Abu Abbas. Abu Nidal was another one, he was found dead in Iraq last year I think. This administration did not believe that Abbas had renounced terror, or maybe he thinks he did but armed actions against Israel aren’t considered terrorism by him, or by much of Europe. There’s one idealogical split right there.
Here’s another: “Where they agree is in their rejection of moral or legal constraints on the sovereign independence of the US.” Most US leaders will. Wilson himself would have probably disliked the idea of a supra-national authority. It’s alright to agree to voluntary constraints, but international law is another matter.
Another: "The first is a divorce, with abandonment of the institutions that bring the two sides of the Atlantic together. The second is a pragmatic partnership, in which the two sides work together in areas of common interest.”
Very rarely do I see anyone in the US refer to Europe as cohesive unit unless they are going on a vacation tour. We refer to individual countries, and we think in terms of individual countries. It seems very different on the other side. Including Canada on the US side of any debate because of geographic location makes no sense to me. Yet it would explain the prevailing view from the left that “Europe is against this war” in Iraq, despite the support of Spain, Denmark, and Poland (we are dealing in nationalisms, so put popular opinion aside for the moment), the written expressions of support from other countries, and the fact that it’s largely an American/British effort. So I would ask Wolf, were he here, to define this transatlantic entity a little better for the US folks, in order to address his points.
Correction noted. Abbas to my knowledge has not been involved in armed action in a decade.
Well, it is rather problematic then to explain US support for the elaboration of the UN - very much a US project - and other multilateral institutions, most notably the upgrading of GATT to WTO. A rather stronger institutional framework, part of making international law. You analysis is simply utter bollocks for this and as international law is ‘voluntary’ insofar as there is no enforcement mechanism other than a desire to see to one’s standing and common advantage.
Well, primo Wolf is writing for an informed audience that reads the Financial Times, and in a single newspaper column, so I am sure we can cut him some slack here.
But second, you badly mischaracterize European support. The Spanish government supported the war over overwhelming popular oppsition, Poland slightly less so, I believe only Denmark may have had popular support for the support by a razor margin. As a matter of generalizing, it seems supportable to characterize the body of official and popular Euro opinion to have been opposed to the war and very much opposed to the manner in which the entire process was conducted.
How so? International law IS voluntary constraints. No one forced the US to sign the UN charter. No one forced the US to sign the Geneva Conventions. They are all voluntary constraints.
Collounsbury - My point illustrated, thank you. I did not mischaracterize. I stated a few facts - perhaps Spain itself mischaracterized its position, perhaps “support” is not the right word, you people decide - but they matter little because it is “Euro” that is the entity of record, and they do not represent the “Euro” view. What is that view?
OliverH - yes, they are all voluntary organizations. A question for you…is it possible to violate international law?
Considering the first Geneva Convention was in 1864 and Woodrow Wilson became the first honourary president of the Red Cross in 1913, an organisation that was set up at that first conference. Also it was him who set up the Legaue of nations, a body set up for the ending of “uncivilized warfare as agreed during the Geneva Convention”, I think Tee you are way off base. Wilson was commited to making governments accounatble for their actions, the reason why the US did not enter the league of Nations was from isolationist domestic pressure.
Wow, how quickly this thread generated into yet another “yes the Iraq war was justified, no it wasn’t” thread…
I think there is a lot of room for difference of opinion and action between the US and Europe. I think that this is, to a large extent, healthy. Your title “Hegemon” is somewhat telling. Isn’t hegemony a rather negative term? If the US and Europe were truly united, the rest of the world might really have something to fear. So, we might differ poiltically, but our economies are so hugely entertwined that I see that as the anchor stabilizing the situation. Even the EU was founded on the principle that the more intertwined two countries’ economies are, the less likely they will go to war, or foster hostilities toward each other.
With the disapearance of the USSR, and the uniting factor of a big, scary, common enemy, it seems only natural that our societies would drift apart somwhat.
If I were European, I’d be more afraid of the US economic might than it’s military might (although the the latter clearly follows the former). The US has been able to dominate the information economy (the current dotcom dip notwithstanding). THe next wave is almost certain to be biotech. Better not let that one slip by, too.
The OP thesis looks overblown to those of us who do think civilization has continued to evolve, with fits and starts and occasional temporary backsliding, but that such evolution can be expected to continue in the future. We do know, many wars and millions of deaths later, that internationalist structures and mutual respect are the way things work best, simply. When that is flouted, there is a roughly equal and opposite reaction, as reality fights back.
I object fairly strongly to The World According to Paul Wolfowitz being called “The American approach” and such. America is a much bigger concept, representing many more people with many more viewpoints, than the neocon band that has taken over the offices currently. It is not by any means established that they represent the will or sentiments or thoughts or attitudes of “America” - in fact, election results if not polls would suggest the opposite.
The OP also does not consider that the prevailing policies in the government itself are subject to change every 4 years. As quickly as they changed in 2000, they can change back in 2004, and much more likely than not to ones consistent with the popular will. We are, socially and internationally, a far more generous and fair people than our current government’s actions would suggest - at least I have to believe that.
My bet is that this Bush’s arrogance and immaturity, and those of his decisionmakers, is not leading to a “divorce”, or even any real divergence long-term. It’ll be just a blip in history, at worst one of those object lessons we need every so often to remind us what happens if we stop climbing that ol’ slippery slope.
What an odd question. do you perhaps mean if it is possible to *enforce[i/] international law?
Or do you mean that International law has no validity?
In that case, why did we hang them Nazi’s or invade Iraq?
The view of the European Union at least has been clearly stated in the resolution of the General Affairs and External Relations Council of the EU of January 27th:
Given that the delegates of member countries to the GEARC are empowered to commit their governments, the turnaround of the Spanish government only a few days later was not just in defiance of UN statutes, but of EU statutes as well -as was, obviously, that of the other EU members who signed the Letter of the Eight.
Question: If I promise you to pay you $16,000 for the possibility to drive my 16-wheeler through your front yard after your prior and individual assent and we make a contract to that end, and then drive my 16-wheeler through both your gate and your front yard, without paying, just because I know fully well you have no means to stop a 16-wheeler hell-bent on plowing through your yard, have I violated our contract or not?
Would you be so kind and elaborate on this? I see a)no reason for the EU to be afraid of US economic might, and b)little dominance of US technologies on more than very limited sectors, which are counterbalanced by strong european dominance in others.
That is the reason why the Euro has been introduced, you are absolutely right on that.
Never the less some arguments for the fact that the USA let some areas slip out of their hands, where they had industrial leadership before:
Airbus vs. Boeing. Boeing does not have anything against to compete with the A380 and needed to introduce the subsonic cruiser, a complete vaporware, which was dropped after the industry was not interested. That could get tricky for Boeing.
Biotech: The first labs to identify and to decode the SARS viruses have been in the UK and in Germany.
Highspeed trains: While people travel savely, quickly and comfortable in Europe in TGVs and ICEs, that development could never make it in the US.
The concorde: super sonic civil flight developed by the UK and France.
Mobil phones: GSM Technology was adopted everywhere but in the US (could change).
Er, why? If the US is richer then that means you buy more European goods, which means Europe becomes richer. Its not a zero sum game. Economic might is nothing to be scared of. Missiles and bombs are.
No, it’s not a zero sum game, but it’s still better to be at or near the top. I’m not saying that the EU is not near the top, but that the differential could be getting greater, and that’s not a good thing for the Europeans.
As for the US dominating in the information economy, I look at IBM, Intel, MSFT, Cisco, Oracle, Sun, Dell, HP (to name just a few) as being the dominant companies and they’re all US. Mobile telephony is one area where the US lags. But most Europeans are using computers with Intel microprocessors, using MSFT software connected to the internet via Cisco routers which are interfaced thru HP or IBM or SUN servers. That’s what I meant.
It’s very questionable how many of those, or any, large companies can be meaningfully categorized as “American” or “European” or anything else. They’re all multinationals, with global operations, many of which aren’t on either continent. Economic costs and benefits are spread globally, and can be shifted across borders very quickly. Boeing and Airbus are good examples of that - an airliner purchase from either company creates about as many jobs on the others’ “home” continent as vice versa.
While the view John holds may have been accurate a couple of decades ago, I don’t think it’s helpful now. The global economy is now too integrated, and has brought the natural state of diplomatic relations along with it to the point where neocon nationalism is just unworkable.
Actually, that is exactly the argument I was making in my first post:
Maybe the follow-up on companies obscured that.
And, yeah, you can argue that all the companies I mentioned are multinational, but are you really saying it doesn’t matter where the corporate HQ is or where most of teh R&D is done? Look at Intel. It has factories all over the world, but the R&D is done almost exclusively in the US. All the key decisions are made in the US. I think it is somewhat naiive to say it doens’t matter where a company is based (founded).
It matters somewhat what parts of what company are located where, yes, but not that much in terms of simple economic and political power. R&D functions can be and often are farmed out to low-cost nations, since you bring it up - Bangalore, India is a software capital now because they can and will work cheaply.
I think it’s “somewhat naive” to think that multinational corporate managements see their technical staff as any more sacred than their manufacturing staff, or that they actually care about national identity as anything but an anachronistic bother. To the considerable extent that they influence government policies, it’s even more naive to think a serious divergence among the industrial nations is coming about in opposition to their own economic mutual interests.
Do you really think the Iraq war and the demonization of France would even have happened if Halliburton depended on Iraqi oil and hadn’t had TotalElf as a competitor there? Are we even seeing a fundamental difference in philosophy or just a temper tantrum that the adult political actors are beginning to control?
I think it’s consistent. Let me try to clarify and you can tell me.
The US and European economies are extremely intertwined. That is sufficient to ensure peace between the two entities. But if Europe wants to share leadership with the US, then it’s economy must be as strong on an absolute basis. The US has been able to dominate the info economy and stay out ahead of Europe in that key technology. That’s a done deal, and while it may change in the future, the race is pretty much already decided. The next wave, biotech, is still a big question mark, and a great opportunity for Europe to position itself ahead of the US.
In the end, though, even if Europe were to fall drasticallly behind, it’s not like the US would be likely to invade or anything. It’s just a matter of how much clout one side carries when dealing with the other. So, if I were a European, I’d be much more concerned about whether the European economies are competitive with the US rather than whether we are in lock step poltically.
And as an American, I see it as a good thing that Europe is a strong, independent entity to counterbalance the US and keep it from the natural excesses that come with hegemony.
In short: Get your economy intertwined with others if you want to have peace, but make sure it is positioned strongly (in absolute terms) if you want to be more than a junior partner in that peaceful relationship.
Do you think MSFT, for example, does more to strengthen the US economy or more to strenghten the European economy?
I’ll honestly say I don’t have the facts, but I’d be pretty surprised if it turned out to be anything but the former. I’m open to persuasion if you have some other data or ideas.
But I do agree with you that over time this should become less and less significant. And that’s a very good thing.