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

Underground > Switchboard >

The New Cold War - EU vs. US?

12:08 / 23.08.02

I don't want to hijack the "Palestine" thread, but something occured to me last night while reading one of the cover stories in this month's Harper's (yeah, I know I'm stealing all my thread ideas from them. How pretentious). There's a quite a good article about the "divorce" between the U.S. and Europe and the chasm that's been widening post-9/11, and the author (who is of English/French provence, if that makes any difference) points out that the most polarizing issue between the two is, natch, Israel and Palestine. His description of the Israelis using U.S. military equipment to blow up EU funded Palestinian structures (and by the inherent fungibility of money, palestinian arms) strikes me as a near perfect example of a proxy war. Naturally the situation is a bit more complicated, but I think this might be a good lens with which to look at (a) the conflict and (b) the divide between Europe and the U.S.

Can we construct a model of the Israel/Palestine conflict as essentially a war between client states? Are the U.S. and EU, for all intents and purposes already as much at war as the Soviets and America were in say, Nicaragua? Is this a portent of things to come?

What would a "Cold War" between the U.S. and the EU look like? Would it involved other client state wars, or be fought in international trade, or what?

13:00 / 23.08.02

Its not quite that simple though is it T.o.d.d. Since the UK is also manufacturing weapons and aerospace parts used by the Israli army. And What is the UK anyway? In recent Whitehouse proclaimations spokespeople have been a great pains talk of europe and the UK at different levels ( the EU was termed as 'irrelevent' in its opposition to go to war in iraqwhere as the UK was identified as a key ally which would 'probably be involved')

13:24 / 23.08.02

I just realized there was a "You" vs. "Us" pun in there.

We're already involved in periodic trade wars over beef and bananas. I'd expect the price of French wine to skyrocket over here. And things to get worse in the Middle East and Africa, places where both powers have some military stake. But I don't think it'd get as terrifying as the one with Russia.

Professor Silly

17:37 / 23.08.02

...and because it won't get as terrifying, it could get a lot nastier....

Know what I mean?

If such a "cold war" wouldn't have the spector of nuclear war looming, it could manifest very sleazy economic tactics.

00:52 / 24.08.02

I can't think of an enemy I'd trust more than the EU.

I keep thinking about the ideological dualities that would form as a result. We agree on so much: division of power, checks and balances, and such. We're both multi-cultural and multi-racial. We both have rights-based ethical systems, and these rights are more or less the same. If we're fighting within the context of freedom rather than simply for freedom, is this a good thing?

Maybe we could start by having the U.S. slowly pull out of NATO, and letting Europe beef up her armed forces. Kind of silly to have a cold war with an ally.

Harold Washington died for you

06:09 / 24.08.02

The bad vibes are certainly real, but I do not think it will turn into a Second Cold War. The differences right now are magnified by the general difference in political views. Europe is generally towards the left (on the present US political spectrum) and, with the Republicans in power in Washington, the US is generally towards the right. A long way from the communism versus democracy schism. Hardcore capitalism versus softcore socialism maybe?

But in the fantasy war arena I see, like the others have noted, just a really bad trade conflict. The evil spectre of the WTO is on a roll. Hot wars of the future will only involve those countries who are not with the global economy program.

19:49 / 27.08.02

ok this is my first post so i apoligise if its stupid or irrelivent. I think the U.S. could do with someone putting it back in its place. A war between The EU and the US wouldnt be such a bad idea. I live in Britain and i am disgusted with all the US has been doing in the name of 9/11. They need put back in their place as they seem to think because they call themselves a free nation they have the freedom to attack 3rd world countries and blow up wedding parties. There are many problems with the US right now and i think while a war would be costly it may be neccesary to stop them doing what they want all over the world and assuming that nobody will challenge them. Once again sorry if that was a bad post.

21:22 / 27.08.02

(shaking rolled up newspaper) Bad, bad post. Look what you've done to the rug.

22:53 / 27.08.02

The U.S. could do with someone putting it back in its place. A war between The EU and the US wouldnt be such a bad idea. I live in Britain and i am disgusted with all the US has been doing in the name of 9/11. They need put back in their place as they seem to think because they call themselves a free nation they have the freedom to attack 3rd world countries and blow up wedding parties. There are many problems with the US right now and i think while a war would be costly it may be neccesary to stop them doing what they want all over the world and assuming that nobody will challenge them.

I believe the excuse used for blowing up the wedding party was that it was a mistake, and the excuse used to be in Afghanistan in the first place was that their government had supported an attack on a sovereign nation, namely the U.S.

But the main point, I think, is the country's arrogance. We have arrogance in abundance.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

05:50 / 28.08.02

I've been convinced that this is what's gonna happen for a while now (I believe someone brought it up in a thread a while back as well, but don't remember what conclusion, if any, was reached.) I don't think it's gonna happen immediately- the "chasm" between the EU and the US over the Middle East isn't, I think, wide enough to chuck us into a new cold war just yet... but in the next decade or so, if Bush succeeds in his unspoken (well, apart from that "crusade" remark) goal of removing Islam as a threat, then I think it's a very real possibility. Which is why (no offence, Americans) I've recently changed my wavering stance on Europe and think we should join. I'd rather be mates with the big guy next door than the big guy down the road if those two guys are gonna start throwing stuff at each other.

The question thrown up by this, of course, is- what about China? There's been every reason for the US to go after them... the human rights violations Bush professes to care so much about... the illegal occupation of Tibet... oh yeah, that whole Communism thing too. BUT the difference between China and your average Islamic state, is that China could probably put up more of a fight.

In the event of a cold (or even, God forbid, a hot) war between the EU and the US, would China remain isolationist? Sit back and wait to pick up the pieces? Or pile on in?

I'm scaring myself now. I think I'll stop there.

11:22 / 28.08.02

If the US pulls out of NATO there won't be any NATO any more - the whole point is to maintain alliances across the North Atlantic, hence the name. You'd be left with the US and the EU and Russia, and Canada and some inbetween Eastern European states. That would make it much easier for policy and trade disagreements to thrive, but that wouldn't necessarily lead to war between the EU and the US. However, I don't think any of the main countries of the EU would want that to happen, and I doubt Russia does either. The US is more likely to renege on alliances and treaties (just because it can - Might is Right) but even so I don't think it's likely.

11:52 / 28.08.02

Hmmm....most people seem to take "Cold War" as meaning direct conflict between the EU and US. What I'm more interested in is the possibility of "client-state" wars. The example above, Palestine v. Israel, each entity (the US and EU) seems to lean heavily to one side (not discounting profiteers who will sell to both sides of the conflict).

For example, considering that the US has irreversible thrown its lot in with President "I'm consolidating my power now, thank you very much" Musharraf of Pakistan, will we see the EU (and member nations) "tilt" towards India? With increased economic engagement (specifically French, IIRC) in places like Iran and Libya, which are "terror states" according to "president" Bush, will that open a chasm between the EU and US, especially if the US moves militarily against these terror states?

The "war" between the EU and US wouldn't be fought with troops belonging to either. As in the tradition of colonial powers, it would be fought in the client states, largely by the citizens of the client states.

12:03 / 28.08.02

"and blow up wedding parties."
and the BBC! there is a highly entertaing shot of some poor world service bod diving for over. Sorry.

I think that it is more a case of international evil eyes rather than likely to turn into war. If there was ever a clash of civilisations, it is Eu and US who both seem to think of themselves as the seat of all culture and democracy etc. Britain is kinda playing piggy in the middle, although recent George Michael videos do have a point. America assuming everyone likes to play ball and large chunks of Europe have the role model of the lone wolf intellectual for their kids to look up to. Plus neither side is really willing to allow for the other side haveing a different view of how the world works.

Foust is SO authentic

13:26 / 28.08.02

All this speculation strikes me as a bit outlandish. As several have pointed out before me, The economic destinies of the two parties are intertwined to a great degree, and the ideological differences between the EU and the US aren't that great. Also, both Americans and Canadians like British TV a bit too much to go to war with them.

Now, perhaps over the course of a generation or two that could change. Maybe my children, or my children's children, will be sneering in derision at the obviously expantionistic behaviour of the EU in the Balkans.

Any suggestions about how such a turn of events could be prevented? After all, we're all friends here... we'd like to keep it that way.

I'm curious - how geographically diverse is the population here at Barbelith? How many Europeans, how many North Americans? Any Aussies, other than Aussie himself?

15:49 / 28.08.02

I'm a brit baber although tend to through a spanner in the works of clash of civilisations bods by refusing to be anything but Welsh. Once we get as wide as british I tend to skip straight to european

15:54 / 28.08.02

"the ideological differences between the EU and the US aren't that great."
Possibly not but each side reckons the other are from mars and I think that's what's causing the prob. the end goals are fairly similar but the routes are quite different in many ways, the fall out over the Kyoto treaty a couple of years back demonstated that, what will come out og Jo'burg time has yet to tell.

shirtless, beepers and suntans

01:21 / 29.08.02

"ok this is my first post so i apoligise if its stupid or irrelivent. I think the U.S. could do with someone putting it back in its place. A war between The EU and the US wouldnt be such a bad idea. I live in Britain and i am disgusted with all the US has been doing in the name of 9/11. They need put back in their place as they seem to think because they call themselves a free nation they have the freedom to attack 3rd world countries and blow up wedding parties. There are many problems with the US right now and i think while a war would be costly it may be neccesary to stop them doing what they want all over the world and assuming that nobody will challenge them. Once again sorry if that was a bad post."

right on. ever since it went to fight in europe because no one there had the balls to stop adolph hitler, and gave europe billions of dollars to rebuild, america has done nothing but strut around like it owns the place.

and a war would totally be, like, a cakewalk for europe. never mind that the u.s. invests more money in its military than all the european states combined and has the largest GDP in the world (not mention the biggest stockpile of nukes) to back it up. and definitely never mind that a war would be completely pointless because both sides have been playing pocket-pool with each other for the last 50 years.

they really need to be put in their place so the more enlightened europeans can be free to annex foreign lands and subjugate the uncivilized for another 500 years. (end sarcasm)

but you're especially right about being stupid and irrelevant. your first post should probably be your last, as well.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

06:14 / 29.08.02

Hmmm... looks like the war's already started. Let's all take a deep breath, shall we?

Harold Washington died for you

08:55 / 29.08.02

I say again there will be no war. There is no client state fighting going on now. The holy land conflict as related to EU vs US is more like two old men watching a horse race when they both bet on different horses. In six years on the outside (perhaps in six months) the US will be a completely different country and Europe will still be Europe.

The most aggressive the disagreement could get as far as I can see is the relationship between the US and China today. "Well, you will be the enemy in a good percentage of our popular culture but in realpolitik terms you're still cool."

17:45 / 30.08.02

WTO allows EU to slap $4 billion in sanctions on U.S. exports.

19:53 / 30.08.02

I wish I'd come to the Switchboard earlier as this is an interesting discussion.

Sleazenation's point is good. Americans generally speaking and the current administration seem to think of UK and EU as two very different lands. After all, very few Americans have a second language so everyone except the Brits is talking gobbledygook, right?

Did someone suggest Pakistan v India as a "client state war"? I'm sorry, but that seems arrogant and ethnocentrist to me. Pakistan and India have their own reasons for being at each other's throats, as do Palestine and Israel.

Also, Pakistan and India are world powers themselves. India in particular is a world power in its own right, rivalling the EU in influence. It has for many decades been the leading nation of the so-called "Non Aligned and Neutral Nations." It's difficult if not impossible to imagine India as a "client state" of the EU. Moreover, the friendship between India and the US is probably stronger than the tenuous, opportunistic relationship between Pakistan (an Islamic nation) and the US.

Overall, Cold War as such is very unlikely. We will certainly continue to see economic and trade rivalry, but this is already tempered by the existence of multinationals with a foot firmly on each side of the Atlantic - DaimlerChrysler is a prominent example. If nothing else, self-interest on both sides will prevent differences becoming too heated.

As for the Left EU, Right US political divide, aren't we seeing a swing to the Right in parts of Europe? Could someone update me? The Netherlands, for example?

Note to Foust: I'm an Aussie by birth, but I'm a permanent resident in the US and very unlikely to go back within the next quarter century or so. Does that still qualify me as an Australian voice here?

20:06 / 30.08.02

aren't we seeing a swing to the Right in parts of Europe?

I think what we're seeing is an anti-immigration swing, which exposes the paucity of the left-right paradigm. Traditionally, anti-immigration policies have been the preserve of the right, but increasingly that's not the case.

20:07 / 30.08.02

Slightly off-topic but addressing one of the issues raised, here's something interesting about US/India/Pakistan relations:

May 11th, 2002 | Alert #018

The U.S. Must Remain Neutral in South Asia

Instead of focusing on the need for peace in South Asia, India and the United States have begun their first joint military exercises this week.

The two countries are engaged in Exercise Balance Iroquois in the northern Indian town of Agra, 650 km from the Pakistan border. India is currently involved in a tense military standoff with Pakistan.

Moreover, troops from India and the USA are also scheduled for joint mountain-warfare exercises in Alaska. These exercises will further enhance the skills of the Indian army on icy, mountainous terrain. India and Pakistan have been engaged in an ongoing battle high atop the Siachen Glacier in Kashmir's north since 1984 when India occupied the area.

Despite Pakistan's unwavering support of America in its war against terrorism, America is now training India on how better to attack Pakistan. What a way to say thank you!

20:07 / 30.08.02

Isn't it possible that the two blocs could continue to be financially interdependent whilst fighting client wars? It could even be economically viable as a model- I mean, there's a big shot in the arm for the munitions industries on both sides, right there.

This is already happening, y'know. Except that there's way more than two players. Wasn't Afghanistan '01-02 just another episode in the longest-running client war on the planet?

20:15 / 30.08.02

Sorry, Fridgzilla - I didn't see you there. I don't agree that anti-immigration policies have traditionally been the preserve of the Right. Labor unions have been well known for opposing immigration. In Australia, trade unions were very strongly racist and anti-immigration at least until the 60s. Here in the US, some of them are still anti-immigration.

I stand corrected, though, that it's an anti-immigration swing rather than a swing to the Right. And I agree that the Left/Right paradigm is woeful. Politics has many more dimensions.

20:46 / 30.08.02

Agree that it's more a perception of the right than an actual consequence of right-wing beliefs (in fact, I think those with avowed free-market principles have a much harder time justifying opposition to immigration, though god knows it's not uncommon). Historically, left-wing groups have had more of an association with anti-racist groups, who are often opposed to racist anti-immigration groups, but that's about as far as it goes.

I think the current european situation shows how it's possible for people with all sorts of domestic political beliefs to unite against filthy foreigners coming here to take our jobs, and probably our women as well.

An opposition to immigration is, of course, one thing that the US and EU can agree on. Both of them have aging populations and decreasing birth rates, but both are very unwilling to have immigrants taking the place of these missing wage-earners. (I'm painfully aware that the only reason I have a chance of being let into the US is because I'm a tech worker in an under-occupied field, being sponsored by a major corporation with presence in both countries. Without that I'd have no chance.)