BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Will the EU supercede the US as a global superpower?

  
 
Tom Coates
16:01 / 23.05.02
There's a fascinating article over at The Washington Post at the moment which is ostensibly about the cracks appearing between 'Allied' nations with regard to 'The War on Terror'. But actually the article is about Europe's increasing aggregation and move towards a new European superpower, the fundamental differences between the political cultures of the US and the EU, and the potential transformation of the world based around a world where (for a while at least, until China comes along) the dominant superpower in the world could very well be European.

Here are a few pertinent quotes from the article, which I think is fairly fair and balanced and which I think presents a challenge to a lot of our current preconceived ideas about international politics - even though it should mostly have been obvious to many of us, I don't believe it has been - and I'm interested to know why that's the case...

"The European Union, from its own experience of creating a multi-nation unit, is committed to multilateralism," Palmer said. "That means a global base of law, with all nations giving up some sovereignty in the interest of cooperative solutions. But the U.S., in many cases, rejects the cooperative approach. Washington wants to go it alone, particularly under Bush. It's a basic difference of philosophy." European policymakers can reel off a string of issues on which there is such division. Whether it is the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the new International Criminal Court, the international ban on land mines or the biodiversity treaty, EU members uniformly support the global, collective solution, and the United States does not.

"There is a rhythm of global dominance, and no country remains the first player forever," Prodi said. "Maybe [U.S. dominance] won't last. And who will be the next leading player? Maybe next will be China. But more probably, before China, it will be the united Europe. Europe's time is almost here." Prodi has argued that the EU is already the global agenda-setter on such issues as global warming, food safety and international trade -- areas where angry disagreements between the United States and the EU have undermined the relationship.

I should add that this article is being well discussed over a wide variety of weblogs at the moment - for better or worse: Blogdex
 
 
Ethan Hawke
17:16 / 23.05.02
I think, as the EU tries to assert itself more as a world "agenda setter" in terms of world security issues, it will increasingly realize that a multilateral consensus is much easier to come to with 15 nations, constrained by geography, similar political systems, and yes, similar ethnic makeup than it is with a larger sample of the world's population. It's facile to say that the EU prefers global solutions, as if there exists some sort of mechanism for debating/implementing global solutions.

[Rant coming up]

Like the UN, you say? The UN is a wonderful idea - a place where all the nations of the world can settle their greivances. But as it is constituted now, it's ludicrous. Is there anyone here that would say Syria, for instance, should have the same power in settling world affairs as the US? But, as a current member of the security counsel, they more or less have the same standing as the US, Great Britain, and France, all democratic countries. That's just the security counsel. What percentage of the General Assembly, pray tell, is composed of countries with democratically elected governments? How many of the democratically elected governments are such in name only?

The UN doesn't reflect the will of the world's people anymore than the Duma reflected the people of the USSR. Votes of the UN general assembly somehow acquire the status of Gospel (particularly when they condemn Israel) among Leftists who consider the US less than democratic. The UN general assembly is the aggregation of tinpot dictators, millenarian fundamentalists and corporate tools.

[UN rant over]

Its fairly predictable that the EU will move in more of a unilateralists direction, more often than not in concert with the US, as the rosy vision of globalist cooperation it envisions is (A) undesirable for a large portion of the global population, much less Europe's population (B) and unlikely given who the EU has to negotiate with.

Check out the next-to-last paragraph of the article Tom linked to:

With the United States increasing military spending, there could be a future, Moisi said, in which "the U.S. does the fighting, the U.N. does the feeding, and the EU does the funding." Some Europeans would accept that formula, Moisi said, particularly if an expanded EU is recognized as an economic power equal to the United States.

That's a far more likely scenario than any future where the EU is any sort of "different" superpower than the US (read, what, more compassionate for different?).
 
 
Slim
17:21 / 23.05.02
Would the US ever form a union with Canada and Mexico, forming a North American Union in an attempt to out-gun the European Union?
 
 
shirtless, beepers and suntans
21:04 / 23.05.02
question: will the EU supercede the US as a global superpower?
answer: that seems to be the unspoken-of fantasy.

but i think china is the more likely candidate because of its staggering population and consolidated government...if its per capita GDP were to match that of the united states, the sheer size of china's economy would dwarf that of any other nation.

"it's like my man puffy says--the more money you have, the more problems. all the jealousy and envy, it just comes with the turf."

wise words from a wise slug.

i'd just like to add, that last quote from Prodi or whomever reads like a press release from the EU public relations office, if such a thing were to exist.
 
 
higuita
10:00 / 24.05.02
Under a electoral system where you're at the mercy of the voter, who in their right mind goes for global solutions over the 'I'm all right, George' approach?
The same would apply under a European superstate, for the basic reason that most people vote in their best interests. It's cynical and I hate it, but that's the way things stand at the moment.

At the same time, I'm all in favour of being part of a proper European superpower. I'm much happier with the idea than a cosying up with the US in a Bushy-Blairy S&M relationship.

Now I come to think about it, I don't really see why I should feel that way apart from pure prejudice. And a real dislike of George Bush. Oops. Sorry to all our US chums out there - I shall be examining that bit of bias later. Maybe those senators were right about Eurotrash politics...
 
 
Captain Zoom
16:39 / 24.05.02
Originally posted by Slim: Would the US ever form a union with Canada and Mexico, forming a North American Union in an attempt to out-gun the European Union?

I don't think the US would bother with that. What do they have to gain from such a union that they don't already get through the various free trade agreements? In Europe (broad generalization) there doesn't appear to me, at least, to be a country that dominates the continent the way the US does in North America. North American culture, for good or ill, is determined by US culture. There's a lot of people who don't draw any difference between the countries in N. America already. Last time I was in England, regardless of how many times I said differently, I was called a "yank."

It is in the best interests of European nations to join together as they're so small compared to a giant like the US or China or Russia. But the US wouldn't need to join with Canada to win in what would ultimately be a "Mine is bigger than yours" contest.

Zoom.
 
 
Chuckling Duck
19:38 / 24.05.02
From the article: "As the White House tilts more and more toward Israel, the EU has emerged as the strongest champion and chief financial supporter of the Palestinian Authority."

I wonder if the USA and EU might get into a war by proxy in that region?
 
 
SMS
03:49 / 25.05.02
It was my understanding that NAFTA was, in part, a reaction to the formation of the EU. From what I heard at the time, Daddy Bush had an easier time pushing it through than he would have without European competition.

shirtless: i think china is the more likely candidate because of its staggering population and consolidated government...if its per capita GDP were to match that of the united states, the sheer size of china's economy would dwarf that of any other nation.

China has an AIDS epidemic on the horizon that they'd damned well better take care of. From what I've heard, they aren't doing near what needs to be done in terms of educating the population about the danger. China's enourmous population seems to be more of a problem for them than a great asset so maybe the horrible pain and suffering of all these dying people will actually help the one problem, but I cannot imagine that it would not creater even more problems to the economy and the social structure in general. I imagine that China will be forced into making progressive changes one way or another, and they will eventually have their time as the big player in the world. However, I doubt that day will come before Europe's.

Chuckling Duck I wonder if the USA and EU might get into a war by proxy in that region?

Americans would be as comfortable fighting against Britain as we would fighting against Canada. Or less. If our leaders drag us into this, we won't be happy. I'm no saying its impossible, but it does seem unlikely. What effect would such a war have on our economies?
 
 
alas
06:59 / 25.05.02
I think we're well on our way to a war by proxy in the middle east. The US is the major source for Israels military funding/equipment.

As to the "differences in global policy that make the EU different from the US": I think that there's a much stronger environmental concern in Europe, partly due to the higher population density, among other factors, which makes environmental issues more clear and pressing. And there is a stronger commitment to social welfare systems in Europe across the board. My theory: this is LESS due to a perceived "homogeneity" than the lack of a recent history of race-based chattel slavery within European countries (their colonies are of course another story, but still it makes a difference). The legacy of racism I hold primarily responsible for the lack of a good social-welfare infrastructure in the US--from our lousy health care system to our poor public education system. That's a huge broad idea, I know, and I doubt I'll be able to explain how I've arrived here in any brief fashion, but there it is.
 
 
Dao Jones
10:38 / 25.05.02
EU member states:

Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Greece
Spain
France
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
the Netherlands
Austria
Portugal
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom

EU Homepage for reference.

Dilettantism: 15 nations, constrained by geography, similar political systems, and yes, similar ethnic makeup

Similar ethnic makeup? Greeks, Finns, Portuguese? Are you being insulting or just ignorant?

It's facile to say that the EU prefers global solutions, as if there exists some sort of mechanism for debating/implementing global solutions.

There are several. But in this case, 'global' means, 'group' as opposed to 'unilateral', the favoured method of problem-creation in the US administration.

But as [the UN] is constituted now, it's ludicrous. Is there anyone here that would say Syria, for instance, should have the same power in settling world affairs as the US?

So the UN should be a venue for more Realpolitik? May I suggest that you read the UN Charter? The point of the UN - the wonderful idea you were praising so fulsomely but a second ago - is that it applies to everyone, big or small, and that powerful nations can be restrained from throwing their weight around. So yes, the idea is exactly that Syria and the US should have the same power within the UN.

The UN general assembly is the aggregation of tinpot dictators, millenarian fundamentalists and corporate tools.

And we're so much safer in the legitimate hands of a US President of questionable mandate who flouts international law on the subject of human rights, re-institutes the practice of political assassination, is an ex-substance abuser with strong religious convictions, and whose campaign for presidency was paid for by oil barons and pharmceutical companies which then immediately recieved massive concessions?

I think not.

Its fairly predictable that the EU will move in more of a unilateralists direction, more often than not in concert with the US,

You underestimate the stubbornness of the US administration if you think they're just going to bow to Europe's wishes. Europe is set on courses in the area of Environment alone which are at odds with short-term US interests, and those of the sponsors of Bush's administration. But perhaps you're right, and the US will simply have to toe the line.

Shirtless Moron:

i think china is the more likely candidate because of its staggering population and consolidated government...if its per capita GDP were to match that of the united states, the sheer size of china's economy would dwarf that of any other nation.

China's physical geography is not hospitable, and you underestimate the sheer infrastructural nightmares inherent in raising its game so far. The provinces along the North East coast are doing well, but they have to carry a huge burden in the form of the interior, which ironically, or perhaps consequently, is seen by many as the spiritual heart. Also, China is not ethnically monolithic any more than Europe. There's considerably diversity and China's slide into greater freedom could easily destabilise the nation before it can bridge the gap from pastoral power to superpower.

More later.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
14:50 / 25.05.02
Quick response; All my responses are more of less about security issues; more detail to come:

All quotes from Mr. Jones:

Similar ethnic makeup? Greeks, Finns, Portuguese? Are you being insulting or just ignorant?

THEY'RE ALL WHAT'S KNOWN IN AMERICA AS "WHITE PEOPLE!" Come on, give me a break. Is the EU anywhere NEAR racially as diverse, in terms of the ethnic composition of it's ruling class, as the world as a whole? "Similar" is not an absolute but a relative term.

So yes, the idea is exactly that Syria and the US should have the same power within the UN.

That's nice. But tell me again why this is a good idea, aside from wishy-washy human rights-esque (human rights which are WESTERN INVENTIONS) jusitifications? And why use Realpolitik as an invective. It's just a tool that's sometimes more effective that other methods of approaching geopolitical (loaded word, I know)issues.

The point I wished to make in a more-or-less ranty fashion is that the idea of a perfectly democratic body (Syria having the same vote as the U.S.) composed out of mostly non-democratically selected representatives is ludricrous and a mockery of democracy.

Thus:

And we're so much safer in the legitimate hands of a US President of questionable mandate who flouts international law...

Is certainly true, no matter how personally distasteful the aggregation of power into the hands of a more or less despicable individual is. At the very least, the U.S. has the mechanism for checks and balances so that a consensus can emerge. And a more transparent goverment than most. Yes, it's not ideal. Yes, it's not a "global" solution. And I don't believe I ever implied I wished the U.S. to be global dominator. But an agenda setter? I would rather argue that the US, as most powerful nation, blah blah,has a duty to be the agender setter.

Question for you: Is the aggregate wishes of the UN member states' representatives a "global" solution, or group solution in the sense you write about? Does the UN represent the majority of people on the planet? Does it come anywhere close? Is it still a good thing if it doesn't come anywhere close?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
17:29 / 25.05.02
THEY'RE ALL WHAT'S KNOWN IN AMERICA AS "WHITE PEOPLE!"

That's not remotely relevant. Just because America doesn't have convenient descriptions for the variances in ethnicity across Europe, they don't go away. More importantly, are you telling me there's no distinction made between 'hispanics' and WASPs in the US?

It's also not accurate. By the crudest measure, Greek citizens can look Arabic, not 'white', Spain has a large North African cultural and ethnic portion who look 'black', and so on.

By more complex standards, the ethnic diversity of Europe is staggering. Your inability to conceptualise this actually makes the point very well - America is at a grave disadvantage in the arena of dealing with a multilateral world.

But tell me again why [parity of influence within the UN] is a good idea, aside from wishy-washy human rights-esque (human rights which are WESTERN INVENTIONS) jusitifications?

Because we don't trust you, sport. Your nation, from the outside, looks like as much of a potential problem as Syria. It's that simple.

Bush 'living in a bubble'.

Bush's difficult task.

To understand why the US is not trusted, you need only look back at a few Barbelith discussions and the issues they sprung from. You shrug these things off as if they were closed issues. They're not.

You may remember Bustani, who was kicked out of the OPCW for his attempts to check whether the US was sticking to treaty obligations regarding non-proliferation of chemical weapons. You'll see from this recent follow up article from April 23rd that this is hardly a unique case: A week ago, the Washington Post revealed that the Pentagon had told the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, in the hope of undermining his credibility. When the CIA failed to discover any evidence of wrongdoing, the deputy defence secretary is reported to have "hit the ceiling".

You may also recall Robert Watson, who is mentioned in the same article (he's American, by the way), and who was removed earlier this year owing to pressure from the US. In the meantime, the US has withdrawn from discussion of environmental issues, as if this arena is somehow not a problem for the US or the world, just some annoying stuff which gets in the way of the mighty US powerhouse economy.

The US is meanwhile faltering on compliance with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, yet apparently trying to convince Pakistan to stop testing delivery vehicles for its own nuclear programme.

I've gone on quite long enough to make the point: the US is currently behaving in a way which is not conducive to the good of the world or even its own citizens. Some US policies need to be checked, and for that to be done through a discursive organisation like the UN seems preferable to the other methods on show. For that to work, the UN has to be a level playing field.

I'd like to discuss with you the phrase 'wishy-washy human rights' and the remarkable notion that these are 'western inventions', but I shall have to do that in another thread.

And why use Realpolitik as an invective?

Because 'Realpolitik' is a fantasy born of testosterone and bipolar constructions of economy/military might as the defining issues of politics. It's a rhetorical tool which suggests that anyone not following the classic 'selfish nation state actors' formula of international relations is naive and impotent. It sanctions Pinochet, Marcos, and Noriega and brings us the Middle East Crisis. If it has any positive aspects, I have yet to find them.

The point I wished to make in a more-or-less ranty fashion is that the idea of a perfectly democratic body (Syria having the same vote as the U.S.) composed out of mostly non-democratically selected representatives is ludricrous and a mockery of democracy.

Where did you get the idea that the UN is about Democracy? It's about the maintenance of international peace and security. It's a clearing house for crises, not a world parliament. Many of the less palatable inhabitants of the assembly were put there by Realpolitik, by the way. You can't defend the policy and deplore the result.

At the very least, the U.S. has the mechanism for checks and balances so that a consensus can emerge.

A mechanism which is currently not being used, as was ably pointed out in Charles Levendosky's article Fear Drives the Making of a Secret Government: Nearly 1,200 noncitizens have been detained by the Department of Justice, by presidential order - an order that violates the Fourth Amendment, which states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."...Congress's response to the executive branch's usurpation of power has been to pass bill after bill granting it greater wiretap authority, greater access to information about the public and loosening restrictions on federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Congress has, in effect, given up its constitutional duty to keep the presidency in check.

I would rather argue that the US, as most powerful nation, blah blah,has a duty to be the agender setter.

Such a duty would be a duty of stewardship, and for precisely the same reasons that the legislature and judiciary are intended to check the power of the executive under the US system, other nations would be needed to check the power of the US, and could only do so on an equal footing.

Is the aggregate wishes of the UN member states' representatives a "global" solution, or group solution in the sense you write about? Does the UN represent the majority of people on the planet? Does it come anywhere close? Is it still a good thing if it doesn't come anywhere close?

Why are you fixated on the UN? This is about the EU - an organisation whose teeth the US is finding it far harder to draw.

The issue is not the UN - though, for my money, the US constant attempts to dominate that organisation are liable to empower rather than discredit the EU - but the possibility that a group entity like the EU, whose nature is multilateral, can better form consensus and act in concert with other nations than a functionally 'rogue' US, which tells the OPCW to 'screw itself' and won't discuss climate change issues until 2012. Essentially, there are global-reach issues which the US can, in the short term, ignore, because of its military and economic might. They won't go away, and ignoring them is a lousy strategy, so the other countries of the world have to deal with them. The EU is an organisation which may be the fulcrum for such deals, and if it is, that may mean it supercedes the US by default.

Interesting times.
 
 
shirtless, beepers and suntans
21:43 / 25.05.02
good points.

EU uber alles.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:55 / 26.05.02
Hardly. That's precisely the point: alles zusammen. The US is the country which currently seems determined to set its own short term agenda over the wellbeing of the world.
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:48 / 26.05.02
Excellent post, Nick.

It is undeniable that political culture in the EU is quite different from that in the US. Here in the UK we have a prime minister is considered right of center. However, "my mate Tony" would be an unelectable radical left winger in the US. Also, the historical background of the EU would probably make it more amenable to a global politics which had an emphasis on international law. I could be wrong, however, as substantial power may lead to rather predictable self interest.

But most importantly I don't see this happening any time soon. I might concede that the adoption of a single currency will eventually lead to ever greater political cooperation - perhaps eventually integration - but that is a long way off. As long as the EU fails to have a common voice it will be hobbled in terms of interational politics. I seriously doubt that the EU can find the required unity for decades yet.
 
 
Fist Fun
10:52 / 26.05.02
As the EU is organised just now it simply couldn't be a super power. At least it shouldn't be. The EU is first and foremost an economic organisation. All social and political initiatives are an add-on.
Dao has rightly questioned the mandate of the US president, but the EU has much less democratic accountability. If the EU were to become a superpower it would have to address the democratic deficit and at the same team put in place stream lined, efficient decision making procedures (increased qualified majority voting, etc). Two reforms which may well be mutually exclusive.
 
 
shirtless, beepers and suntans
18:18 / 26.05.02
you know, i'm finding this thread absolutely hilarious (hahaha) in an alanis morrisette-ironic kinda way.

whenever there's a thread about superpowers, it's almost always a long string of hate-on-america-'cause-there's-no-place-for-superpowers-in-our-post-cold-war-global-village posts.

and yet when someone turns that question around to focus on the EU, there's much beard-stroking that a consolidated European superpower would go a long way in advancing the stewardship of the earth (or whatever).

if you think that europeans are somehow more "enlightened" than their redneck counterparts across the atlantic, fair enough, that's your opinion. But a 400-year track record of often-brutal paternalist colonialism, or colonial paternalism (whichever you prefer)--whose legacy is still felt in at least two continents--makes US support of south american dictators seem like boys-will-be-boys shenanigans.

This should be enough to make us ask the question: Does the world really need another superpower?

if having the United States and Soviet Union jostling to gain the upper hand didn't do much to advance humanity, why would having this hypothetical European (or Chinese, as i have suggested) superpower replace the soviet union do any good?

i'll bet you all my star wars figures the soviets thought they were more progressive and enlightened than the americans, too. except boba fett. no matter how sure i am, i never risk losing the fett-man.
 
 
Margin Walker
23:33 / 26.05.02
EU ubaer alles, eh? Well, would you salute this flag?



That's architect Rem Koolhaas's design for the new EU flag. If you look closely, it's all the flags of the EU nations from west (Ireland on the left) to east (Greece on the right). The barcode look still freaks me out though. BBC story here.
 
 
Steve Block
05:39 / 27.05.02
The Guardian commisioned some alternatives that were much, much better. The article is here, but sadly, they haven't put the images up.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:15 / 27.05.02
whenever there's a thread about superpowers, it's almost always a long string of hate-on-america-'cause-there's-no-place-for-superpowers-in-our-post-cold-war- global-village posts.

I'v said it before, I'll say it again. I don't hate America. I hate what America does from time to time, and I'm not a real big fan of your latest President. This has nothing to do with 'does the world need another superpower', although that's an excellent question. It's about whether the multilateral approach is attractive to the rest of the world, and whether the unilateral approach, as applied by the US at the moment, can actually work.

and yet when someone turns that question around to focus on the EU, there's much beard-stroking that a consolidated European superpower would go a long way in advancing the stewardship of the earth (or whatever).

Is the EU inevitably a good thing? No. Absolutely not. There's a monstrous amount which can go wrong with the EU system. Does it have an advantage in the arena of multilateralism? Uh, yes. Because it's, you know, inherently multilateral. Its weakness - that consensus is woefully hard to come by - is also its strength - that the EU is about generating proposals which are at least mutually acceptable, not about forcing solutions on those involved in a given dispute. Which, in terms of conflict resolution, is probably a far better long term strategy.

Look, can I ask you something? Would you mind engaging with a few of the points I made, rather than just complaining that the US is getting picked on again? I mean, if you can show that these were justifiable actions, that changes the whole thing and I'll have to revise my dislike of the US' current foreign policy stance. Otherwise, you're just making noise.
 
 
Dao Jones
09:19 / 27.05.02
Give it up, Nick. They're sold on the idea that the US is the greatest nation on Earth and we're all jealous. Check the 'rant' thread from Morocco Mole. Neither Moron nor Dilettantism is going to discuss issues with you. They'll just get all humpy, wave the flag, then get bored.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
16:24 / 27.05.02
Dao, I'm not defending the U.S.; I'm saying that the EU will become more like it as time goes on. A more measured response to your criticisms is forthcoming as I have time. To say that I'm "Waving the flg" is absolutely ridiculous.
 
 
shirtless, beepers and suntans
21:11 / 27.05.02
that's funny i don't recall ever saying anything even remotely close to "america is the greatest nation on earth." do me a favor and stop putting words in my mouth, OK? and from what i remember of that thread, dao, you take disagreement really, really personally. my advice to you: RELAX.

and for that uh guy. nick. yeah. i wasn't trying to dismiss or justify anything shady or just plain wrong the U.S. government has done. and i'm certainly not trying to force you to "revise" anything. if you disagree with me or dislike america's foreign policy, that's fine. i'd probably agree with you on a number of points, anyway.

but like you said, there's a lot that can go wrong with EU. it's way too early to tell where it'll go, or if it will lead to political unity. my impression thus far is that the EU is analogous to the united states in that it's better equipped to bring the needs and agenda of its member states to the world stage than if every country in europe does its own thing. but if it's europe's agenda, it's only "multilateral" only in terms of its members, no?
 
 
Lurid Archive
22:31 / 27.05.02
moron: I'm sure its not what you intend, but you are coming across as a little bit dismissive - of Nick in particular. Nick certainly has strong opinions, but he is arguing them calmly and rationally. He is presenting reasons for what he is saying.

IMO, the EU is culturally more diverse than the US and due to history, has a more multilateral flavour. Its true that if it were to gain significant power globally, this might result in myopic self interest. However, I don't think it is entirely unrealistic to suppose that some of this multilateral flavour might survive.

In fact, a "friendly" competitor of the US may well encourage diplomatic solutions of global problems based on international law rather than unilateral self interest.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
12:40 / 28.05.02
Come on then, I've started a US-philic thread which is conspicuously shy of replies thus far...
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:58 / 28.05.02
Okay, here goes:

Nick's comments in bold
By more complex standards, the ethnic diversity of Europe is staggering. Your inability to conceptualise this actually makes the point very well - America is at a grave disadvantage in the arena of dealing with a multilateral world.

The ethnic diversity of Europe is staggering, yes. But this diversity (just as in the US) doesn't necessarily filter down to the ruling class. Look, obviously Finns are different than Greeks, etc., but the point I'm trying to make is that relative to the world as a whole, the composition of EU member nations make it just as provincial as the US. All of the nations of the EU are industrialized democracies of some flavor, and occupy geographic territory that was until quite recently dominated by Christianity in terms of religion. That's hardly more multilateral than the US in outlook. Trees, meet the Forest.

Because we don't trust you, sport. Your nation, from the outside, looks like as much of a potential problem as Syria. It's that simple.

First, what do you mean by "we," Western man? The EU? Or the disenfranchised of the world? If the former, I think you're overstating the case a bit. The EU was all about Clinton. The leaders of Europe loved that guy. They're less fond of Bush, who from the outset was painted as provincial and unilateralist (right and right). A smiling face (Clinton) following the same plot as Bush now would probably get a much warmer reception from the EU than Bush is getting. That's not to say that Bush's plot is morally defensible.

If your answer is the latter, do you think the EU is more trusted in the developing world than the US? There's probably little differentiation between the two.

As for the US looking on the outside the same as Syria, I grant you that being a citizen of the US, this notion may involve some cognitive dissonance that is simply very, very difficult for me to process. I will cop to not liking/believing that the US is terrorist . This undoubtedly has something to do with my traditional political education and belief that the State is the only proper repository for the people's recourse to violence when defending their rights.

I've gone on quite long enough to make the point: the US is currently behaving in a way which is not conducive to the good of the world or even its own citizens. Some US policies need to be checked, and for that to be done through a discursive organisation like the UN seems preferable to the other methods on show. For that to work, the UN has to be a level playing field.

Um, show me a single US policy I've defended in the posts above. I was defending a principle, simply put, that from great power comes great responsibility. Yes, the US needs to be checked. But checked by Syria? Checked by Iraq?

The UN is realpolitik diguised as "a discursive organization". How else would the US be checked in the UN except by the actions of "selfish nation state actors"? You've all but ceded that's what the UN is made up of. If you want to say that the US being checked by the UN is a positive, then you implicitly endorse the tool of realpolitick. (digression - US democracy, as envisioned by the Federalists, is precisely the pitting of selfish actors against one another. Perhaps there is no other kind of democracy then, and we're both idealists).

Which is, as I said , a tool for understanding and acting on the geopolitical situation, not the tool. Whether you see realpolitik as a "testosterone fantasy" or not is irrelevant; the majority of security decisions made by national actors are informed by it. So a global actor, be it the US, the EU or whoever, better understand its ramifications on a higher level than as simply a discursive binary function.

Where did you get the idea that the UN is about Democracy? It's about the maintenance of international peace and security. It's a clearing house for crises, not a world parliament.

I certainly don't think the UN is about democracy; I said that the patina of democracy is spread over realpolitk-derived politcs in UN resolutions. It has the aura of democracy but not the substance. How is that a good thing?

At the very least, the U.S. has the mechanism for checks and balances so that a consensus can emerge. A mechanism which is currently not being used, as was ably pointed out in Charles Levendosky's article

If it's not being used, then how was this article even written? The US is (relatively) transparent - call me naive, but I think by the structure of our government the truth will (eventually) out.

Such a duty would be a duty of stewardship, and for precisely the same reasons that the legislature and judiciary are intended to check the power of the executive under the US system, other nations would be needed to check the power of the US, and could only do so on an equal footing.

I certainly agree with the first part of this sentence. However, in order for me to agree with the second part, we need to define which "other nations" should be able to check the US, and who has "equal" footing.

I'm a democratic chauvinist; I admit that and will take any lumps you care to dish out over that fact. I'm sure it would be relatively easy to come up with counterexamples of why democracy isn't necessarily the best form of government. But, I believe that only democracies can truly be eqaul to each other. It's the SNAFU principle of RAW: communication is only possibly among equals - and in this case an equal is a nation who gives its people a voice. In effect, its not the nations that are equal but the people who are. A modest sentiment. (to head off any criticism, I would of course say that the people of Syria are equal to the people of the US. But their government deprives then of that equality by disenfranchising them).

However, this modest sentiment is counteracted by realpolitik. I can't ignore China and treat them as unequal. They're too powerful. I either have to go to war with them, overtly or covertly, or bestow on them a patina of equality. I may not like it, but there's no real choice. This is the mechanism, as you say, that gave rise to Pinochet, Noriega, etc. (Musharraf? Karzai?).

Perhaps the EU, as a conglomeration of Democracies and a potential realpolitik-style threat, can "check" the US. However (and this is the crux of my very first post), we've seen what happens when one superpower attempts to check another. It ain't pretty. Again, to circle back, I fail to see why the multilateral composition of the EU would prevent it from acting in a paternalistic fashion. Once it uses its muscle to check the US, there's no real turning back. One's only hope would be that the EU would be a more "benevolent" superpower than the US(which is, I suspect, what EU partisans in this threat are implying). But can a superpower act much differently than the US?

I'd welcome the chance to unpack anything you need to see clarified. Thanks for waiting for this.
 
 
netbanshee
20:51 / 28.05.02
I'd say in the current state of things, the EU does come off as a good idea and has a foundation that can handle upcoming decisions as effectively as one could hope. Fortunately enough, by banding together and using a collective name to go under, there's a tabla rasa to create from. I'd imagine it's an enviable position by other nations (especially the US) since there might be less leftover bureaucratic bs to push through to collectively comment and position on certain issues without being so hypocritical. If one country in the EU has had a troubled record with an issue, the EU may make it easier to amend it. So far, the feeling that the EU has is benevolent and is trying to keep positions in terms that are agreeable to many.

It also seems that having friendly alliances working at different goals than others creates checks and balances as well as a good sense of ideological and political competition.

ex...The issues on the current Middle East Crisis seem a great deal fresher and possibly more managable since it seems that there's more than one loud outspoken voice emenating from the US. Being an american, it's nice to see different points of view being discussed in the media here and elsewhere...obviously an effect from the EU's collective voice. The other views have always been there (I've been aware of them most of the time) but since most people only form opinions from viewpoints they hear locally...there's been too much uninformed unity. Now enter in a bigger player and you can't help but give consideration.

Times be a changin'
 
 
alas
02:18 / 29.05.02
Random thoughts: But can a superpower act much differently than the US?

Ummm: Yes. I'll go further: I think the US can act much differently than it currently is.

The US could genuinely seek to enhance democracy at home and abroad, instead of working consistently to undermine democracy by the increasing power being handed over to multinational corporations. It's undermining its own power and that of its member states, and, through GATT and the World Bank and the IMF, that of the entire world.
Yes we have checks and balances within our governmental structures, but fewer and fewer people are participating in government, partly, I'd argue, because the power of government is being diluted by the power of corporate control. The operations of the US government are, I'd agree, by international governmental standards, fairly transparent. But most corporations are not governed transparently, let alone democratically, and most prefer working with dictatorships rather than democracies. The US has behaved increasingly hypocritically in international relations over the past 50 years because it is increasingly doing the bidding not of "we the people" but of a few, highly placed men.

There was an article in a recent HARPER'S magazine (US) arguing that the US should be split into 5 regional governments, because the central government in the US has simply become too alien for most people:
When the original colonies united to form states the ratio of representatives to the population of his constituency was 1:5,000. Today, it's approximately 1:650,000. I think for democracy to be meaningful, it does have to work both more locally and more globally.

How does the EU figure into this? Well, the EU, for a variety of cultural/historical reasons, puts more controls, more regulations, on corporate social and environmental practices, which is necessary for the continued functioning of democracy. Exxon, in other words, is a greater threat to world democracy than Syria, in my opinion. The EU simply seem more likely to put some brakes on Exxon, than does either the US or Syria. Indeed, Exxon likes Syria and has helped to maintain the poor status of democracy in the Middle East.

I will cop to not liking/believing that the US is terrorist . This undoubtedly has something to do with my traditional political education and belief that the State is the only proper repository for the people's recourse to violence when defending their rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate
that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

Terrorism, in the sense of your statement above, is thus as American, as, well . . . Thomas Jefferson?

(A side note: Every country with nuclear weapons is, to my mind, the moral equivalent of a suicide bomber. This does not speak well for either the US or many EU countries . . . But in terms of numbers and firepower, clearly we are much more suicide bomberly.)
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
13:26 / 29.05.02
At the risk of derailing things, can someone explain to me what 'This undoubtedly has something to do with my traditional political education and belief that the State is the only proper repository for the people's recourse to violence when defending their rights.' means because I just don't understand it. Too many words maaaaaaan.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
13:38 / 29.05.02
Simple - When you live in a State, you cede your right to collective self-defense (by violence) to the state, which guarantees that it will protect your natural rights. This, at any rate, is the theory behind the "minimal state."

How and when it is appropriate for one to take back that right, as Alas indicates in hir quote, is a matter of some contention. Some (think McVeigh and the militia movement) think that the government has overstepped its bounds already.
 
  
Add Your Reply