| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Party Thoughts: Too Good Means Too Stupid. Let Europe Be On Its Own |
| 2007-02-14 |
| This Brussels Journal article is two weeks old, but it comes closest to expressing my views as any I have read. Excerpt: The implications for America’s foreign policy appears to be this: (1) pursue the closely defined national interest. (2) In doing so seek the support of the like-minded. (3) Do not sacrifice defensible positions to purchase the ambivalent approval of those who lack the resolve to protect themselves. Remember that, counting on America once everything fails is “nice“ but also inadequate. (4) Learn that few enemies can cause as much damage as can friends can who stand on your brake when flooring the gas pedal is called for. (5) Once the coming crisis of the future materializes, make sure that for those who had knowingly ignored it, the price-tag is attached. (6) Be certain that you do not reward those who had insisted on wearing dark glasses while the lights were dimming. (7) Learn a French proverb. Memorize: “Trop bon fait bête” [to be too good means being too stupid]. These recommendations are not meant as “revenge.” The goal of the plea is to make a break with an unequal relationship. In it the USA promised to counter act whatever damage came to her European allies making these know that they are freed from having to pay the price of failure. Unlike generally assumed, blanc checks have a way of undermining security. They remove the inhibitions that prevent irresponsible moves and so provoke frivolity. A tendency is created to put up the farm and the pension fund as collateral in the game and it is coupled to disrespect towards the “bank“. The final culmination is negligence in the matter of ones own survival. Appearing prepared to “pick up the tab” since 1949 (the foundation of NATO) the US, once Europe recovered, sent the wrong signals. Unconditional commitment being assured, she failed to demand an equivalent local dedication. Contrary to popular assumptions, under this umbrella’s protection it was not maturity that flourished. Commitment became a one-way-street. While the Soviet threat prevailed the extent to which this was true was not apparent. Currently, with the front being everywhere, we face a new situation. Not in the least as the EU has a larger population than the US and enjoys a GNP that is comparable to the “guardian’s.” Under these conditions protection, while justified in the 50s and 60s, is uncalled for. Europe has outgrown the need for protection and it does not need the tutelage which America hardly ever exercised. By implication, the transatlantic relationship needs to be put on the basis of equality. Fewer one-sided US-guarantees are called for on the leveled playing field. The immediate result will unlikely to be the kind of support Americans, disappointed by Europe’s ingratitude, might wish for. On the long run, however, by attaching conditions to what is taken for granted might have a sobering effect. At any rate, those who exclaim (such as about the NATO’s role in Afghanistan) “this is not our war,” will at least not be doing it inside walls Washington protects. Nor is it likely that the project to place missile defenses for Europe along her east will continue be alleged to have been “agreed only under great-power pressure” and that we “have nothing to do” with what happens with Iran’s nuked missiles. What the US needs is not being liked at any price but useful partners. This means relying on those who know their interests and stand up for them. Such states will be useful associates to achieve goals that are identified as being shared. As things stand, America’s policy of alliances has produced weak and parasitic fiends and correspondingly effective enemies. Senator Kerry, attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, announced that the US is “isolated” in the world. He would obviously not agree with this essay’s allegations regarding the causes of the US’ current rejection. Nevertheless, while Kerry ignores his and his ilk’s contribution, he does state a fact. |
| Posted by:ed |
| #4 IOW, Amer can go back into happy isolationism becuz the Euros don't = won't need us for WW1, WW2, the Cold War, let alone WW3/4, etal. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-02-14 20:09 |
| #3 8) Learn what you are speaking about: the French proverb is : "Qui fait l'ange fait la bête". "Who tries to behave like an angel ends behaving like a beast". |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-02-14 14:24 |
| #2 I think the President should come up with a Free Trade pact. Get Congress to ratify it, and then any country in the world that wants free trade with the USA and is willing to abide by the restrictions, can sign it as well. The pact should be between the US and the signatories, not between the signatories and each other. If they want that they should arrange that themselves. I think the effect of expanding free trade would be rapid and positive, and would make the US an even more vital hub of commerce than we already are. Oh, and we should pull our troops out of Europe, and shut down NATO. Let the Europeans turn their NATO assets into a Euro force with no logistics. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-02-14 12:11 |
| #1 Spot on! I'd add that the Eastern european nations (having more recent experience with tyranny) "get it". Western europe with the possible exception of Britain is toast. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2007-02-14 10:24 |