open Democracy News Analysis - An American's Concern for Europe, - Comments

kerrygoulde on "An American's Concern for Europe"

kerrygoulde — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:02:08 +0000

Reading your starting contention is a little like tumbling through the looking glass. Don't be fooled by weak analogies between America's morally relativistic and purposeless left and the forces of Europe. Europeans are moral absolutists. Don't believe me, check out the cartoon row. This is the true nature of Europe. We know who we are and we take a quiet pride in that fact, though you have to really rub us the wrong way for it to come spewing out. If I was asked for my number 1 concern for America, it would be moral relativism, from the right to the left, from the mumbling multiculturalists to the belligerent ultra-patriots who believe their side can do no wrong. It's all based on relativism. Don't believe me? Checked out the thread in which America challenges Europe's right to uphold the Danes' freedom of speech. A few more observations A) Why did the Spanish vote Aznar out after 11/3? Let's see: because he LIED and attempted to pin the blame on Basque terrorists to distract the Spanish from his embarking on the Iraq war which Spain never wanted in the first place. Europeans have an old tradition that if politicians lie, you vote them out. It doesn't matter how terrorists do or do not try to manipulate us into voting. Europeans can and must vote according to our own principles. anupsebastian51: You worry Europe isn't closer to the people? Welcome to the club. Why do you think Europe voted against the constitution? Why do you think Britain is represented as 'eurosceptic' despite voting against withdrawal from the union and vigorously supporting enlargement. The struggle to bring Europe to the people is ongoing. C) Europe's isolation? Let's be clear about what we mean by American isolation. America refuses to sign on to weapons limitation treaties (witness the use of depleted uranium in Iraq, a carcinogenous agent with a half life of close to half a million years for a cause for concern), the International Criminal Court, which attempts to establish consistent international justice, and pretty much any initiatives aimed at creating clear, transparent and consistent standards of international justice (apparently right down to the Geneva convention)... Europe (and most democratic nations around the world) are the architects and supporters of these initiatives. America is repeatedly offered opportunities to give input and raise concerns, but this is simply impossible because American intransigence settles not only around the terms but around the entire concept of collective security. Have you checked out the lists of international treaties America has not signed and their terms? Europeans believe in human rights and we will continue to believe in these things to the end. If America does not, then why not? If America does, then why the hostility? 'American bashing' is not a generalised hatred of America. There are few Europeans who do not admire the policies of FDR or the Marshall plan, or who would ever disagree with most of the principles of the Constitution. What you choose to present as 'American bashing' is focused on very specific breaches of international law and human rights. We cannot allow our actions to be dictated by our enemies, no matter how extreme Islamists get. I suggest you ask yourself a simple question: why does America have such a gut-level aversion to the principles of collective security and international law?

anupsebastian51 on "An American's Concern for Europe"

anupsebastian51 — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:44:51 +0100

As a American, I must warn you guys with over centralization without more individual powers. I personally am for the union but I fear in the long run, Freedom will be eroded. What we think as freedom is a illusion. Take a look around, all the rules, the tax. I am saying we have not sipped true freedom. Here, everything is decided by the top elite and power is so centralized. The union has to give REAL power to the people. For example the most important solution that the union need: is power of the purse. What I mean is that people should have the right to choose where their tax money goes, rather than allows someone in London to decide for you. TOO, radical? well that what we need. Wait, please wait, please listen. To calm your fears and other's of total anarchy we should allows about 60-50% of the taxes to support the current spending, meaning no government employee will lose their job. The rest 40-50% of the money should be decided by the people. Do you really think the politicians in The house of commons and in washington are smarter than you, that only they know where to spend money. For example Americans are allowing them to use our money to fuel an immoral war, destroy the environment, death penalty, abortion .......etc,etc.(Although the public is mostly against this) It is time that take back our right to spend our own money. Also fear only fear, don't worry where other spent their money. Just worry where you wold spent the money This message brought to you by the FEDERATION OF THIRD PARTIES. Thankyou

tjcass7880 on "An American's Concern for Europe"

tjcass7880 — Fri, 17 Dec 2004 01:16:18 +0000

Many believe that the driver is mad. They should have voted.

KappNets on "An American's Concern for Europe"

KappNets — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:43:05 +0000

GeorgeK I like your (and Brolly’s) discussions, and am especially interested in your discussion "We look on as rich spectators at a world where someone else is in the driving seat." This may be a typically American sentiment. Many countries are anti-American these days. Polls in many countries not only in Europe but also in Asia, Australia and American continent show that the majority in most countries is against the American policy on Iraq. Many believe that the driver is mad.

GeorgeK on "An American's Concern for Europe"

GeorgeK — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:43:37 +0000

Ursa Thankyou for your posts. I regret that my new job doesn't give me the time I used to have to join the thoughtful discussions you are trying to start. I am pleased to see you have moved on from humorous provocative postings, to ones where you put forward concrete opinions, which are solid enough to challenge directly. You make some good points about European culture, but I think you are unfair on OpenDemocracy. It is a product of British culture, and so inevitably reflects British (and European) cultural mores, but I believe it honestly tries to draw widely from confliucting opinions. I don't think you are taking into account that contributors to political discussion forums are not an unbiased cross-section of the general population. Opendemocracy tries to be balanced, but it cannot avoid being influenced by the ethos of the kind of people who send large numbers of posts to discussion forums. Those with minority points of view who will never get elected (such as Marxists), have more time to contribute. Some who are more moderate are too busy running local councils; and besides, moderates can see the the country is being run by people who share their opinions, so they have little incentive to post to forums like this. In my opinion, not only are you wrong about OpenDemocracy's agenda, but privately, they are delighted with your posts, and the way they are raising the intellectual level of the discussion, and the way they help balance what has at some times been an unbalanced anti-american tilt in this forum. I think your original essay also tends to take what is said too much on face value. If you want to understand the culture of a democratic country, in my opinion, you are better off following the policies of its government. Not what they say, but what they do. For example, France is risking an Islamic terrorist bombing campaign with its ban on headscarves. So they don't fit the caricature of a touchy-feely, wishy washy European political culture. They are hard-nosed and ruthless. Remember the French bombing of the Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior (and killing of one of its crew)? And French policy to autocratic client states in North Africa hardly fits the classic caricature of a European liberal. As you have said in your later posts, all European countries are individually unique, and it can be deceptive to imagine a single european political culture. You said: "I have read and heard suggestions that this is a watershed moment for not just Spain, but Europe as a whole". I think it is far too soon to know. The Spanish didn't take a carefully thought-through position on the bombing. They had no time to debate the issue, and besides, the high turnout, and so the higher than usual turnout of socialist voters may be the reason for the victory. I agree the fact Al-Qaeda appears to have, in effect, won its first European election is extremely worrying. But we shouldn't draw too many conclusions too early from that. The factor that worries me more is the foolish early statements of the new Spanish Prime Minister. He allowed the impression to be given that, only days after the attack on his people, he was more angry with the US than with Al-Qaeda. The true test of Spain will be in the coming months and years. To see if public opinion forces him to harden his rhetoric against terrorism, and soften it against the US. So far, its too early to say. Indeed, who knows? Maybe the longer term consequences of this election will be a clumsy Socialist government in Spain which provokes a rightwing backlash. You said: "The civilisation and cultures of the West seem in decline" (though I'm not sure you really meant it). Many say this. But I don't agree. While so many folk to come to the West, and so many others agitate for reforms to allow their own countries to become like the West, I think it the opposite of the truth. Indeed, it is the very success of Western culture that brings this terroist threat on us. The terrorists understand the seductive attraction to Islamic populations of Western culture ... they fear that far more than US troops. Though, of course, they also fear the US troops. I think you tend to take what western liberals say too much on face value. While Western liberals are reluctant to decry brutal cultures from the developing world, don't assume they are as tolerant of them in their private thoughts. In my opinion, the problem with Europe is less soft liberalism. More it is annoyance at American arrogance (over Kyota, Steel tarriffs, as well as the Iraq war. And, shamefully, the fact Europeans can afford to be passengers and by-standers. They know that as the US continues to stand up for its interests, most European interests will inevitably also be protected. And there is a distasteful hint of a neo-racist prejudice against America and Americans - carefully disguised. Unfortunately, the Europeans are not the only who are guilty. Prejudice and unfairness are common traits in every culture. I have seen enough of Fox News to know they exist in the USA, and of course in every country. Many of the faults of Europe are less about its culture, than its situation in the world. We look on as rich spectators at a world where someone else is in the driving seat. We recall that once we were in the driving seat, and at a subconcious level we have a gut feeling we did a better job, and would do a better job now. But if Europe suffers from back-seat driver syndrom, so too did the US when it was an on-looker. And, if in a hundred years, it loses its superpower status, so will it again. Regards George

ursa9 on "An American's Concern for Europe"

ursa9 — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 21:44:24 +0000

Brol, I was pressed into this recent discourse by Ron. I have made specific and clear comments about 'Europe' above. The problem seems to be that many are so obsessed with other things they cannot or refuse to write about the subject. You for instance can only harp about me, Bush, Jewish Neoconservatives and those evil Israelis. Perhaps if you would control your own rages you would be able to see that Britain and other European nations remain important in this world and that the destiny of 'Europe' is in European hands. Look at the more subtantive elements here or in the thread initiated by your other morbid fixation, Neocon. Of course if you want to continue to try to solve the puzzle that is me ... ha, ha, continue. Don't you think it best though that you make peace with your own family ..... You did say that you had daughters. I hope things are well between you and them. I know that G.W. is very close to his daughters. Moriarty

brolly2_1 on "An American's Concern for Europe"

brolly2_1 — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:43:15 +0000

ursa9 has gone off the radar sreen in terms of this discussion and in his last few posts has attempted to disqaulify almost everyone from debating the issues with him, on account of their not having the requisite 'professional' status. I have yet to see ursa9 make any pronouncements that are not hidden in a historical mist. He simply does not discuss relevant issues of the present or proximate future but prefers to put the question into an epochal context, from which it never emerges. The criticism I have aimed at this method is defended as anti-intllectaulism. Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1

brolly2_1 on "An American's Concern for Europe"

brolly2_1 — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:26:56 +0000

ursa9's analysis and disection of the strands of European forces that are centripetal and centrifugal must be seen in an entirely different context to that which he claims. He is not really concerned with Europe. He is concerned with the prospect of Europe drawing away from the American hegemony and neoconservatism that he supports. One does not have to be much of a psychologist to ask why he is so 'concerned' for Europe. The truthful answer, which he will not acknowledge, is that he perceives developments that are not too his liking. He has gone out of his way to pinpoint every discrepancy he can think of which will inhibit the further development of the European Union.The accuracy of his depiction of the problems presented by many nations making an effort to form a pan-European entity, is not something that I question, although much of it is arguable. More to the point is his display of negativism and his motive. Is this just an historian of France commenting upon the future course of Europe. I think not. His numerous previous posts have shown him to be very ambivalent to the progress of Europe towards more integration. Europeans, of whom there are several that contribute to this thread, are well aware of all the difficulties that stand in the way of the European project, as it has evolved and set itself further goals. No one who reads the European newspapers is in any doubt of the anxieties of the various peoples that continually surface. The British in particular are extremely antipathetic to aspects of the EU and at the present time are only 'signed up' to the Single Market part of it. The Murdoch Press, which has such a profound influence on the British politcal scene, at least as far as the New Labour and Conservative leadership is concerned,is the worst enemy of the EU and never misses an opportunity to damn it. The fact that a non- British citizen like Rupert Murdoch has got such a hold over Tony Blair and now Michael Howard, is a sad reflection on the quality of the Britain's democracy. it is no wonder that the turn out at elections is continually falling. Murdoch is a committed neoconservative and it is no coincidence that ursa9 shows a similar attitude to Murdoch regarding the European project. We can trace the root of neoconservatism to the fears of the Jewish people and the plight of Israel. The Jewish neoconservatives have a great fear of the left and believe that the US Constitution offers them the best hope for the security that they crave. Capitalism and the free market are interwoven with the American political system and therefore the neoconservatives believe that if they can spread this model throughout the world and particularly the Middle East, it will slowly reduce the influence of Islam and redirect the energies of the Arab masses into the pursuit of happiness US style .i.e. the pursuit of money and consumerism. I happen to think that the whole neoconservative experiment is doomed to failure as it is an attempt to impose at the point of a gun what can only develop organiclly over a considerable length of time. Economic aid to Arab countries and some sort of accommodation between the Israelis and the Palestians would be a far better way to have proceeded. The war with Iraq has done nothing to improve the overall situation in the Middle East.The bitter hatred and mistrust between the Palestinians and the Israelis will not be helped by what has not been achieved in Iraq so far and is unlikely to succeed in the way it was hoped in the future.. For most diaspora Jews, the advent of the State of Israel achieved two things. In the first place it gave them the feeling that there was a country that they could truly call their own and was the ultimate safe haven. Jews in the West since WWII have not had to worry about overt persecution and for many years since 1948 anit-semitism had attenuated. However Jews have never really felt properly integrated in the the US or Europe. They always are reminded of their previous pariah identity as far as gentiles are concerned. In the second place, Israel earned a reputation of being courageous as a result of its successful prosecution of wars in 1956, 1967 and 1973. Diapspora Jews basked in the reflected glory. The reputation of being meek and cowardly was being consigned to the past. Unfortunately time has changed the glow that Israel once gave off as far as Europe is concerned and it is only because of 9/11 that it still enjoys almost unwavering support from the traumatised US. The neoconservative Jews do not trust Europeans with the exception of the British and are supporters of American hegemony. Their anxieties concerning Europe are readily understandable given the holocaust which happened just sixty years ago. Ursa9 will spurn the reasons I have given for believing his 'concern for Europe' is spurious but that is what it is. Ursa9 does not admit to being Jewish. I don't know whether he is or isn't. I have no problem in saying that I am Jewish and that it doesn't stop me from trying to see things from all sides. Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1

brolly2_1 on "An American's Concern for Europe"

brolly2_1 — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:58:42 +0000

ursa9 said: ["There is an organicism to this that might, given wise policy decisions, be more stabilizing than internationalism or globalism."] Surely the problem with the above statement, which is so typical of conclusions after historic ramblings through time, is that it is not possible to know if the decisions have been 'wise' or not until a long timeafter they are taken. In fact, even then, historians can argue the toss in one direction or another about what can be concluded. In fact, in a strict sense, ursa9's trawl through history of the development of man's sense of his self and his relationship to his community and its significance for him,at which ever level - tribe, village, region, nation, etc.,does not lead to any firm conclusion but to a vague and conditional statement, as quoted above. When reading this type of posting I am reminded of a book by Karl Marx called 'The Poverty of Philosophy'. There is an analogy in that historians have a professional bias for thinking that their study and disicipline enables them to discern trends that will be useful to policy makers on social, economic and politcal matters. For me this is a nice pass time with nothing more to commend it other than it is an intellectual exercise that suffers from an almost complete lack of riguor due to the nature of the subject matter and the instrument that they must use - words! Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1

ursa9 on "An American's Concern for Europe"

ursa9 — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:11:16 +0000

Ron, First let me apologize for not returning to our discussion of historical moments that remain current and cause me to view things with less alarm than you. You picked up on the late 18th century problems and the Polk administration, but for the wrong reasons; or at least they were not the reasons for my bringing them up. I think it a worthwhile discussion. As far as this discussion, I cannot respond fully now. I wanted though to let you know that I consider your comments worthy of discussion and interesting. As far as my being a blinkard, perhaps I can allay your concerns. In no way do I see continued cooperation of European nations to be fanciful or not in those nations' self interest. It has been U.S. policy since Kennan's 'Containment' , the Marshall Plan, the beginning of nato and the vast expenditure in money and lives that all this required to provide a mise en scene for a more harmonious Europe. From the Schuman plan to the present, European international cooperation would not have been as likely or even possible without a steady U.S. foreign policy in this direction. It is easy to suggest that I am an Hobbesian Vulgate because I question the inevitability of some grand affect based nation of Europe. No I am not a blinkard. What is overlooked by many is that the Tonnies vision in Geminschaft und Gesellschaft stil pertains in Europe. Modern exisrence presents individuals with uncertainties and anxieties of a unique species. The striving for community is quite natural and important. How one attains the sense of community in the modern world is more complex than many would have it. I should like to see more and more cooperation between European nations. This could be impeded by overreach. Not all 'communities' are benign. As far as Terrorism leading to malignant nationalisms; this is the worst case scenario. I do not see this right now as likely. Much more than trans-national terrorism would have to occur for this to happen. However if we conjoin fear with the thirst for community in a general sense then we must allow for all sorts of possibilities. I think it is important to raise these questions because there is a cetain orthodoxy which resists the questions themselves. Even you suggest I am blinkered. Others have labelled me in ways that are so far off that I perceive little but a lack of critical thought. Also I think it is important for North Americans and Europeans to critically investigate and understand the cultures of various nations from the village up to the State. It is important to see the diapason of reality before trying to alter it. I will respond more fully in the future, but my concerns are not founded on Hobbes. Yet another common generalization. Perhaps you can untangle the thickets of my learning and allow me to see things with your clarity. Message was edited by: ursa9

ronr327 on "An American's Concern for Europe"

ronr327 — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:22:04 +0000

Ursa9 An important subject and an interesting consideration from you. I confess to finding at times something from you to be so enmeshed (ensorcelled) in the thickets of your learning that specific insights result more readily than broad and embracing ones. From that perspective it is not unexpected that I find you to have come forward with a significantly blinkered view. It centers on two points. First, you assume that a Hobbesian War of All against All, which has defined the European past, will continue to define Europe for the foreseeable future. By implication here, and more explicitly elsewhere, it has been a particular point of yours that notions of international cooperativity amount to utopian nonsense. Pangloss redux. A waste of time! Second, you adduce a specific reason a return Hobbes might be in Europe’s immediate future: the onslaught of Islamist Terrorism, encouraged in this historical moment by Spanish appeasement. Devastations inflicted by the terrorists will drive the nations of Europe into the embrace of ancient and reflexively hostile nationalisms. Frightened we become creatures of our fears and not our hopes. 1 Conflict as basic model for interaction between societies is certainly reasonable, and readily defensible from much historical evidence. But to accept the model as anything like the whole story, or even beyond that, the only story which might reasonably be contemplated, hardly gibes with the quite obvious reality that we are social creatures. We live in mutually interactive, mutually supportive, societies. From that one might propose that the unfolding of human history could just as easily be understood in terms of mutating structures of co-operation, as opposed to mutating scenarios of conflict. Robert Wright, among others, has considered the story of human development from a perspective of co-operatively. [Robert Wright: The Logic of Human Destiny] I will present something of my own "take" on the matter here. The first model for human social organization was the tribe. Arguably the first invention of this fully sentient species was a conscious, articulated basis for co-operation: the wisdom of the ancestors, the laws and customs of the tribe. By this, disparate individuals were yoked together into cooperative enterprises of sufficient size as to allow for a healthy genetic diversity. But of course, tribes were relentlessly, almost reflexively, conflictual. By far the greater portion of humanity's time on this planet was spent in tribes. Whatever their virtues and defects, they worked. We survived. Between five and ten thousand years ago, with the advent of large scale domesticated agriculture, tribal societies mutated into what we understand today as nation states. These were more "permanent" entities, tied to specific landed boundaries by their very nature. Their great virtue was an assured supply of food over time for a great number of people. They required certain control over good land, temporal as well as social stability, and a supply of labor constantly on the land to work it. They were far more intensively and extensively organized than their tribal predecessors, and, in general, they overwhelmed tribal opposition. These new entities manifested a far higher level of cooperation than the human race had ever seen, and they were certainly more "successful". In a relatively brief period of time, this kind of societal organization swept around the world, taking charge of almost all the most advantageous and easily accessible habitats on the planet. In the process they gave rise to all the arts and graces of civilization we pride ourselves on to this day. All this, Wright, myself, and others would point out, a result - direct, or unintended - of ever increasing cooperation. But yes(!), nation states remained relentlessly, endlessly conflictual. Nation states would war against one another until one would gain the ascendancy. If that one was very good, not simply in military prowess, but in the ability to organize and order their conquests, the ultimate form of this new reality would emerge: an Imperium. The great ones, the Chinese dynasties, the Roman Empire, a sequence of Islamic hegemonies ending with the Ottoman Turks, would then provide great areas existing in cooperative good order over an extended period of time. As they did so, they would encompass any number of (otherwise reflexively conflicting) parochial entities, be they nations or tribes. All empires ultimately decline and disintegrate, but they last over many generations, and become as much, or more consequential a fact about the human condition than the war of all against all they eventually revert to. A question to consider: What made/makes the great ones great? Be patient! Therefore Ursa9, Europe, lacking an imperial hegemon, would seem to be heading for what you contend - a reversion, dispite the now quite manifest benefits of cooperation - to the war of all against all. No hegemon, then war. And any more hopeful possibility is ephemeral nonsense. Nonetheless, I contend there are two jokers in the pack. Both new, one very Bad, and one like Pandora's box. The bad one is obvious, Weapons of Mass Destruction. Until the advent of Gunpowder, we fought with sticks and stones and blades, distinguished principally by superior organization in the effort of one party in regard to the other. The damage we could do was fairly limited, and only marginally subject to the consequences of intemperate and ill-considered action. Conflict in the age of gunpowder, and its immediate explosive antecedents, gradually evolved until, at the beginning of the 20th century, we were poised to experience its full consequences. And we did. In WWI, what was intended as a lightening strike by Germany for a place on the world imperial stage became lost in the killing fields of the Western Front. War by modern artillery, poison gas, machine gun and barbed wire proved to be nothing more or less than industrially efficient slaughter, and Europe remorselessly, seemingly helplessly, fed its young men into the maw of the slaughterhouse for four years. The result shaped the remainder of the century, setting up, among many other things, WWII. WWII ended with the dawn of the nuclear age, and possibilities for instantaneous devastation far, FAR greater than anything chemical explosives could provide. John Kennedy enshrined this in his observation that humanity now found itself under a “nuclear sword of Damocles” whose slender thread might be cut at any moment by “accident, miscalculation or madness”. From Kennedy’s observation forward we have added chemical munitions of far greater lethality than the poison gas of WWI, and biological weapons whose potential holds a nightmare rivaling, or even exceeding, a nuclear exchange. A reflexive tendency to conflict opens, all too credibly, to disasters well beyond nearly all that might be reasonably, or even plausibly, at stake. Do we accept that we are so yoked to the irrationalities of suspicion and reflexive hostility that we cannot change? At the very least, we must entertain the possibility that the course the United States, Europe, the former Soviet Union and China followed over the last fifty years was a rational, and substantive response to a genuine understanding of the dangers posed by modern weaponry. Europe thus has one very good reason for pursuing cooperativity absent any fixation on itself as being “from Venus”. Then there is the second joker in the pack. It is all the potentiality which lies in modern science and technology, and all that our creative energies can make of it. The first joker in our pack is, in fact, one child of this. But there are other progeny, and Mass Prosperity in the developed world is one of them, and the developed world’s turn to democracy is another. [Positive as the latter two may seem, they also inevitably open the door to great and de-stabilizing change. “May you live in interesting times” the Chinese curse goes, and the Pandora’s box aspect of the second joker stands revealed.] The modern democratic societies of the developed world are prosperous beyond all previous human experiance. One of the fundamental reasons for conflict between nations (or tribes) is the simple rational one that there isn’t enough to go around, and peoples must compete for what there is. Broader cooperation and superior organization proved in some measure to provide a solution. The greatest achievements along those lines in the past were realized by the historic hegemons. The modern world, however, is prosperous to a degree and depth that beggars the imagination. The richness of opportunity opened broadly to the people of the developed world (courtesy of modern science and technology) is a palpable reality they have experienced uninterrupted for nearly five decades. Most individuals in those societies find a world in which they can earn enough to allow them to marry, raise a family, educate their children and retire with a measure of comfort and security. Within that framework most engage in Jefferson’s “pursuit of happiness.” They readily understand better things to do with their lives than to fight wars. That is another solid reason Europe may see a concrete reason for cooperativity, beyond some vague predilection for a millenarian multiculturalism. Prosperity may not last of course. But there is incontestably a long history to the steady growth of prosperity in the developed world, extending back into the nineteenth century, and out ever more and more broadly throughout the societies of the developed world. The greater danger would be a severe depression, and that, it seems to me offers the greatest likelihood for a return to hostility between modern societies, as opposed to an “inevitable” return to a Hobbesian state (because human beings can do no other!). Absent a depression, and absent a hegemon, I see quite solid reasons for cooperativity to grow, rather than diminish, in the Europe of the future. 2. You propose, however, there is a reason our Hobbesian natures will reassert themselves. The Islamist Terrorist assault which Europe, lost in a cultural miasma, is trying to deny or appease. That is the second of what I see as your blinkered conclusions. There are, on tactical grounds, other plausible and defensible reasons Europe may continue to pursue cooperativity as its fundamental mode for engagement with Islamist terrorism. It isn’t infatuation with “nice, nice” that will animate them. It is the nature of the threat itself. That was the subject of my long (alas too long!) post: “Enemies: Real and Imagined” on the American Power and the World string. If we allow ourselves to take what the terrorists say, and the bogeyman our fears can make of it, as the basis for our policy, then we concede to them a power their actual abilities do not now encompass. A power they can scarcely achieve unless we bestow it on them by inept and inadequate responses. It is precisely to that point that the Spanish election can, quite reasonably, be seen to have addressed itself. That conclusion is certainly in line with the actual nuanced position taken by the Spanish Prime Minister elect. He proposed to remove Spanish troops from the occupation forces only if the situation did not change in regard Iraq's political reality. If principle authority passed to a combination of Iraqi and United Nations hands, he specifically allowed he would reconsider. He indicated that the war in Iraq, as a tactic ( a priority), was to be questioned – and that shunning a more multilateral approach was a path Spain had followed for too long. That it was time for Spain return to a position its continental neighbors had taken, and all of their peoples massively shared. That position was not appeasement, but a different emphasis in tactics, and a more effective distribution of resources and efforts. In this, it is Bush, far more than the Europeans (old and new) who have taken “my way or the highway” for a stance. Can Spain’s actions be seen as a terrorist "success" in warning peoples away from courses terrorists oppose. Yes! Can it be seen as appeasement? Yes! But what makes it necessarily wise to persist in a foolish course, or tactic (preventive war), simply because to do so harries our enemies. Our obligation, in the end, is to pursue such courses as are likely to achieve the ends we require, not simply to tick off our enemies or avoid what might monentarily encourage them. Ursa9, are you not guilty of blind acceptance that appeasement is some ultimate mistake to be avoided at all costs? It is an all too common viewpoint, and it is dangerous, as a historian should know (1). Is it further possible that the future shocks of terrorist attacks can inspire the reaction you fear? Yes! But don’t you have to concede the impact of those shocks is diminished, if not entirely contained, when they emerge from a consciously chosen strategy which accepts such risks as the inevitable give and take of a shadowy war against a mad and isolatable enemy? (A construction of the threat Europeans see to be the case, and is manifestly to all our advantages to impose on the situation.) (1)The tragic dance of diplomacy which led to the devastation of WWI – over some damn fool thing in the Balkans, and which extended the tragedy by seeking to apply that wisdom to a new situation where it was not wisdom but folly, defines a message we all need to take to heart. Make your policy first and foremost on the best understandings you can come to about what you actually face, and only then consider the oft times transfixing lesson’s of the past: “lest one good custom should corrupt the world”. Ursa9, I have proposed that Europe is following a course of broad cooperativity for perfectly sound reasons which do not define either a heedless cultural infatuation or a feckless disregard for real dangers. Are the outcomes you propose possible? Yes. Are they likely? I see no compelling case which supports that. I have adduced here that compelling forces are at work in this reality which support broad and beneficial cooperativity among nations, even without a “great hegemon” to drive and shape it. Cooperation becomes voluntary and negotiated (often with difficulty), rather than compelled. That, however may be a strength. I left a matter hanging earlier. What made the great Imperial hegemons great? I will argue that, far more than their competitors, they opened ways for the talent and ability in their societies to emerge with effect. The broad spread of an equitable body of Roman law, the extension of Roman citizenship, the cultivation of a ethical and professionally competent Confucian bureaucracy, and to a lesser extent, the inherent egalitarianism (at least for men) of Islamic civilization, allowed governance to draw more consistently on genuine talent and ability. This becomes infinitely more consequential in the modern world, where creative energy becomes of consequence not only in governance but in developing all the potentials opened by science and technology. That, I have suggested is something of a Pandora’s Box, but the box incontestably holds great riches. We need to learn to manage our engagement well. As I have written elsewhere, we have seldom had a more urgent task, or more golden an opportunity. Message was edited by: ronr327

brolly2_1 on "An American's Concern for Europe"

brolly2_1 — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:51:05 +0000

fdbjr and some of the other enemies of democracy criticise the Spanish people, who exercised their democratic voice and displaced a government that cynically lied to them after a dreadful disaster and which had already disregarded their majority opinon before the war. They decided that the Aznar government had told one lie too many. This gets up the noses of those that lecture us on democracy but do not like to see it practiced. Apparantly casting a vote in a different way to what fdbjr thinks is the 'right' way, is undemocratic. In other words no one is allowed to take account of circumstances as they change and reveal misdeeds. Its a strange world we live in! Some people are so imbecilic that they cannot recognize the patent illogicality of their arguments and their hypocricy. Message was edited by: brolly2_1

ursa9 on "An American's Concern for Europe"

ursa9 — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:27:29 +0000

David, I truly wish you a pleasant trip. My impatience is with the looseness of language in general. It is not enough in tnis particular venue to suggest well I only meant, or I was using this or that term in a genearal way when the terms rhemselves invoke automatic feelings and prejudices. I also would think that educated people who comment on politics should develop a clear understanding of the nature of ideology or what sometimes passes as ideology -- fascism -- before they use the terms. So I would suggest as a primer, Karl Mannheim's Ideology and Utopia and then look at his bibliography. Also Eugen Weber's little reader, ' Varieties of Fascism' ... Weber was my teacher and he has since altered some of his perspectives. These kinds of studies can have practical usage. When trying to reshape or redirect a party suchas Labour one must ask how the political system might be altered if the idea became practice. Will the ideological spectrum become altered in such a way that intent of the idea will not correspond to the outcome ...... Message was edited by: ursa9

David Wood on "An American's Concern for Europe"

David Wood — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:28:26 +0000

> I would also suggest that you try to understand my > 'Conservatism' . Like most conservatisms it is not > ideological and does not resist change; only > reckless over-rationalized change. I am no > Republican and would not be a present day Tory. Nor > am I a contrarion or a meliorist. I hoped that I was using 'conservatism' in its simple dictionary sense or caution with regard to change rather than with any reference to its current political use in either Britain or America. Apologies if I misread you or if I attribute politics to you which are not your own. I was actaully offering a qualified but warm welcome to your question and urging other Europeans (whatever other identities they may accept) to deal with it seriously. It doesn't really seem controversial to me to suggest that many Americans (note that I never said 'Americans' in toto) react biliously to any European viewpoint right now - and vice-versa. Since this is a thread about Europe, I was encouraging Europeans to engage in a considered rather than a knee-jerk manner. I had hoped that this is what you wanted too. Now it happens that I disagree with your assessment of both the European situation and more generally, the possibility of a more global society, and it really does seem to me that you see Europe as imprisoned by history. I think that in contrast, the EU has offered and could continue to offer opportunities to break out of this prison. This is certainly not to say that I approve of the current direction of the Union. More on this when I return. And, by the way, I belong to several very well-defined camps and am far from a diplomat - I gave up that ambition along with my study of Chinese some years ago - although, as you know, I don't mind being called 'nice'. And I'll not be harried into revealing my mettle... Au revoir.

ursa9 on "An American's Concern for Europe"

ursa9 — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:52:05 +0000

David, In your reflective attempt at meliorization, I am afraid you've suggested my own views to be narrowly gagued and put them simply on an opposite pole to someone's thought that is to say the least wanting. You then enoble yourself with the suggestion that you are more well considered; not belonging to a camp and of course, as always, the nice diplomat. You also suggest that Americans do not consider European points of view. I know this to be false. And you know that many Americans suggest what you consider a 'European' perspective to be as well their own. As there is no dicriminatiing perspective of 'America' there is none of Europe. Do all Brits share one point of view. Are there differences between Spaniards, Danes, Hungarians, Germans, French, Italians etc ..... When you return, perhaps you will attempt to transcend the role of the leveller and reveal the mettle that is surely there. I would also suggest that you try to understand my 'Conservatism' . Like most conservatisms it is not ideological and does not resist change; only reckless over-rationalized change. I am no Republican and would not be a present day Tory. Nor am I a contrarion or a meliorist. Just something to chew on.

An American's Concern for Europe,

ursa9 — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:35:43 +0000

My friends, With all the hyperbolic anti-Americanism of various forms that I have read on these pages and now the lenten and post - lenten festival atmosphere following 3/11 I am growing concerned for the furure of Britain, Ireland and Continental Western Europe. I have just recently looked into the origins of Open Democracy. Principal funding, political association and iconic feelings toward certain individuals suggest an agenda which leads its ataff in a certain direction, though in a benign way. Contributions tend to follow a line that does not quell my concerns. Most of the highlighted contributions of 'outsiders' to the forums also reflect an attitude congruent to the agenda. The agenda is not piercing, but its ethos is a common one in Europe and indeed in many American circles. Read the rest of this post...