From the Wall Street Journal's dead tree op-ed page. Requires subscription, so given here uncut.
Recent books have raved that the European Union is the way of the future. In contrast, a supposedly exhausted, broke and post-imperial United States chases the terrorist chimera, running up debts and deficits as it tilts at the autocratic windmills of the Arab World. That caricature frames the visit of the president to Europe as transatlantic pundits demand a softer George Bush, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld. Stop the childish bickering and the tiresome neocon preening, we are lectured ad nauseam by Euro and American elites. Don't divide Europe, we hear endlessly. Even though the European press, EU leaders, and their wild public have dealt out far more invective than they have received, American circumspection is the order of the day, the expected magnanimity from the more aggressive (and stronger) partner.
Europe is huffy, but strangely tentative in its new prickliness. Short-term positive indicators -- trade surpluses, the strong euro, low inflation and expansion of the EU -- are showcased to prove that its statism and pacifism are the preferable Western paradigm. But privately bureaucrats in Brussels are far more worried about different and scarier long-term concomitant signs: high unemployment, static rates of worker productivity, low birthrates, Islamicist minorities, looming unfunded entitlement obligations, and a high-sounding pacifism that is being increasingly seen world-wide as base appeasement by friend and enemy alike.
The adage goes that the European Union counts on a more sophisticated and nuanced "soft power." In reality, that translates to using transnational organizations and its own economic clout to soothe or buy off potential adversaries, while a formidable cultural engine dresses it all up in high sounding platitudes of internationalism and multilateralism. Everything from idly watching Milosevic and the Hutus butcher unchecked to unilateral intervention in the Ivory Coast or no action in Darfur usually finds either the proper humanitarian exegesis or the culpable American bogeyman. Yet contrary to the mythologies of Michael Moore and the high talk of Kyoto, most of the international sins of the recent age -- selling a reactor to Saddam, setting up a new arms market in China, whitewashing Hezbollah, or subsidizing Hamas -- were the work of European avatars of peace.
Continued on Page 49
#1
The population trends in Europe coupled with the state welfare could spell serious problems in the future. Our Soc Sec and Medicare problems, caused in large part by population trends and expectations, are dwarfed by the problem in Europe. See, e.g., The Global Baby Bust, FA, 6/04, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83307/phillip-longman/the-global-baby-bust.html?mode=print
"With a shrinking labor supply, Europe's future economic growth will therefore depend entirely on getting more out of each remaining worker (many of them unskilled, recently arrived immigrants), even as it has to tax them at higher and higher rates to pay for old-age pensions and health care." This, of course, will require increasing importation of workers, who often come from Islamic countries (Turkey, et cetera).
#6
I won't write off Europe, because it is such a big market, and an exploding number of Euros - including in France - are beginning to understand what has to be done with the Muslim enemy. Any Secular - even Commie mutts - can be educated. Koranimals are immune to reason. Any politician in the West who kisses enemy asses, needs to be tossed into the discreditation hole and left there. Hate for Muslims is good. I love Hate.
Well, with number of euros exploding, Houston, we would have already bigbadaboom a problem.
Perhaps "rapidly increasing number" would be a better verbal device.
I am not convinced, though. Eastern Europens still have some life juice in their bloodstream and they have a genetic memory of Islamic thread (I inherited it too). Western Europe is so pussified that in my humble view, they are already 1/3 on a slippery slope.
The fallacy of NATO is that it was an organizaiton for the defense of Europe, not of the United States. No European country ever, in their wildest dreams, conceived that they might have to move their troops west, rather than having the Americans move their troops east for their defense. The Soviet Union was the enemy, not Canada or Mexico or, as it eventually turned out, a stateless army of beturbanned psychotics, funded by that place Europe's oil comes from. There's no Soviet Union now. Despite what some people fear about Putin there never will be again. NATO's reason for existence started evaporating in 1988. It got whispier when the Berlin wall came down, and it was transparent by the time Ceaucescu did his last count of muzzle blasts. The August Coup reduced it to little whisps of smoke, more a lingering odor than an actual entity. NATO welcomed the East European former satellite states, but they joined as a gesture of independence, not in the expectation they'd someday march off to war as part of a continental force. NATO RIP.
As one wag said, "NATO exists to keep the US in, the Russians out, and the Germans down." The Russians are out and couldn't get back in if they flew tourist class, the Germans are so down that they're wearing a French choker chain, and I confess I don't see why we're still in.
Atlanticist small talk is all that's left
By Mark Steyn
"The change for the moment is more in tone than substance," wrote Alec Russell, reporting on President Bush's European outreach in yesterday's Telegraph.
You don't say. My colleague is almost right. In Brussels yesterday, the President's "charm offensive" consisted of saying the same things he always says — on Iraq, Iran, Palestine, the illusion of stability, the benefits of freedom, the need for Egypt and Saudi Arabia to get with the programme, etc. But, tone-wise, the Bush charm offensive did its best to keep the offensiveness reasonably charming — though his references to anti-Semitism and the murder of Theo van Gogh by a Dutch Islamist were a little more pointed than his hosts would have cared for.
But, in the broader sense vis-Ã -vis Europe, the administration is changing the tone precisely because it understands there can be no substance. And, if there's no substance that can be changed, what's to quarrel about? International relations are like ex-girlfriends: if you're still deluding yourself you can get her back, every encounter will perforce be fraught and turbulent; once you realise that's never gonna happen, you can meet for a quick decaf latte every six — make that 10 — months and do the whole hey-isn't-it-terrific-the-way-we're-able-to-be-such-great-friends routine because you couldn't care less. You can even make a few pleasant noises about her new romance (the so-called European Constitution) secure in the knowledge he's a total loser.
World leaders are always most expansive when there's least at stake: the Queen's Christmas message to the Commonwealth is the ne plus ultra of this basic rule. In Her Majesty's beloved Commonwealth family, talking about enduring ties became a substitute for having them. That's the salient feature of transatlantic dialogue since 9/11: it's become Commonwealth-esque - all airy assertions about common values, ties of history, all meaningless. Even Donald Rumsfeld is doing it. At the Munich Conference on Collective Security the other day, he gave a note-perfect rendition of empty Atlanticist Euro-goo: "Our collective security depends on our co-operation and mutual respect and understanding," he declared, with a straight face.
Rummy's appearance in Munich was unscheduled. A German federal prosecutor was investigating a war crimes complaint against the US Defence Secretary and, although it seems unlikely even the silliest showboating Europoseurs would have been foolish enough to pull a Pinochet on him, Rumsfeld made a point of not setting foot on German soil until Berlin put an end to that nonsense. That tells you more about transatlantic relations than anything in the speech. But, just for the record, the "collective security" blather is completely bogus. In the column I wrote on September 11, 2001, I mentioned en passant that among the day's consequences would be the end of Nato - "a military alliance for countries that no longer in any recognisable sense have militaries".
I can't remember why I mentioned Europe and Nato in that 9/11 column. It seems an odd thing to be thinking about as the towers were falling. But it was clear, even then, that the day's events would test the Atlantic relationship and equally clear that it would fail that test. Later that week, for the first time in its history, Nato invoked its famous Article Five - the one about how an attack on one member is an attack on all. But, even as the press release was rolling off the photocopier, most of the "allies" in this post-modern alliance were insisting that the declaration didn't mean anything. "We are not at war," said Belgium. Norway and Germany announced that there would be no deployment of their forces.
Remember last year's much trumpeted Nato summit in Turkey? This was the one at which everyone was excited at how the "alliance" had agreed to expand its role in Afghanistan beyond Kabul to the country's somewhat overly autonomous "autonomous regions". What this turned out to mean on closer examination was that, after the secretary-general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, put the squeeze on Nato's 26 members, they reluctantly put up an extra 600 troops and three helicopters for Afghanistan. That averages out at 23.08 troops per country, plus almost a ninth of a helicopter apiece. As it transpired, the three Black Hawks all came from one country - Turkey - and they've already gone back. And Afghanistan is supposed to be the good war, the one Continental officials all claim to have supported, if mostly retrospectively and for the purposes of justifying their "principled moral opposition" to Iraq.
A few months before 9/11, I happened to find myself sitting next to an eminent older statesman. "What is Nato for?" he wondered. "Well, you should know," I said. "You were secretary-general. You went into the office every day." With hindsight, he was asking the right question. On the other hand, if Nato is useless to America, it looks like being a goldmine for the Chinese, to whom the Europeans are bent on selling their military technology. Jacques Chirac is pitching this outreach to the politburo in lofty terms, modifying Harold Macmillan and casting Europe as Athens to China's Rome. I can't see it working, but the very attempt presumes that the transatlantic relationship is now bereft of meaning.
Nato will not be around circa 2015 - which is why the Americans are talking it up right now. An organisation that represents the fading residual military will of mostly post-military nations is marginally less harmful than the EU, which is the embodiment of their pacifist delusions. But, either way, there's not a lot to talk about. Try to imagine significant numbers of French, German or Belgian troops fighting alongside American forces anywhere the Yanks are likely to find themselves in the next decade or so: it's not going to happen. America and Europe both face security threats. But the difference is America's are external, and require hard choices in tough neighbourhoods around the world, while the EU's are internal and, as they see it, unlikely to be lessened by the sight of European soldiers joining the Great Satan in liberating, say, Syria. That's not exactly going to help keep the lid on the noisier Continental mosques. So what would you do in Bush's shoes? Slap 'em around a bit? What for? Where would it get you? Or would you do exactly what he's doing? Climb into the old soup-and-fish, make small talk with Mme Chirac and raise a glass of champagne to the enduring friendship of our peoples: what else is left? This week we're toasting the end of an idea: the death of "the West".
Posted by: Brett ||
02/22/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
I wouldn't say bye to all Europe. Russia won't be out for ever and Germany won't stay down, especially if there's no adult supervision. The Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Romanians et al in Central Europe will welcome us and will be more effective alllies as their recovery from 50 years under communism proceeds. And the Brits, Dutch and Norwegians are not guaranteed to jump in the toilet with the French and Belgians. Just rename NATO and move it to Warsaw.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/22/2005 7:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Withdraw from NATO(it's an alliance in name only).It is time France,Germany,Spain,etc stand or falls on it's own.To paraphrase Horace Greely"Go east young man".
#7
His asssessment is depressing, all right, but seems to be on the mark. Rummy's statement on Old Europe was also on the mark. Things change. If countries like France, Germany, Spain, etc. do not share our priorities and values, then we deal with them on our common ground and move on. Mrs. Davis made the point: There are a number of countries in Central and Eastern Europe that share our values through hard won freedoms. There are opportunities to do good things because we have common interests.
I am not enthusiastic, however, about bailing out Europe in places like Kosovo and other places in the former Yugoslavia. They need to clean up their backyard themselves. If they can't deal with that, they can't do anything.
On the subject of staying or withdrawing from NATO, I would keep with them for now, with the knowledge that they are fading into the sunset. I would be very careful about technology transfers and sharing of sensitive secrets. I would imagine that alot of this is bound by treaty, but with the rumblings of mil trade with the Chicoms, I have this feeling that we are giving away technology that will be lobbed back at us. Anyone out there with NATO experience that can enlighten us on NATO use or misuse of US military equipment and knowhow?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/22/2005 11:04 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Remember, America is a Maritime, Oceanic power. This means Poland, with a seacoast and good port cities, will be a key player. The problem will be whether the Scandinavian countries (denmark, Norway, sweden) will allow passage.
#13
Problem is that Poland and all of our other prospective allies in Eastern Europe are EU members. Their shiny new Constitution will largely prohibit their joining a NATO-esque alliance with the US. Instead they'll be locked into the Franco-German American counterweight model.
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.
