switzerland in the last five hundred years is the “cuckoo clock”. It suffices to say that in the last centuries Switzerland, inspite of its smal population and scarcity of natural resources, has forged a solid reputation as a top-class contender in high-technology fields such as the manufacture of precision instruments, pharmacy and fine chemistry and encryption systems. The very high level of research and teaching in Swiss Universities is also universally acknowledged. Last but not least,to this noteworthy achievements we must add the unvaluable contribution of the Helvetic Confederation to the advancement of International Cooperation and the protection of Human Rights.
Posted by: Patricio A. Sorichetti | May 20th, 2008 at 4:09 pm | Report this commentIt is time for America to do the same. We are far from trouble and quite safe. It is time to come home and tend to our own problems.
Posted by: Harvey Sapolsky | May 20th, 2008 at 4:15 pm | Report this commentRe some common (mis)conceptions about Switzerland, since some bloggers mentioned CH in their post.
1) CH has no natural resources, but produces hydro-electric power and sells it to neighbouring European countries. The main resource is its population and the centuries-old apprenticeship system, which of course gets updated from time to time. I know there are at least 270 different types of apprenticeships
(lasting 2 or 3 years) available.
2) Subsidised Swiss agriculture is approved by the majority of the Swiss, imo, who are basically country people at heart. However, those who want subsidies abolished could simply collect 100 000 signatures, which would set in motion the procedure to hold a referendum; ministers and leaders of the parties would have already taken soundings however, and know what the chances of success for a referendum would be. It is highly unlikely that a referendum would be launched if it looks like failing.
A Swiss government is always a coalition, politics are mainstream, the economic system is a Social Market Economy (similar to Germany), i.e. it’s a free-market economy (though there may still be a cartel (beer) or two around, I’m not sure) with considerable social content.
3) CH is neutral (since the Treaty of Vienna 1815) because for centuries the armies of other European countries tramped through Switzerland
which lies in the centre of Europe, on their way to wars or on their way back from wars (they even at times fought out their own wars on Swiss soil), destroying, looting, raping and creating havoc.
Henry Dunant (Swiss) founded the Red Cross after he saw for himself the horrors of dead and wounded on a battlefield.
4) The political system of Direct Democracy in Switzerland gives considerable independence in many matters, like education, tax rates to the communes and cantons.
Why do referenda not happen frequently? In fact Swiss politicians dislike referenda, imo, because of the time it takes to work through the procedure until the voting takes place (about 2 years in fact). During that time, any legislation on that topic gets effectively frozen. So, if the Socialists (SP party) wants to launch a referendum to abolish the Swiss Army (for example), it will discuss this with the other parties, and, if it appears the other parties and the voters would reject the proposal, there might be long negotiations to find some kind of compromise, involving some changes to the Swiss Army. If it is likely that the compromise would be approved by the voters, a referendum might well take place. But believe me, political parties in Switzerland are very careful about making proposals for controversial, radical changes - for the above reasons. They don’t want to risk a failed referendum.
Posted by: J.J. | May 20th, 2008 at 4:20 pm | Report this commentYou might consider the Lisbon treaty at the moment under consideration by the Irish people for referendum. It is not politically possible to unite Europe as a military superpower, not is it desirable to project the threat of industrialised state violence upon other nations, as in Hillary Clinton’s “totally obliterate them,” directed at Iran in defence of an Israel under attack. I have lived on both sides of the Atlantic, in the from 1950-72 in NY and New England, and since then in Ireland. Living under the threat of mutually assured nuclear destruction is incomparable with the present condition of Europe and Russia. There is nothing justifying the occupation of foreign lands by military forces operating low level policing actions incapable of stabilising or securing territories requiring internal political stability. The British eventually learned this in Northern Ireland. It is more than obvious that the British are an extension of American foreign policy in the EU, as well as a financial dependency. At least the Eurozone offers an alternative to the dollar and sterling, as European foreign policy offers an alternative to the failed neo-con Manicheans who have caused incalculable devastation.
Posted by: Leo Regan, Ireland | May 20th, 2008 at 4:37 pm | Report this commentPaskalis, if you had bothered to look also for Graham Greene on Wikipedia you might have found out that he was English, as was the film.
I’ve always thought that ignorance of a subject inspires the mind and frees the tongue. You prove the point wonderfully.
Posted by: passing by | May 20th, 2008 at 5:00 pm | Report this commentSpeaking as a US citizen of WWII vintage, we are historically an isolationist country. Part of the impetus of our founding was staying out of the European mess.
Woodrow Wilson, for reasons known to him, I guess, launched the first signficant departure from this in our misguided entry into WWI. We had no dog in that fight. WWII was payback for us, I guess, since our entry into WWI made possible the disastrous peace settlement. You break it, you bought it.
My father was killed in WWII; my mother raised me with the firm isolationist position that our entry into WWII was not necessary for the survival and peace of the US. She didn’t necessarily view it as bad that we did, but that it was entirely optional. Neither Hitler nor Japan had any realistic hope of invading the US. As a youngster, I viewed her position as the understandable anger of a young war widow. Today, I view it as a good argument.
The point of all this, is that those that are today perusing their Thesaurus for invective to apply to the US, keep in mind two things: 1) If it were not for the US, with the VERY considerable help of the UK, EVERYONE on the planet (probable exception of US itself) would be under the heel of one tyrant or another and 2) It will be a cold day in hell before another GI lands in Normandy to bail out Europe once again. Hope you like shariah guys, we are going to sit this one out.
One of the differences between the Left and the Right in the US is that the Left riots when they don’t like something; the Right just grumbles. Speaking as a superannuated lifetime conservative, I will be personally in the streets before we spill a drop of blood to help the EU. Never Again.
The author is correct–there is no apparent threat. One of the problems with military conflict is that we are always ready to fight the last war, and it never happens again. None of us know what form the next one will take. Probably not the Germans rolling tanks into Poland. It may well be that a permanent peace is here–let us hope so.
Enjoy your cuckoo clocks.
Posted by: RPM | May 20th, 2008 at 6:32 pm | Report this commentAll Europe needs is a crisis - real or manufactured - to jolt them out of their stupor that business as usual can continue indefinitely. Folks usually don’t change until they’re forced to and the Europeans will surprise themselves at how quickly they can shift gears when they come under Iranian attack - or some other monstrous provocation that will bring out the beast in them.
An assault against the EU will require an attitude adjustment and the whole world will be startled to witness it. Remember how quickly Americans rejected their preferred isolationism after Pearl Harbor?
Posted by: David Ben-Ariel | May 20th, 2008 at 6:49 pm | Report this commentwww.davidbenariel.org
David Ben-Ariel,
“the Europeans will surprise themselves at how quickly they can shift gears when they come under Iranian attack - or some other monstrous provocation that will bring out the beast in them.”
I think you’re projecting dude. I think the “beast” in your type of makeup is always visible and at the surface and does not need a “monstrous” provocation to display itself.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 20th, 2008 at 6:54 pm | Report this commentWhether the EU has achieved “nirvana” will be put to a test as the U.S. withdraws. Americans are tired of sacrificing blood and treasure. Europeans are seen as free riders — three generations — and Bush has spoiled our appetite for more of the same.
Posted by: Christian van Schayk | May 20th, 2008 at 7:18 pm | Report this commentDavid Ben Ariel.
Doubt it. Pearl Harbor had us declaring war on everyone in sight the next day; shutting down civilian industry, full mobilization. 15 million men in uniform, out of a population of 140m. It was not guns and butter–not only was there no butter, there wasn’t much of anything else. I have a relative that damned near died at age 10 from an infection curable with penicillin shot–none available for civilians.
9/11 was a similar event. We didn’t declare war on anyone, actually waged a half hearted war in a stone age country and invaded a bad actor that needed it. Half measures. No mobilization; if you are not one of the less than one percent or so in the military, it is happening somewhere else to someone else.
The US was a hugely different country in 1941. People were proud of the US, happy to be here and culturally disposed to defend it. We were in a Depression; the Army would feed and clothe you–and give you $20/month on top of that.
Today, we have had about 40 years of the cultural elite telling us what a horrible country it is. Why would anyone fight for this place? In 1941, all the young men lined up to get in–I have seen surveys that suggest that approaching half our young men today cannot imaging any circumstance under which they would fight for their country.
My point is that even the US today would not react like it did on Dec 8,1941. Even in the pre-WWII period, Europe folded like a house of cards. France surrendered and proceeded to complain about how long it was taking to liberate them. What can you envision that would cause them to act differently today?
The principle difference between the US and Europe in this regard is that the US has a sizable cadre of tough as nails, smarter than the average bear guys with two to four combat tours behind them. It may not be the country, but dealing with the post Iraq USMC will give any militarily addressable opponent serious cause for thought until this group passes on into the sunset.
As I said before, we don’t know the shape of the next conflict. It may well not be addressable by a force like the US military. But, if it is–you lose.
Posted by: RPM | May 20th, 2008 at 7:24 pm | Report this commentI am waiting for GR’s suggested next column. Title is the same, with only “America” substituted for “Europe”. In fairness, a question mark on the end might be appropriate.
Posted by: algasema | May 20th, 2008 at 7:42 pm | Report this commentA very quaint appeal to save the post-war west European idyll where the ‘man or mouse’ question shall nevermore be raised, but I’m afraid it’s already too late. The wheels are in motion to create a European presidency, and not long after that an eastern European will take it.
Posted by: Tom Warner | May 20th, 2008 at 7:58 pm | Report this commentEurope may have reached nirvana, but its CAP policy is hurting the developing world. Do not the rich have an obligation to help the less fortunate?
That includes shouldering more responsibility in Afghanistan and other places. Very clever, free riders on America’s back. Happy nirvana.
Posted by: RCS | May 20th, 2008 at 8:53 pm | Report this commentA nice framing of Europe’s situation and choices, but one thing’s left out: if Europe is not in a position to shape world events, esp global security arrangements, then Europe will be vulnerable to any change in that security arrangement that threatens the global trade and investment regimes that have contributed so greatly to European recovery and growth in the postwar era.
The first such threat is the rise of authoritarian, largely bandit-run capitalism of the sort seen in the criminalized Russian state. While outwardly paying lip service to global capitalist rules, such states are really anarchic collections of bandit groups or clans and pose a great threat to not only economic stability but also the stability of their regions. If Europe cannot stand up to Putin-Mobutu, it risks threats to not just its energy supply but also its eastern members’independence.
The second threat is obvious to Americans and to Europeans of a certain age, though not recognized by most of today’s Europeans. The natural tendency of Americans is toward isolationism, and the pendulum will swing that way soon enough. While solidly supportive of Israel, Americans are thoroughly sick of the middle east, and when Americans finally turn their mind to action on a great challenge– in this case, energy independence– they achieve astonishing results. Were America to shift its energy mix toward wind (cf Boone Pickens’ latest investments), solar and nuclear, and start driving electric cars, you’d see US involvement in the middle east, and US interest in that region and neighboring ones, including Europe, drop sharply.
Finally, as is obvious to anyone who’s spent significant time in a US technology firm, trading floor, or elite college campus, the US long ago ceased to be a european-descended majority nation. Within another generation, a majority of Americans will have no family or cultural tie to Europe. Many of the American elite will be of Asian descent. At that point, it is likely that Europe will be little more than an afterthought in US global strategy, and few Americans outside of a few enclaves on the coasts will pay much attention to european politics or culture.
Which would be a great pity, for us and for Europe. Maybe it’s time both sides of the Atlantic stopped their absurd pissing match and started discussing ways that we can INCREASE our ties and integration, rather than retreat from the big bad nasty world.
Posted by: thibaud | May 21st, 2008 at 12:17 am | Report this commentAl Jazeera is reporting that all groups agreed on a deal to govern Lebanon in Qatar and on Suleiman as President, Hezbollah is in government and has a veto… It was worth coming to the cliff of a new civil war if that was the only way to get to this moment!…if this report is correct, then they did it without the EU or the US…in fact, MAYBE this happened because there was NO EU or US interference during meetings in Qatar!…if only this could be a sign of how the leaders of the Middle East will proceed in the future…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 21st, 2008 at 3:09 am | Report this commentTo RPM re France’s surrender in WWII (and then about the French “proceeding to complain”), and to all regarding military deployment:
1) Over a period of 70 years, the French and French soldiers had to go through and fight 3 major wars (1870, 1914-1918, 1939-1945) that had France’s territory as the main battlefield (unlike the US which has almost never had to fight with foreign enemies on its own territory, with a few notable exceptions like Pearl Harbor), with almost 2 millions of MILITARY casualties in total (so this excludes civilians). This is probably what explains France’s attitude towards war and the surrender in the early stages of World War II, the Battle of France and after. And if you extend to the Napoleonic ventures, then you get the idea. Families were decimated, and there were simply not enough men, morale and money/equipment to fight again on the same north-eastern parts of the country.
1.4 million French soldiers died on the battlefield in World War I (and “only” 126,000 US soldiers). 340,000 French soldiers died in World War II (and 295,000 US soldiers). In contrast with several millions of deaths of French soldiers in just one century, note that since the Independence of the US more than 200 years ago, “only” 653,708 US soldiers have died on the battlefield (and that number includes the US civil war!), despite the US being a much, much bigger country than France!! See: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html
Sure France has some responsibility in these wars with Germany, sure it was a European mess, but describing the surrender as you do is unfair and inaccurate… Also in fairness didn’t the US have something to gain from entering WWII and winning this war? Sure Nazi Germany might not have been an immediate threat to the US mainland, but what about… the US economy? power?
2) Re deployment in the world, what GR is saying about Europe is true, but the UK and France, probably the only two EU countries who are seriously thinking of a common defense cannot be blamed for lack of involvement and deployment when things are put into perspective, and you look at military spending and deployment in regard to these countries’ size: today, 36,000 French soldiers are deployed outside of France in operational deployments (including Afghanistan, Ivory Coast, Haiti, etc.), which is roughly the same as the UK (which decided to go to war alongisde the US in Iraq). In contrast, the US has 250,000 soldiers in operational deployments. So if you look at the ratio deployed soldiers / total population, France and the UK roughly have 1 soldier deployed for 1150 inhabitants, and the US 1 deployed soldier per 1666 inhabitants - not such a gap, is it? The wars are not necessarily the same, but Iraq is a US mistake to many, a wrong war engaged at the wrong time with wrong motivations and the wrong enemy. The US is paying a very high price, but much like France in the 3 wars, it must blame itself too for that.
Posted by: Man in the City | May 21st, 2008 at 9:19 am | Report this commentAs Anglos say what Europe has to do is “Wait and See”.
As a Pole of World Developement with strategic and economic interests, we will have to defend our interests that, sometimes, can be contradictory with America´s as the US is placed in another Continent far from the Eurasian landmass and with a different economic structure than Europe.
We have to defend our interests even if it can mean a comfrontation with the US or Israel, or with the Russian Federation and China.
Europe is a process, not defined yet, but with a broad picture about our economic and geopolitical size. There is a broad picture that will be defined during the next decades. US troops will have to leave European soil and we will have our own Defense Headquarters with our own Intelligence and our own Nuclear Force.
Posted by: Enrique | May 21st, 2008 at 10:27 am | Report this commentIn short, the gist of your article is: “si vis pacem, para bellum”! Not exactly a very new proposition… Does it stand up to critical examination? No! As long as the various European states were preparing war… and ultimately allowing themselves periodically the luxury of consuming the accumulated hardware (and human resources), they again and again destroyed their cultural, artistic, economic and civilizational capital. In times of peace (e.g. since WWII and thanks to the EU’s economic stabilization not only of Western Europe, but of the entire continent), Europe has had the luxury to spend an increasing part of its wealth on cultural and civilizational progress. The (wo)man in the street is well aware of this - luckily! What she/he is not aware of is that a large part of the merit for this must be ascribed to the EU (”Europe”), mainly because a large majority of the “pundits” keeps finding it fashionable to be anti-EU (it is too “wasteful”, to “weak”, suffers from a “democratic deficit”, etc.) Is it not high time for a radical reappraisal of these mantras?
Posted by: PHW | May 21st, 2008 at 11:48 am | Report this commentThat’s very exact about Europe: they’ve become just “big eaters”, don’t care about anything beyond their very immediate, very material comfort (and that’s true not only for “political” life dimensions!). As a result, no “great idea”, however truly great or even useful it can be, is of real interest to them because even the best novelty creates some starting discomfort. And that implies the effective end of intrinsic, creation-based development, which is replaced by a strongly limited “copy-and-paste” kind of “progress”. [It’s often justified by the unconditionally “best” strategy of gradual, “step-by-step” change - which only confirms the internally “lazy”, “irrelevant” kind of existence.]
But I wonder whether it’s not the currently leading “way” for all “developed” (and eventually all other) countries, where Europe is but the evident champion, but all others also approach inevitably the same decadence. All real tendencies support such a conclusion, although only “time will show”, of course. My idea is that it’s actually the (universal) end of THIS level of progress (that’s why it inevitably happens everywhere), while it can restart at a superior, qualitatively different level, but that needs a combined revolutionary change in attitudes and practices related to the underlying intelligence level (see http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00008993 for more details).
One can compare that really emerging problem/situation with the dominating discussion level at even the “best”, elitist and governing places to find but another confirmation of the above conclusion…
Posted by: Andrei Kirilyuk | May 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pm | Report this commentGideon, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Modern Italy, not Switzerland, would be where Europe is going at this rate.
Europe is re-electing popinjay populist politicians such as Berlusconi to political centers that by themselves have no power and that collectively cannot agree. Every 4 to 8 years the US manages to reinvigorate itself politically while Europe returns to the likes of Mr. Berlusconi. We already are irrelevant and can only put our lightweight halfheartedly behind whomever is in the White House.
Gideon, the reliance of our economy on outside sources of energy is our huge blind spot, we lack the cohesion to take a stand versus Moscow or Tehran; e.g. the urgent need to present a common approach versus Iranian expansionism in Lebanon and elsewhere for the sake of our energy security is something even some relatively senior politicians fail to understand or even agree with. Instead there is a thinking potentates such as Putin or Ahmadinejad will stick to what they promise when they have a track record of pressing advantages at the expense of previously agreed upon positions. But these are not the gentlemen we are used to find gentlemens agreements with.
Meanwhile our political representatives so heavily lean on image and presentation that they have allowed the quality of news reporting in the media to slip dramatically and unopposedly. Large swathes of the population believe things that are neither historically accurate nor is it in their Machiavellian interest as citizens comprising a nation to believe such things. Your own failure to mention Al Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan as a reason for our presence there now is a qualitative slip that even you manage to make; you have to ask yourself how much you yourself believe in the western alliance with the US and what has shaped your beliefs there in order for you to make such an omission and cast such doubts on our mission there. Even as a high quality journalist you can voice your opinions but quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posted by: Felix Drost | May 21st, 2008 at 3:09 pm | Report this commentHi Felix,
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!
Long time no see
You say: -”e.g. the urgent need to present a common approach versus Iranian expansionism in Lebanon and elsewhere for the sake of our energy security is something even some relatively senior politicians fail to understand.”
Isn’t there even a minor chance that the senior politicians understand the situation better than you do?!
Hezbollah’s resistance finally appears to have resolved Lebanon’s impasse of having an illegal government (Seniora-Hariri fronted / US-Saudi-Israeli run) that was unconstitutional, even by the standards of the present feeble Lebanese constitution. That there was no resort to civil war will come as a bitter disappointment to USrael-Saudi but I am sure they will try again.
And where is the evidence of Iranian expansionism? Have the Iranian tanks rolled accross their neighbours’ borders? Has Iran attacked far away countries and wrought “Shock and Awe” on defenceless nations by using the flimsiest excuses?!
And who has jeopardised the energy security of the West, if not the US? The Iraqi production is still at the pre-invasion levels and Iran cannot expoloit her huge gas reserves due to American sanctions.
(Unsubstantiated)Talk is cheap, even when uttered in Latin.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 21st, 2008 at 3:31 pm | Report this commentPacifist, there is no question that Hezbollah receives huge support from Iran, money, weapons, al-qods operatives and the like. Hezbollah isn’t a resistance movement anymore, it has become an Iranian proxy that is killing Lebanese for political gain, is taking Lebanon hostage and is turning it in an arsenal against Israel. Even Bin Laden is alarmed at how his Shi’a adversaries have taken the initiative against his pet hatred.
The politicians I refer to certainly don’t understand the situation better than I do since they usually emerge out of local politics with no more foreign policy experience than George W Bush.
Btw the latin was for Gideon himself and is hopefully a fairly effective way to reproach him!
Posted by: Felix Drost | May 21st, 2008 at 4:27 pm | Report this commentFelix: Hezbollah isn’t a resistance movement anymore, it has become an Iranian proxy.
So, you think these guys half-buried in fox holes taking on one of the best equipped armies in the world with their primitive weaponry and risking their lives are simply zombies and drones that are controlled by Tehran?!
I think the Americans thought that of the Viet Kong (namely that they are puppets of China and the Soviet Union). This is the arrogant and probably racist assumption of the colonialists that think others are incapable of independent thought and action.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 21st, 2008 at 5:53 pm | Report this commentP writes: “So, you think these guys half-buried in fox holes taking on one of the best equipped armies in the world with their primitive weaponry and risking their lives are simply zombies and drones that are controlled by Tehran?!”
P also wrote: “the Bahai’s do display certain aspects of control, ostracisation, pressure and groupthink that leaves them open to accusations of being cultists.”
What if we change the word “Bahai’s” in the second quotation…
Posted by: RCS | May 21st, 2008 at 6:19 pm | Report this commentThe article seems to infer that Europe, absent global warming and infertility has no viable military threats. While this has some truth on the surface, one has only to imagine the Putin Russia, with a financially strengthened military, finding yet another lame excuse to march into eastern europe claiming national interest. My view is that the EU would invite Putin in for Tea and discuss the need for “reason and civility” and be virtually powerless to effect change. World history, replete with power grabs has not come to an end. I agree with the prior post
“My point is that public opinion in the EU is ripe for the emergence of the Union as, if not a global superpower, at least a ‘relevant’ actor on the world stage. Contrary to Mr Rachman I don’t think that ‘irrelevance’ is a logical course of action for the EU - and I don’t believe it is the option favoured by Europeans. There is a need for greater involvement of the EU in world affairs - whether it acts as a counterweight to, or a solid partner of the US (depending on Washington’s foreign policy orientations), as a honest broker in the Middle-East or as a magnetic pole of democracy and prosperity vis-à-vis its immediate neighbours, the EU can and should be more of a force for good on the world stage.”
Posted by: don bruce | May 21st, 2008 at 6:33 pm | Report this commentWhat if we change the word “Bahai’s” in the second quotation…could it then answer the first?
Posted by: RCS | May 21st, 2008 at 6:34 pm | Report this commentSeveral comments can be made on GR’s
article.
The “Third Man” quotation i found too facile. Some people made good and rectifying comments. The parallel with Europe to day is in fact not accurate.
The EC is not able to have a proper foreign policy because of british interference who wanted just a free trade area. You can thank Thatcher and subsequent british governments for this. The last time a serious attempt was made was during the time of Delors .
Europe to day is a set of states obeying some common rules. In important issues each follows their own tune.
Even with this structure various states can offer the world much more than the US: It can supply the rest of the world with the instruments of industrialization which neither the US nor the UK can supply.
As well it can show the way for living in peace in the middle of diversity. What kind of picture does the US present? It is a warmaking entity which wants to run the internal affairs for everybody else.
This is a very old fashioned way of thinking. The interdependent world we live in demands cooperation and not confrontation.
Posted by: Cassandra | May 21st, 2008 at 11:12 pm | Report this commentCassandra,
What do you think about the proposed new union of European and Mediterranean countries?…if it goes forward (the Med Union) who will lead it? who would you like to see leading it? would not such an alliance even be a better structure to” supply the rest of the world with the instruments of industrialization which neither the US nor the UK can supply.”
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 22nd, 2008 at 3:06 am | Report this commentInteresting–but, alas!, came late. Couple of unconnected dots (and they probably shouldn’t be).
*1 Union takes time. 19th c. American and European political history diverge almost completely. After the defeat of Napoleon, Europe was at peace and industrializing. Politically the biggest events were the unification of Italy and Germany. The US OTOH was both expanding and solving–through force of arms–the terrible problem of slavery. European affairs touched it not at all, nor did American affairs touch Europe (with the exception of Britain briefly tempted into backing the South in the Am Civil War).
Now if we say Europe *started* in 1956 with the Treaty of Rome we are merely 50 years into the union, say the equivalent of 1826 (from the Decl. of Independence) or 1849 (the Const. ratified in 1789). (Not 100% sure about either date).
Since it’s still early days, relatively speaking, no one should expect Europe to suddenly become a global foreign affairs power. The US in the same period benefitted greatly both from minding its own business and keeping the Europeans out of its own business as well. Might not be a bad policy.
*2) Although Graham Greene did indeed write the screenplay of “The Third Man” the cuckoo clock comment was directly from Orson Welles. Doesn’t sound at all like Greene. OTOH Holly Martin’s scene with the English aesthetes is pure Greene! I think GG identified with Holly Martin and Martin would have never–never!–said anything like that. (Probably didn’t even know exactly where Italy was).
Posted by: MaryCunningham | May 22nd, 2008 at 6:11 pm | Report this commentLH,
There is no chance of a union between the two sides of the Med. Before this latest round there was the so called Barcelona invitation/plan for exactly the same thing. Politically this idea cannot work because of many reasons.
On the other hand the affinities of the people of the med go back millenia.
(Consider the phrase mediterranean diet). F Braudel calls us “the people of the olive tree.” There are both positive and negative events connecting everybody. Think of Algeria and Morocco. A large number of economic links still exist and they are bound to increase. (Consider oil and Gas). All this is possible.
MC,
I read most of GG’s books. He has written some very good stuff. You are right; it is highly unlikely he could have written those words in the “Third Man”
The Quiet American (written during Viet Nam times) is very a propos to-day
Europe will not become a great military power for too many reasons.
Structurally speaking however it seems
to be a very sturdy entity, probably because of its suppleness.
At this stage we need stronger national states not less as some think.
Posted by: Cassandra | May 22nd, 2008 at 9:05 pm | Report this commentJust consider the garbage crisis of Naples. At the same time we need a stronger social Brussels.
C:”There is no chance of a union between the two sides of the Med..”
Cassandra,
I am not sure I understand your response as this is one of many news items on this today…”This new forum, called “Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean,” will unite 44 countries.
They include the 27 EU states and 13 partners: Albania, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Tunisia, Syria and Turkey — plus Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro and Monaco.
The forum would be managed by a co-presidency involving one European and one partner nation, but all 27 EU countries will be eligible under the commission’s plans, not just those around the Mediterranean as France had hoped.”
Are you saying in the end there will be no July 13 Paris launch? …or even if this happens it is meaningless???…I assume the various governments of the involved countries are discussing this at some level…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 22nd, 2008 at 9:55 pm | Report this commentI don´t think Mr. Kishore Mahbubani is right with his article “Europe is a geopolitical dwarf”
1) He confuses completely between Europe an the European-Union. This is in my opinion crucial.
2) He probably means under Europe the European-Union. OK let us forgive him and talk about the European-Union. The European-Union if you follow it from the beginning ; it has made quite a great advance in territory. At the very beginning as EWG (1957) it was only made of Italy, France, Germany and the Benelux-States.
Now 2008 the European-Union is made of 27-States. What an amazing gain of territory. People would think. That is great and all these made peacefully.But this is
not true, then the European-Union-(EU) is not fighting a bellic war. The EU is fighting an economic-war or trade-war. It has taken Spain,Portugal and Greece and won the economic
war against trade with northern Africa. After the fall of the Soviet-Union it won the war against the COMECOM, and gained for economic purposes the whole trade with
Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, etc,etc.. and took over these countrys, It recognized after the death of Tito Slowenia and provoke the serbian-nationalists.Made a war with Serbia and now is ready to
take over the Balkan-States.The EU does exactly what Imperial-Rome was use to do. Divide Europe, accept their religions and the ethnic groups but obligate them to accept the economic-rules the EU has. And only the EU economic-Rules.The EU is so concentrated in this economic war, that for the moment has no interest in
getting involved in strategic-wars. Of course the EU is involved in Afghanistan but these is only to appease the United-States.The Aim of EU is to get the whole of Europe,
economically. With this I mean Russia and Ukraine also. If they achieve this, then they have achieved their Goal. The EU doesen´t have to trade with almost nobody. It has enough reserves for its needs.
3) I am not against or in favor of the EU. I just am an observer, that is all and telling Mr. Kishore: O Boy WHAT A DWARF. Why fight like the US all around the Globe, when you can do it better at home and when nobody notice it, and think the EU is fighting just for human rights.In the name of human rights the EU is fighting an economic and trade war. And nobody believes it.
Yours: Ernest Ewing
Posted by: Ernest Ewing | May 22nd, 2008 at 11:55 pm | Report this commentI believe, passing by, that Orson Wells was Lithuanian was he not? Is it possible that an author of one nationality can voice a representation of another? Is it irrelevant
Posted by: Paskalis | May 23rd, 2008 at 2:37 pm | Report this commentto compare Roman examples to American because the Romans were not Americans? My post says that the words spoken by Wells are an indictment of American
attitudes, so, in a different sense, were Ghandi’s or Hitler’s. The only one who assigned any nationality to any specific person was you and you seem thrilled by your own acuity, and fired up by your misreading.
LH,
Nothing new will come out of it. It is not based on organic needs or ongoing functional situation. It is just a paper shuffling process.
Posted by: Cassandra | May 23rd, 2008 at 8:46 pm | Report this commentIncidentally, Passing By, the words quoted by Wells about Switzerland were not written by Greene but were added by Wells. It gets worse: the Swiss did not invent the cuckoo clock, the Germans did.
Please read my post again and again until you can recite it from memory.
Posted by: Paskalis | May 23rd, 2008 at 8:58 pm | Report this comment.
disregarding that cuckoo clock are from the black forest and not Switzerland .
The swiss federation has succeeded for hundred of years in maintaining its ( nearly ) unbroken independence in a rather competitive location
This with four linguistic groups , several religious flavors , widely different economic interest and social outlooks .
They don’t actually love each other very much , the Valais jokes or comments on Fribourg could be used for cutting grass with .
Their constitutional system promote slow consensus
nothing much can be changed quickly , not a bad thing usually .
since the 17th century they never have invaded or threatened anyone while being ferociously independent .
There is a strong push for Switzerland to join the E.U. ,
a majority of Swiss would rather doubt if Europe is mature enought to join Switzerland !
Europe has no external threats , unless it choose to attack Russia again , they did it three times maybe they have learned the wisdom of the swiss .
.
Posted by: jeannick | May 23rd, 2008 at 8:58 pm | Report this comment.
And let’s not even start with Italy: that the Spanish Borgias were considered “history’s first criminal family” arguably the forerunners of the Mafia, that Italy was never “under the Borgias”, that Michelangelo and Leonardo had many different patrons, that their genius survived in spite of, not because of, the savage and destructive wars: that the Renaissance began centuries before the Borgia: that Orson got even this wrong.
My point again is this: What do we make of an opinion whose basic premise is demonstrably and absurdly false? By the looks of it, you simply carry on obtusely, ego at the fore. End of the world as we know it, anyone?
Posted by: Paskalis | May 23rd, 2008 at 10:29 pm | Report this commentJeannick, I agree, there is no reason for an Agressive E.U. America is pushing hard for a subcontractor as we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. But fortunately, most Europeans simply don´t want to be America´s subcontractors.
Posted by: Enrique | May 24th, 2008 at 3:37 am | Report this commentEnrique, Paskalis,
I came across two arguments concerning the transmission of ancient greek thought and the genesis of the renaissance:
Argument1: The Moors of Cordoba translated Aristotle into Latin and passed it on.
Argument2: The Byzantines (Chrysoloras,Gemistos} in Florence (15c) got Cosimo’s de Medici’s attention who started his Academy etc.
Any ideas?
Posted by: Cassandra | May 25th, 2008 at 5:10 pm | Report this commentThe Renaissance had many sources. The question is not remotely relevant to the topic.
Posted by: Paskalis | May 25th, 2008 at 8:01 pm | Report this commentWithin the EU there are many examples of historic alliances between individual members or groups of member countries, as well as many examples of hostilities and wars. Such historic relationships can be useful in dealing with conflicts between EU member countries or with nations which are not EU-members. Or they can be useful also in a negative way, for example, by recognizing why there may be disharmony between some EU members. It requires a deep knowledge of European history, going back many centuries, to unravel the tapestry of such old alliances (and of course old enmities) and to be able to understand how they function in the context of the 21st century. Incredibly well, in some cases: In the last 20 years, the regular contacts between Mitterand and Kohl, and later between Chirac and Schröder were instrumental in making the German-Franco relationship the core of the EU.
And of course, the historic and linguistic ties which, for example, Britain, France, Spain, Portugal have with many countries outside the EU
Posted by: J.J. | May 25th, 2008 at 9:17 pm | Report this commentare extremely important too.
Cassandra,
It is obvious that the European Renaissance wouldn´t have been possible if the Classical Greek heritage was not kept alive from different sources: the Cordova Caliphate in the West and the Eastern Roman Empire…The Toledo School of Translators of King Alfonso X of Castile used arab-speaking translators to introduce in Europe all the research that was being done in Cordova. The Classical Roman heritage was kept alive also by Charlemagne.
And we cannnot forget that, at the same time, the Cordova Caliphate brought to Europe the research that was being done in China…
So Arabs (and later Ottomans) have been the traditional link between Europe and China.
Curiosly, now Greece´s GDP growth is led by the fact the distance between Greece and China is as short as the distance between Australia and China; so for Europe it is much more important the Eurasian Continental conception than the APEC Maritime conception.
Posted by: Enrique | May 25th, 2008 at 11:11 pm | Report this commentRespectfully, Enrique, distance is not only measured by inches and miles, and Greece and China are on opposite edges of the Milky Way.
What strikes us first about other species is the obvious similarities within them, but, vain bacteria that we are, we are struck by the uniqueness and insurmountable differences between ourselves. Could we be wrong and kinda stupid about that?
Not Homo Saps, for sure!
Posted by: Paskalis | May 26th, 2008 at 3:34 pm | Report this commentGideon, just wanted to let you know that the cuckoo clock was invented in Southern Germany and that the quote you are using from “The Third Man” is originally from the Italian fascistic dictator Benito Mussolini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckoo_clock). ooops…
Posted by: zino | May 26th, 2008 at 4:13 pm | Report this commentPaskalis, I would say China and Europe have always been on the same Silk Road. And the economic meaning of that is enormous as infraestructure connections between Europe and China increase, both in the North (through Russia) and in the South (through Greece)…but Europe will never be in the Pacific like USA and Australia.
Posted by: Enrique | May 26th, 2008 at 5:30 pm | Report this commentThere are only three nations between Europe (Greece) and China (Xingjiang): Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan.
So it is in the interest of Europe and China the stability of these states, and they cannot be under direct control from an extra-Eurasian nation…
Posted by: Enrique | May 26th, 2008 at 6:05 pm | Report this comment