Friday, November 22, 2002
posted by Mooraq at 4:55 PM
More on Europe and America It's based on pretending that the other countries demanding input will make decisions based on principle, for one thing. But they are obviously not - they're acting to advance themselves I read it as meaning that 1) Other countries pretend to act on principles but are not 2)Unless they act on principle (which I suppose means agreeing with President Bush) they should shut up and let America do what it wants to do. Maybe I am misunderstanding here, but then again maybe not. I am just drawing the natural conclusions of the whole point of view that America has the right to act on its own in invading Iraq and if the other countries have a problem, stuff them. The problem I have with a lot of P. arguments is that he seems to confuse what “unilaterally” means in this context. Phrases like: It's ok, apparently, for Schroeder to have "unilaterally" made a decision” (not to attack Iraq), do not make any sense. Deciding NOT to invade a country is a decision that obviously can be made unilaterally (the USA DECIDES unilaterally that is not invading Canada every single day, for instance). It’s decisions that have an impact on OTHER countries that should not be taken unilaterally but should be justified by some reason and sanctioned by the international community. That, of course, if we accept the idea that international relations are ruled by more than the simple military power. Then P. says that Now Europe is upset that they're left with the consequences of their own decision (not to have a strong military) I am an advocate for a stronger European defense force but I do not understand what the “consequences” of these decisions are. Schroeder is not asking the US to fight Iraq on Germany’s behalf so I do not understand what P. means by that. Even P.’s take on the relationships within Nato is a bit confused, he quotes Blair saying Tony Blair said a few months ago, being an ally means being willing to pay a "blood price" for the alliance Of course this is what allies do when they agree on what needs to be done or to protect each other. But not when one of the allies is doing something the others do not approve, for instance I am sure that if Britain decided to invade Scandinavia the USA would try to convince the ally to desist from such enterprise, and would not rush ahead to bomb Stockholm. This is what friends are for, not just to fight alongside each other but also to lend a word of wisdom where wisdom is needed. I will leave the comment on the “special relationship between Britain and the U.S., and the level of influence that Britain has as a result” for another day, just let me say here that I believe all this “special relationship” story to be a big joke. The US is more than happy to have Britain at its side, like one does with a cuddly poodle, but has never got out of its way when Britain asked for something (like stopping the IRA terrorists to raise funds in the US) in return for this “special relationship”. Another moot point is Mooraq's assertions really are a Free Rider argument; he doesn't say on what basis the EU countries ought to be given a role in making decisions . What do you mean by on what basis one should be given a role? What basis the US has to make decisions? The same as any other country, the role of each country is usually based around the economic/political weight of that country. The US happens to be the most influential country in the world as it is the richest and politically powerful, other countries fulfill their role according to their political weight, it’s not you and me making decision about how gets the badge of “important country that can make decision”, it’s a fact. P. also tends to forget that Europe is not (yet?) a single state when he says: The ultimate goal of these claims is that the EU will formulate a common position on foreign policy matters . The EU is an association of member countries that might be evolving in a federal state but, at the moment, is not. A common foreign policy is a dream of the Commission in Bruxelles but is not going to happen in the next ten years at least. I think that a lot of misunderstanding in the US comes from not having clear ideas of how the EU exactly works. Let me make it clear here that we are NOT a single country; we are someway more integrated than NAFTA but way less than the USA. Then P. goes on, on the concept that: no clear argument for why a wealthy (we're not talking a region that is too poor) region should have the say over what another country does, beyond, essentially, that they want it, while being unwilling to "put their money where their mouth is" I wonder if P. ever stops one second to consider what he is saying. Let me spell it out for him: NOBODY wants to dictate the US how to run its affairs BUT when this affairs consist in MAKING WAR to another sovereign country I think that the international community is right to say a word, EXACTLY as the US is entitled to tell India and Pakistan to avoid blasting each other in a nuclear holocaust. I do not understand how P. can say in the same phrase that no country can interfere in the decision making process of another AND AT THE SAME TIME that the US can make war to another country (which from my point of view is BIG interference with the affair of that country). Plus, I think that Germany is entitled to say (as Schroeder has said) that it will not participate to a war on Iraq. What the hell does P. mean by “putting their money where their mouth is”??? Does he think that they have to declare war on the US to say they do not approve of the war on Iraq? It seems that the only thing on which P. and I agree is that no country acts on principle but all act mainly for their self-serving interests. OK, at least it’s one point! Another rant is Perhaps he (I) means when the EU's policy on importation of genegeneered food affects the lives of millions of hungry people in Africa, but somehow I don't think so (anyhow, that's probably America's fault, too, in Europe's eyes). Or perhaps he's proposing that South Africa, India, and Brazil be given input in how the EU's foreign policy is designed, just like France and Italy do Let me state here that I am in favour of GM food, especially to help starving countries, but I do not think that the US are exactly the best guys to teach the world about agricultural policy and not hurting the third world farmers (read aboout Bush recent farm subsidies here). But the point is, 1) I think countries are entitled their own foreign policy 2) other countries are entitled to criticize this policy when relevant. This critique does not infringe the right of any country. Brazil is not part of the EU so does not have any input on the making of EU foreign policy but is entitled to say that it sucks if it thinks so. In addition to that, there are some foreign policy decisions, for instance to ban export of certain goods to a country, that are entirely in the realm of internal decision-making. Others, such as declaring a war, that are a bit more relevant for the international community as a whole. As I said, I do not see the US trying to stop a nuclear holocaust in India-Pakistan as an unduly interference in local affairs. This really made me laugh: Mooraq is right. Bush can't (order the US to war). America has a Constitutional process. Congress and the Senate were also in on the decision. We have 50 States (a bit more than 15), each of which sends representatives (known as "Senators" and "Congressmen") and consult with the Executive in a pluralistic decision-making process. I do not understand if this was a joke or I P. really believes that a Congressional vote is what makes a war “right”. Apparently “right” for P. is what is best for America (a world version of the GM say that “what’s good for GM is good for the America”) based on the President decision and ratified by Congress. If this is the only standard that measures actions then I am not surprised that other countries are not happy at this definition. I will not enter the discussion about who armed Saddam or who is the main supporter of the Saudis because there is no point in going through basic geo-political and historical facts. In the end it all boils down to one issue: is any country in the world entitled to do as it pleases (including invading another country) based solely on the fact that it CAN (in the sense that it has the military might)? I think not but probably P. thinks that if that country is the US then the answer is yes and nobody is entitled to think differently least they be accused of wanting to “reign” over the US. P. seems to think that the world is like the Far West: bad guys and a sheriff (self-elected) who is entitled to be judge, jury and executioner at the same time. I hope that the world is a bit better then that. I think that the actions of democratic states are not subject only to internal executive decisions-making process but also but some form of international scrutiny by peer-democratic states.
Response part 2
Porphyrogenitus is asking me where I found his argument on America unilateralism. What can I say? His whole blog is a single big quote on the subject. Besides when he says
Thursday, November 21, 2002
posted by Mooraq at 3:58 PM
More on European Defence and a Pluralist World Other countries, like France and UK, remained for a long time anchored to the idea of a conscript army rather than a professional one. In Europe there was no Vietnam war that pointed out the anachronism of such a military structure. Development in the direction of a modern army has been much slower. Building an army is not like building a house, it takes many years and it might also be a politically controversial move. So it is not surprising that it is taking Europe many years to move to a modern, professional military capacity. Another interesting part of the rant says: The idea of having equal say without equal responsibility is also flawed on other grounds. It's based on pretending that the other countries demanding input will make decisions based on principle, for one thing. But they are obviously not - they're acting to advance themselves, regardless of principle. Apparently “equal responsibility” means having a big army, and that’s it. Then North Korea should be a very influential country, more than Italy, Spain or Germany, just to mention some examples. Also, I like the part about “principles”. I assume that all US decisions are then made on “principles” and are not in any way related to US interests. Having the repressive and medieval Saudi’s regime as close ally and partner is surely based on “principles” not on the fact that it’s full of oil. And having an embargo on the repressive dictatorship in Cuba but not one on the repressive dictatorship in China, is also based on “principles”. So, please, let’s leave the naïve comments about foreign-policy-made-on-principles aside. A US president that tried that has been recently awarded a Nobel prize but he was not very effective as a commander-in-chief. Call me cynical, but I think that ALL countries (that includes the US) have first and foremost in mind their own interests before any “principle” is taken into consideration. Then we have the usual rant on how European countries: think they should be appointed as legal guardians of the U.S. to form some sort of "regency council" based on the implication that they only want what's best for everyone. I beg to differ. Each country is free to act as it pleases inside its borders (within certain limits I would say). But when one country wants to go to war with another (regardless of who the two countries in questions are), this is something that matters to the whole international community. When India and Pakistan were on the brink of a nuclear holocaust, a couple of months ago, the US intervened or let it just be? Here is the answer. Does this means that President Bush wants to form a “regency council” to reign on the Indian sub-continent? I don’t think so. In addition to that, when the US of A was attacked on 9-11, nobody questioned their right to retaliate and attack the country that was harboring Bin Laden. Iraq is a slightly different story. Saddam is definitely a bad guy and removing him will be a good thing but a decision like that cannot be based only on the fact the Mr. Rumsfeld is pissed off or that President Bush has a personal vendetta to pursue (please note that I am not saying this is true, it’s just an example). If there are good reasons (i.e., the weapons’ inspectors cannot dismantle all nuclear and chemical arms) then let’s rid the world of a nasty dictator, but President Bush alone cannot unilaterally decide these good reasons. So, EITHER we recognize that there is some international community that is right to police the relationships between sovereign countries, in which case it’s just right that discussion and decisions happen within the ONU council and that the G7 group is right to exert its influence. OR there is no such thing and everything is ruled on the basis of who has the biggest gun and the longest missile. I prefer the first option, can accept the second as an argument but CANNOT accept a rant about how the US is "right" to unilaterally decide who to attack, how, when and on which pretest and this is based on “principles” and in line with the idea of a free world. Pleezzz Give me a break!!! :-)
In response to an American point of view….a long rant
An interesting point of view: it would be really cool if the EU had a military commensurate with its ambitions. Chirac feels the same way. But when push comes to shove Europe doesn't invest what is needed to create such a force. It’s worth pointing out that there are some precise historical reasons why Europe does not have a military power proportional to her economy. After WWII both Japan and Germany (and to a lesser extent Italy) were, for obvious reasons, completely disarmed by the victorious allies. In Japan, if I remember correctly, the concept of a small army without any offensive capacity was also enshrined in the Constitution (written by General McArthur btw). Germany included in her Constitution a provision to forbid German troops to be sent on mission abroad, just recently amended to allow Germans to be part of the ONU peacekeeping operation in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Wednesday, November 20, 2002
posted by Mooraq at 5:22 PM
An Ecological Disaster I am amazed that, after all the disasters we have experienced, single hull tankers are still allowed to roam freely with their dangerous cargo. A European Union directive is supposed to ban all these single-hull wrecks from navigating in Europe, but that will not happen until 2015 if I remember correctly. Let’s hope that this disaster will have the positive after-effect of speeding up the implementation the directive. It is time to stop there disasters for good.
Improved security measures should be put in place to avoid other Valdez happening
The tanker Prestige sunk this morning near the Spanish-Portuguese coast in the north Atlantic. If the main tanks break down, it will release 70,000 tons of oil into the sea, twice as much as the Valdez did in Alaska. The Greek captain of the boat is in prison, I hope he will be joined soon by all others responsible for this disaster, from the owners of the shipping company to the Spanish officials that decided to tow the tanker away instead of moving it closer to land and trying to repair it.
Tuesday, November 19, 2002
posted by Mooraq at 6:06 PM
Go Mitzna, Go It will be a welcome change from Ben-Eliezer, who has been entirely ineffective in this role. Under his guide the Labour, keeper of the lsrael’s lay conscience, has been flattened on Likud’s political positions, with awful results on the peace process (or what’s left of it) and on Israel own democratic structure. The absence of any debate on how to confront the renewed wave of Palestinian terrorism, has helped generate a self-feeding circle of destruction that is drawing Israel and the Palestinian into an endless bloody struggle. If Saddam Hussein is, in one way or another, taken out of the picture, there might be a slight change for a renewed effort for a peace process between Israel and Palestinians. A politically refreshed Labour Party could be instrumental in this development even if, as it appears, Likud goes on to win the next elections. In any case, the level of the debate on how to end the violence with the Palestinians will improve,with Labour’s voice to speak for caution rather then as a megaphone for Likud expansionists dreams.
A leader for Israel?
It looks as if Amram Mitzna will be elected as leader of the Labour Party in Israel.
Monday, November 18, 2002
posted by Mooraq at 5:16 PM
A New Kind of War Check out this v. good scenario for the Iraqi war in the Technology Review. I confess it sounds a bit too good to be true but it’s quite interesting nevertheless.
posted by Mooraq at 4:06 PM
De-Fense, De-Fense There are a number of historical reasons for this, from the scars left on European conscience by WWII to the economic priorities chosen by Europe, to the US acquiescence to provide defense support in exchange for a common Atlantic foreign policy. Only two countries currently have a military apparatus worth mentioning: France and the UK, but Europe as a whole is an economic giant and a military pygmy. As Teddy Roosevelt pointed out, the best way to make people listen to you is to talk softly and carry a big stick. At the moment Europe is definitely talking softly but it lacks the stick. This is why there has been much discussion recently about a common European army. A common European force makes a lot of sense, economies of scale for instance would make such a force much more efficient than 15 small armies scattered across the continent. On the other hand military might has been one of the defining traits of modern nations, and there is a certain reluctance to commit to a common force (it would be as if the US were to agree to devolve part of its military capability to Mexico). Nevertheless Europe has to wake up to a world that is very different to what it was ten years ago. Military capability has a different meaning nowadays. It is not so important anymore to be able to deter an invasion, a duty assigned in the past to nuclear weapons rather than conventional forces. Much more relevant today is to be able to deploy quickly well-armed troops in remote corners of the worlds, for peacekeeping duties and the occasional humanitarian operation (in other words, to kick some dictator’s ass). One thing that the US understood a long time ago is that with power (political, economic or in whatever other guise) comes responsibility. And if Europe is serious about taking a leading role in the affairs of the world it has to be prepared to stand by its commitment, even when this means being prepared to make war and not love.
posted by Carla Passino at 2:54 PM
Of Comments And Housekeeping Just one clarification for some of you who spotted a discrepancy between the Bridging the Gap and Europe and US, so close and so far away postings. This blog is a joint effort by me and Mooraq and, although we do think alike on a number of things, we also disagree (often bitterly) on many others: hence the difference between the two postings. Incidentally, Mooraq is an American enthusiast and usually far more pro-Bush than me. That said, I have taken the point that it is not very clear who has written what, so I have now moved the author's name at the top of each message. Hope this helps.
Sunday, November 17, 2002
posted by Mooraq at 4:41 PM
Europe and US, so close and so far away More on the relationship between the two This posting is mainly in response to many of the comments prompted by my fellow bloggers. First of all let me make clear a couple of points: 1)I am in favour of intervening in Iraq to destroy Saddam’s weapons 2)I am as pro-US as somebody grown up watching Magic playing showtime in LA can be. That said many of the comments posted smack of the original US sin: unilateralism. When one comments: “Americans don't care, at all, whether Europeans actively support us in our various attempts to make the world a better place”, it shows a very narrow view of the things of the world. In terms of military power, the US doesn’t need any ally in any war it wants to undertake, but military power is a mean not a justification. If the only thing needed to legitimate a war or an invasion is the power to do so than Hitler and Stalin were not wrong in trying to rule the world. At the moment Europe, despite its relative military weakness is economically and politically the only power in the world that can rival the US, it is inevitable that the two will try to act in concern and influence each other. Another risible comment is the Thacherian “all evils come from Europe”. It is risible as it is a v. partial view considering that all the ideas that have shaped the modern world, bad AND good, come from Europe (I know this is very Eurocentric). The concepts of individual freedom so strongly enshrined in the American Constitution are the result of the French Illuminist ideals. The concept itself of a Constitution as the fundamental law regulating the relationship between a citizen and the State comes from Europe, so is the idea that workers are entitled to a decent wage, so is the idea that minorities have to be respected, so is the idea that laws should be written down and everybody is equal in front of the law. I could go on and on and on. The modern western society is shaped around ideas originated from Europe. I liked that comment about the endless talks that seems to be at the core of Europe (from JorgXmcKie). According to Jorge it seems Europe's problem is that we have too much democracy, and we tend to give everybody the right to veto most of the decision taken. It is, I admit, not a quick way to reach decisions, but so is that annoying habit of electing parliaments. You know Jorge, you are probably right, we should just elect a King and be done with all this stupid democratic procedural crap. EdwardVT talks about how badly Clinton’s multicultural BS served the US, I might agree if not for the fact that the US economy seemed in much better shape under Clinton than now under the Republicans. Granted, it is not entirely their fault but this administration has made lots of mistakes in handling the downturn so far (from the appointment of the hapless Paul o’Neil to that of Pitt at the SEC). Edward goes on talking about the cold fury that exists today in America. Well, Edward, let me remind you that, for all its terrible impact, 9-11 was a small tragedy compared to the wars that ravaged Europe in the XX century. We count our deaths in Millions, you count them in Thousands. 9-11 has been a horrible and treacherous act of violence but it’s not that the rest of the world has always lived in peace and the US is the first country to experience violence. So, please do not explain to somebody that has had 60 millions of deaths in the WWII alone what cold fury is, what suffering and being threatened means. Also, I fail to understand the relationship between 9-11 and the war with Iraq. Saddam did not attack the US, Bin Laden did. Last but not least, for all those advocating the right of the US to act alone and do what is right for the world, I like to remind them that Mr. Saddam was sponsored by a previous US administration and that many of the arms he used in the Gulf War to shoot on US soldiers were sold to him by the Reagan administration. At the time arming Saddam was "right" and now it is "right" to disarm him? To sum it up, let’s get rid of Saddam by all means. This world will be a better place without him. But let’s not pretend that the US is always right nor that US administrations can do no wrong. A pluralist world were decisions are not reached only according to how many armored divisions a country has is surely a better place to live in than one were a dictator (albeit a benign one) can do as he pleases using his military might to crush all he doesn't like.
For those interested in war-tech
On a common European Army and its implications
Despite what people thinks Europe is not lagging so far behind the US on many counts. Average GNP is lower but not by much. Productivity is higher in the US but using the correct measurements, not by a lot. In PC penetration the US have a clear advantage but Europe is ahead in number of mobile phones etc. etc. There is one thing though where the US of A have a definitive and clear superiority on Europe, that is military capability.
A thank you for all your notes and a clarification
Wow, what a response! Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for pointing to this blog and thanks to all of you who took the trouble to post a comment. I guess it is helpful that we talk, even if we have very different opinions on the matter.
 |
|