| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Steyn: U.S. can sit back and watch Europe implode |
| 2005-02-27 |
| A week ago, the conventional wisdom was that George W. Bush had seen the error of his unilateral cowboy ways and was setting off to Europe to mend fences with America's ''allies.'' I think not. Lester Pearson, the late Canadian prime minister, used to say that diplomacy is the art of letting the other fellow have your way. All week long President Bush offered a hilariously parodic reductio of Pearson's bon mot, wandering from one European Union gabfest to another insisting how much he loves his good buddy Jacques and his good buddy Gerhard and how Europe and America share -- what's the standard formulation? -- ''common values.'' Care to pin down an actual specific value or two that we share? Well, you know, ''freedom,'' that sort of thing, abstract nouns mostly. Love to list a few more common values, but gotta run. And at the end what's changed? Will the United States sign on to Kyoto? No. Will the United States join the International Criminal Court? No. Will the United States agree to accept whatever deal the Anglo-Franco-German negotiators cook up with Iran? No. Even more remarkably, aside from sticking to his guns in the wider world, the president also found time to cast his eye upon Europe's internal affairs. As he told his audience in Brussels, in the first speech of his tour, ''We must reject anti-Semitism in all forms and we must condemn violence such as that seen in the Netherlands.'' The Euro-bigwigs shuffled their feet and stared coldly into their mistresses' decolletage. They knew Bush wasn't talking about anti-Semitism in Nebraska, but about France, where for three years there's been a sustained campaign of synagogue burning and cemetery desecration, and Germany, where the Berlin police advise Jewish residents not to go out in public wearing any identifying marks of their faith. The ''violence in the Netherlands'' is a reference to Theo van Gogh, murdered by a Dutch Islamist for making a film critical of the Muslim treatment of women. Van Gogh's professional colleagues reacted to this assault on freedom of speech by canceling his movie from the Rotterdam Film Festival and scheduling some Islamist propaganda instead. The president, in other words, understands that for Europe, unlike America, the war on terror is an internal affair, a matter of defusing large unassimilated radicalized Muslim immigrant populations before they provoke the inevitable resurgence of opportunist political movements feeding off old hatreds. Difficult trick to pull off, especially on a continent where the ruling elite feels it's in the people's best interest not to pay any attention to them. The new EU ''constitution,'' for example, would be unrecognizable as such to any American. I had the opportunity to talk with former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing on a couple of occasions during his long labors as the self-declared and strictly single Founding Father. He called himself ''Europe's Jefferson,'' and I didn't like to quibble that, constitution-wise, Jefferson was Europe's Jefferson -- that's to say, at the time the U.S. Constitution was drawn up, Thomas Jefferson was living in France. Thus, for Giscard to be Europe's Jefferson, he'd have to be in Des Moines, where he'd be doing far less damage. But, quibbles aside, President Giscard professed to be looking in the right direction. When I met him, he had an amiable riff on how he'd been in Washington and bought one of those compact copies of the U.S. Constitution on sale for a buck or two. Many Americans wander round with the constitution in their pocket so they can whip it out and chastise over-reaching congressmen and senators at a moment's notice. Try going round with the European Constitution in your pocket and you'll be walking with a limp after two hours: It's 511 pages, which is 500 longer than the U.S. version. It's full of stuff about European space policy, Slovakian nuclear plants, water resources, free expression for children, the right to housing assistance, preventive action on the environment, etc. Most of the so-called constitution isn't in the least bit constitutional. That's to say, it's not content, as the U.S. Constitution is, to define the distribution and limitation of powers. Instead, it reads like a U.S. defense spending bill that's got porked up with a ton of miscellaneous expenditures for the ''mohair subsidy'' and other notorious Congressional boondoggles. President Ronald Reagan liked to say, ''We are a nation that has a government -- not the other way around.'' If you want to know what it looks like the other way round, read Monsieur Giscard's constitution. But the fact is it's going to be ratified, and Washington is hardly in a position to prevent it. Plus there's something to be said for the theory that, as the EU constitution is a disaster waiting to happen, you might as well cut down the waiting and let it happen. CIA analysts predict the collapse of the EU within 15 years. I'd say, as predictions of doom go, that's a little on the cautious side. But either way the notion that it's a superpower in the making is preposterous. Most administration officials subscribe to one of two views: a) Europe is a smugly irritating but irrelevant backwater; or b) Europe is a smugly irritating but irrelevant backwater where the whole powder keg's about to go up. For what it's worth, I incline to the latter position. Europe's problems -- its unaffordable social programs, its deathbed demographics, its dependence on immigration numbers that no stable nation (not even America in the Ellis Island era) has ever successfully absorbed -- are all of Europe's making. By some projections, the EU's population will be 40 percent Muslim by 2025. Already, more people each week attend Friday prayers at British mosques than Sunday service at Christian churches -- and in a country where Anglican bishops have permanent seats in the national legislature. Some of us think an Islamic Europe will be easier for America to deal with than the present Europe of cynical, wily, duplicitous pseudo-allies. But getting there is certain to be messy, and violent. Until the shape of the new Europe begins to emerge, there's no point picking fights with the terminally ill. The old Europe is dying, and Mr. Bush did the diplomatic equivalent of the Oscar night lifetime-achievement tribute at which the current stars salute a once glamorous old-timer whose fading aura is no threat to them. The 21st century is being built elsewhere. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #16 Valentine> "NAFTA ain't a constitution I think is" No, the NAFTA treaty is a treaty between nations. And the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" is also a treaty between nations. It says so there in the name. What Steyn and .com are also pointing out I think is that this "constitution" can't accurately be called a constitution if its as long as treaty papers There are several treaty papers which are much shorter than the US constitution. "but it ain't a constitution by most defintions" I'd say it holds most of the function of a constitution, so calling it one is quite accurate. Ofcourse it also holds most of the function of a treaty as well. So calling it one is also quite accurate. You have a hybrid entity between a federation and international organization, you get a hybrid document describing its function. And you get a hybrid name that includes both the words "treaty" and "constitution" in the title. But I gotta give it to you Aris you're claim awhile back that you much prefer this constitution because it pretty much guarantees "Europe will never go to war" I said that? I don't remember it. I believe that the EU itself already assures that its members nations won't go to war against theselves again. With or without Constitution. But it's certainly possible I meant that the Constitution is required for the EU to expand further until it covers the whole of Europe. I dont think the EU will ever be much of a military threat to anyone once it passes. So, our eeeevil EU troops won't be invading Britain to overthrow democracy there? IIRC, Anonymouse will be pleased to hear it. Anyway, what *I* think is that you don't know what the Constitution actually says or what changes it makes from the current treaties. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-27 11:35:27 PM |
| #15 NAFTA ain't a constition I think is what .com is trying to point out. What Steyn and .com are also pointing out I think is that this "constitution" can't accurately be called a constitution if its as long as treaty papers, spending and defense bills, and legislation for new bills will all possible annexes combined. Call it a "Bible of Treaties" or the "Tome of Bills of Neverending Agony" or something, but it ain't a constitution by most defintions. (Unless of course you're planning on whipping out this 1700 page monstrosity and throwing it at one of your MPs just to get their attention...that might work as a way to make sure the people get some usage outta it). But I gotta give it to you Aris you're claim awhile back that you much prefer this constitution because it pretty much guarantees "Europe will never go to war" (with one another or anyone else it seems), I can pretty much agree with. I dont think the EU will ever be much of a military threat to anyone once it passes. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2005-02-27 10:59:58 PM |
| #14 Bullshit. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-27 10:22:24 PM |
| #13 NAFTA? WTF? Focus. On topic. You what the fuck, .com. Focus? On topic? It's you people who first compared the length of the the EU constitutional treaty with the US constitution. If *that's* an apt comparison, then the NAFTA treaty is just as apt a one, like it or not. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-27 10:17:03 PM |
| #12 NAFTA? WTF? Focus. On topic. The strawman shortage grows ever worse. Straw futures approach platinum levels. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-27 9:53:19 PM |
| #11 The future european astronaut is planning to carry the EU "contitution" into space. If he doesn't hurry, it may be the Koran. Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-02-27 9:22:48 PM |
| #10 Anyway, the guy is making assumptions that I disagree with. For example he seems to think that the European Constitution will be ratified for sure, and I happen to think that's the less probable scenario by far. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-27 9:19:30 PM |
| #9 Have either of you, JFM or .com, ever bothered to check the length of the NAFTA treaty? It's about 1700 pages, including annexes and footnotes. Try to carry *that* around in your pockets. My "beloved phonebook" would be even more beloved by me if it was the much shorter definition of a supranational government, rather than the mammothical expression of the hybrid entity that the EU currently is, filled with the opt-outs and results of years of compromises happening every time a new member-state negotiated an accession treaty as it accedes into the Union. And I may not be able to carry the whole constitution around, but no worries, I will be able to carry Parts I & II that are the truly constitutional bits and the Charter of fundamental rights. I'll leave out Part III and the various protocols and annexes; namely the bits which contain most of the treaty-ise. And JFM, I googled about it and the cost is far far less than what you say. A kilo into space is nowadays less that 10000$, and may be less that 2000$. I can't be more specific not knowing what kind of propulsion they'll use. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-27 9:15:37 PM |
| #8 Bush as Border Collie on trip to Europe... |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-27 7:21:56 PM |
| #7 The future european austronaut is planning to carry the EU "contitution" into space. The over 800 pages (Mark Steyn has forgooten the annexes) of it. Weighing over 1 pound. Cost of sending one pound into space: probably in excess of a million dollars. Better to be an American: they have a much lighter constitution. |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-02-27 6:02:48 PM |
| #6 Thanks,PD |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-02-27 5:56:18 PM |
| #5 "Mistress Condi, she-wolf of the State Department" ROFL!!! Bravo! She-Wolf - I love it! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-27 5:25:54 PM |
| #4 If so many smart people hadn't assured me that Bush is a moronic chimpanzee, I would say that his trip to Europe was a piece of diplomatic genius. First, he seizes the moral high ground in his second inaugural address by talking about freedom from tyranny. Ten days later eight million Iraqis -- in whom Bush never seems to have lost faith-- validate Bush's right to hold the moral high ground. Then Bush goes to Europe and figuratively speaking asks Jacques, "Now, you oppose tryanny, don't you, Jacques?" Jacques' honest answer is, "Well, George, as long as I'm the tyrant I really don't have a problem with tryanny. You think some truck driver in Cherbourg knows more about governing France than I do? Besides, the money's good." But Jacques can't say that publicly because doing so would blow the lid off the whole EU constitution thing: Jacques really doesn't want those troublesome English getting the idea that a vote for the EU constitution means giving up their rights. So Jacques just sort of mumbles his way through the visit. The appearance, which Steyn seizes on, is a consensus of sorts on Bush's terms. And meanwhile Bush turns Mistress Condi, she-wolf of the State Department, loose on Mubarak... |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-02-27 5:19:43 PM |
| #3 Yo, Aris. You'd better go set Mr Steyn straight. I think he just dissed the shit out of your beloved phonebook. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-27 5:12:44 PM |
| #2 The irony is Bush is saving Europe from it's destiny. Who makes better immigrants: the current fascist islamists fostered by the wahabbis, or the future democrats from Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and eventually Iran and Arabia (formerly know as Saudi)? |
| Posted by: john 2005-02-27 5:00:22 PM |
| #1 The thing that amazed me about Bush's trip to Europe is that the press lapped up all those platitudes like Fido and the famous Dog's Breakfast. Bush appealed to their better natures, saying the right things, but the ball was placed squarely in Europe's court. If they want to join in helping to get Iraq on its feet, well, we could sure use the help. But if they don't, then we go on and do the mission. Steyn is correct. It is not the job of the US to meddle in the EU constitution. It is not our business. However, it is our business when countries like France and Germany actively undermine our interests and have covert trade with a dictator like Saddam. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-02-27 4:00:38 PM |
