Should Europe Counterbalance the United States?

Valéry Giscard d’Estaing says Europe must prepare itself ‘to take on the giants of this world’. For many Europeans, providing a counterweight in world affairs to a United States seen as a rogue hyperpower is a major motive for uniting Europe. But is this a good reason? Can we do it? Won’t it encourage any American administration to ‘divide and rule’?  

Go to page 1 2

Charles Warren, USA

The problem with this nonsense is that making Europe any kind of "counterweight" to the US would require sacrifices from the European man in the street that would compromise his 35 hour workweek, six week vacation, cradle to grave social welfare way of life. It would require risks and burdens that the European man in the street has no intention of undertaking merely so that France can feel important.

And the eastern half of Europe knows that should they ever have to face an aggressive Russia again, the only thing united Europe would be able to guarantee is the Fifth Partition of Poland.

Paolo, Italy

It will happen. Not sure in which form and when, but the world is fastly going throught a process that will make macro-nations (China, Russia, European Union and USA)to arise and face the competition over global markets. I believe this is already happening, both the rise of EU commercial wheight and the US' 'divide et impera' trick. Of course, the Irak war is messing things up on both sides of the Atlantic ocean.

I'm not sure Europe will have to sacrifice all of its economical and social model to gain global competitivity. Neither I think that the US army-led policies around the world are the best strategy to re-gain power and resources, and to link alliances.
But probably the major actor in the next decades on the trade and production markets will be neither US nor EU: my bet is on China (just take a look at your beloved malls: everything right now is 'made in China'). 'Divide et impera' even there? Not easy.

Ray Vickery

Well...someone had better counterbalance America. As Lord Acton pointed out, "...absolute power corrupts absolutely". Europe must work with China, Russia, and India to rercreate a multi-polar world before we are all submererd in the thousand-year-Walmart. And Britain, of course, must play a role here.
Way back when Britain first wanted to join the Common Market (now the EU) Charles de Gaule successfully opposed Britain's application, largely on the grounds that the British would be "stalking horses for the Americans". Lets hope he wasn't totally correct.

Richard Weissfeld, USA

A counterbalance? Let's see, recently the EU has been described by various EU personalities as " a big failure" and a "grotesque monstrosity". 40% of East Germans don't want to be part of Germany, let alone the EU. The demographics stink because people are aging but are not having babies. Pensions and health issues are not being addressed. No growth economies. High unemeployment. Large Multi-national company are moving to Asia, Turkey, or India. Europe has no credible defense force. A counterbalance? yeah, sure.

Simon Parais, Hungary

The EU should never become a superpower and right now it seems that it never will. The CFPS/ESDP question in the Constitution in my view is a favorable thing since the failure to capture bin Laden, stabilise Iraq or to find WMD there, shows us the incompetence of the U.S to solve the issue alone. At the same time, the current crisis in the Europeean Commission and the failure of the completion of the Lisbon Strategy projects that the EU is struggling with a lot of problems as well. I argue that a stronger EU, being capable of controlling and securing the European continent, which is possible after proper coordination of powers and interests, is ver much needed in this global (dis)order.

Rafael Gomez, Spain

It willSomebody has to counterbalance the USA's imperialism and its ecological recklessness before it's too late. But this need not be done with "American-style" military might. What if, for example, all Kyoto-signing nations were to agree NOT to trade with nations that refuse to sign Kyoto? That might go some way toward reducing American emissions on our planet.

Robert, USA

This is misguided. Europe should just allow the US to bankrupt itself with its militarism. Europe could then spend its money on more responsible things like becoming independent upon Middle eastern oil.
There are very few (if any) problems in this world that have military solutions. Europe should provide the civilized alternative.

Richard Winter, Europe

But is this a good reason? Yes. The underlying motive is not a desire for grandstanding but simple preservation of self-interest. With the end of the so-called clod war, the interests of the US and Europe or no running on parallell lines by default. Can we do it? Of course. Why not? Won‚t it encourage any American administration to Œdivide and rule‚? Of course. That's what the Americans are doing in any case, a policy that was already pursued by the Clinton administration, even though not in the abrasive ways we have come to expect from the Bush warriors.

Michael Remler, United States

The question is ill posed. Only under special circumstances and for special purposes are entities as large and complex as the United States and the European Union either closely allied or sharply opposed. Usually they have complex, contradictory, variable and ill defined relationships. If the question has any real meaning it is that that the EU should organize and define its policies primarily to be the opposite of the US. That is so silly as to be beneath the dignity of so many great people as are the EU. They have always and will always define their policies based on their best understanding of the particular issue and so will we. Cest la vie, Cest la guerre (pardon my lack of real French.)

Hugh Williams, USA

Of course, the USA is the world superpower and Europe cannot hope to win a slugmatch with the US. The ruling group in the USA is so hate filled and ignorant that cooperation with them should be minimized and parts of Europe can send the world a message that all Europeans are not US robots by, while repeating great friendship for America, withdrawing from NATO. It appears that a majority in Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, Italy, and Germany would support this. As one journalist commented about a year ago, "NATO is a foreign legion serving the USA and the foreigners are required to pay their own way."

Michel Bastian, France

Should the EU counterbalance the US? There´s no easy answer. The Bush administration is certainly not far-sighted enough to be interested in an economically and politically powerful EU. For them, this would spell the end of their hegemony in the western world. This is not necessarily true. Of course, a powerful EU would not be at the beck and call of Washington. However, we Europeans cannot be interested in antagonizing America just for the fun of it. We have too many ties, militarily as well as economically, to the US. And, not to forget, there is a common cultural denominator between Europe and the US that doesn´t exist between the US and that other potential superpower, China. The Bush administration should be very wary of treading on european toes too much. It might still need them in the future.
Concerning the ever-recurring theme of "France wants absolute power over the EU", this is a myth commonly found in not-so-informed circles in the US. France has some clout in Europe, of course, nobody would want to deny that. However, there are other states who have at least an equal amount of weight (i.e. Germany and the UK), and, not to forget, the so-called "smaller" states can wield quite a lot of power when they gang up on the "big three". So even if France would want the EU to "speak French", as somebody on this board put it, it does not realistically have a prayer of realizing this. In fact, I doubt Mr. Chirac would be stupid enough even to try.
To sum things up, I would think that the EU should indeed strive to implement a common foreign and defense policy, not as a counterweight to the US, but as a partner that has to be taken seriously. Will the EU be able to pull this off? That remains to be seen.

Rob, UK

The notion of a "counterbalance" implies opposition to the US for the sake of it. As tempting as it sounds right now, that would be a foolish road to take. The US and Europe have more in common with each other than either do with any other part of the world, and a constructive relationship must be based on cooperation and respect.
With that said, Europe needs to make its voice heard and needs to start forging a common view of how the world should work in the 21st century. The 20th century, particularly post-WWII, was mapped out by Americans. Institutions like the UN, IMF and World Bank were dependent on US support and as payback the Americans got their vetos and large voting blocks.
The new age of international cooperation (Kyoto, the ICC) must proceed, without the Americans if necessary. Treating the US with deference only encourages them to take Europe for granted, rather than as an equal partner. After all, the US would have no qualms about moving forward with its own plans in face of European opposition.

Frank Billot, France, Europe

the problem is ill posed if settled in terms of counterbalancing the US. We don't have to position ourselves relatively to them.
We have to act accordingly to our own values and not pretend that we will be their allies whatever way they go.
As shows C.Warren'post at the top of this debate, we surely don't view leadership in the same perspective : US mainstream (not all of it, this is an important point) can only see it in terms of bullying, a XIX century perspective.
What we have to provide is far more precious : another way to help humanity progress than domination by the strongests.
We should make ourself respected, not because we are feared, but because we are honest, just, intelligent, sensitive and stick to those values. And this goes with the US as well as towards China and Russia, which is far from what we are currently doing, especially in the light of Chirac's discourse to China.
We should be ready to make autonomous choices in every respect as soon as possible : should we wait until their administration becomes completely insane, or until they elect an even more moronic one ?

Tom McLaughlin, USA

Ridiculous. The axis of history no longer runs through Europe. The real action this century is in Asia, which is where most of the economic opportunity and all of the major security challenges arise.
Europe increasingly occupies a kind of no-man's land, as a spectator whose power is defined mainly in negative terms: how and where it can block the US. But its ability to make things happen-- to actually promote reform and eventually peace in the middle east, for example-- is non-existent. By the time Europe becomes, as one poster here argues, "a partner that has to be taken seriously", it won't matter. The most important partners for America in this century are located in Asia, and we are now shifting our focus accordingly.
Within a generation a majority of Americans will be of non-European descent. Likewise, our trade and our security interests will also shift away from Europe, which will in future years be of interest mainly to wealthy vacationers.

Philippe Dambournet, French, in Texas, USA

Is anyone evaluating the potential for Euro-Russian defense cooperation?
The Russians are desperate to save their military-industrial complex, re-industrialize, and revive their military. They are also drifting back toward authoritarian rule, a pretty bad omen in connection with their ongoing demographic implosion on the eastern flank of the EU. Meanwhile, the US is discarding every strategic treaty in sight and making moves that clearly threaten European sovereignty.
Should the EU launch a major re-armament drive to create a deterrent strong enough to keep the US in check, Russia is a natural partner. The resulting boost to Russia's economy, coupled with a defensive alliance would be enough to anchor Russia to Europe and prevent a repeat of its Stalinist errors. Major cost-cutting as a result of tapping into Russia's defense overcapacity would allow the EU to build a strategic deterrent on an accelerated schedule, well below the normal costs of relying on European and American contractors. The technological prowess of the Russians would also guarantee that American capabilities would be matched in key areas -- especially in space.
The change in Europe's defense posture -- from a still vassalized ally of the US to an independent power -- would change the dynamics of international relations and undermine the America-centric economic order, forcing the sharing of economic, military, and diplomatic power between two equals. In addition, Russia could no longer be a military threat to Europe, nor would it have any incentive left to be one.
I am not suggesting, of course, that such a sea-change could occur overnight, or involve Britain. But ways can be found by the most committed proponents of European independence to prime the pump.

Michel Bastian, France

To Tom McLaughlin
> Ridiculous. The axis of history no longer runs through Europe.

Really? Why then is it that the gross GDP of all the european states taken together exceeds the american one by a pretty fair margin (something like two or three trillion $)? Why then is it that the total population of just the three biggest european states (Germany, France and Britain) already equal 2/3 of the total population of the US? Why is it that the dollar is currently breaking all devaluation records against the Euro (incidentally: when the Euro was introduced, didn´t I hear all those american economy gurus prophesize the Euro wouldn´t last long and all the Euro countries would fall flat on their face within the next three years?). The axis of military history might no longer run through Europe (although even that might change shortly), but the axis of trade and cultural history sure does.


> The real action this century is in Asia, which is where most of the economic opportunity and all of the major security challenges arise.

I agree that Asia will be a huge challenge in the near future, and it´s one even the US won´t be able to tackle alone. That´s why Europe and the US should perhaps consider pooling resources instead of loosing themselves in pointless bickering.

> Europe increasingly occupies a kind of no-man's land, as a spectator whose power is defined mainly in negative terms: how and where it can block the US.

That´s a completely false statement if ever I heard one. Spectator? Tell that to all the european companies who are currently cranking up the works in most every continent on the face of the earth (and that includes the US; believe me, you don´t want to know how many of your precious traditional american companies are actually subsidiaries of european firms). And no, we´re not out to block the US on every issue. Just on those where we think they´re messing up.

> But its ability to make things happen-- to actually promote reform and eventually peace in the middle east, for example-- is non-existent.

So the US will singlehandedly pacify the Middle-East, without european help? Ok, I guess we´ll just pull out of the middle-east then and watch how you invade Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, Koweit etc. Incidentally: Dubbyah should reconsider that draft thingie. He´s definitely going to need every man, woman and child in America if he´s out to pacify the Middle-East that way.
I mean, honestly: do you really think that there´s one arab left who trusts the Bush administration? Even us europeans are mostly anti-Bush, how do you think the arab world reacts to him? You need the europeans in the middle-east because we´re the only ones the arab countries are still willing to negotiate with.

> By the time Europe becomes, as one poster here argues, "a partner that has to be taken seriously", it won't matter.

Just to clarify: I wrote this statement in relation to military and foreign policy partnership. Economically, Europe has already been a serious partner for a long time.

> The most important partners for America in this century are located in Asia, and we are now shifting our focus accordingly.

Well if you do, it´s at your own peril. India alone will leave you behind crying in the dust once it really gets its economy going, and I don´t even want to think about China.

>Within a generation a majority of Americans will be of non-European descentLikewise, our trade and our security interests will also shift away from Europe, which will in future years be of interest mainly to wealthy vacationers.

Frankly, I doubt that.

Tom McLaughlin, US

To Philippe Dambournet: hope you're enjoying Texas-- tres jolie this time of year, especially the Hill Country. As to your fantasy of an EU-Russia bund, Russia does not have what you call "defense overcapacity", it has UNDERcapacity.
Specifically, today's Russian military is all but worthless: its materiel are largely obsolete, its troops woefully disorganized, badly trained, and practically without leadership due to a miserable officer corps that is as corrupt as it is incompetent. As the Chechnya debacle as shown, Russia's army is incapable of putting down even a minor insurrection within Russia's borders. Allying with Russia for military purposes makes as much sense as hitching Germany's economic train to the East German locomotive. I presume you've learned something from that debacle, non?
Russia is a failing state that is propped up only by $50/bbl oil. Fortunately for Europe, its diplomats and leaders are wiser than to pursue this fantasy of allying with Pakistan North.

D. L. Granberry, USA

Are Europeans worried that the United States will suddenly invade their country? I would like to know the real reason behind the French attitude toward the United States. Reading history, it becomes clear that France considered the US a non-entity prior to WWI, a largely correct assessment in many respects, and that opinion lasted until Germany overran France and held her prostrate in WWII. After the war, French opinion of the US has continued to worsen.

Why? Surely it's not about MacDonald's and Disneyland.

Jakub, Poland

Tom
"As the Chechnya debacle as shown, Russia's army is incapable of putting down even a minor insurrection. "
The Chechen insurgents have fought a guerilla war with civilians carrying out suicide bombinbs. One could equally assume that the US, unable to defeat the Vietcong, was militarily weak in the 1960s but it would be absurd to do so.
I agree with you that the idea, now, of an EU-Russia alliance would be rather absurd. But in the longterm, Russia is potentially very wealthy. It simply needs to develop an effective legal system and enforce property rights. Russia has failed to develop the basic apparatus of a modern state but mainly because the 'shock therapy' and liberalisation recommended by the US has impoverished it as a country.

Denis, Uganda


text: The west inevitably thinks of global relations in antagonistic and imperialistic terms. It is, thus, ironic that this debate has been occasioned (I assume) by Bush's re-election. For, it is this very obessession with might and manichean notions that Bush represents. The UN is becoming increasigly irrelevant and other parts of the world- like Africa- seemingly have no place in this picture. Ideals are dead; issues like Kyoto appear to be convenient excuses for Europe to point another finger at the US. To say that Europe should try to counterbalance it is to suggest that Europe would act differently if they were at par. I doubt that, given Europe's imperial history. Lord Acton would doubt it too.

Sean, Ireland

Why is everyone defining "counter balance" as "opposition"? Europe always needs to be in patnership with the US, but in order for two entities to be partners, they need to have some equality.

Jason O'Mahony

Counter-balance is probably the wrong phrase. Europe can never be a rival to the US, because we're each others biggest trading partners. Getting heavy with each other is only slitting each other's economic throat.
Having said that, Europe does need to get its act together as far as a role in the world is concerned. Look at Darfur or Rwanda or Srebenica. These things cause instability, which affects population migration, which affects us, and so, we need to be able to act.
We don't need to match the US in defence spending, because our policy aims are different. But we do need to be able to put EU forces on the ground, and we should start by pooling defence spending, or at least a proportion of it.

The true Guardian, Sweden

The idea of "Counterbalance" is a mainly French invention. It is as deluded as dangerous. Senile echoes of 20th century "Neuropa" and pseudo-emperor Charles de Gaulle. Actually, France is the main obstacle to western unity. This nation represents everything that is wrong with EU: moral decline, post-modern philosophy, Socialism, anti-Semitism, Fascism and an aggressive and unassimilated Islamic population (fighting the Jihad in Afghanistan, Iraq and the streets of Paris).
Let us hope that other parts of Europe like UK, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe and perhaps Italy will develop stronger bonds with the United States - the true defender of peace, prosperity and civilization.
My hearth was filled with hope and joy after president George W. Bush's re-election.

May Sage, USA

After reading this article, should Europe try to act as a counterpweight?
After all when was the last time a country tried to achieve world domination?
www.counterpunch.org
November 18, 2004
Bush, the Neocons and Evangelical Christian Fiction
America, "Left Behind"
By HUGH URBAN
"Is [Jesus] gonna kill a bunch of people here, like He is over there?"
"I'm afraid He is. If they're working for the Antichrist, they're in serious trouble."
-- Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, Glorious Appearing: End of Days
I see things this way: The people who did this act on America are evil people. As a nation of good folk, we're going to hunt them down and we will bring them to justice.
-- George W. Bush, September 25, 2001
As a professor of comparative religion and cultural studies, I have long been fascinated by the strange intersections between religion, politics and popular culture. One of the most striking such intersections occurred to me this summer as I sat down to read the twelfth and last volume of the wildly popular Left Behind series by evangelical preacher Tim LaHaye and novelist Jerry Jenkins. For those who haven't yet had a chance to read any of LaHaye and Jenkin's series, the story is basically an evangelical interpretation of the Book of Revelation set in the context of contemporary global politics: the Rapture has taken place, the Antichrist has taken control of the U.N. and created a single global economy, while a small group of American-led believers battles the forces of evil in a showdown in Jerusalem.
At the same time that I was immersed in this entertaining mixture of Stephen King-esque thrills and fundamentalist rhetoric, I had also been reading much of the recent literature on the Neoconservative movement and its powerful role in the Bush administration. As Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke have persuasively argued in their recent study, America Alone, the election of George W. Bush and the confusion following 9/11 allowed a small but radical group of intellectuals to seize the reins of U.S. foreign policy. Led by figures like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the members of the Project for a New American Century, the Neocons have been able to put into effect a long-held plan for asserting a U.S. global hegemony, in large part by dominating the Middle East and its oil resources.
The two narratives that I was reading here -- the Neocon's aggressive foreign policy, centered around the Middle East, and the Christian evangelical story of the immanent return of Christ in the Holy Land-- struck me as weirdly similar and disturbingly parallel. The former openly advocates a "New American Century" and a "benevolent hegemony" of the globe by U.S. power, inaugurated by the invasion of Iraq, while the latter predicts a New Millennium of divine rule ushered in by apocalyptic war, first in Babylon and then in Jerusalem.
I was tempted to dismiss the similarity as an amusing but insignificant coincidence. Yet the more I began to examine the Neocon's strategies and the ties between George W. Bush and the Christian Right, the less this link seemed to be either coincidental or unimportant. I am not, of course, suggesting that there is some kind of conspiratorial plot at work between Neocon strategists and evangelical writers like LaHaye, or that the two are somehow working secretly together behind the scenes. Rather, I am suggesting that there is a subtle but powerful "fit," or what sociologist Max Weber calls an "elective affinity," between the two that has helped them to reinforce one another in very effective ways. The otherwise vacuous figure of George W. Bush represents a crucial link or structural pivot between these two powerful factions, helping to tie them together: Bush presents the Neocons' radical foreign policy in a guise that is acceptable to his large base of support in the Christian Right, even as he reassures his Christian base that their moral agendas (anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, faith-based initiatives, etc) will be given powerful political support. In Bush, America as the benevolent hegemon of the Neocons and the American-led "Tribulation Force" of LaHaye's wildly popular novels come together in a disturbing, yet surprisingly successful way.
Glorious Appearing, End of Days: LaHaye and The Council for National Policy
In the last two decades, Tim LaHaye has emerged as not only the theological brains behind the best-selling Left Behind series, but also as one of the most influential figures in the American Christian Right. Indeed, when the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals decided to name the most influential evangelical leader of the past 25 years, they chose not Billy Graham, Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, but Tim LaHaye, in large part because of his work in evangelical politics. Not only is LaHaye an influential preacher and interpreter of prophecy and revelation, he has also become a remarkably powerful force in domestic and now even international politics through the highly secretive Council for National Policy, founded in 1981. Called by some "the most powerful conservative group you've never heard of," the CNP includes among its members Reverends Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Jesse Helms, Tom DeLay, Oliver North, Christian Reconstructionist R.J. Rushdoony and, formerly, John Ashcroft (himself a Pentecostal Christian). Recent speakers at the Council's highly private meetings have included Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, and Timothy Goeglein, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison. Although the group initially focused primarily on domestic agendas like abortion and homosexuality, LaHaye's Council has recently begun to turn to larger international issues such as U.S. policy in the Middle East and the state of Israel.
Published from 1995-2004, the Left Behind series has provided a key outlet for spreading LaHaye's political agendas to a massive audience of American readers. The twelve-volume story is not simply an evangelical reading of the Apocalypse, but also a Christian Right perspective on contemporary global politics. LaHaye's interpretation of the final days is "pre-millenarian" (as opposed to post-millenarian or a-millenarian): Christ must return to defeat the Antichrist before the great Millennium of divine rule and peace can be established. The events of the series take place immediately after the Rapture, when a few chosen souls have been suddenly taken up to heaven, and the rest of those "left behind" must struggle against the rising power of the Antichrist. A small group of former sinners-turned-believers forms a "Tribulation Force" to fight this divine war, led by pilot Rayford Steele, his daughter Chloe, journalist Buck Williams, and pastor Bruce Barnes.
Much of the narrative is clearly a commentary on the processes of globalization and America's role in a transnational era. The Antichrist, in the person of a sinister Romanian named Nicolae Carpathia, has progressively taken over the United Nations and the world's economic system, unifying all political states ("Global Community"), media ("Global Community Network,"), and religions ("Enigma Babylon One World Faith") under a Nicolae-appointed supreme pontiff. The millions of the Antichrist's followers are branded with a loyalty mark and even "vaccinated" with a bio-chip embedded with their personal information. Eventually, the Antichrist establishes "New Babylon" as the epicenter of the world's political and financial networks, spreading its digital tentacles into every aspect of life and commerce in the new global order. Meanwhile, the Tribulation Force is led by (mostly white male) Americans, who manage to persuade a few converts from other countries and religious faiths to join their brave coalition and resist this global menace.
In the penultimate volume of the series, "New Babylon" is destroyed by the Lord's ongoing series of apocalyptic dispensations, throwing the world's entire economic structure into chaos. This leads the way for Christ's return in the last volume, Glorious Appearing, in which the Tribulation Force and the armies of the Antichrist gather around Jerusalem for the final conflict. As the apocalypse unfolds, the Jews at long last begin to return to Christ and accept Him as the true Messiah (though the millions of those branded by the Beast refuse to do so, God having "hardened their hearts"). In the spectacularly violent final battle, the returning Christ mows down the Antichrist's massive armies in the most gory fashion, splitting bodies apart and spilling entrails across the earth with the sharp two-edged sword of His Word. In the end, only the small remnant of believers survives to "populate the Millennium" and inhabit the New Jerusalem.
As Amy Frykholm has argued in her study of the series, Rapture Culture, the Left Behind books contain a strong political message and a "conservative, patriarchal, even racist agenda that mirrors the agenda of the Christ Right." On the domestic front, LaHaye's books advance a strong pro-life message, while targeting feminism and homosexuality as instruments of the Antichrist. On the international front, the books contain a deep message of "racially charged American chauvinism." The leaders of the Tribulation force are white American men, such as Rayford Steele, while all "others" women, African Americans, Arabs, Asians, and non-Americans -- either submit dutifully to their leadership or are destroyed. The entire series, moreover, contains a disturbing kind of anti-Semitism, portraying Israel as too stubborn to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, while making heroes of Jewish converts to Christianity.
Benevolent Hegemony: The Neocons' Middle East and Geopolitical Strategy
Going a step further, however, it is difficult not to see striking reflections of the Neoconservative agenda in the Left Behind narrative. Indeed, these novels provide a weird kind of fictional, evangelical and astonishingly popular counter-part to the Neoconservative's rather elite and intellectual geo-political vision.
According to Irving Kristol, who first used the term in a positive sense, Neoconservatism does not represent so much a coherent movement or party as a kind of "persuasion," or a moral and political attitude. As Halper and Clarke suggest, the Neocon persuasion can perhaps best be characterized by three features: first, "a belief deriving from religious conviction that the human condition is defined as a choice between good and evil and that the true measure of political character is found in the willingness by the former to confront the latter;" second, "an assertion that the fundamental determinant of the relationship between states rests on military power and the willingness to use it;" and third, a "focus on the Middle East and global Islam as the principal theater for American overseas power."
One aspect of Neoconservative thinking that is often overlooked, however, is the centrality of religion in much of their agenda. As Kristol argues, strong religious faith and a belief in the transcendent basis of moral law is crucial to the health of the country and the strength of the economy: "The three pillars of modern conservatism are religion, nationalism, and economic growth. Of these religion is easily the most important, because it is the only power that can shape people's characters and regulate their motivation." The loss of a strong moral and religious compass, in turn, has led to the intense crisis that modern liberal America faces, which he described as a "steady decline in our democratic values, sinking to new levels of vulgarity." Thus, in 1995 Kristol argued that the Republican Party needed to reach out and embrace the strong religious core of the American population -- despite its tendency toward un-democratic attitudes-- if it was to triumph over the liberal malaise of Clinton's America: "conservatives and the Republican Party must embrace the religious if they are to survive. Religious people always create problems since their ardor tends to outrun the limits of politics in a constitutional democracy. But if the Republican Party is to survive, it must work on accommodating these people."
[One of the more striking examples of this Neoconservative outreach to the Christian Right is Michael Ledeen, an influential Fellow at the Neocon think-tank, American Enterprise Institute. Not only was Ledeen one of the most vocal proponents of the Iraq War, but since the 1980s, he has also appeared frequently on Pat Robertson's 700 Club promoting an aggressive Neocon political vision. In a 2004 interview with Robertson, Ledeen argued that Iraq is only the first step in the re-structuring of the Middle East and should be followed by use of military force against Iran, as well.]
By now, the Neocons' role in the preemptive invasion of Iraq is fairly well known (Indeed, most of their plans for Iraq and its oil resources can be easily read in articles going back to the early 90s available on the Project for a New American Century web-page ). Already in 1992, toward the end of the Bush I White House, then undersecretary of defense Wolfowitz and secretary of defense Cheney came up with a bold new plan to rethink US military policy, which was circulated in the top-secret Defense Policy Guidance report. So disturbing was this report that it was leaked by a Pentagon official, who believed this strategy debate should be carried out in the public domain. Indeed, it was described by some as nothing less than a plan for the US to "rule the world," without acting through the U.N. and by using pre-emptive attacks on potential threats.
Although this plan was quickly shot down after its leak, it resurfaced in a new form in 1997, with the founding of the Project for a New American Century by Irving Kristol's son, William. As William Kristol and Robert Kagan had already argued in Foreign Affairs in 1996, America now has an opportunity to exercise a "benevolent hegemony" over the world while promoting democracy and free markets -- an opportunity it would be foolish to let slip away. Kristol and Kagan's PNAC soon emerged as the leading think-tank and a who's who of the Neocon establishment, advocating a powerful new vision of America's role as global leader through its military strength and moral principles.
The ousting of Saddam and the rebuilding of Iraq (and by implication, the Middle East) was a key part of this program for American leadership. In the words of Raymond Tanter -- a member of Reagan's National Security Council and now a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy -- "the road to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad. The road to Tehran goes through Baghdad. The road to Damascus goes through Baghdad[I]f you change the regime through force in Baghdad, American military power will cast a long diplomatic shadow, and it will be America's decade in the Middle East." This became the mantra of the Necon's foreign policy. In 1998 eighteen associates of the PNAC, including Richard Armitage, William Bennet, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz , wrote a letter to President Clinton. In it they warned of the need to secure the "significant portion of the world's oil supply" in Iraq, advising the President that the only acceptable strategy is to "undertake military action" and remove "Saddam Hussein and his regime from power."
Although Clinton chose not to take their advice, the PNAC did not give up its bold vision for America's benevolent global hegemony. In September 2000, the PNAC issued a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century." Its authors lament the lack of effort to "preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades" and criticize Clinton for squandering his opportunity to make the U.S. the sole, indomitable Super-power. The removal of Saddam and the US. Occupation of Iraq would provide both the crucial justification and the ideal precondition for this larger global agenda. Achieving this goal of undeniable U.S. power, the authors suggest, would require a radical transformation in public opinion and government policy. But they also caution that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a New Pearl Harbor."
From Prodigal Son to Christian Crusader: George W. Bush as the link between the Neocons and the Christian Right
Not long after the publication of the PNAC document, two things occurred that handed the Neocons their "catastrophic and catalyzing events" on a silver platter. The first was the election of George W. Bush to the White House. The second was the terrorist attack of 9/11.
As Halper and Clarke argue, the relatively naïve and unformed Bush allowed a small group of Neocon thinkers like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Cheney and others to suddenly have a much more central and active role in shaping American foreign policy. Kristol himself observed that Bush was something of a fortuitous gift to those of the Neocon persuasion: "by one of those accidents historians ponder, our current president and his administration turn out to be quite at home in this new political environment, although it is clear they did not anticipate this role any more than their party as a whole did." Among other things, Bush provided the perfect liaison to the Christian Right that the Neocons needed in order to win popular support and promote their vision of American power both at home and abroad.
The narrative that Bush and his biographers tell is clearly modeled on the parable of the prodigal son -- the young man who fritters away his early life on alcohol and sin, only to find God and return to his rightful place in his father's former occupation. As he recounts his own redemption narrative, Bush had been mired in the world of business and overuse of alcohol, and so turned in his darker hours to the study of scripture. The beginning of his conversion occurred during a summer weekend in 1985, when evangelist Billy Graham visited George and Laura at the Bush summer house in Maine. The reverend, with his magnetic presence and warmth, planted a "seed of salvation" in W.'s soul that soon blossomed into a new birth and helped him "recommit [his] heart to Jesus Christ."
This recommitment to Christ proved to be not only a spiritual awakening within George W. himself but an important part of the Republican party's own re-connection with the Christian Right. The senior Bush had actually had a great deal of trouble reaching out to the religious right, which regarded his Episcopalian, aristocratic airs with some suspicion. In his 1988 campaign, therefore, the elder Bush gave his newly-reborn son the task of working with the campaign's liaison to the Christian right, Assemblies of God evangelist Doug Wead (who also wrote H.W. Bush's campaign narrative Man of Integrity). The younger Bush was far more successful in connecting with the Religious Right; as Craig Unger put it, he was "deeply attuned to the nuances of the evangelical subcultures" and "replaced his father's visionless pragmatism with the Manichaean certitudes of Good and Evil."
George W.'s religiosity became even more explicit, however, once he decided to run for president in the 2000 election. As he confided to James Robinson, he believed that he in fact been called by God himself to he lead the United States: "I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need meGod wants to me to do it." As he considered the prospect of his candidacy, Bush met frequently with evangelical leaders. In October 1999, in fact, he addressed LaHaye's Council for National Policy -- though there is a much difference of opinion as to what he actually said in that particular address, which was recorded but has never been publicly released.
Yet it was the attacks of 9/11 that really brought out the most powerful use of religious rhetoric by Bush and his speech-writers. After the attacks, Bush began to cast the global situation as a vast war between Good and Evil, the forces of liberty and democracy against he forces of tyranny and terror: "Our responsibility to history", he declared on September 14, 2001, is "to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil." As he put it in on September 25, 2002, in ruggedly down-home, no-nonsense, black and white terms, "I see things this way: The people who did this act on Americaare evil people. They don't; represent an ideologyThey're flat evil. That's all they can think about, is evil. As a nation of good folks, we're going to hunt them downand we will bring them to justice."
So impressive was Bush's powerful religious rhetoric that he soon came to be recognized as the new leader of the Christian Right in America. On the day before Christmas, 2001, the Washington Post reported that "Pat Robertson's resignation this month as President of the Christian Coalition confirmed the ascendance of a new leader of the religious right in America: George W. Bush." In the words of Ralph Reed, the Christian Coalition's former President, "God knew something we didn'tHe had a knowledge nobody else had: He knew George Bush had the ability to lead in this compelling way."
However, if Bush's intense religiosity could be used to rouse the American people to respond to a devastating terrorist attack, it would also soon be used to persuade Americans to accept, largely without criticism, the Neocon's long-held plan to invade Iraq -- one of the key links in the "Axis of Evil." As he explained to Bob Woodward, the decision to invade Iraq did not come from his political advisors or even from former President H.W. Bush, but from a much higher authority: "He couldnot consult his Secretary of State about going to war and not need to look for strength to his father, the former President, because he was consulting a 'higher father.'" In his January 2003 State of the Union Address, in which he made the strongest case for war against Iraq, Bush made an explicit appeal to God, divine will and Providence to justify the sacrifice of American lives; for they will be dying not just for the American people, but for freedom which is "God's gift to humanity."
Whether or not George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq was divinely inspired, it does seem to have fulfilled the Neocon's long-held plans on both the domestic and the international fronts. As David Harvey argues in his recent book, The New Imperialism, the attacks of 9/11 and Bush's evangelical response to it have provided the ideal rationale for imposing the Neocon's larger agendas of "establishment of and respect for order, both at home and upon the world stage."
On the domestic front, 9/11 has provided the excuse to impose extremely invasive new measure like the USA PATRIOT Act, championed by conservative Christian Attorney General John Ashcroft. On the international front, it has also provided the ideal motivation-- and spiritual justification -- for the Neocon's plans for Iraq dating back to the early 90s. As Harvey observes, the Neocon strategy for occupying Iraq has behind it a much larger and more disturbing global agenda. With Iraq as its base of operation, and Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran close at hand, the U.S. will be uniquely placed to dominate the flow of oil from the Middle East and, by extension, the flow of capital throughout the world in an age still fuelled by oil and petro-dollars: "The U.S. will be in a military and geo-strategic position to control the whole globe militarily and, through oil, economically.The neo-conservatives are, it seems, committed to nothing short of a plan for total domination of the globe."
Left Behind: Elective Affinities and Double Ironies
So what are we to make of the strange parallels between this popular series of evangelical fiction and this aggressive Neoconservative strategy for American hegemony? On the one hand, we have the wondrous vision of a New Millennium established after a small American-led group fights against the global forces of the Antichrist in the Holy Land; on the other, we have the bold vision of a New American Century established after American unilateral military force defeats the Axis of Evil and asserts its benevolent hegemony in the Middle East. But how are these two narratives related? Is it a plot hatched secretly in one of LaHaye's Council for National Policy meetings? A coded message woven subliminally into the Left Behind books themselves?
Probably not. Instead, I think this connection is not so much an explicit or even necessarily intentional link, but rather a subtle yet powerful kind of "elective affinity," in Weber's sense of the phrase. As Weber argued in his classic work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, it is not simply the case that Protestant Christianity caused the rise of early modern capitalism, or vice-versa. Rather, the two shared an affinity that was mutually beneficial and reinforcing. The Protestant ethics of hard-work, thrift, restraint in consumption and asceticism fit well with an early capitalist system based on labor and accumulation of profit and allowed the latter to flourish in ways that no other religious worldview could.
So too, I would suggest, there is a fit or affinity between the evangelical vision of the New Millennium and the Neoconservative ideal of a New American Century. Updating Weber somewhat, we might call this affinity "the Evangelical Ethic and the Spirit of Neo-Imperialism." The Neocons and the Christian Right may not be conspiring together secretly behind the scenes; but they do need each other to promote their respective agendas, and they do have enough similar interests to find common ground in the Prodigal Son, George W. As a relatively empty, unformed "floating signifier," Bush serves as the key link in this elective affinity, the point at which the otherwise conflicting interests of the Neocons and the evangelicals come together in a disturbingly powerful way.
In all of this, however, there is a disturbing kind of double irony. As David Harvey has argued, the aggressive foreign and domestic strategies of the Necons carry with them a twofold danger. First, the extremely invasive and intrusive domestic policies put into place after 9/11 -- of which the USA PATRIOT Act is the most obvious example -- risk turning the United States into the same sort of oppressive regime that we so despised in the former Soviet Union. Second, this intense militarism and reckless pattern of deficit spending threatens to bankrupt the United States in much the same way that the Soviet Union was destroyed by its massive military expenditure during the Cold War: "If the Soviet Empire was really brought down by excessive strain on its economy through the arms race, then will the U.S., in its blind pursuit of military dominance, undermine the economic foundations of its own power?" And by the time we finally secure the oil wealth in the Middle East and proclaim our benevolent hegemony, is it possible that most of the world will have already realized the finitude of the earth's oil supplies and moved on to alternative energy sources, anyway?
The danger, in effect, is that America really will be "left behind" in the new global order.
Hugh Urban teaches in the Department of Comparative Studies at Ohio State Universion. He is the author of Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics and Power.

Sean, USA

Many Europeans seem to think that they have some birth-right to world influence. For all it's anti-Americanism, Europe has given this world (thanks to 19th century imperialism and the 20th century wars it spawned) the bloodiest two centuries in it's history of the planet. Surely the world can do better than France, Germany et al. have done.

Charles Warren, USA

Bastian, why do you think Europe, least of all France, has any role to play in the Middle East ? Whether Arabs love America or not is of no importance. They may love France more, but France can guarantee nothing. And the hard truth is that your mediation is meaningless if you cannot give military guarantees to warring parties.
This further leaves out the fact that Israel has not the least confidence in Europeans in general and France in particular. They know that the heartland base of the GOP frankly respects and likes Israel a whole lot more than it cares for Europe. So there is no reason for them to pay much attention to any so-called EU pressure.

Ward Schelfhout, Belgium

Should or could that is the question. The nations that losely make up Europe were hammered out in a history of between 200 and 900 years (200: Germany, Belgium, Italy) (900: England), ( 700 France) (500 Netherlands) . The longer (and 'greater' ?) the history of a nation as a defined unit, the deeper the nationalism and the deeper the distrust to Europe. Hence nations have built safeguards against the formation of a European nationalism. Without European nationalism, no nation. Nationalism does not come automatically, it is something that needs to be promoted and enforced by the rulers. To take root, it needs to be something people want to identify with, something that gives them greatness by proxy.
The EC has nothing of this and the tools to build it have been withheld, mostly by Thatcher and her successors, like the princes of the Middle Ages.
But unlike the kings Europe has no army to battle independent princes.
Thus it is more likely at this moment that Europe will disintegrate into a lose free trade zone of national diverging interests than that it will further integrate into a world class nation. Chances are 80% for a hollow rump-Europe in 2050 clinging to the US for guidance.

Jonathan Lavin, England

Should or could that is the question. The nations that losely make up Europe were hammered out in a history of between 200 and 900 years (200: Germany, Belgium, Italy) (900: England), ( 700 France) (500 Netherlands) . The longer (and 'greater' ?) the history of a nation as a defined unit, the deeper the nationalism and the deeper the distrust to Europe. Hence nations have built safeguards against the formation of a European nationalism. Without European nationalism, no nation. Nationalism does not come automatically, it is something that needs to be promoted and enforced by the rulers. To take root, it needs to be something people want to identify with, something that gives them greatness by proxy.
The EC has nothing of this and the tools to build it have been withheld, mostly by Thatcher and her successors, like the princes of the Middle Ages.
But unlike the kings Europe has no army to battle independent princes.
Thus it is more likely at this moment that Europe will disintegrate into a lose free trade zone of national diverging interests than that it will further integrate into a world class nation. Chances are 80% for a hollow rump-Europe in 2050 clinging to the US for guidance.

Jonatha Lavin, UK

Interesting medieval analogies, but I didn't write any of it. Where are my comments? I suppose it could have been worse - I could have been attributed to some of the hyperbolic US sentiment. Ah well.

Michel Bastian, France

To Warren:>Bastian, why do you think Europe, least of all France, has any role to play in the Middle East ? Whether Arabs love America or not is of no importance. They may love France more, but France can guarantee nothing. And the hard truth is that your mediation is meaningless if you cannot give military guarantees to warring parties.
This further leaves out the fact that Israel has not the least confidence in Europeans in general and France in particular. They know that the heartland base of the GOP frankly respects and likes Israel a whole lot more than it cares for Europe. So there is no reason for them to pay much attention to any so-called EU pressure.
The EU doesn´t need to apply pressure to resolve that conflict. Neither do the US. There´s nothing anybody can do in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict militarily, so Bush´s military muscle won´t help him one bit in this instnce. To resolve this confilict you´d have to get the two parties to talk to one another again on a regular basis, which they won´t do at the moment. The Palestinians (and, since Iraq, the rest of the arab states) will not talk to the US. They will however, talk and listen to the EU. The Israelis will listen to the US. So now the only thing we have to do is get the EU and the US to work out a viable peace strategy together. What´s so darn difficult to understand about that? Actually, the US, the Europeans, the UN and Russia already had a fairly good strategy with the roadmap. Why Bush chose to abandon it is beyond me. Now, with the death of Arafat, we have a new opportunity to get the roadmap going again. Both the EU and the US should now get off their respective duffs.

Patricia, U.S.A. (Pennsylvania)

Please YES it MUST be a balance to us! You all must make it so.
Perhaps there is not much hope for military equality, but in terms of economic power & influence, there is every reason to believe that a united EU can, and will be, able to stand as an equal beside the US (and maybe then we will listen to reason? Learn to co-operate? To share?)
We are in the midst of a battle in my country over nothing less than the Enlightenment. We are in danger of becoming no different, no more stable, and no less dangerous than any militant Islamic Theocracy--only ours will be based on psuedo-Christian heresy, and we will still be pouring all of our resources into a huge semi-privatized military, entirely beyond the control of our citizens. Don't be fooled by words of "compromise" from Bush!
I live in one of the battle-ground, "purple" states, my own family are divided by these issues, and voted against each other on November 2nd. If even within our own families we are unable to find any compromise or common ground, I have little hope that we will do so as a nation. It's either science, or blind faith here--with nothing in between.
Half of Americans did not vote at all (or were prevented from doing so.) 59 million Americans voted AGAINST Bush, some 60 million voted FOR him...and many people here believe that this election was stolen. Again.
"Blue" Americans understand that we all share one, small planet and we must all learn to live together in peace, we are counting on the rest of the "blue" world to remember us now!
My friends and I do not plan to leave. We will stay and fight to save Democracy here at home...but if nothing changes, I do not expect that we will win this fight in the end. I hope that Europe is prepared for the result...
(Now you can read as my fellow countrymen shout at me for saying these things, and you will understand what I am telling you.)

Antti Vainio, Europe (Finland)

the whole question is a bit silly because we have already won. of course everybody admits Americans have the money and weapons but really they are just bullies and upstarts. we have things they can't buy like culture, history and leisure time.

John Dickason, USA

I am greatly frustrated and ashamed of the approach to international affairs taken by the Bush administration. I think the EU and as many other nations as possible should oppose the current administration's short-sighted policies and war-mongering in Iraq. After all, the anti-Western sentiments that are generated by our unjustified war in Iraq and by our one-sided approach to Middle Eastern diplomacy do not just result in negative consequences for Americans. They also lead to the growth of radical Islamist terrorism in Europe and around the globe. And while we fight a meaningless war in Iraq, we ignore an even greater threat in South Korea. The EU and other countries should not be focused on the short-term economic disincentives to this approach. This administration will be gone in 4 years, but the damage that it could do may be irreparable. I applaud those in France and Germany who speak out strongly against the misguided, pseudo-ideologic policies of George W. Bush

Charles Warren, USA

"Bastian >The EU doesn´t need to apply pressure to resolve that conflict. Neither do the US. There´s nothing anybody can do in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict militarily, so Bush´s military muscle won´t help him one bit in this instnce. To resolve this confilict you´d have to get the two parties to talk to one another again on a regular basis, which they won´t do at the moment."
The most intractable conflicts are those in which the parties understand each other completely and simply have nothing to say to each other. After Intifada II most Israelis have concluded that Oslo was a stupid pipe dream that Arafat always intended to tear up the moment it was convenient to do so.
Europeans go on and on about "comprehensive peace settlements". Neither we nor Israel believe that any such thing is at all possible. Easily half the Arab world has no intention of ever accepting any peace settlement short of wiping Israel off the map and will see any piece of paper as a tactical truce (the other half will watch and wait to see who is stronger). Terrorism is the method of expression of those who have no intention of ever accepting any peace with Israel so your insistence that a "comprehensive peace settlement" will end terrorism makes no sense to us at all. Terrorism in fact is the mode of expression of an Arab world that has completely given up all hope that it will ever match Israel in conventional warfare. That is why the wretched state of the Syrian armed forces concerns no one in the Arab world.
Israel would only cede real estate if given the firmest military guarantees by the United States, not to please the "international community". After Intifada II they have no confidence in Palestinian promises and just because Arafat is dead does not mean that Palestinian maximalism is dead, so what window of opportunity are you talking about ? Arafat's death changes nothing.
And as for the Palestinians not talking to the US, that is ludicrous. Arafat was begging, pleading for Bush to meet with him but after Karine-A Bush would not listen to more of his lies.

John Dickason, USA

To Mr. Vainio:
I agree that the question is a bit contrived. But you have implied that the Europe and the USA are competing for some sort of prize. I'll agree that there is ample arrogance to go around on both sides. The current administration does bully the rest of the world in an unprecedented way, which makes about half of all Americans ashamed and angry (myself included). There are misguided Americans who falsely feel that the Bush administration is doing a christian service by "liberating" oppressed people around the world (I don't agree). There are Europeans who dismiss everything coming out of the USA as uncultured and excessive. There are Middle Easterners who think all Americans are evil simply for advocating for a society where free speech is allowed and women can vote. Here are the real problems: IGNORANCE, SELFISHNESS, AND FEAR. Too many people see the world's problems and peoples as Us vs. Them, Black vs. White. You apparently do, with your flippant comments about having won some sort of cultural superiority war. I'll agree that there are many Americans who don't know or care about anything that goes on outside the borders of our own country. But I met just as many Europeans who felt the same way during my many visits to your continent. 9/11 changed America in a way that no European can understand. It was not Helsinki that suffered the violent murders of 3,000 innocent people. I personally know two people who have lost family members or close friends in the bombings of 9/11/01. That fear, however irrational, drives Americans to retreat to fundamentalist religious beliefs and to support a president with a short-sighted, oversimplified world-view. Regrettably, that fear has also led the congress and average Americans to believe the paranoid rhetoric that the Bush administration presented in the months leading up to the Iraq war. If you wish Americans to see the world in more realistic terms, you need to engage us, not insult us. And please don't take it out on me personally, because you are preaching to the choir. Bush will be gone in the blink of an eye. In four years, I hope we will have a more culturally aware administration. Keep in mind that nearly half of all Americans don't agree with George Bush, did not vote for him, and hope to find ways of opposing his arrogant, culturally insensitive, and dangerous foreign policy maneuvers.

Irene Adler, USA

"Antti Vainio, Europe (Finland)
the whole question is a bit silly because we have already won. of course everybody admits Americans have the money and weapons but really they are just bullies and upstarts. we have things they can't buy like culture, history and leisure time."
The corrosive envy just drips from all of your posts. Why do you have so little self esteem when you compare yourself to us? No self-secure people would feel such a overwhelming need to look down their noses so childishly at others they consider their "inferiors".
Also, why don't you DO SOMETHING to try to recapture your lost glory instead of sitting on the sidelines nursing grudges against us and bragging about things your ancestors did 500 years ago (PS -- they were OUR ancestors too, you know)? Oh wait, that would require you to give up some of your precious "leisure time" to actually do something once in a while. Silly of me to mention it.
Also, you are wasting your envy and resentfulness on us poor unworthy Yanks! We're not your main competitors. Yes, we work hard, but not when compared with Asians. Do you really think you can make "leisure time" your main goal of living in a world where more than 2 billion hungry, brilliant and extremely hard-working Indians, Thais, Japanese, South Koreans and Chinese are ready, willing and extremely able to clean your clock --economically, intellectually, technologically and, in time, militarily?

 

Go to page 1 2

 

Your Name
Your Affiliation/Country
Your Email

Your comment will be sent to an email address and then posted on the website. Comments will not be edited, but we reserve the right not to post offensive, abusive or obscene contributions.