Europe vs. U.S. , I found this facinating article

[Kthulhu]

I found this link in of all places a Fark.com thread. I found it to be a very clear and informative think piece on the reasons behind the differences between European and United States foreign policy. Don't be fooled by the title of "Power and Weakness", it is a very even-handed article that belittles neither side and quite frankly believes the status quo is necessary. I'd like to hear what the folks here have to say on this topic. NOTE: the article is long but very readable (IMHO).

Power and Weakness (http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html#n5)

I don't have time right now to make a comment on how I agree/disagree with the article as I'm ostensibly working right now (hehe) nor did I have time to research just who this guy is and what the politics of himself (or the website) might have to do with it. But I would like to see some comments and jump in a bit later tonight (probably after you've all hit the hay). Also I haven't had time to scan the board to see if it or something similar has come up so if it has, a point to the relavent thread would be appreciated.

~The Thing That Should Not Be

Well, I tried to read it. I really did. But this guy (the author) is living in a fantasy land.


Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant’s “Perpetual Peace.”

Kinda reminds me of "the end of history."

The anti-American bias and European ass-kissing just screams from the page.....

I would agree with this:

American military strength has produced a propensity to use that strength. Europe’s military weakness has produced a perfectly understandable aversion to the exercise of military power.

However, I would disagree with what immediately follows:

Indeed, it has produced a powerful European interest in inhabiting a world where strength doesn’t matter, where international law and international institutions predominate, where unilateral action by powerful nations is forbidden, where all nations regardless of their strength have equal rights and are equally protected by commonly agreed-upon international rules of behavior.

Back in fantasy land.

[DanishDynamite]

Kthulhu:I found this link in of all places a Fark.com thread. I found it to be a very clear and informative think piece on the reasons behind the differences between European and United States foreign policy. Don't be fooled by the title of "Power and Weakness", it is a very even-handed article that belittles neither side and quite frankly believes the status quo is necessary. I'd like to hear what the folks here have to say on this topic. NOTE: the article is long but very readable (IMHO). Very well written article! BTW, your warning that the article is long, is a serious understatement. I've been reading for close to a half hour, and I'm barely halfway.

Anyway, from what I've read, he brings up a lot of good points and his analysis of these points is, IMO, uncomfortably close to the truth. However, I do have one major disagreement: I seriously feel that international disputes are best handled via international organizations with rule-of-law. And I feel this way despite not growing up in Europe.

I realize this could just be me, since I ultimately would like to see the world united as one nation, but still.

Perhaps it is too early to unite the world through peaceful consensual means. Perhaps it requires that most countries are working democracies, before this can happen. The rhetoric and actions of the US superpower have certainly made me in favor of vastly increasing the military spending of my country. No offense intended.

[Kthulhu]

Luke-T
The anti-American bias and European ass-kissing just screams from the page.....

I would say keep reading. The author starts by outlining the European argument but there is a large section on the American response towards the end that evens up the percieved bias. I had the same intitial feelings but by the end I had the feeling that he had treated both fairly.
Most Europeans do not see the great paradox: that their passage into post-history has depended on the United States not making the same passage. Because Europe has neither the will nor the ability to guard its own paradise and keep it from being overrun, spiritually as well as physically, by a world that has yet to accept the rule of “moral consciousness,” it has become dependent on America’s willingness to use its military might to deter or defeat those around the world who still believe in power politics.

He basically goes on to say Europe not only needed the U.S. to evolve into the relatively peaceful (some would say supremely peaceful compared to the last 300+ years of conflict on the continent) Europe of today but that the U.S. is still needed to be the strong man on the block to confront those for whom international law is a joke.

I got the impression that he viewed the U.S. 's current role not just as a necessary evil but as a truely good thing. Of course you may get a different vibe from it all.

DanishDynamite

While I agree in principle with solving problems mostly through internation rule-of-law, laws are useless without force to back them up. No one seriously thinks that any society today would not devolve into chaos without your friendly neighborhood policeman. Criminals would not miraculously turn themselves in for prosecution. It reminds me of the snipe at traditional British bobbies that didn't carry guns "Stop in the name of the law or I shall have to say stop again!"

In fact I think the best you can do with sanctions (the largest weapon in Europe's international arsenal at this point) is hope for a popular uprising and overthrow of the current regime. Remember sanctions don't often hurt those at the top but the masses. That, unfortunately, has a chance of devolving into a civil war which is univerally messy and often leads to prodigious loss of life on both sides. They are also notoriously hard to stop by an outside force (i.e. Somalia). I would argue they are harder to stop then stepping in militarily beforehand to dismantle the offending regime.

I would be pleased as punch if European Union or even some individual countries in Europe picked up the slack and increased their military spending. While I guess it can be a rush to realize you're the top dog but with such a wide gap you not only have the hatred of your enemies in a conflict but the jealousy and distrust of your allies as well. Like an authoritarian father, the mother thinks you're too harsh and the kids know you are.

~The Thing That Should Not Be

[DanishDynamite]

An initial note: I'm afraid I haven't had the fortitude (I'm currently drunk) to finish the article. Anyway....

Kthulhu:While I agree in principle with solving problems mostly through internation rule-of-law, laws are useless without force to back them up. I agree.
No one seriously thinks that any society today would not devolve into chaos without your friendly neighborhood policeman. Criminals would not miraculously turn themselves in for prosecution. It reminds me of the snipe at traditional British bobbies that didn't carry guns "Stop in the name of the law or I shall have to say stop again!" Again, I agree. All laws are ultimately enforced by...well...force (hence the origin of "enforced").
In fact I think the best you can do with sanctions (the largest weapon in Europe's international arsenal at this point) is hope for a popular uprising and overthrow of the current regime. The question remains, of course, as to when the forceable overthrow of the regime of a country by an outside agent, is "justified". If we wish to move away from the age of the "law of the jungle", we need to agree on international laws.
Remember sanctions don't often hurt those at the top but the masses. That, unfortunately, has a chance of devolving into a civil war which is univerally messy and often leads to prodigious loss of life on both sides. They are also notoriously hard to stop by an outside force (i.e. Somalia). I would argue they are harder to stop then stepping in militarily beforehand to dismantle the offending regime.
You have a point. But if I wish to live in not just a country, but a world governed by law, the definition of "offending regime" must be agreed upon.
I would be pleased as punch if European Union or even some individual countries in Europe picked up the slack and increased their military spending. Are you sure? Currently, the relations between the US and some European countries is strained, but still friendly at some fundamental level. The moment a president of a European country (or hopefully, the EU) can seriously regard the opinion of the US as "a factor to consider" instead of "the factor of utmost or second to utmost importance", what exactly will be left of the (currently taken for granted) friendly relationship between Europe and the US?
While I guess it can be a rush to realize you're the top dog but with such a wide gap you not only have the hatred of your enemies in a conflict but the jealousy and distrust of your allies as well. Like an authoritarian father, the mother thinks you're too harsh and the kids know you are. Indeed. Given the large force-projecting ability of the US and (especially) the apparent constant will to use it as they see fit, it is clear that a counterweight (otherwise useless) is neccessary.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Indeed. Given the large force-projecting ability of the US and (especially) the apparent constant will to use it as they see fit, it is clear that a counterweight (otherwise useless) is neccessary.

Although I as an American prefer the effective counterweight to be in a fully armed US populace.

Has Absolute Power ever not been Corrupted Absolutely?

And when will Political Power cease to come from the barrel of a gun? Actually I can answer that; it's when 100% of the earth's people constantly receive the correct dose of Thorazine (or the implanted electrode equivalent). And heaven help the world if one man ever slips the bonds.

Just my 2cts.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by hammegk


Although I as an American prefer the effective counterweight to be in a fully armed US populace.

Has Absolute Power ever not been Corrupted Absolutely?

And when will Political Power cease to come from the barrel of a gun? Actually I can answer that; it's when 100% of the earth's people constantly receive the correct dose of Thorazine (or the implanted electrode equivalent). And heaven help the world if one man ever slips the bonds.

Just my 2cts.

There are armies standing by to ensure that never happens.

JK

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


There are armies standing by to ensure that never happens.

JK

What does the "that" in the sentence above refer to?