Victor Davis Hanson evidently doesn’t like Europeans and some Americans and he’s isn’t afraid to say it. You see, according to the one article, many Muslims are anti-Semites and the Europeans (along with select Americans) are “indifferent” to Muslim anti-Semitism, even though many if not all EU countries actually criminalise anti-Semitic speech and acts as hate crimes. One might actually object to such criminalisation of speech on the basis that it infringes on free speech, which has lately become the fashionable idol before which American conservatives throw themselves, but it remains unclear how the Europeans enable rampaging anti-Semitism. Oh, that’s right–they disagree with Hanson on foreign policy, so ipso facto….There are apparently Americans who are also doing this, because some attempted to have a conversation with Ahmadinejad (how dare they!).
In the other, we are told that Europeans are “traitors to the Enlightenment.” Well, maybe, but if they were actually traitors to the Enlightenment why would that necessarily either be a bad thing or reason for an ostensibly conservative person to complain? Oh, yes, now I remember–they have allegedly lost faith in Reason, which is the other idol to which we on the right are now supposed to bow. There is good reason to lament cases where Europeans cave in to Muslim intimidation, as happened with the Berlin opera, but it is by no means a universal phenomenon. When Muslims were rioting and protesting the Danish cartoons, German government officials, among others, expressed support for free speech and several European newspapers republished the cartoons to state their support for free speech. When Van Gogh was murdered, after Fortuyn had already raised the problem of Muslim immigrants’ assimilation to Dutch norms, such as they are, the Netherlands started taking a hard look at the problem of how or whether such people could be integrated into Dutch society if they are unwilling to accept the norms of that society. When Muslims were rioting and protesting Pope Benedict’s speech, Aznar came out in support of the Pope and invoked the example of Ferdinand and Isabella–hardly the squeamish whinging of an appeaser.
Europe is one of the topics of debate which made me realize that there's a huge gap between the neoconservative unconservative view of the world and my own. The Europeans are not my enemies. Their societies and cultures are not distant from my own. I'm increasingly thinking that people want us to see the Euros as enemies are fools or worse. Why do they want us to believe this? Near as I can tell they do not like the more critical views of Israel that pertains in much of Europe and so they want to drive a wedge between the United States and Europe in order to decrease European influence over US foreign policy. Pushing apart Western societies is unwise.
The neocons are the ones whose views of Islam are incredibly lame. While many European governments are making moves to keep out Muslim immigrants many neocons want us to believe that the problem with Islam is just some Westernized radical strain of it that is aping mid-20th century European fascism. The term "Islamo-fascist" makes no sense. Real Burkean conservative John Derbyshire agrees.
The EU is losing in popularity.
The annual Eurobarometer poll, issued just before Christmas, shows that on average, only 50 percent of Europeans consider EU membership "a good thing", down from 54 percent earlier in the year. The traditionally Euroskeptic British are no longer the most hostile, having been overtaken by the Austrians. Only 32 percent of Austrians, and 33 percent of Brits, say EU membership is good for their country. They are followed by Latvia (36 percent), Finland (38 percent) and Sweden and Hungary (both 39 percent).
I wonder if the Austrians hate the EU because they see it as a cause of immigration of large numbers of Muslims and Third Worlders.
The two countries where the EU is most popular are Luxembourg (82 percent in favor) and Ireland (73 percent), the two countries that have been the biggest net beneficiaries from the EU budget. Ireland has received an average 3 percent of GDP in EU subsidies for over 30 years, which helps explain some of that country's 'Celtlc Tiger' economic performance; and Luxembourg has by far the highest per capita income in the EU. The poll suggests that the EU gets what its pays for in public support, which also helps explain why the EU leaders wrangled so bitterly over who paid what and how much they got back at their acrimonious summit this month.
Governments can buy the affections of some groups at the expense of other groups. No surprise here.
Remarkably, in the Netherlands, a country that overwhelmingly rejected a European constitution in June, a whole 70 percent of citizens say that EU membership is a good thing.
Only 32 percent of Swedes say they perceive that their country has "benefited from EU membership", closely followed by the Austrians and the British with 36 and 37 percent discontent citizens.
On the other side of the scope is - again - Ireland where 86 percent of citizens claim to enjoy Brussels's treats, and 69 percent of the Danes are as happy.
Maybe EU membership is losing popularity among the Turks becaues the Turks are realizing that the Europeans do not want them.
Meanwhile, support for EU membership among Turks themselves has dropped from 66 percent in spring to 52 percent this autumn, while 77 percent of Europeans back Swiss and Norwegian accession.
The European Union's promoters probably face another problem: A general decline of support for governments. The Brussels Mandarins are trying to build up another layer of government on top of existing layers at a time when a decreasing number of people see governments as net benefits.
If the EU elite insist on bringing Turkey into the EU that'll create a huge competing source of demands for hand-outs. Then the current net beneficiaries of the EU's largesse will suddenly start seeing the EU in a far less favorable light.
The Greek government has consented to Turkey's membership in the face of 80% popular opposition.
Greece has a negative attitude to the EU accession of Macedonia (52%) and Albania (61%). The average level among the 25 EU member states is 42% in favor and 33% against. Greeks are absolutely against Turkey’s EU accession (80%).
How's that as a demonstration of elite willingness to ignore the wishes of the masses?
October's decision to launch membership talks with Turkey was a high moment soured by low manoeuvring over the terms. And that is going to be a long haul - with 55% of Europeans against Turkish membership. The number opposed to any further expansion has grown to 39%, with bigger majorities against in France, Germany and Austria. Romania and Bulgaria are supposed to join in 2007 but face delay unless they make progress tackling corruption.
The EU project should stop short of membership for Ukraine, Turkey, and a few of the most corrupt Eastern European states. But the Mandarins are intent on harming the interests of their citizens.
Morgan Stanley chief economist Stephen Roach says Germany is restructuring for more rapid growth.
Germany, despite its bad press, is very much on the move. Yes, it still has one of the most expensive and rigid labor markets in the world. But the rigidities are not as severe as they were just a few years ago. For example, German labor unions have lost significant power in recent years -- they no longer bargain across industries but confine their negotiations to individual companies. Moreover, led by the metals sector, Germany is now moving away from the shortened 35-hour work week. And in an effort to avoid the high fixed costs of hiring and firing, Corporate Germany has hired increasingly large numbers of part-time workers and contract temps; collectively, such “flexi workers” currently make up about 39% of the total German workforce -- up sharply from the 29% share a decade ago. At the same time, German businesses are now moving aggressively to increase IT spending -- making up for the shortfall in the late 1990s; the IT share of German capex has increased from 30% to approximately 50% over the past ten years. Last but hardly least, there has been a dramatic recent increase in German corporate restructuring; M&A activity in Germany has increased from $73 billion to $138 billion over the last three years.
Read the whole thing. He lays out some other facts that suggest Germany might be doing what needs to get done to get on a faster growth track.
Iceland, like Norway and Liechtenstein a member of the European Economic Area, but not a member of the Euoprean Union, now has a higher standard of living than any European country and the world's highest life expectancy.
Iceland has few natural advantages: it is cold, treeless and, for much of the year, sunless. It has a population of 285,000 — roughly that of Croydon. Yet this sparse, chilly speck of tundra has just overtaken Norway to become the wealthiest place in Europe. Faced with a small home market, Icelandic entrepreneurs have expanded into neighbouring countries. In Britain alone they have bought, among other things, Hamleys, Somerfield, Oasis and Karen Millen. Icelanders now enjoy the highest life expectancy in the world. And — here’s the thing — they have achieved all this while remaining outside the EU.
Iceland has much more leeway with which to create a more business-friendly environment.
Being outside the EU, Iceland has been able to cut taxes and regulation, and to open up its economy. For 70 years the Althing has been dominated by the splendidly named Independence party, which has pursued the kind of Thatcherite agenda that is off limits to EU members because of the Social Chapter, the euro, the 48-hour week and all the rest of it.
With a population of about 294,000 people Iceland does not benefit from high levels of internal economies of scale. However, they do earn 70% of their export income from fishing. So they have some of the characteristics of a state that is wealthy due to natural resources. However, only 12% of the population works in fishing and most of the economy is not the fishing industry.
Switzerland, which is not a member of the EU or the EEA but which has only EFTA (European Free Trade Associaiton) member, has a higher $32,700 (2003 est.) per capita GDP (as measured by purchasing power parity) than Iceland which has a per capita GDP of $30,900 (2003 est.). Switzerland manages this feat without natural resources to make a major contribution to the Swiss economy.
If the British manage to break free of the European Union at some point in the future I predict their economy will then start growing more rapidly.
George Will has an interesting essay "Why America Leans Right" where he explores why Americans are more conservative and libertarian than Europeans.
Europe, post-religious and statist, is puzzled -- and alarmed -- by a nation where grace is said at half the family dinner tables. But religiosity, say Micklethwait and Wooldridge, "predisposes Americans to see the world in terms of individual virtue rather than in terms of the vast social forces that so preoccupy Europeans." And: "The percentage of Americans who believe that success is determined by forces outside their control has fallen from 41 percent in 1988 to 32 percent today; by contrast, the percentage of Germans who believe it has risen from 59 percent in 1991 to 68 percent today." In America, conservatives much more than liberals reject the presumption of individual vulnerability and incompetence that gives rise to liberal statism.
It would be very interesting to see results of doing this same survey on people from countries in other parts of the world. I'm going to guess that Middle Easterners hold views closer to those of the Germans than to Americans on the question of whether they have individual control of their destiny. Though the Middle Easterners may cite different reasons than the Germans for why they do not feel in control.
It would also be interesting to see polling by ethnic and racial group in America on this question. My guess is that whites have a stronger belief in their control of their own destiny than blacks and Hispanics. I would especially like to see numbers on Hispanics broken out by how many generations their families have been in the US.
How will American and European attitudes toward their ability control their lives change in the future? Will advances in understanding of genetics and the human brain make people see themselves as more determined by their environment and genes and hence less in control of their lives? Or will the ability to use biotechnology to reshape one's body and brain cause people to think they are in even more control of their destinies? Perhaps popular reactions come in phases with the initial greater understanding of genetic influences and environmental influences decreasing the belief in free wil. But then later the new knowledge will be harnessed to develop technologies to make it possible to improve our physical and cognitive abilities and then these technologies will cause a shift back of the pendulum to reestablish the belief that we are each in control of ourselves.
Will's source for the numbers he is quoting is the new book The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America by Economist writers John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge.
The European Union is on course to add a member state whose majority is in favor of polygamy.
A RECENT poll in a Turkish newspaper included an eye-catching statistic. A substantial majority of the population — 63% — thought it perfectly acceptable for a man to have more than one wife.
It may not seem as surprising as some of the country’s other distinguishing features: in parts of mainly Muslim Turkey, some people still live in cone-shaped mud huts whose design dates from the dawn of history.
Yet Turkey’s penchant for polygamy may well become more of an issue in the debate about where to place the eastern boundary of the western world — and whether to let Turkey become a member of the European Union.
As Steve Sailer recently pointed out even intellectuals in our own elite such as Jonathan Turley are so foolish that they can't see the problems posed by polygamy. Monogamy reduces the amount of rivalry between males because it increases the odds that each male will be able to find a mate. Among males this tends to build support for society as a whole.
Far too many intellectuals seek to ignore the biological factors that influence human behavior. Many intellectuals seem to want to believe that humans can escape their biological nature and that the best way to do so is to deny its relevance. But both consanguineous marriage and polygamy contribute to making societies where there is less trust and less a sense of shared common interests.
We can not safely take for granted that the conditions that have made Western cultures more free and open will always be there no matter what cultural changes take place. Change the ratio of religions and religious beliefs in a society through immigration and differential rates of reproduction or change the laws that govern family formation and the result will be changes in values and cultural practices. If you are living in a Western country care about your country's culture and do not have a desire to see it commit suicide (as the West's intellectuals and political leaders seem intent upon doing) you should oppose immigration and legal changes that will dilute and destroy what makes the West distinct.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan as part of his efforts to assure the acceptance of Turkey into the European Union has backed off plans to criminalize adultery in Turkey.
All references to proposals to outlaw adultery, which were inserted into the legislation by conservative members of the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP), would be dropped.
"No item which is not already included in the draft of the Turkish criminal code will be included and I mean by that the issue of adultery," Mr Erdogan told a news conference.
The European Union is now widely expected to give Turkey approval to begin formal talks for Turkey's entry into the EU. Once the approval for those talks has begun it is unlikely that the EU would back out of accepting Turkey as a member.
Newspapers said Erdogan had taken the side of conservatives in his Justice and Development Party, a conservative group with Islamist roots which was deeply divided over outlawing adultery.
Diplomats say Erdogan's face-off with Brussels, which roiled Turkish financial markets this month, has raised doubts about Erdogan's political judgment and his real intentions.
These diplomats are slow learners.
The European Parliament's conservative faction even suspects that Erdogan will hold back controversial laws until EU membership negotiations actually begin next year.
Only then, when there is no turning back for the EU, will the Prime Minister show his true face and put the brakes on societal reforms: Erdogan as an Islamic submarine, so to speak.
Well duh guys. Do you really think you can change Turkey into a secular European country by making it part of the EU? Snap out of your dreams. The real world doesn't work that way.
French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin publically supports Tukey's membership in the EU and yet Raffarin sounds very unenthusiastic and worried about the idea of a Muslim state joining formerly Christian now secular states in a political union. (same article here)
"We don't think we should tell Turkey that the doors of Europe are forever closed to it," Raffarin told the newspaper, but then said: "Do we want the river of Islam to enter the riverbed of secularism?"
I think it darkly humourous that the European elites saw the US invasion of Iraq as a really bad idea that the US should have refrained from and yet the EU mandarins are intent on going down a road with another Muslim country that they have deep doubts about. The elites of the Western nations all seek to commit cultural suicide with their choice of folly while pointing fingers at the follies of others.
The European peoples may yet save their elites from elite follow. The one distinct possibility for stopping Turkey's accession into the EU is the prospect that the majority in many EU member states may vote against the new EU federal constitution.
The EU's new constitution represents another effort to preserve and deepen European unity, but it too could backfire. For the constitution to come into force, it must be approved by all 25 EU countries. At least 11 of them are likely to hold referendums, and in a few of those, notably Britain, the verdict is likely to be negative. Such an outcome could well provoke a crisis within the Union.
This survey will conclude that the EU may indeed split. But a split need not be a disaster. It could lead to a multi-layered EU in which different countries adopt different levels of political integration and experiment with different economic models. If the EU were preserved as an over-arching framework, it could actually benefit from such diversity. But there is also a darker, if less likely possibility. A split in the EU could cause Europe once again to divide into rival power blocks. That could threaten what most agree is the Union's central achievement: peace in Europe.
The EU could break up into pieces before Turkey manages to join. That is the best hope for Europe at this point. The editors of The Economist who wrote that previous excerpt see an EU break-up as a dark possibility. But I see that possibility as a ray of hope for the survival of Western liberal democracy in the gathering gloom.
Steve Sailer lays out a number of reasons Americans, Turks, and Europeans should want to keep Turkey out of the EU.
It's simply not in America's economic interest to encourage Turkey to submerge into a trading bloc designed to maximize trade within the EU while penalizing imports from America.
Nor is it in America's strategic interest to make more feasible Brussels' dream of a European military force separate from NATO. So far, such plans have largely foundered on the anti-martial feelings of Europeans unwilling to sacrifice their precious 1.3 children. But Turkey would make a separate EU strike force much more feasible by providing cheap, brave cannon fodder.
Objective hardball points about American interests are too often ignored while attention is given to unrealistic and idealistic imaginings about how some policy proposal will promote freedom or democracy. Enough such unrealistic imaginings have blown up in our faces that we ought to be more willing to make more hard-headed realpolitik calculations of our interests. The recognition that a single united EU covering all NATO countries is going to obsolesce NATO is certainly a realpolitik acknowledgement of the obvious.
By analogy imagine the United States forming a political merger with Mexico and allowing Mexicans to legally travel across the border in unlimited numbers. The EU has a lower per capita income than the United States but Turkey has a lower living standard than Mexico. Measured in purchasing power parity Mexico's per capita GDP is $9000 whereas Turkey is even lower at $6,700. The EU will have to spend large amounts of money on Turkey and also on increased levels of social spending on all the Turks who would flood into Europe.
If Turkey is really capable of rising to Western European levels of productivity and living standards (and I do not believe it can - see Steve's article for some arguments why) then it should be able to accomplish that economic rise without joining the EU. After all, even some small countries that are not part of large trading blocs have managed to achieve absolutely amazing standards of living without the help of highly valuable natural resources. Located right in the heart of Europe and without EU membership Switzerland has managed to achieve a very impressive $32,000 per capita GDP.
Some people argue that if the EU "turns its back on Turkey" then the Turks will turn toward Islamism. Well, if the Turks are that easily offended into going down that path the Europeans should be very reluctant to take the risk that the Turks may go down that path even as part of the EU. There is no reason that the EU's mandarins should feel rushed to decide the Turkey question. Let the Turks show that they can raise their living standards, that they are not going to join the rest of the Muslim world in the increasing trend toward embrace of fundamentalist Islam, and that they really have settled their internal problem with the Kurds.
Update: What I find ironic about the EU mandarin push for Turkey's membership in the EU is that those same mandarins tend to look down on Christian fundamentalism in the United States. The EU elites generally despise and distrust Americans with strongly held religious beliefs and do not like to see religiously devout people in high positions in the US government. Yet what is the EU embracing by entertaining political union with Turkey? A country that will become politically more Islamically fundamentalist once the soldiers are told they have to permanently butt out of politics. In fact, this is already happening. The effect of Turkey's entry into the EU will be to undermine the Turkish military's role as guardian of the secular nature of Turkey's government. American Christian fundamentalism poses very little threat to the EU and yet it is that fundamentalism that attracts critical elite European commentary even as the elites in Europe are probably too foolish to avoid letting a far more dangerous fundamentalism become a much larger presence in Europe. What folly.
Europe's working population is going to shrink.
From 1996 to 2003, economic growth averaged 1.3 percent annually in Germany, 1.5 percent in Italy and 2.2 percent in France (the U.S. rate: 3.3 percent). Many EU countries have taxes between 40 percent and 50 percent of national income. Aging populations intensify upward pressures on benefits. From 2000 to 2020, the over-65 population in the 15 countries of the "old" EU is projected to rise 38 percent, while the number of people between 25 and 49 falls 14 percent.
While the recently enlarged European Union now has a combined economy bigger than that of the United States it is pretty obvious that it will not continue to do so. The bigger birth dearth in Europe will shrink their working population so much that the US is most likely to pass it by and leave it well behind.
Europe's problem is that only is its population aging more rapidly but its governments are already larger portions of their economies than is the case in the United States. The US can increase taxes and spending to European levels in order to pay for aging populations. But Europe is already at those higher tax levels. Tax increases in Europe may decrease economic activity so much that the amount of money collected could decline as a result of the tax increases.
Europe is going to have to reduce welfare spending for those of working age in order to make more money available for retirees. Europe is also going to have to raise retirement ages. The United States will need to take both of these steps as well, but on lesser scales in both cases.
Samuelson comments that Europeans see their interests diverging from those of America to such an extent that George W. Bush is a blessing to them since he gives them an excuse to point to for why they are going to disagree and distance themselves from America. This seems very plausible to me. French elite dissatisfaction and general European leftist intellectual dissatisfaction with the United States are of very long standing.
The bigger picture is that China is going to surpass the United States as the world's largest economy. India may eventually do so as well.
Victor Davis Hanson says the Europeans will not act politically mature as long as the United States defends them.
Precisely because we protect Europe, Europe will need ever more protecting, and will grow ever more weak. And because it will need the United States to defend it, it will ever more resent the United States. Without a real menace like the Soviet Union on its borders, Europe will find ever more outlets to vent cheaply and without consequences — at precisely the time it is most threatened by terrorists and rogue states.
In contrast, the withdrawal of Americans throughout Old Europe — sober analysts can adjudicate a remnant figure of about 30,000 or so, down from our present numbers in Spain, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Turkey, and Greece — will encourage Europe to rearm or face the consequences of institutionalized appeasement. That radical step — despite popular misconceptions that it is either impossible or unwise — is more a good thing than a bad one.
His argument has considerable merit. The main advantage for having US troops in Europe at this point is that Europe is closer to the Middle East and Central Asia than the United States is. So then perhaps the US should negotiate basing rights with countries even closer to the scene of action. Armenia and Georgia come to mind. Or the US could put a lot more forces on Diego Garcia. It is worth thinking this through to consider other options.
UK government Treasury Chancellor Gordon Brown is going to argue that Britain is becoming even less of a fit into the euro currency because the Euro zone economies and Britain are diverging economically.
The gap between British and euro zone interest rates, which was 1.75 per cent last June, is now 2 per cent. The British unemployment rate is now 4.9 per cent compared to 8.8 per cent in the euro area, compared with 5.1 per cent and 8.7 per cent a year ago. And economic growth in the UK is forging ahead at 2.8 per cent compared to a sluggish 0.6 per cent in the euro zone.
...
Now even the most ardent pro-euro MPs concede it has been relegated to a long-term goal that could take more than a decade to realise. "The whole pro-European movement needs to be rebuilt," said one.
The use of a common currency was supposed to speed up growth in European economies. Where is the evidence to support this? The euro zone is sluggish. Britain continues to outperform it. The biggest problem with the euro is that it extends a common currency over an area which has so many different spoken languages which reduce labor mobility and laws that cause rigid labor markets. The various economies can not all grow at the same rate and they can not shift labor around to adjust for the different growth rates.
Just when I start to develop considerable sympathy for the French their leaders just have to go doing something to remind me how far American and French interests have diverged. Jaakko Haapasaloof Rye Beer has a link to a report of French efforts to resume European Union arms sales to China.
On Monday French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin urged his EU counterparts meeting in Brussels to lift the embargo that, he said, "dates back more than 15 years and no longer corresponds with the political reality of the contemporary world."
Europe is divided on this issue.
France and Germany are the leading proponents of dropping the arms ban, while the Netherlands, Scandinavian nations, the European Parliament and human rights groups oppose to such a step.
The French do not see democracy in Taiwan as something that is worth preserving.
"France's constant position for years now has been to support a single China," said Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin.
"When we said what we did, in no way were we intending to interfere in anyone's affairs. We simply stated again our wish that nothing should divide or complicate relations in the region. That is the wish and interest of all states in the region and indeed the whole international community," he said.
The Brussels bureaucrats would probably be wise at this time to reject this attempt by the French to lift the EU arms sales embargo to China. The friction it would cause in trans-Atlantic relations would be considerable since if Europe started arming a future US enemy (not that the US wants to call China an enemy) it would be hard for the US to think of the European countries as allies. The US response might widen a rift in the EU between the less and more democratic countries. Until an EU constitution is passed that pretty well cements all members states permanently in the Union it would be unwise to make any moves that would threaten that goal.
However, the French are looking down the chess board more moves and correctly recognize the need for the European Union to make common cause with anti-democratic regimes on at least some issues. After all, the EU is not exactly a paragon of democracy and clearly needs to maintain what is widely called its "democracy deficit" because of the very nature of the EU as a combination of very different nations, cultures, and speakers of many different languages brought together by political elites. The more democratic nations such as Sweden serve as democratic obstacles to further European integration. It is no accident that Tony Blair doesn't want the British people to directly vote on the next EU constitution revision since the British people would probably reject it if the decision was left up to them.
In fact, the EU is probably going to need to make its "democracy deficit" even larger because the need to stay anti-democratic at the EU level in Brussels is eventually going to have to be supplemented by a decrease in the democratic character of the various member states as the Muslim portions of the populations of some European states increases and the sense of a set of common shared values and interests declines. There are already warning signs flashing on this demographic trend with the French debate on Muslim headscarves and the widespread importation of Muslim spouses (the same phenomenon happening in Norway as well - see first update in that post).
Immigration is beginning to be recognized as a major obstacle to the continued maintenance of a consensus of shared values and interests in Europe. See this Februrary 2004 essay from Prospect Magazine where David Goodhart examines whether Britain is becoming too diverse. (also find the same article here)
It was the Conservative politician David Willetts who drew my attention to the "progressive dilemma." Speaking at a roundtable on welfare reform (Prospect, March 1998), he said: "The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties which they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask, 'Why should I pay for them when they are doing things I wouldn't do?' This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the US you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests."
Europeans are not going to be able to maintain the EU project or the welfare state or even the liberal character of their societies unless they make their states less democratic. So far the political leaders in Europe have repeatedly shown a willingness to defeat the will of the various European peoples in order to continue to shift power up to the European Union. It should not, therefore, be particularly surprising when the top leaders in France make a bold argument for selling arms to China even though those arms would be used to intimidate and perhaps even attack the much more democratic Taiwan. Democracy clearly can not be as highly valued in Europe as it is in the United States if Europe is to become increasingly governed by a central government even as each European state becomes less homogeneous and less European.
Update: Do you think I'm exaggerating the EU's need for a democracy deficit in order to make the whole European multi-national state project happen? See a related post on the Anti-Idotarian Rottweiler blog about the problem that Danish direct referenda are seen to pose for the expansion of EU power. Watch out for proposals to add a clause to the draft EU constitution to strike out the right of member states to hold binding popular referenda on issues regarding the European Union. That would be the logical next step to deal with popular opposition to the EU in Europe.
Frenchman Jean-Francois Revel has written another essay on European anti-Americanism.
The real cause of September 11 unquestionably lies in the resentment against the United States, which grew apace after the collapse of the USSR, and America's emergence as the "sole global superpower." This resentment is particularly marked in the Islamic lands, where the existence of Israel, which is blamed on America, is an important motivator. But the resentment is also more quietly present over the entire planet. In some European capitals, the sense of grievance has been raised to the status of an idée fixe, virtually the guiding principle of foreign policy. Thus the U.S. is charged with all the evils, real or imagined, that afflict humanity, from the falling price of beef in France to AIDS in Africa and global warming everywhere. The result is a widespread refusal to accept responsibility for one's own actions.
As for the American "hyperpower" that causes Europeans so many sleepless nights, they should look to their own history and ask how far they themselves are responsible for that predominance. For it was they who made the twentieth century into the grimmest in history. It was they who brought about the two apocalypses of the World Wars and invented the two most absurd and criminal political regimes ever inflicted on the human race. If Western Europe in 1945 and Eastern Europe in 1990 were ruined, whose fault was it? American "unilateralism" is the consequence--not the cause--of the diminished power of the other nations. Yet it has become habitual to turn the situation around and constantly indict the United States. Is it surprising when such an atmosphere of accumulated hate ends in pushing fanatics to compensate for their failures by engaging in carnage?
By putting so much energy into their resentment of America many Europeans are missing the real threat:
In the two months after 9/11, the phobias and fallacies of traditional anti-Americanism massively intensified. The clumsiest of them was an attempt to justify Islamist terrorism by claiming that America has long been hostile to Islam. The United States' actions historically have been far less damaging to Muslims than those of Britain, France, or Russia. These European powers have conquered Muslim countries, occupied and indeed oppressed them over decades and even centuries. Americans have never colonized a Muslim nation. Americans evince no hostility toward Islam as such today; on the contrary, their interventions in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, as well as the pressure exerted on the Macedonian government, were designed to defend Muslim minorities. And the U.S.-led coalition that removed the Iraqi army from Kuwait during the first Gulf War acted to defend a small Muslim country against a secular dictator who had used chemical weapons against Muslim Shiites in the south and Muslim Kurds in the north.
Another myth strenuously maintained since 9/11 is that of a moderate and tolerant Islam. The dominant idea in the Muslims' worldview, in truth, is that all humanity must obey the rules of their religion, whereas they owe no respect to the religions of others. Indeed, showing such respect would make them apostates meriting instant execution. Anxious to show tolerance, the Pope encouraged the erection of a mosque in Rome, the city where Saint Peter is buried. No Christian church could be built in Mecca, or anywhere in Saudi Arabia, for that would profane the land of Mohammed. There is no ambiguity about al-Qaeda-style intentions: It is quite simply to convert the whole of humanity to Islam by force. Murder and mayhem is justified in the eyes of the terrorists because it strikes at the infidels who refuse to embrace Islam. We deceive ourselves if we think we can negotiate with the al-Qaeda fanatics and their ilk.
The day after 9/11, Le Parisien-Aujourd'hui published an account of the jubilant atmosphere the previous evening in the eighteenth arrondissement of Paris, home to a large Muslim community. "Bin Laden will nail all of you!" was among the more moderate remarks hurled at passersby who didn't appear to be North African. Or: "I'm going to celebrate big time tonight! Those guys were real heroes. That'll teach those American bastards--and all you French are next!" Snippets of this sort were ignored by almost all media.
Revel correctly points out that the irrationality of so much of European criticism of America causes Americans to ignore European criticism even when Europeans are making valid points. The effect of the resentment then is to decrease European influence in America and effectively to cause American policy to be more unilateralist than it otherwise would be.
See previous posts about Revel: Jean Francois Revel On Anti-Americanism and John Vinocur: Why France disdains America. See also his book now translated into English: Anti-Americanism.
Also see my previous post On Globalization And The Psychological Visibility Of America.
France and Germany may merge to meet the imagined common threat.
France is threatening to unite with Germany to maintain their influence in an enlarged European Union and strengthen their common front against the United States, according to reported remarks by the Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin.
The minister was quoted by Le Monde speaking about "Franco-German union" and calling the deepening of ties "the one historic challenge we cannot lose".
The newspaper gave most of its first three pages to reports on the proposed union, noting it was an idea whose time may have come.
Pascal Lamy, a French EU commissioner, was enthusiastic, telling Le Monde that closer ties could begin with the unification of diplomatic services and the sharing of France's permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.
To counter the United States over what exactly? The French and Germans are starting to get downright batty in their anti-Americanism. Why not go further and merge the French and German languages in order to create a linguistic counterweight to English?
The obsession with America as the enemy causes Europe to miss its biggest enemy: Demographic trends that threaten to shrink Europe in population, vigor, economic size and in living standards while Europe becomes more Islamic and less European.
Update: D.J. McGuire of China e-Lobby in the latest issue of his newsletter points to a report about the desire of France and Germany to sell more advanced weapons to China.
The removal of sanctions against Beijing is likely to result in major weapons purchases from both France and Germany. The Chinese army would very much like to purchase French Mirage or Rafale jets and the Tiger attack helicopter. The Chinese have a major shortfall in helicopters and lack a modern attack helicopter.
In addition, the Chinese navy would like to collaborate with France on the purchase of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and nuclear-powered submarines. The Chinese navy also would like to purchase French- or German-made air cushion landing craft for a possible invasion of Taiwan.
If Germany and France start selling their best weapons to China and engage in weapons technology transfer deals with China then at that point the Western Alliance will be dead.
Update II: Victor Davis Hanson argues that Europe may eventually rearm.
Behind the pretense that a dash of multinationalism and pacifist platitudes have suddenly transformed Europe into some new Fukuyama-type End-of-History society, it is still mostly the continent of old, torn by envy and pride, conjuring up utopian fantasies of pan-European rule at the same time as nationalist resentments fester. That’s what makes the question of European rearmament so crucial. Should Europe rearm—and I think it will, either collectively or nation by nation, as America reduces its military presence—it has the population, economic power, and (most important) the know-how to field forces as good as our own. If Germany invested 4 to 5 percent of its GNP in defense, its new Luftwaffe would not resemble Syria’s air force. Two or three French aircraft carriers—snickers about the petite Charles de Gaulle aside—could destroy the combined navies of the Middle East. We may laugh today at the unionized Belgian military of potbellied cooks and barbers, or scoff at German pacifism, but this is still Europe, which gave birth to the Western military tradition—the most lethal the world has ever known.
Hanson argues that the US should continue troop withdrawals from Europe because an elimination of US troop presence from more countries in Europe will reduce their feelings of resentment and impotence. He suggests keeping forces only in European rim countries such as Britain, Spain, and Italy in order to be able to use bases for transfer of forces to the Middle East when necessary.
Troops from Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia and Ukraine are serving in Iraq. Sikorski points out that costs for supporting those forces in Iraq take money away from military modernization.
Central Europeans had also hoped that the United States would help them modernize their militaries. Because it's so much cheaper to send foreigners to Iraq than Americans, this seemed a good time to help these armies come closer to NATO standards, which would make them more easily deployable alongside U.S. forces. Instead, these countries' investments in defense are being postponed to finance operations in Iraq.
Does the US foot any of the bill for the costs? Those countries are not well developed and have much lower per capita GDPs than the United States. That is why the salaries of their soldiers are low enough to make their deployment to Iraq much cheaper than is the case with US troops.
As Central Europe becomes increasingly integrated with the rest of the European Union US influence looks set to decline regardless of what the US does.
As of next year, Western Europe's pull in Central Europe will multiply. Millions of motorists will see signs marking EU-financed infrastructure projects; millions of farmers will get EU agricultural subsidy checks in the mail; and tens of thousands of journalists, scientists and academics will become eligible for EU grants. If the United States wants to remain a player, it better get into the game.
It is simply not worth it for the United States to try to compete with the level of aid the EU is going to lavish upon the former Warsaw Pact countries. But the US could get smarter and use small amounts of money to at least symbolically reward the countries that are providing troops in Iraq. For instance, a few small contracts to Polish companies (Poland provides the biggest troop contingent from Central Europe) to help in the rebuilding would go a long way. Also, some sort of US equivalent of Rhodes scholarships for Europeans would help to build ties.
The Queen has finally started reacting as if the EU is a threat to her position.
It is believed that the Palace's concerns focus on whether the Queen's supreme authority as the guardian of the British constitution, asserted through the sovereignty of Parliament, could be altered or undermined by article 10 of the draft text.
This states: "The constitution and law adopted by the union's institutions in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the member states."
Many MPs say that this will rob the House of Commons of its ultimate authority to override decisions and laws made by the EU.
It is crunch time for the development of the EU super-state. The various leaders of EU governments are willing to give up national sovereignty to the European Union. But the Queen knows that she is the Sovereign. What is the point in being the Queen if she is not going to be the Sovereign? If she wants to really try she might be able to make the new EU constitution into a much bigger political issue in Britain. If the constitution was put to a popular vote it is doubtful it would pass in Britain and in some other European countries as well.
The United States ought to alert the various European states that it is thinking of either closing its various embassies in Europe or converting them to consulates. After all, if London is not going to be the home of a sovereign government then what is the point of sending an ambassador to the Court of Saint James? The US also ought to raise the issue on the United Nations Security Council that since the sovereign goverments of France and Great Britain are ceasing to exist they have no sovereignty vested in them with which to even appoint ambassadors to represent them on the Security Council. Also, the US could cease to greet European state leaders as heads of state when they come Washington DC. If the Europeans want to play seriously at the creation of a super-state we ought to start treating them in ways that recognize that they really are doing exactly that.
Update: One sly way the Bush Administration might want to handle the constitutional debate in Britain and Europe is to have some Administration official state off-the-record that the US still views Great Britain as possessing a sovereign government at this point in time and that the Bush Administration has not yet made a determination as to when Britain will cease to have a sovereign government.
Thomas Friedman says France wants the US to fail in Iraq.
What is so amazing to me about the French campaign — "Operation America Must Fail" — is that France seems to have given no thought as to how this would affect France. Let me spell it out in simple English: if America is defeated in Iraq by a coalition of Saddamists and Islamists, radical Muslim groups — from Baghdad to the Muslim slums of Paris — will all be energized, and the forces of modernism and tolerance within these Muslim communities will be on the run. To think that France, with its large Muslim minority, where radicals are already gaining strength, would not see its own social fabric affected by this is fanciful.
If the US fails then the radical Muslims will be emboldened and the drive to turn Europe into Eurabia will intensify. John Chipman says Europe wants America out of what Europe sees as its backyard while Europe refuses to tend to it in our place.
Says John Chipman, director of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies: "What the Europeans are saying about Iraq is that this is our backyard, we're not going to let you meddle in it, but we're not going to tend it ourselves."
Heck, the European countries won't even tend to the Balkans without US help. Why can't the vaunted EU of the Euro-enthusiasts dreams at least take care of Bosnia and Kosovo without US help?
The European Commission (EC) of the European Union (EU) is worried that Europe produces more scientists but has fewer researchers.
In relative terms the EU produces more science graduates (PhDs) than the United States but has fewer researchers (5.36 per thousand of the working population in the EU compared with 8.66 in the USA and 9.72 in Japan). In order to achieve the objective of raising Europe's investment in research to 3% of gross domestic product (GDP), as decided at the Barcelona European Council meeting in March 2002, the EU will need 700 000 extra researchers.
There is therefore an urgent need to improve the image of researchers within society, attract more young people to scientific careers and foster researchers' mobility across Europe and back from other regions in the world. There are still some major obstacles to overcome, including in particular difficulties in cross-sector mobility such as moving from university to private business careers, and in addition the problems encountered by researchers attempting to embark on careers in universities outside their own countries.
The European Commission lays out a series of recommendations:
the launch of a “European Researcher's Charter”, for the career management of human resources in R&D; a “Code of conduct for the recruitment of researchers” at European level; the development of a framework for recording and recognising the professional achievements of researchers throughout their careers, including the identification of tools aimed at increasing the transparency of qualifications and competencies acquired in different settings; the development of a platform for the social dialogue of researchers; the designing of appropriate instruments in order to take into account the necessary evolution of the content of research training and the development of mechanisms to ensure that doctoral candidates have access to adequate funding and minimum social security benefits.
But there is no indication that these recommendations address the question of why the difference exists in the first place. Increased funding for basic researchers will probably help. But while the United States government spends a great deal on basic research a lot of R&D workers in the United States are employed in private industry and the same holds true in Japan. The EC recommendations provide no indication that the EC bureaucrats have bothered to figure out the relative importance of the various reasons why the United States and Japan have more R&D workers as a proportion of their populations. Lots of obvious questions could be asked. Here are a few of them:
William Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute, compares the US and proposed Euopean Union constitutions and concludes that the EU constitution will lead to an expanded welfare state.
These claims on the state represent the most important potential tension in the Union. On the one hand, the proposed EU constitution states that the "Free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, and freedom of establishment shall be guaranteed within and by the Union ... [and] any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited."
Fine. On the other hand, any citizen of the Union seems to have a claim on a wide range of social services wherever that person chooses to live. This will lead to either a massive movement of people to states with a higher level of social services or the harmonization of these services among the member states.
This is why the Leftists in Britain have switched sides on the issue of closer British integration with the EU. British Leftists see the EU as a tool with which to further expand the power and size of the welfare state.
Andrew Stuttaford explains the appeal of the European Union to the British Left.
The aim behind the EU has long been the establishment of a corporatist economic system across a continent (the relative economic failures of France and Germany have shown that, in an age of increasingly free markets, such a system can’t survive in one country alone). Including the UK in this project will remove an economic (and intellectual) competitor and will be a good revenge on the hated Thatcher. This managed capitalism (and the revenge on the hated Thatcher) has considerable appeal to the British Left (lest there be any doubt - this includes Tony Blair). Remember that the very structure of the EU offers another advantage – it is not subject to any meaningful democratic review. It is thus, for all realistic purposes, irreversible and so is the economic system it will impose.
Economic competition between nations leads to pressure to restrict the size of government. But if governments can effectively merge and adopt the same high levels of taxes and regulation that reduces the pressure to cut back on the size of government. It is sad to see Britain going down that path.
When and where did European and American sentiment start diverging again? In early 2002, with the escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East. The Middle East is both a source and a catalyst of what threatens to become a downward spiral of burgeoning European anti-Americanism and nascent American anti-Europeanism, each reinforcing the other. Anti-Semitism in Europe, and its alleged connection to European criticism of the Sharon government, has been the subject of the most acid anti-European commentaries from conservative American columnists and politicians. Some of these critics are themselves not just strongly pro-Israel but also “natural Likudites,” one liberal Jewish commentator explained to me. In a recent article Stanley Hoffmann writes that they seem to believe in an “identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States.” Pro-Palestinian Europeans, infuriated by the way criticism of Sharon is labeled anti-Semitism, talk about the power of a “Jewish lobby” in the United States, which then confirms American Likudites’ worst suspicions of European anti-Semitism, and so it goes on, and on.
There are two parts of the disagreement over the Middle East. One has to do with the Israelis versus the Palestinians and their supporters in the larger Muslim polity. That conflict is about to take a new turn in the next several months when a new fence is completed that will separate most of the West Bank from Israel (also see this article for more details and also this article for a partial map).
Will the wall intensify or lessen differences between the US and Europe on Israel? Perhaps the best way to approach that question is to ask whether the wall will have beneficial or harmful effects upon how the Arabs view Israel. Will the wall improve the chances that Israel and the Arabs can reach an agreement over the Palestinians that would be generally acceptable to all concerned? That seems unlikely at this point. Islamic Jihad and Hamas treat ceasefires as periods during which to restock and reload. The Israelis are including enough of the West Bank behind their side of the wall and doing enough to keep the West Bank divided into cantons that the Palestinian sense of grievance is being further stoked. At the same time, the demographic trends of the coming decades look set to strengthen Palestinian beliefs that they deserve more of the territory that lies to the west of the Jordan river. Plus, Islamist sentiment is rising among Palestinians while the larger Arab polity is a long way away from making peace in their own minds with a non-Muslim state in their midst.
Then there is the disagreement over what to do about the Arab countries. The threat of terrorism is seen by the Europeans as something that has to be managed chiefly thru intelligence and police work. Whereas the Bush Administration sees the terrorism problem as unsolvable as long as Arab and other Muslim societies do not modernize, remain fairly closed, and have governments that are corrupt and oppressive. It will likely take many years before the effects of American interventions change either European or American perceptions.
Israel and the set of issues relating to the Muslim Arab lands are hardly the only divisive issues in the split. Ash sees a more general divide due to an ideological split between the political Left and political Right. The Left is firmly ascendant in Europe while the Right is in power in the US at least part of the time. This ideological divide might eventually close if the Europeans come to realize that they need more market elements in their economies and less social welfare spending. But the rising average age of Europeans and consequent demands on spending for the elderly may well produce a solidification of the welfare state in Europe as the elderly and near elderly of the European populace decide they need expanded government programs in order to survive.
Differences on the proper role of the United Nations and other international institutions are also important in the split between America and Europe. The US would likely increase its support of international institutions if a Democrat is elected President in 2008. However, even while Clinton was President there was not enough support to ratify the Kyoto Accord on climate change and Clinton did not try to get the Senate to accept the International Criminal Court treaty. While Bush is criticised by leftists in America and Europe on Kyoto and the ICC the fact is that had Gore been elected the only difference would have been that the he would not have as openly voiced US opposition to these agreements.
Another important factor going forward will be the extent to which the EU becomes more integrated with more political power concentrated at the top. If more power shifts to Brussels then the sharpness of trans-Atlantic agreements will likely increase as all of Europe can be made to take a single common position on a foreign policy issue.
The big wild cards in the future of US-European relations are future events. If a huge terrorist attack happens in the US or Europe that will cause a big shift in attitudes. Developments in Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and other states of interest either due to terrorism or WMD threats will also influence perceptions on both sides of the Atlantic. My own expectation is that trans-Atlantic relations will not get either much worse or much better in the next 5 years barring some dramatic event that shakes people lose from existing mindsets.
Update: Ken Jowitt makes some good points on why the US and Europe should stay allied. (my bold emphasis added)
Why does America need Western allies? To begin with, the West is simultaneously the global military power and the global cultural minority. The West is the only culture in the world with a history based on individual liberty, democratic republicanism, and market capitalism. It would be absurd to cut ourselves off from our natural West European allies.
...
Third, any attempt to identify, intimidate, or eliminate all wildcat violence with a potentially global reach is beyond the intelligence-gathering, logistical, material, and emotional resources of even the United States. The United States will have to align itself with less-powerful allies in various regions and become as adept at military diplomacy as it has always been with military technology.
We should try to prevent our differences with the European countries from something deeper and wider than they need to be (and we should act with restraint in spite of the French). Yes, we are not always going to agree. Yes, we are sometimes going to act in the face of some European opposition. But we have more in common with them than we do with the vast bulk of the rest of the world.
Europe's population is aging and it is going to shrink. They are faced with rising demands for increased entitlements spending for large elderly populations and they already have fairly high levels of taxation. At the same time they face growing Muslim subpopulations of uncertain loyalty whose influence will tend to pull European politics in directions that bring Europe into greater conflict with the US.
While immigration is preventing the US from aging as much as Europe the US also faces increasing demands for old age entitlements spending that will place severe limits on the US ability to fund a large military. The US population is expanding but only because of immigration from non-Western countries. The US no longer has institutions that teach immigrants to assimiliate to American values and culture, US higher education institutions produces teachers who are ideologically less friendly to classical Western ideas (to the extent that they even understand them) and operate academic departments that teach less successful minorities that they are victims. The US, from a Western cultural standpoint, is probably going to weaken as a result of all this and become less Western in character. The US will become beset by divisions caused by a politics of envy driven by increases in subpopulations of ethnic groups that have lower average educational and economic achievements. In spite of the triumphalism about America voiced by many neoconservative hawks the US position is not as unassailable as the neocons seem to believe. We should not unnecessarily burn any diplomatic bridges with Europe.
Update II: James W. Ceaser has written an excellent essay on the history of anti-Americanism in Europe for the public policy journal The Public Interest entitled A genealogy of anti-Americanism.
Although anti-Americanism is a construct of European thought, it would be an error to suppose that it has remained confined to its birthplace. On the contrary, over the last century anti-Americanism has spread out over much of the globe, helping, for example, to shape opinion in pre-World War II Japan, where many in the elite had studied German philosophy, and to influence thinking in Latin American and African countries today, where French philosophy carries so much weight. Its influence has been considerable within the Arab world as well. Recent accounts of the intellectual origins of contemporary radical Islamic movements have demonstrated that their views of the West and America by no means derive exclusively from indigenous sources, but have been largely drawn from various currents of Western philosophy. Western thought is at least in part responsible for the innumerable fatwahs and the countless jihads that have been pronounced against the West. What has been attributed to a "clash of civilizations" has sometimes been no more than a facet of internecine intellectual warfare, conducted with the assistance of mercenary forces recruited from other cultures. It is vitally important that we understand the complex intellectual lineage behind anti-Americanism. Our aim should be to undo the damage it has wrought, while not using it as an excuse to shield this country from all criticism.
Let me restate my point a different way: Anti-Americanism as an intellectual movement began in Europe centuries ago, has gone thru many stages, and has even found footing with many intellectuals in America. In spite of centuries of European anti-American thought the US and various European countries have pursued many efforts to mutual benefit. While European anti-Americanism is a destructive ideology that is harmful to the rational interests of the US and Europe alike the embrace of knee-jerk anti-Europeanism is not an adaptive response. The West as a whole would be ill-served if it split and became heavily divided against itself. The biggest winners from such a split would be non-Western rivals. A more adaptive response is to intellectually engage the Europeans and to point out the unfounded and ideological nature of the bulk of anti-Americanism.
Meeting in Porto Carras Greece European Union leaders agreed that the EU has to be prepared to use military force to prevent clandestine development of WMD.
June 20: European Union leaders on Friday gave green light to the first draft constitution preparing for the bloc's 2004 eastward expansion as well as a new security doctrine authorizing the use of force "as a last resort" against nations building clandestine weapons of mass destruction.
The EU has vowed to give up on the idea of a static system of defenses.
The text agreed by EU leaders at dinner last night in the beach resort of Porto Carras said the EU could no longer rely on static "Cold War" defence against terrorists determined to use "unlimited violence and cause massive casualties".
Was that a French idea? Just curious.
Does this mean the EU is really going to change? Well, tough guys that they are, they are threatening to take part in any UN-sanctioned use of force.
Indeed, leaders backed the use of force as a last resort as a means of dealing with such threats - provided it was sanctioned by the UN.
"The US never believed we took the threats of WMD seriously," said another EU diplomat. "These documents show how the Europeans are responding to the growing proliferation of WMD, including biological and chemical."
Gee whiz, I still do not think they take the problem seriously. They are willing to take military action if France, China and Russia will agree on the UN Security Council to give them the okay. That sounds like a recipe for inaction. Kim Jong-il can relax over his worries about the European Union. As Officer Barbrady says on South Park "Move along folks. Nothing to see here."
The EU's idea of playing hardball with Iran is to threaten to hold off completion of negotiations of an EU-Iran trade deal if Iran does not make concessions over inspections of its nuclear weapons development facilities.
As its largest trading partner, the European Union has significant commercial leverage on Iran and is in the process of negotiating a trade deal with Tehran.
The ministers pointedly said progress toward resolving the nuclear issue was "interdependent" with progress in the trade talks.
What, the Mullahs can not get a new trade deal if they do not stop developing nuclear weapons? That is just so incredibly mildly inconvenient.
To get a sense of just how the Europeans see this bold new decisive muscular tough hardnosed doctrine it is worth hearing what the Germans and French think of it.
The US can not expect to act alone (alone defined here as "without the consent of all the major powers in the European Union") and be effective. This doctrine is going to support multilateral institutions. It is muscular.Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, embraced the doctrine because of Berlin's strong support for multilateral institutions; President Jacques Chirac of France did so because it spelt out how countries, including the US, could not act alone and expect to be effective.
Barry Posen, a senior analyst with the U.S. Marshall Fund in Germany, says there is a big gap in perceptions between the Europeans and Americans over Iran.
He said, however, that the Europeans do not seem yet to have reached the conclusion that the Americans appear to have reached -- namely, that Iran has a weapons program and is thus in breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Posen said the Europeans need to think through what they will do if the Iranians do not accept the tougher inspection regime. He said it's clear that for Washington, the end point is much more sharply focused -- that is, it reserves the option of taking military action if Iran continues to develop its alleged nuclear-weapons capability.
German deputy foreign secretary Klaus Scharioth seems to understand that Iran does not need nuclear power given all its cheap oil and natural gas deposits.
Mr. Scharioth said Germany also questions why Iran needs nuclear power when it is rich in oil and natural gas and why the country has medium-range missiles that could reach Europe.
Come on Klaus, you just have to put two and two together. There is one hugely obvious purpose for Iran's nuclear efforts. It is staring you in the face guy. I know you can make the leap and figure it out. I'm cheering for you. Go ahead, draw the obvious conclusion. Boldly go where most European diplomats and politicians dare not go.
Come September the rubber will meet the road on all this multilateral institution security blather when we get to see what the "international community" will do about Iran's continued development of nuclear weapons.
The US and the European Union want the IAEA to speed its investigations and present the findings by September. The US hopes this next report will definitely prove that Iran is in breach of the NPT and that the IAEA will then refer Iran to the UN Security Council for sanctions.
Will the UNSC vote for sanctions against Iran? Will Germany and France boldly step forward and ask for UNSC approval for a European Union military attack on Iran to put an end to Iranian nuclear ambitions? Stay tuned for the next episode of As the European Multilateral Institution Anti-Neoimperialistic World Turns.
Update: The latest EU security proposal seems to have as its main purpose to prevent EU member states from pursuing independent foreign policy on security matters. It appears to be designed to discourage EU member states from individually making common cause with the United States in various actions the US pursues around the world.
EU foreign ministers asked Solana to prepare the report in a bid to avoid a repetition of their damaging rift over the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which split the bloc in half, with founder members France, Germany and Belgium opposing military action.
By creating a framework for member states to define common interests and agree how to apply EU policy ranging from trade and aid to sanctions and armed force to strategic threats, the aim is to anticipate and defuse future crises.
Former NATO Secretary General and former deputy Belgian prime minister Willy Claes says the United States government has already decided to move NATO headquarters out of Belgium.
BRUSSELS — The US has made up its mind to move Nato headquarters from Brussels to another member state, according to the defence organisation's former Secretary General Willy Claes.
Where to? Poland? Romania perhaps in order to put the headquarters closer to trouble spots?
Members of Belgium's government are split over whether to abolish the law that has so angered the Bush Administration.
BRUSSELS – Belgium's Liberal party appeared split at the weekend over the controversial war crimes law which has infuriated the US and threatened the loss of Nato HQ for Brussels.
John O'Sullivan argues that Rumsfeld's warning needs to be repeated again because there is too much at stake over this issue for the US government.
U.S. generals would know that an unsympathetic Belgian court might conceivably be looking over their shoulder when they were making the most difficult decisions about bombing targets and collateral damage. It would be little comfort that the court would hand over their cases for final determination to a U.S. court--even if we could be sure that Belgium might not suddenly decree that because of racism and the death penalty, American courts no longer qualified as impartial--because their reputations would be sullied by the mere accusation. The European political climate in which the accusations would originally be raised would very likely be one hostile to U.S. foreign policy in general.
For more details on the background of this dispute see my previous post on the subject.
Of course, moving the NATO headquarters from Brussels to a friendlier European state is not the only conceivable solution to this problem. Perhaps we should follow the advice one British politician offers to his own nation: Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP (Member, European Parliament) for South East England, is opposed to both the European Army and wants to see the UK pull out of NATO and resume Britain's blue water military policy.
What is harder to understand is the position of my fellow Euro-sceptics, who oppose a common European defence without seeming to realise that this is precisely what we now have. Michael Portillo famously declared that he did not want British soldiers to die for Brussels. Absolutely. Let's pull them out of Nato command.
Back to the high seas!
Declan McCullagh reports that the quasi-official Council of Europe is proposing a law for European countries to enact that would require anyone who criticises someone on a web site to offer that person who was criticised a way to respond to the criticism.
The all-but-final proposal draft says that Internet news organizations, individual Web sites, moderated mailing lists and even Web logs (or "blogs"), must offer a "right of reply" to those who have been criticized by a person or organization.
Say you criticise someone in a blog post. If that person posted a response to your criticism then under this proposed law you'd have to link to their response. How stupid. Showing a wisdom that the Europeans could learn from, in 1987 Ronald Reagan axed the more limited US equivalent for broadcast media called the Fairness Doctrine.
I see a proposal like this as an obvious violation of free speech because it compels someone to speak when they do not want to. If you do not want to link to someone (and linking to someone is a form of communication) then you shouldn't have to. The people in European countries really have no protection against this sort of nonsense. European nations really could use strong constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. But in Europe the concept of rights has gotten so confused with the concept of entitlements that when they sit down to think of ways to protect rights they inevitably instead end up coming up with entitlements that others become obligated to support.
Think about where this could lead. Suppose one criticises US policy in Iraq and in the process of doing so one states that the Islamists are a real threat to US efforts to make the place better. Well, just how many people might think they've been criticised even if they haven't been mentioned by name? Islamists, US government administrators, top government officials, and perhaps any Iraqi who thinks he and his fellow citizens are ready to run their own country might all perceive themselves to have been criticised.
The effect of such a rule would be to intimidate people from offering criticism. Who wants to deal with the hassle of having to read thru one's email looking for demands that one adds links to responses to things one writes? Suppose you want to make a critical post and then go on a one month vacation. You'd have to periodically check in during vacation to see if anyone is upset enough to demand a link to a defensive response to your post.
The US is telling Belgium to stop prosecution of American officers and government officials.
Brussels, Belgium - The United States threatened yesterday to withhold money for a new NATO headquarters and to ban Americans from attending alliance meetings unless Belgium changes a law under which Army commander Tommy Franks was charged with war crimes.
US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is not amused
"These suits are absurd. By passing this law, Belgium has turned its legal system into a platform for divisive politicised lawsuits against her Nato allies," he said. "For our part, we will have to seriously consider whether we can allow our civilian and military officials to come to Belgium.
"We will have to oppose all further spending for a Nato headquarters in Brussels until we know with certainty Belgium intends to be a hospitable place."
There are pending Belgian prosecutions of a number of current and previous high US officials.
The problem stems from Belgium's Universal Competence Law. Under this law, U.S. Central Command chief Army Gen. Tommy Franks has been charged with war crimes for his actions in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Former President George H.W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and retired Army Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf, former CENTCOM commander, have also been charged for their roles in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
In an absolutely amazing display of audacity some Europeans are upset that the Bush Administration wants to retaliate.
BRUSSELS, Belgium – Europeans were stewing today over an implied U.S. threat to move NATO headquarters from Brussels if Belgium doesn't rescind its loose "war crimes" law.
The US shouldn't have waited this long to start threatening to pull NATO headquarters out of Belgium. Where do these Euro-weenies get off thinking they can pull this nonsense?
Update: The Belgians seemed to waver in response to Rumsfeld's tongue-lashing.
Defense Minister Andre Flahaut said the country's universal jurisdiction law, which has been used to file suits against several senior current or former U.S. officials, could perhaps be revised for a second time to end the standoff.
But the Belgian Prime Minister now claims the amended version of the law is no longer a problem.
But Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt told a news conference there was no problem with the recently amended law and abuse of it for political reasons was now impossible.
It seems unwise to trust the Belgians on this.
Consider the irony: Europeans claim the United States is too unilateral. But then a single small European country sets its courts up to judge war crimes all on its own.
Lawrence Solomon executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute has an article in the National Post (a Canadian publication) on the idea of bringing Alberta and British Columbia into the United States as the 51st and 52nd states. (you can also find it here)
Because U.S. democrats would balk at adding a Republican state to the Union, they would want a second, more left-leaning state to be added at the same time, to maintain a balance of power – this was part of the bargain that had to be struck before Democratic Alaska and Republican Hawaii could be ushered into the Union. The likeliest running mate for Alberta is British Columbia – a lush and largely liberal urbanized province that has much in common with the west coast states of Washington, Oregon and California.
Canada has serious political problems that continue to cause discussions among Canadian political commentators about a possible break-up of Canada. Solomon thinks one cause of Canadian political problems is the excessive amount of power held by rural areas in Canada. Solomon has a later article on barriers to trade in Canada erected by the provincial legislatures.
To protect their private fiefs, each provincial legislature has erected trade barriers to block Canadian businesses that try to come in from other provinces. The barriers cover financial services, they cover construction. They cover electricity, gas distribution, transportation, health, education and architecture. Most of all, they cover the resource industries.
Solomon argues that this state of affairs is at least in part a result of legislative districts (called ridings in Canada - from the days when one had to ride around them on a horse?) which have fewer people in them in rural areas than in urban areas. The rural areas support regulations that create barriers for trade between between provinces. This reduces competition and reduces economies of scale. Given that Canada has about a ninth the US population spread out over a large area it already has much less potential for economies of scale than the US does. Therefore trade barriers between provinces are especially damaging to overall living standards.
But if we compare the United States to Canada in terms of internal trade the biggest factor that has made the US more integrated economically is a clause in the US federal constitution. Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution contains what is called the Commerce Clause which has generally been interpreted to mean that US states can not create trade barriers between the states.
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
In the views of many commentators (myself included) this clause has been abused by liberal courts to empower the federal government to regulate all manner of local matters. There has been a long series of cases which have changed the scope of the Commerce Clause. For a treatment of the history of court rulings see a review by Robert H. Bork and Daniel E. Troy entitled Locating The Boundaries: The Scope Of Congress's Power To Regulate Commerce. While the Commerce Clause has been abused to excessively extend the power of the federal government its net effect over the longer run has been to allow large economies of scale within the US economy tha