Does America really want a united Europe?

Does the United States still want a united Europe? There have been signs lately that the Bush administration prefers ‘cherry-picking’ among European countries, in order to make ‘coalitions of the willing’, issue by issue. Is that really in America’s long-term interest? What can Europe do about it?

Debate - Page 1/3

Go to page 1 2 3

Charles Warren, American

Since when is "European unity" even in Europe's interest ? The eastern Europeans know all too well that should they ever have to face an aggressive Russia again, the only thing Europe could ever guarantee is the fifth partition of Poland. Why should they accept worthless security guarantees from Brussels merely because France wants to feel important and the Euroleft has a fantasy of confronting America as a geopolitical equal?

This Euroleft fantasy of a united Europe strategically self sufficient depends upon the willingness of the European man in the street to make sacrifices and bear burdens that would cost him his 35 hour workweek, six week vacation, retire at 50, cradle to grave social welfare way of life. And that is why he is stubbornly suspicious of French driven federalism. He knows that France wants to milk the rest of Europe so it can turn united Europe into some kind of French Third Empire, confronting America as a geopolitical equal. He knows that France want to turn the EU into a French dominated mandarinate powerful enough to impose these sacrifices on him. But what does the European man in the street gain from fighting the American Imperium ? Are American secret police prying the fingernails off of the Euroleft ? Are pretty European girls in American army brothels ? Are Americans looting European resources and enslaving European workers ?

Ray Vickery, Canada

Obviously, a divided Europe increases America's power. America can play the traditional balance-of-power game, ignoring the fact that it is the real power. And, of course, America acts in itw own interests. It needs Europe to give it respectability from time to time (as in Iraq and Kosova) but in general, what America needs are resource-rich weak states, as are found in the Middle East and Africa.

A United Europe, in concert with China and perhaps India, could become an economic counterweight to America. Becoming a military counterweight, though, would surely be a long ways off.

William McElgin, Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago

It should be kept in mind that, even though most administrations will try to vie for influence within Europe by triangulation strategies, the entire American foreign policy establishment sees a united Europe as an historically great achievement. First and foremost it is probably the greatest political achievement in American history. America has contributed greatly to the security, unity, prosperity and, most importantly, liberty of Europe. We are extremely proud of this contribution. At the same time we admire the political maturity and sustained efforts of the nations of Europe that allowed this to come about. Those Europeans who doubt Americas sincerity should understand that there is no basic dissent on the question of whether the EU is a tremendous boon to this world.

There are however questions about the future. Many in American foreign policy circles wonder about the dircection that EU foreign policy would take if dominated by the French. America is often criticized for imperial designs and cynical self interest. There are many in the US who wonder whether France hold similar designs that are inconsistent with a unified western world. Do some in Europe not value the advancement of democracy, something that has so benefitted their peoples, as highly as a competition for global influence? Do some advocate a policy of mercantilism and strategic competition that would have Europe pit totalitarian nations against US interests? French and German plans to sell arms to China heighten these suspicions. More than anything, Americans dont want to be abandoned in the struggle to advance liberty in this world. It is very dear to us and it is one of our, as well as our our allies, contribution to this world that will live beyond the period of Americas preeminence.

Charles Warren, America

Gabor Palasti, University of Miskolc, Hungary

Common European foreign policy will ever exist to the extent only that there are common European interests to it within the Member States of the EU. And there *are* common interests, but by far not as many as the number of foreign policy items a country can have. The thing however is, that quite many of these common grounds are articulated against U.S. foreign policy considerations, and as a consequence it is not within the interest of the U.S. to have a remarkably strong common European foreign policy. One example is the handling of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Apart from any ideological or historical considerations, the more the U.S. helps Israel the more it costs to Europe: the social costs of Palestinian immigrants in Europe, the humaniatrian aid to Palestine, etc. all concerns the average European taxpaying citizen. Other areas that have foreign policy relevance also point to this direction: the U.S. negligence of international environmental matters (and Kyoto is really just one very remarkable example), or the U.S. reluctance to donate to Africa, to lift the patent protection of drugs against HIV (and other diseases) for African countries (and consequently the large number of African refugees that burden European countries) all reveal the conflicts of interests between the U.S. and Europe. And the war on Iraq is another good example of a common European interest: it is important to note, that the European allies of the U.S. in the war on Iraq have all been supporting the coalition and military intervention on the level of governments and not on the level of the population - and its consequences have been plain in the case of Aznar and we probably won't have to wait too long before Blair has to pay the bill, too (whereas the intervention was widely supported by the public in the U.S. in the atmosphere of revange after 9/11).

The weakening of the UN and NATO by unilateral U.S. actions (even if supported by a very few certian other governments) all push Europe to some kind of common foreign policy (coupled with effective military might), unless Europe wants to feel absolutely left out of decision-making. If international cooperation is weakened by the U.S. then it will not take very long before questions will arise like the Germans waking up and asking why so many years after WWII and the collapse of Communism they still have American troops on their territory.

But as said before, any common foreign policy consideration is related to areas of common interest. On the one hand for historical reasons it is unreasonable to expect that all European countries would withdraw sovereignity in foreign policy matters in favor of some common position, and on the other there are really a great many foreign policy issues which do not concern the entire EU and therefore there is just no need to deal with them on any other level than the level of the Member State. And as for the institutional side there is no such organ above the level of the Member States that could force integration if it was stuck: nothing like the European Court of Justice in the creation of the common market that helped the EEC and EC through its slow progress periods with its judgements like Van Gend en Loos, or ENEL v. Costa, etc.

The common market and economic integration is a good example of the importance the EU could get in the field of common foreign policy (against the US and any other country). But until then, the great player of 'divide et impera' continues to attempt to undermine any such cooperation.

Ronan, Ireland

America does not want a United Europe, it is not opposed to a Militarily united EU but is opposed to a financially united EU. At present the Dollar is un-opposed as the currency for World trade, especially oil. This allows the US to run massive deficits and over spending compared to any other country because there is always a demand for Dollars. If the Euro became an Oil Trade currency things would change overnight. The EU is the biggest importer of Middle Eastern oil, so why pay in Dollars?, why not pay in Euro's ? The Middle Eastern countries do more everyday business with the EU than they do with the US so it would make perfect business sence. Was this the real reason for war in Iraq ? The EU will never be financially united until the UK (and by extension Norway, as the other EU oil producer) finally joins the Euro, the Americans knwo this and are pulling all the strings to prevent it from happening.

TJ Cassidy, USA

Does America even care about a united Europe?

Michael Remler, USA

I agree with Mr. Charles Warren. Beyond that, while we are telling the truth: America created the European unity movement so we would not have to come and clean up your mess again and in order to contain the Soviet Union. Now that it has succeeded in both of our purposes, I think "Frankly, we don't give a damn!" Do what ever YOU want but don't blame us for your failures and your conflicts. Europe is demographically dying and with that culturally, politically and militarily dying. We have a future to worry about you only need people to work in the old age home and turn off the lights when your all gone.

Michel Bastian, France

Reading all the previous comments, I think Mr. McElgin´s post is the only comment by americans on this board that can be considered right in many respects, though not in all. It does give a fairly accurate representation of the current american administration´s policy and motives, as far as I can see.
The Bush administration (and most of the political class in the US) perceive the EU as a mostly american achievement they can be proud of, while at the same time fearing an overdose of purported french imperialistic designs. However, and this is where I disagree with his assessment, Mr. McElgin overlooks that much of the administration´s foreign policy is based on fear not merely of french involvment, but generally of a newly strong (and thus uncontrolable) EU. Because of this fear, I´m convinced the Bush administration will do its best to sabotage every attempt at a unified european defense and foreign policy, regardless of how much influence France will have on this policy. So the answer to the question asked on this board is: yes, I think the US will continue to implement a cherry-picking policy to single out "willing" states. The problem with that very short-sighted policy has already been demonstrated in Iraq: even states that started out supporting the american invasion are now pulling out, and this is in part a consequence of what public opinion perceives to be undue american meddling in european affairs. After the exposure of false allegations of WMD and of ties of Saddam to Al Quaida, states like Poland, Hungary and Spain have come to realize that they have been used by the US to drive a wedge into the European Union. Needless to say this does not sit well with public opinion in these states, which tends to drift closer to Europe as a result. Europeans can only hope that the US continue this policy, because nothing unites a people better than open attempts at outside meddling.

David Lennard, British born, Spanish resident, European Federalist

a nice mish mash of comment so far - some of it timely and well informed.
yes, the great european experiment was kick started by the US, and guaranteed by the US while that was neccessary; yes this gave europe the luxury of learning to govern by committee, and financing a relatively comfortable social model without needing to peek out from the US strategic security umbrella.
no,america has not turned against united europe: the americans, expatriates to be sure, whom i know are slightly astonished that no-one and no body, elected or appointed, in the EU appears to have the right, let alone the ability to make any decision of consequence; one colleague of mine, ohio born, is adamant that europe will eventually be forced into civil war, as was the US when federal and states' rights came into politically charged conflict.
i think 'divide and rule' is too simplistic a way to describe current american attitudes to the europe it spent a very great deal of blood and money creating. (yes, the russians lost terribly, both in men and treasure, but their investment in the shattered states that they took under their wing was a little more exploitative than the self interested generosity of marshall aid). i think the american administration, and the previous clinton administration is/was baffled by we europeans' unwillingness to insist on the imperative of talking about problems inconclusively rather than seeking solutions and closure.
we shall see: one way or another, what we laughingly call 'the free world' is going to have to find a way to square the circle of unipolar military preponderance and ever more complex economic interdependence. me, i'm deeply pessimistic about the outcome, more pessimistic than TGA, more pessimistic than i was last year.
if the EU spoke more coherently, if it decided that on one trial issue (¿darfur? ¿the ivory coast?)it would swap a pound of no value prose for a peck of action, we might all be surprised at the result, both in our own view of ourselves, and the view of us that othere have.

TowerBuddha, The Land of the Free

America will not be challenged by a united Europe in a way that most people consider probable. If you factor in the large and growing Muslim populations in Europe, the Europe of 2050 will be nothing like the Europe of today. America will face a Eurabia type nation across the Atlantic and prospects of the two nations existing as they have in the past are not very bright.
Already France, with its 10% Muslim population, hesitates to speak against Muslim interests worldwide. This trend will grow stronger as Muslim populations increase.
If history is any indicator, Europe will go through several phases as it succombs to the will of Islam. 1. Suddenly it will wake up to find itself with a large Muslim population that is rapidly growing (this is happening now). 2. If anyone speaks up or shows alarm at the Muslim influence, they are branded as an enemy of Islam or a bigot and their lives are threatened (this is happening now). 3. Government, affraid of letting a violent genie out of the bottle, will be reluctant to deal with growing Muslim disregard of traditional values and laws. 4. As dread and panic increase, local governments will eventually try to supress the growing Muslim influence through legal means. 5. Offended Muslims will draw further from the culture of their neighbors until calls for autonomy begin to be heard. 6. Terror and strife begin. 7. War and struggle prelude a new Islamic nation.
If you look at Islam through a historical eye, the road for Europe is predetermined. America will have to deal with this reality.

Susan Starke, USA

TowerBuddha,
You sound suspiciously enthusiastic about the "Eurabia" scenario. Don't wish for it. If what you predict comes to pass , it will be terrible for the United States.
The US is interested in stable, prosperous, and peaceful neighbors with whom to trade. If a united Europe is the route toward this goal, fine. I don't think Americans really care about the EU as a political entity, as long as European countries don't become chaotic and hostile. The EU as a fully functioning federal superstate is still a plan, not a reality, and until it actually exists, there's no point in taking it into account. The USA will still deal with individual national governments. It's not a cynical "divide and conquer" strategy, it's just pragmatism.

D.L. Granberry, USA

The numbers are Towerbuddha's side. Wishing won't make it so--either way.

Do we in the US fear a United Europe? Well, I can't speak for everyone living here but I have no fear of you whatsoever. Contrary to what our news-media would have you believe, we don't run around frightened and envious of the rest of the world. Go ahead, unify. So long as you don't point guns at me and mine, we'll get along well enough.

Michel Sebastian, France

To TowerBuddha

What is it with some of you americans that makes you think Europe is a. underdeveloped, not much better than a third world state b. about to be taken over by a mullah regime in the next two weeks c. failing that, about to be taken over by Nazis in the next two weeks?

> America will not be challenged by a united Europe in a way that most people consider probable. If you factor in the large and growing Muslim populations in Europe, the Europe of 2050 will be nothing like the Europe of today.

That might well be. The US in 2050 won´t be anything like the US of today either due to a fresh influx of (mostly hispanic) immigrants. So what else is new? Doesn´t mean that the whole of the US will be speaking spanish in 2050.

> America will face a Eurabia type nation across the Atlantic and prospects of the two nations existing as they have in the past are not very bright. Already France, with its 10% Muslim population, hesitates to speak against Muslim interests worldwide.

No, not true. France (or the rest of the EU) doesn´t hesitate to speak against muslim interests, neither worldwide, nor indeed at home, if it´s appropriate. Have you followed the news concerning the head-scarf ban in France and Germany? I wouldn´t say that french and german muslims were exactly thrilled by the ban. Also, the French, along with the Germans and the Brits have started putting the thumbscrews on Iran concerning the enriched uranium issue. Again, I wouldn´t say that´s a move that´ll endear them to the muslim population (the latest ramblings I heard from the iranian mullahs were along the lines of "traitorous european states" or some such). Last but not least, in the EU negotiations with Turkey, France and Germany were two of the very strong proponents of a strict separation of church and state in Turkey as a condition for joining. This also did not sit well with some of the european muslims (notably in Germany) who protested against the german government´s policy. The difference between the French, Germans and Brits and the US is that they (usually) don´t speak or act against muslims unless there´s a good reason to.

> This trend will grow stronger as Muslim populations increase.
If history is any indicator, Europe will go through several phases as it succombs to the will of Islam. 1. Suddenly it will wake up to find itself with a large Muslim population that is rapidly growing (this is happening now).

Again, wrong, on three counts: a. Where in european history is there any indicator that Europe will succumb to islam? b. There is no such thing as a "will of islam". Islam, just as christianity, is subdivided into at least two subreligions (Sunni and Sharia), probably even more than that, but I´m not a specialist on that subject. Most of the time, those subreligions are at odds, if not at outright war, with each other. So they´re pretty far from having a unified "will". c. The muslim population in France and Germany is not "rapidly growing". It tends to stay stable, due to pretty harsh immigration restrictions that have been imposed as of late.

> 2. If anyone speaks up or shows alarm at the Muslim influence, they are branded as an enemy of Islam or a bigot and their lives are threatened (this is happening now).

You shouldn´t take single incidents like the Van Gogh murder to be an indicator of a general rule. Believe you me, there are several people (including a few very notable politicians) in Europe who are pretty outspoken when it comes to islam and islamic fundamentalists, and who haven´t been shot yet. The german minister of the interior, Mr. Schily, for example, is actually quite heavy-handed when it comes to dealing with fundamentalists, sometimes more than his own party likes.

> 3. Government, affraid of letting a violent genie out of the bottle, will be reluctant to deal with growing Muslim disregard of traditional values and laws.

No, they´re not reluctant at all. In fact both the French and the German governments have started pushing programs to integrate muslim and other foreign immigrant populations into german and french society. Also, they´re clamping down pretty hard on anybody who doesn´t accept the basic political disposition of the state and actively tries to destabilize it (through terrorism or other means). The respective internal police organisms (Bundesverfassungsschutz in Germany and DST in France) are working pretty hard on that. Incidentally, especially the French have been doing that since before 9/11 and if the CIA and FBI had listened to their advice, chances are that 9/11 wouldn´t have happened (AFAIK, the DST had issued the FBI a warning about aerial attacks with hijacked airplanes on US soil which the FBI for some reason or another chose to disregard).

> 4. As dread and panic increase, local governments will eventually try to supress the growing Muslim influence through legal means.

What dread and panic? And no, the governments will not try to supress muslim influence. They will however try to supress any kind of fundamentalism (muslim or not), and have done so in the past, with much more success than the americans with their patriot act, I might add.

> 5. Offended Muslims will draw further from the culture of their neighbors until calls for autonomy begin to be heard.

What neighbours? Where is there a muslim state bordering Europe from which they might, as you say, "draw" (whatever that means)?

> 6. Terror and strife begin. 7. War and struggle prelude a new Islamic nation.
If you look at Islam through a historical eye, the road for Europe is predetermined. America will have to deal with this reality.

America will have to deal with reality all right, but, at least when it comes to Europe, it´s not going to be anything like you say it will be.

Chris, U.S.A.

I'm a law student in the U.S., and looking at the legal power struggles between the federal government and the states in fledgling America has convinced me that the only way for Europe to be truly united would be if it had been so from the outset. The states in the U.S. initially saw the American Constitution as a contract between sovereigns -- one they could get out of whenever they saw fit. It was only through some amazing logical contortions that the Supreme Court under John Marshall was able to convince them otherwise -- basically arguing that they had laregly ceded their sovereignty when they signed onto the U.S. Constitution. The problem with a united Europe hinges on the notion of sovereignty. Each nation in Europe is truly a sovereign and has been that way for hundreds of years. I believe that the idea is so firmly rooted as to render super-national organizations largely ineffective. If a nation is taking its marching orders from a super-national organization only for the sake of its own benefit, then once that benefit ceases, the sovereign may withdraw at will. Legally speaking, there is no higher authority than a European nation, or any other nation for that matter. As such, it will be a colossal waste of time and money for Europe to try to unite. As an American, this is good for me, because I think most of Europe is temporarily out of touch with the needs of the civilized world (even its own), and shouldn't have its power increased. I agree with John Keegan's argument that Europe is still shell-shocked from WWII to the extent that it has developed an irrational aversion to military action of any kind and an irrational committment to militarily unsupported legal action. Unfortunately, laws don't deter the bin Ladens of the world from doing their will, and as such, a commitment to the use of force is all that protects the freedoms to which anyone on this site is probably accustomed. But enough of my rambling. United Europe: bad.

Robin Hill, Brit in Sweden

It is surprising that Charles Warren's comments merit repetition - even read once they make little sense. It is difficult to determine whether he dislikes most the French or 'Eurolefts' - whomever they may be. That the EU (and let us not forget France's part in its founding and development, unlike my dilitary countrymen)espouses a more egalitarian and caring social model than Republican America is thought wholly commendable by most of its citizens. That more countries have recently, and more are still seeking to, sign up to it (e.g.Turkey) must say something for that vision. However, Europe is right to be cautious with a country with such a bad human rights record. (Come to think of it that would probably also disbar Bush's America if it tried to join the EU!)

An outstanding anachronism is now NATO and the sooner the EU replaces this redundant body with a new defence organisation that gives primacy to its own interests rather than American the better. That is not to say that the latter's interests should not be accommodated provided they start conforming to international law.

Bill Irving, UK

We are invited to "look at Islam through a historical eye". Doing so, one immediately notices how many countries have become majority Islamic because of the slow infiltration of low-paid Muslim workers from outside. There are, of course, no such countries. I think that it would be much more instructive to apply this historical eye to previous warnings that white, Christian Europe is not only about to lose its global ascendancy, but is about to become entirely enslaved to one of its own, oppressed, non-Christian minorities.

Tim, Sewell, UK

What TowerBuddha also fails to recognise is that whilst the USA, born and maintained in strife and massacre, is but a couple of hundred years old, the nations of Europe have been dealing with these issues for a couple of thousand. We haven't always been successful, and we've had some horrible strife and massacre ourselves; but the development of a distinct European culture and civilisation has, nonetheless, proceeded.
At this stage in our history it seems that, with a few exceptions, our politicians and institutions invariably choose dialogue over conflict and integration over separation - possibly lessons learnt in the last century of slaughter.
There is no Muslim threat to Europe, or for that matter to the United States. They simply want to be left to develop their own societies in ways which, while they might not appeal to us, are certainly theirs by right. The demonisation of Islam, especially in the USA, is nothing but the latest in a long line of efforts to ensure that a black-hearted enemy is always waiting in the shadows, the better to enrich the military-industrial complex and shore up the American dream of boundless consumption and never having to pay the bill.

Towerbuddha, Land of the Free

TO: Susan,
I am not enthusiastic about what I see going on in Europe. I'm just discussing what I fear. Anyone who studies Islam's spread across Asia and Africa can make some predictions about the future of Europe. If you understand history, you understand the future.
TO: Michel Sebastian, France
I never called Europe underdeveloped. But I think it is submissive to third world states. This submission will grow as Islamic influences increase in Europe.
Hispanics may well be the majority in America come 2050. The difference between a Muslim majority vs. a Hispanic majority is something called Shariah Law. Mexicans won't force American women to wear veils in 50 years. Veils and French women might have a dark future together.
Without an exception, when Muslim populations grow large enough in a host country, those populations demand autonomy. If it is not granted, terror and civil war emerge. European history is not a factor here. The history of Islam is what matters. Every single Muslim nation had a history before Islam, in the end it didn't matter. Islam, either through sprawl or blood-shed, has almost always prevailed.
Spain and other parts of Europe were once reclaimded from Islam, but it took religious motivations to make it happen. I don't think Europe sports such fervor these days. Indeed, I doubt Europe has the will to fight to maintain its heritage. The current debate about mentioning Christianity in the constitution is a good indicator.
Muslims will not be meek about their heritage. When they are powerful enough politically, they will insist on Islamic government. You need only study the history of Islam worldwide to realize that this is inevitable if Europe's muslim population continues to explode.
France's head-scarf ban is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that is already out of control. It fits into the fourth step that I listed... 4. As dread and panic increase, local governments will eventually try to supress the growing Muslim influence through legal means. The head-scarf law is not going to force Muslim integration. It is going to lead to further polarization (and just as likely it will cause terrorism).
France and Germany hope to avoid Islamic wrath by submitting to Islam. The current bout of Arafat feet-licking by France is a good example. But in the end it will not help you.
European pressure on Iran is something to laugh at. I will once again predict the future by observing the past... Iran will continue to develope nuclear weapons and Europe will not have the courage to do a thing about it. Unless America or Isreal steps in, Iran will develope nuclear weapons. And I have no doubt Europe, after failing to persuade Iran, will try to dissuade the USA or Isreal from solving the problem militarily (even if it is the only option left). This is because Europe submits to Islam, regardless of the fact that a nuclear Iran would be catastophic for the world.
I have no doubt that Europe's security services are fighting fundamentalism. But once again, in the end it will not help you. All of these things have been tried by nations in the past... Islam marches on.
When I mentioned neighbors, I was talking about you and other Europeans that now have Muslim neighbors.
You state that Muslim populations are stable in France and Germany but according to the US State Department...
/////Current numbers from U.S. Department of State, Annual Report on International Religious
Freedom 2003; 1982 estimates in brackets for comparison, from M. Ali Kettani,
Muslim Minorities in the World Today (London: Mansell Publishing Ltd., 1986). /////
... the number of muslims in Europe doubled in the past 10 years. The muslim percentage of the population in the orginal Common Market states went from 1.9% to 4% in ten years. Bing currently 20% muslim, if France follows these trends she will be more then 50% muslim in 25 years. Welcome Shariah!
Van Gogh's murder was not a single incident. COnsider... Salmon Rushdie's death threat, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a dutch politician) is under a death threat, Guy Milliere a French writer faces a death threat, Geert Wilders facing a death threat. An explosion of muslim hate crime in France is nothing but unspoken threats of death to people who are not muslim.
Europe has 1600 years of Islamic momentum to stand against. I doubt that Europeans are up to the task. You deny your religious heritage. You deny your national heritage. You sell your allies for money and security.
In contrast you face an enemy that is militant about its religion, militant about its heritage, and will ally with its muslim enemies (Sunni or Shia) to fight against you.
Last year France passed the law forbidding muslim girls from wearing scarves in public schools. It'll be interesting to see how many years will pass before the French government requires girls to wear scarves in public. If you think it cannot happen, just look at what is happening in the Sudan.

Bill Irving, U.K.

Can Chris of the U.S.A. (or John Keegan himself, for that matter) kindly explain the difference between an irrational aversion to military action and a rational aversion to military action? It strikes me as a very nice distinction indeed. If your young child has an irrational aversion to sticking its hand in the fire, do you correct it?

Michel Bastian, France

To Chris:
This is a comment typical of americans who are (not unlike many europeans, btw) ill informed about the european union.
> I'm a law student in the U.S., and looking at the legal power struggles between the federal government and the states in fledgling America has convinced me that the only way for Europe to be truly united would be if it had been so from the outset. The states in the U.S. initially saw the American Constitution as a contract between sovereigns -- one they could get out of whenever they saw fit. It was only through some amazing logical contortions that the Supreme Court under John Marshall was able to convince them otherwise -- basically arguing that they had laregly ceded their sovereignty when they signed onto the U.S. Constitution.
Well, to start things off one could argue that during the american civil war (which was quite a bit later than the drawing up of the constitution, I gather), there was a pretty pronounced movement towards independence of member states of the union, wasn´t there? So your argument is a flawed at the outset. Even in America it took quite a long time to finalize the political entity "USA".
> The problem with a united Europe hinges on the notion of sovereignty. Each nation in Europe is truly a sovereign and has been that way for hundreds of years.
Yes, that´s quite true, and indeed, that has always been one of the major problems of the EEC, EC and EU, although the member states have managed that quite well until now.
> I believe that the idea is so firmly rooted as to render super-national organizations largely ineffective.
No, beg to differ, there. The european member states have already given up quite a chunk of their sovereignty to the EU. Don´t believe me? Read up on the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Amsterdamn. A good percentage of all the laws in force within the member states are made in Brussels. People don´t notice because these laws are mostly transformed into national laws, but it´s a fact that most of the legislation on technical standards, agriculture, fishing, industry, fair trade, corporations,trusts and many other things are actually european legislation. The main areas where Brussels has no substantial say up ´til now is foreign policy and defence. For most of the rest you can bet that the EU has had its fingers in the legislative process somewhere. Even purely national laws don´t escape EU attention. Any lawmaker in any european ministry will tell you that there´s almost always one mandatory check before any law is put before the respective national parliament subcommittees for ratification: is it compatible with EU standards? Also, the European Commission, which is sort of a european executive branch, wields considerable power through its right of initiative and through some of its directorates-general. The commissioner for competition, for example, is the single most powerful person in Europe when it comes to larger corporate mergers. No big mergers will go through in Europe without his approval. Same goes for the commissioners for energy and transport, internal market and justice and internal affairs. This last directorate-general, incidentally, is the one concerned with the implementation of the EU legislation on immigration. Not at all trivial, that.
And, last but not least, the European court of justice is the equivalent of the US Supreme court in many respects. It judicates on any question of law concerning EU legislation, and it´s held to be the highest instance in the EU, even before the respective constitutional courts. The House of Lords, for example (highest judicial instance in the UK in all civil and a few criminal cases) will always ask for a (legally binding) preliminary ruling of the european court first in any cases where EU legislation is in question, as will the Bundesgerichtshof (german federal high court) or the Cour de Cassation (french high court), or any other european court for that matter. If you´re interested in the kinds of cases the European court hears, go to http://www.lawreports.co.uk/euro.cj.htm for a sample. That´s the site of the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales. I bet you´ll be surprised at the scope of the whole thing.
So I cannot agree, the EU as a supranational organism is far from ineffective.
>If a nation is taking its marching orders from a super-national organization only for the sake of its own benefit, then once that benefit ceases, the sovereign may withdraw at will.
Not so in the EU. You can´t withdraw at will from the EU, there are rules for that. Nobody tried them out yet, since it takes quite a long time for a member state to withdraw from the EU, and, needless to say, it would be harmful in more than one way to the state in question, so no member state has really had an interest to withdraw yet.
> Legally speaking, there is no higher authority than a European nation, or any other nation for that matter.
Aha, that´s one other thing. There is no European Nation! It´s not like the US. The EU was made so that all european nations could coexist peacefully without loosing their national identities. The member states are nations. The EU isn´t. It´s more like a conglomerate of nations.

> As such, it will be a colossal waste of time and money for Europe to try to unite.
It´s not a question of trying to unite. As I said earlier in this post, we´re already united in many, many respects. It´s more a question of continuing the unification process and extending it to other fields.
> As an American, this is good for me, because I think most of Europe is temporarily out of touch with the needs of the civilized world (even its own), and shouldn't have its power increased.
> I agree with John Keegan's argument that Europe is still shell-shocked from WWII to the extent that it has developed an irrational aversion to military action of any kind and an irrational committment to militarily unsupported legal action. Unfortunately, laws don't deter the bin Ladens of the world from doing their will, and as such, a commitment to the use of force is all that protects the freedoms to which anyone on this site is probably accustomed.But enough of my rambling. United Europe: bad.
Well, I as a european don´t happen to think so. It´s not even in your own interest to have a powerless EU, but I won´t repeat all the arguments you can read elsewhere on this site.

George Town, Italy

I find incredible that many Americans here have such a deep hostility for Europe Unity. Are not they the member of the most democratic country in the world? Or is this only a stereotype we Europeans have and USA democracy is essentially formal and not substantial? Why are they so badly against a democratic process of building a new political and economic entity? Someone tried to saiy why: they think, in perfect good faith, to be the rulers of the world. This idea is due to the fact that they were able to create the first superpower in the world and, consequently in a pure spirit of colonialism, they pretend to have the right to americanize the world. For that they have no the capacity to be aware that millions of human beings, not americans, living in other parts of the world, can be able to build their future with their own hands and perhaps, but not always, even better that the one many americans pretend to consider as the only possible future: their own.
Have ever they asked themselves if their world is really the best one? Half of the Americans are doubting.

Tom McLaughlin, USA

Two points:
1) the only thing Americans ever *fear* concerning Europe is the possibility that we will once again be forced to intervene to quell one of Europe's periodic bouts of suicidal warfare.
2) Europe's importance to Americans, both in perception and reality, has decreased greatly over the last thirty years. Compare the number of articles in major US newspapers such as the NY Times, LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal and you'll find at least as much attention to China alone as to all of Europe. Interest in India is increasingly sharply, and interest in Japan has of course been extremely high for decades.
This interest is matched by rapid changes in the US population, more than half of which will, in another generation, be of non-European descent. The crucial minorities include not just mexican-americans but millions of asian-americans. Go to California, the cutting edge of American society and business, and you'll find many more people who speak mandarin or urdu than french or german. Over 40% of 2003 entering class at the Univ. of California at Berkeley is asian-american.
Just as their parents are now key players on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, the next generation of asian-americans will make their influence felt in Congress and the foreign policy establishment . When this happens, the US will (correctly) shift its attention and resources away from the old folks' home that is postmodern, post-christian Europe toward the region that crucially affects US security and prosperity in this century, Asia.

Michel Bastian, France

To Towerbuddha:
I´m not going to reply to your post in detail because you´re basically only repeating the same (wrong) assessments of your previous posts. I obviously won´t be able to reason with you, so never mind. BTW, you cite the Department of State as saying that the muslim population in France is currently 20%? I very much doubt that statement, given that even the CIA world factbook on France only pegs them at 5% to 10%. The same factbook, by the way, pegs the french catholics at about 85%. So I hope you won´t mind my not believing your figures.
I´m getting tired of americans on this boards feeding me nonsense on how or what my country is or isn´t when most of those people haven´t even visited, let alone lived here. Not only do they not understand our way of living, they´re obviously completely uninterested in learning about it. I am also getting tired of repeatedly having to point out the most basic facts to them. And last not least, I´m sick and tired of some americans´ repeated ignorant, stupid insults against France, Germany or the EU. I don´t insult your country, so at least have the common courtesy not to insult mine. We do not "lick feet", we do not sell our allies for money and we do not surrender our heritage. How, pray, would you react if I said things like that about the US?

Jan Paul, USA

I hope Europe will not unite in a number of ways, but not for the sake of the United States, no unite against the United States. If the United States joins with this European Country or that European county, it shouldn't be viewed in a bad light for those European Countries.
By having a diverse group of countries (united in some things that the union was designed to achieve), each country can conduct its own experiments in governing, tax policies, living condition issues, social security systems, business environments, etc. As these countries see success and failure with these issues, they can individually adapt to systems they see that are better or help others adapt to their own successful systems. "Necessity is the mother of invention" as one wise sage said. Each country has it own needs and unique combination of problems, issues and culture. Let them solve those unique situations with unique solutions. Why unite to the point you make the same mistake the U.S. did of taking power away from the states and solving the problems of each state with the same Federal (EU) "brush" of solutions. It is inefficient, and often ineffective. How will you know what is best if you don't try different systems. Go EU. Show the U.S. what diversity can achieve while at the same time being united in trade, currency, and other issues that DO have a common good. Problems in those areas? Probably, but those are things you CAN work on together while not losing your independence and culture.

Antonin Artaud, USA

"No, beg to differ, there. The european member states have already given up quite a chunk of their sovereignty to the EU. Don´t believe me? Read up on the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Amsterdamn. A good percentage of all the laws in force within the member states are made in Brussels."
I don't think we American's have particularly strong feelings about the EU. There is, though, a general unease among many of us that Europe is giving up on the idea of Democracy and flirting with center-left authoritarianism, which is all fine and good until the center loses control of the levers of power. We seem to be growing very far apart culturally and ideologically.

Toby Beck, UK, Polish Resident

For all their superficial differences, Europeans and Americans essentially share the same cultural baggage. Given this, and the fact that the EU has an economy roughly the same size as the US, it makes perfect sense that the two should try to resolve the world's problems together. Putting aside the cocky (and offensive) American attitude as well the defensive European reactiveness would make a good start.

Jan Paul, USA

Michel Bastian
I enjoyed your posts and your knowledge of both sides of the Atlantic. I also believe the States here would have been better of with more independence from the Federal Government.
In Europe, I see fasinating things happening. I see a struggle between some of the "new" and some of the "old" countries. So what! I have seen brothers and sisters struggle with each other their whole life and still care about each other when the "chips" are down. I think it will eventually work itself out as some countries find ways to achieve economic success and receive the tax revenues for social programs. When that success is overwhelming, other countries will probably eventually use the methods that achieved success. This probably won't be because some wise governing official decides this though. It probably will be because the people of the country demand their government change and use more successful methods.
United? Soon? I doubt it if you are talking about economic systems, tax policies, social programs, etc. But, that isn't necessarily bad since more "experiments" in economic policies are in use and more knowledge will be learned through this variety of policies than through the limited policies we use from a Federal Government trying to oversee all states here and trying to have "one size fits all" legislation from the Federal level. However, I beleive most of Europe is united in some common goals and like children with individual personalities will come together when their family is threatened.
However, these comments and observations are very superficial in nature and I would enjoy more of your views.

Mike Neff, Texas

Dear Europeans,
Don't need you, Don't like you, Don't trust you, Don't respect you.

Eddie, Tennessee, USA

George Town, Italy wrote
"I find incredible that many Americans here have such a deep hostility for Europe Unity."
I am not seeing this hostility in the majority of Americans, or Americans on this board. The overwhelming majority of Americans don't care one way or another because they see it as your buisiness and not ours. As long as what happens is democraticly chosen, and can be democraticly influenced by the people it controls we are happy.

Tom, US

To Michel Bastian: I know a fair amount about France, having worked and traveled there on and off for over a decade. My current employer's a French multinational and I interact with senior French executives each week, in both English and French (our corporate language is English). Frankly I don't see much difference, either culturally or politically, between my French and American colleagues.
Like nearly all of the political and business class in this country I favor European integration, mainly to prevent another pointless and suicidal European civil war from breaking out and requiring US troops to end it.
That said, though I have nothing whatsoever against Europe in cultural or social terms, I must say that in *political* terms the end of the Soviet Bloc has put an end to transatlantic unity for good. America's focus now is on Asia, as it should be, since the near and far east are the source of all the major threats and opportunities for us.
Also, though I speak French and endeavored throughout my youth to learn as much as I could about French history and culture, hardly any young Americans bother to do so today. When I started university, most of the major intellectuals and filmmakers and many of the major writers in the world were French, and anyone who aspired to be intellectual was determined to study French. Today, there are hardly any French cultural lions of global significance, which is one reason why very few US students today study french. The same goes for Germany and german. Go to the cutting edge of US society, California, and you will find many more speakers of mandarin and urdu than french or german.
It doesn't please me that years of study and work have made me into a dinosaur in my homeland, but this is the reality of a century that will be dominated by the US and the Asian powers. I may still retire in France (have dual US-EU citizenship) and will definitely teach my son french history and literature, but I am a realist. Europe's day passed long ago. It is an aging, declining semi-power that has already been eclipsed by China and will soon be surpassed by India as well. Asian Century now. America is, as always, looking westward.

Thumper, Not of this World

To George Town
Where is the hostility? Most of the American posts are either doubtful that there will a succesful unified europe or they are like me ... Who cares, just dot burn the place down during your experiment.

Michel Bastian, France

To Tom:
>I know a fair amount about France, having worked and traveled there on and off for over a decade. My current employer's a French multinational and I interact with senior French executives each week, in both English and French (our corporate language is English). Frankly I don't see much difference, either culturally or politically, between my French and American colleagues.
Yup, that´s my experience, too. Now if only we could all stop talking up a storm and start working together again. Might be good for both sides of the pond.
> Like nearly all of the political and business class in this country I favor European integration, mainly to prevent another pointless and suicidal European civil war from breaking out and requiring US troops to end it.
That said, though I have nothing whatsoever against Europe in cultural or social terms, I must say that in *political* terms the end of the Soviet Bloc has put an end to transatlantic unity for good. America's focus now is on Asia, as it should be, since the near and far east are the source of all the major threats and opportunities for us.
Good, that´s as it should be. Both Europe and America should concentrate on Asia, not on kicking each other in the shins.
> Also, though I speak French and endeavored throughout my youth to learn as much as I could about French history and culture, hardly any young Americans bother to do so today. When I started university, most of the major intellectuals and filmmakers and many of the major writers in the world were French, and anyone who aspired to be intellectual was determined to study French. Today, there are hardly any French cultural lions of global significance, which is one reason why very few US students today study french. The same goes for Germany and german. Go to the cutting edge of US society, California, and you will find many more speakers of mandarin and urdu than french or german.
Like I said, most of the current french business class understands this. Case in point: your french company where the working language is english. Even Chirac can speak passable english if he wants to ;-).
> It doesn't please me that years of study and work have made me into a dinosaur in my homeland, but this is the reality of a century that will be dominated by the US and the Asian powers. I may still retire in France (have dual US-EU citizenship) and will definitely teach my son french history and literature, but I am a realist. Europe's day passed long ago. It is an aging, declining semi-power that has already been eclipsed by China and will soon be surpassed by India as well.
Where´s your american optimism ;-)? Seriously, I don´t think that´s true. Europe has had a massive influx of new ideas and fresh political wind from the scandinavian and eastern european states. Go to Finland, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland or the baltic states and I think you´ll find that there´s real potential there. If the other european economies throw in a little venture capital and start developing things in these states, you might still see a stronger Europe emerging. Also, the current economical setbacks in France and Germany might still be amended if we can harmonize and deregulate enough. That´s something for the politicians to do, and that´s where things start getting complicated. However, with young dynamic politicians like Sarkozy in France, it could be done. The european institutions could also help if they get their act together. The European Parliament made a good start with their rebellion against Barroso´s flawed commission. If he gets cracking, I even think Barroso himself could make a big difference. Other than that, it´s really a psychological thing. Think positive and things´ll go your way.

Michel Bastian, France

To Jan Paul:
> I enjoyed your posts and your knowledge of both sides of the Atlantic.
Well, thanks for the flowers. Nice to know somebody agrees with me for a change ;-).
> I also believe the States here would have been better of with more independence from the Federal Government.
Phew, controversial subject, actually, and not one I´m too familiar with, so I won´t comment.
> < In Europe, I see fasinating things happening. I see a struggle between some of the "new" and some of the "old" countries. So what! .....>
Yes, the "European Dream" (again, I recommend Jeremy Rifkins book with the same title; and no, I´m not getting a percentage out of the sales, I just like the book :-)) is a novel one, and we´re still not sure it´s going to work out. Remember the old american saying though: no risk, no fun ;-).

> United? Soon? I doubt it if you are talking about economic systems, tax policies, social programs, etc. But, that isn't necessarily bad since more "experiments" in economic policies are in use and more knowledge will be learned through this variety of policies than through the limited policies we use from a Federal Government trying to oversee all states here and trying to have "one size fits all" legislation from the Federal level. However, I beleive most of Europe is united in some common goals and like children with individual personalities will come together when their family is threatened.
An apt comparison. Let´s hope you´re right.
> However, these comments and observations are very superficial in nature and I would enjoy more of your views.
Don´t be too modest. As far as I can see, none of us on this board are professional political pundits, so welcome to the club.

George Town, Italy

Dear Mike Neff,
at last a real American!
I can understand that is not politically correct for an American to be against European Unity (all the posts here are politically correct) but what is politically correct is not what the real american think: Mike is an exemple.

Michael Remler, United States

I think "Tom, USA" is the authentic voice of the US. Highly sophisticated (contrary to Euro self indugent hypocracy) highly sympathetic to Europe (contrary to Euro arrogance) and highly realistic (contrary to Euro self dilusion. My advise to Europeans is to read Tom and then read it again.

Billy, Washington, DC, USA

Go EU! Stay our friend!
Get big enough to defend yourselves!
Stay sane enough not to need military assistance!
Be cooperative enough to help out against China and Russia, if necessary!
Remain pleasant enough to make the likelihood of that necessity less!
Be rationally self-interested enough to want to keep swapping trinkets and doo-dads!
Be resolute enough to fight on our side if we encounter someone really mean and need some help!
Don't start hating us because we have silly nationalist rights! We don't hate Austria! Boo, the Austrian far right! Boo, the American far right! Boo, far rights! And far lefts!

Harri Mikk, Estonia

Since the WW II USA has done a lot for united Europe. William McElgin is sure right that European Communities can be considered as the greatest single political achievement in American history of foreign politics. European countries have reason to be grateful to the United States, that the Marshall Plan was handled in a way it was. Europe has a reason to be grateful to USA and probably to George Bush senior in particular for the support to the reunification of Germany. This explicit support was not offered from British or French governments. Europe has a reason to be grateful to the USA that Russian occupation forces have left Europe quickly after German reunification. Europe has a reason to be grateful to USA for helping to solve the Balkan crises, which has been a shame for Europe we couldn‚t solve alone. These have been real and remarkable achievements of US foreign policy. And the policy direction has been very clearly supporting or even driving to more European integration. In some cases USA has been more pro integration than France if we think of German reunification.
On the other hand we don‚t need to put USA into situation where it logically goes for „cherry picking‰ in Europe. Do you really expect US to say, „No, thank you‰ to support from any European country simply because of the reason that this is not a common opinion of all European countries. This is silly. Of course they will accept the support and stress the fact where useful. That European governments are not able to find common opinions on foreign policy issues does not mean, that USA is interested in divided Europe.

Will McElgin, Chicago

I read Timothy Garton Ash's column today on his perception that America doesn't appreciate European influence enough, so I thought I'd stop by this site again. When I first posted here more than a year ago, the site was almost empty. Now there is a great deal of interesting commentary.
By the way, I think Mr. Ash could improve this site a great deal by using blogging software that allows multiple threads, dates and etc. I cant tell when any of the above posts were written and I cant really respond to them in a focused way.
Michel Bastian from France has commented specifically on my earlier post so I will try to clarify my earlier remarks a bit and then maybe later I will comment on todays column.
First I should say that I did not mean to imply that the EU is somehow an American construction. Clearly France and Germany were absolutely pivotal in creating what is now a thriving political entity. It is an outstanding political achievement, one of the greatest in the history of man. I was only saying that Americans who have any understanding of the history of the last century have great reason to be proud of their decisive contributions to this achievement.
As for my comments about France, believe me, I admire France as a beautiful country with an incredibly rich historical legacy of contributions to politics, art, literature, science and all aspects of modern culture. It really pained me to see the level of denigration directed at France from certain quarters in the United States at the time of the Iraq War. Much of it was the worst sort of childishness and seemed to focus especially on the failures of 1940. I hope everyone here knows that those failures were not France's alone but were also the shared failures of the British and American political cultures and their unwillingness to see the basis of their security in the survival of French liberty. The inane stereotypes too many Americans harbor are especially unfortunate since the French military tradition, including the quality of its expeditionary forces today, is matched by very few nations on this earth. Having said this, allow me to express some misgivings about the direction that France is taking today in its relations with the United States.
First I want to say up front that I was not in favor of the Iraq War; I thought it was a very reckless gamble that was sure to inflame the Islamic world and seriously undermine America's relations with Europe. However, I want to make it clear that I care a great deal about Americas position as the preeminent power in the world and that I see this role threatened by a failure in Iraq. I think it is also certain that an American failure in Iraq would be a tremendous victory for the most extreme forces in the Arab and Islamic world. For those of you who are not Americans, I should say that you should not misread the mood of the American people. It is true that there is a segment of the American public that badly wants the US to leave Iraq right now. However, there is a vast reservoir of elite opinion of all political persuasions which understands that such an outcome is unthinkable. Believe me when I tell you that we have the will to see this thing through. And, despite many losses to come, with our gallant soldiers and Marines, the thing will be seen through. There will be no more Vietnams for my nation.
Now to France and its part in all of this. I think France is entitled to a bit of self-satisfaction over the fact that in many ways the predictions of Jacques Chirac were proven right in Iraq. But what it is not entitled to do, at least if it wants to remain an ally of the United States, is to indulge itself in a perpetual rapture of schadenfreude and try to undermine American efforts in Iraq. It is also not entitled to try to take advantage of America's vulnerability right now to try to pursue a triangular strategy with respect to China. I believe that Mr. Ash has commented on what a hideously cynical policy it is for Germany and France to sell advanced arms to the Chinese police state. If those arms ever kill American airmen or sailors you can bet that the response from Americans will be a whole lot worse than it has been over the last two years. It would also be a very dark stain on French and German honor. We want a partner in the advancement of liberty in the EU, not a mercantilist and obstructionist competitor. Most people in Europe essentially understand this, some in France do not.Check out my blog at http://www.livejournal.com/users/george91/
The Dec. 2nd entry on developments in Iraq may be of interest to some. Also I dont agree with Tom. Great opportunities for growth may exist in Asia but I dont see Asia eclipsing the West in creativity, wealth or influence in our lifetimes.
By the way Billy's comment kicks ass.

Go to page 1 2 3

Debate - Page 1/3