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 ||
02/27/2005 10:27:21 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#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 ||
02/27/2005 16:00 Comments ||
Top||
#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 ||
02/27/2005 17:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yo, Aris. You'd better go set Mr Steyn straight. I think he just dissed the shit out of your beloved phonebook.
#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 ||
02/27/2005 17:19 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"Mistress Condi, she-wolf of the State Department"
Posted by: Matt ||
02/27/2005 17:56 Comments ||
Top||
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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 ||
02/27/2005 21:22 Comments ||
Top||
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.
#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.
#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.
This is the most powerful question in the world today: Why not here? People in Eastern Europe looked at people in Western Europe and asked, Why not here? People in Ukraine looked at people in Georgia and asked, Why not here? People around the Arab world look at voters in Iraq and ask, Why not here?
Thomas Kuhn famously argued that science advances not gradually but in jolts, through a series of raw and jagged paradigm shifts. Somebody sees a problem differently, and suddenly everybody's vantage point changes.
"Why not here?" is a Kuhnian question, and as you open the newspaper these days, you see it flitting around the world like a thought contagion. Wherever it is asked, people seem to feel that the rules have changed. New possibilities have opened up.
The question is being asked now in Lebanon. Walid Jumblatt made his much circulated observation to David Ignatius of The Washington Post: "It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world."
So now we have mass demonstrations on the streets of Beirut. A tent city is rising up near the crater where Rafik Hariri was killed, and the inhabitants are refusing to leave until Syria withdraws. The crowds grow in the evenings; bathroom facilities are provided by a nearby Dunkin' Donuts and a Virgin Megastore.
The head of the Syrian Press Syndicate told The Times on Thursday: "There's a new world out there and a new reality. You can no longer have business as usual."
Meanwhile in Palestine, after days of intense pressure, many of the old Arafat cronies are out of the interim Palestinian cabinet. Fresh, more competent administrators have been put in. "What you witnessed is the real democracy of the Palestinian people," Saeb Erakat said to Alan Cowell of The Times. As Danny Rubinstein observed in the pages of Ha'aretz, the rules of the game have changed.
Then in Iraq, there is actual politics going on. The leaders of different factions are jostling. The tone of the coverage ebbs and flows as more or less secular leaders emerge and fall back, but the amazing thing is the politics itself. If we had any brains, we'd take up Reuel Marc Gerecht's suggestion and build an Iraqi C-Span so the whole Arab world could follow this process like a long political soap opera.
It's amazing in retrospect to think of how much psychological resistance there is to asking this breakthrough question: Why not here? We are all stuck in our traditions and have trouble imagining the world beyond. As Claus Christian Malzahn reminded us in Der Spiegel online this week, German politicians ridiculed Ronald Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech in 1987. They "couldn't imagine that there might be an alternative to a divided Germany."
But if there is one soft-power gift America does possess, it is this tendency to imagine new worlds. As Malzahn goes on to note, "In a country of immigrants like the United States, one actually pushes for change. ... We Europeans always want to have the world from yesterday, whereas the Americans strive for the world of tomorrow."
Stephen Sestanovich of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote an important essay for this page a few weeks ago, arguing that American diplomacy is often most effective when it pursues not an incrementalist but a "maximalist" agenda, leaping over allies and making the crude, bold, vantage-shifting proposal - like pushing for the reunification of Germany when most everyone else was trying to preserve the so-called stability of the Warsaw Pact.
As Sestanovich notes, and as we've seen in spades over the past two years in Iraq, this rashness - this tendency to leap before we look - has its downside. Things don't come out wonderfully just because some fine person asks, Why not here?
But this is clearly the question the United States is destined to provoke. For the final thing that we've learned from the papers this week is how thoroughly the Bush agenda is dominating the globe. When Bush meets with Putin, democratization is the center of discussion. When politicians gather in Ramallah, democratization is a central theme. When there's an atrocity in Beirut, the possibility of freedom leaps to people's minds.
Not all weeks will be as happy as this one. Despite the suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq, the thought contagion is spreading. Why not here?
Posted by: tipper ||
02/27/2005 1:14:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I would consider congratulating the NYT for this glimmer of insight, but...
The hypocrisy turns it into a tasteless joke.
Without the Bush Doctrine, and Bush behind it doing when others have only talked, there would not be this moment, there would be no uplifting "question" nor soft power to bestow -- there would be no story. Fuck off, NYT, you're about 3 years late getting it, and you've only grasped one aspect.
You've fought this President from Day One, using your once considerable reputation to bear to undermine him at every turn - and been proven vacuous and disingenuous. Justly, your influence declines in tandem with your credibility. You have no place in this story - even reporting it is above your station - for everything good in this situation occurred in spite of you. You have no right to trumpet the numerous positives that will result from any of the Bush Administration's achievements, and they will be many - seeds have been planted that will bear fruit for decades. You deserve no association with their successes.
You deserve derision for partisanship, your anti-American poison, your deranged owner and editorial staff's terminal fascination with sociofascist multiculturalism, and your highly successful effort to permanently subvert and bring shame to journalism. That is your primary success - and will be your epitaph.
#9
Things must be going very well indeed. Even Hillary is talking about about the success in Iraq. Success has many fathers while failure is a orphan. We will continue to see rational liberals 'walking it back'. Unfortunately, the moonbats will never see the truth.
#12
Great rant, .com! What is really happening is that people like Hillary and some at the NYT are seeing the trend because they can play "follow the dots" and they have enough brains to see the trend curve. So they jump aboard the bandwagon that the rest of us have been powering with blood, sweat, and tears and think that they will get a free ride. They still consider that the public are a bunch of idiots. They still have the same agenda, but they realize that the Far Left is committing political suicide.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/27/2005 23:47 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
