Europe-US Split ... Ramifications May Last For Years

[KrazyHorse]

It seems to be more of a French achievement, as much as the administration would like to take credit for it. Very little of what they've thrown at the French government has stuck, but their (the French Government) own statements and actions have done them quite a bit of harm, Chirac's most of all.

And vice versa.

My point is that you've gotten into a *****-fight with France. And you're both taking a big damn hit because of it.

The only one who's being hurt more is Blair (I'm not sure if the UK as a whole is taking the same sort of pummelling)

[KrazyHorse]

Sikander: IMO, the US gained a hell of a lot by being able to hide behind the UN and NATO on a lot of big issues. Now they've said they don't need the UN, and have come close to saying that about NATO.

It doesn't mean they can't invade Iraq, but it does make me question the long-term viability of an interventionist foreign policy without somebody else to share the blame with...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Frogger

I think you'll have to provide some examples of this...

Who is expected to bring about a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the situation in Korea, or even to broker an agreement between Pakistan and India? It isn't the U.N., which has had some involvement in each of these situations as more or less a monitor of the status quo. When the status quo isn't good enough for them people look to the U.S. over the U.N.

[notyoueither]

The UK is taking no kind of pummelling.

As far as Imperialism is concerned, that is a catch phrase of the left. It means 'we don't like these big meanies so we will label them Imperialists'. btw, no one outside of the left listens to those you use it.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Frogger
Sikander: IMO, the US gained a hell of a lot by being able to hide behind the UN and NATO on a lot of big issues. Now they've said they don't need the UN, and have come close to saying that about NATO.

It doesn't mean they can't invade Iraq, but it does make me question the long-term viability of an interventionist foreign policy without somebody else to share the blame with...

IMO the long term viability of an interventionist policy is suspect regardless. I disagree about the U.S. reliance to any significant degree on the U.N. Iraq is one of the few issues of real importance to U.S. policy that has been entered into in partnership with the U.N. The disintegration of Yugoslavia was eventually a NATO affair, but of little importance to the U.S. national interest. I'm at a loss to come up with any other issues where the U.S. has relied on the political cover of the U.N. or NATO in order to pursue its own aims. What sort of things are you thinking of?

[KrazyHorse]

First and foremost the Cold War's conduct, and the openning of the Eastern Bloc to market-based economics (which was, of course, of vital interest to Europe as well, but that's beside the point). The US relied very heavily on getting a broad base of support from NATO countries. Countries in the rest of the world (i.e. developing nations) which aren't run by out-and-out dictators do care a great deal about this sort of thing (a broad base of support for any action), and these nations' opinions will come to play a greater and greater role in the future.

One of the best things the Euros have done for themselves is regain influence with former colonies who could have ended up being their most bitter enemies. Even France and Algeria have started to speak to each other civilly again. And these countries might not like to see naked unilateralism. When you're a small power, that leaves you feeling vulnerable.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
First and foremost the Cold War's conduct, and the openning of the Eastern Bloc to market-based economics (which was, of course, of vital interest to Europe as well, but that's beside the point). The US relied very heavily on getting a broad base of support from NATO countries.

You're joking, right?

Europe was number 1 on the Red Army's dance card. The Americans gained what by getting a bunch of countries to defend themselves from whom?

Broad base of support? That was hard to get, I'll bet. Well, in the case of the French it was, actually. Now that you mention it. Hmmmm.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

which was, of course, of vital interest to Europe as well, but that's beside the point

I mentioned that the Euros needed the US (a hell of a lot more, when it came to the Red Army than the US needed them).

The point is not that it was hard to get Germany and Italy to agree to troops on their soil but that the US benefitted from having so much of the first world with it when it cam to the hearts and minds of people half a world away from the front lines.

Now those folks have to choose, and a lot of the more democratic ones are choosing Europe.

[notyoueither]

From where? Do you think that people in Korea and Japan are favouring an 'ignore it, it'll go away' policy toward dictators with WMD?

Sure, free people will normally say 'what? Peace? Sure, that's a good thing.' Will they actually give a rat's petutty a year from now that the US removed Saddam? I doubt it.

Right now we are in the heat of the moment in a very heated discussion within the West. I seriously doubt whether this all will register on the average mind in New Delhi or Rio a year from now.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Frogger
First and foremost the Cold War's conduct, and the openning of the Eastern Bloc to market-based economics (which was, of course, of vital interest to Europe as well, but that's beside the point). The US relied very heavily on getting a broad base of support from NATO countries. Countries in the rest of the world (i.e. developing nations) which aren't run by out-and-out dictators do care a great deal about this sort of thing (a broad base of support for any action), and these nations' opinions will come to play a greater and greater role in the future.

While I agree that NATO and to a much lesser extent the U.N. were important tools in U.S. Cold War policy, the end of the Cold War has diminished their importance to a large extent. Even during the Cold War we worked both within and without these organizations depending on the need and the deed. When these organizations seemed likely to be more trouble than they were worth in regard to a particular issue (which is extremely common in a large multilateral organization), then we simply formed a coalition of the willing and went on.

Today there is only one "crusade" with any traction, and that is the War on Terror. Unfortunately for the multilateralists, it doesn't lend itself to these sorts of organizations because:

A) Preventing terrorists from murdering people isn't all that controversial outside the Islamic world

B) This sort of intelligence oriented warfare doesn't lend itself to multilateral operations nearly so well as it does to unilateral or bilateral operations.

Thus it isn't all that hard for the U.S. to convince the world that it really is in Afghanistan because it wants to protect itself, and it isn't necessary to have numerous NATO elements scattered around the globe supporting governments who are cooperating in the war. These governments are happier only sharing their secrets and developing a relationship with one country. It is simpler and more secure.

So while I agree that these organizations were important during the Cold War, I think the importance of NATO is trending down severely, while the importance of the U.N. (the weaker of the two by far) perhaps holding steady somewhere around "Sometimes Relevent".

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Frogger

Now those folks have to choose, and a lot of the more democratic ones are choosing Europe.

Well we'll see about that. Sure most countries don't give a rat's a$$ about Iraq, so they vote for the status quo. When they need something to be done rather than obstructed, they'll support the U.S. If the world trends more and more toward democracy and tolerance, then the need for a country like the U.S. will be less and less.

[KrazyHorse]

I'd given up on this thread (I hate long discussions that grow by pages every time I look away) but that last sentence made my day.

See you in my sig...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Frogger
I'd given up on this thread (I hate long discussions that grow by pages every time I look away) but that last sentence made my day.

See you in my sig...

I thought carefully about it before I posted it. Let's hope that it works out that way, rather than the world trending toward more nuclear standoffs, sabre rattling, suicide bombing, crusading and bio-terrorism. It looks like it can go either way, especially in such a short period as the 30-40 years I might live to see.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
I'd given up on this thread (I hate long discussions that grow by pages every time I look away) but that last sentence made my day.

See you in my sig...

Maybe you should think carefully about what he said, and why the need for a democratic tough guy might go away.

[HershOstropoler]

Sikander:

"If the world trends more and more toward democracy and tolerance, then the need for a country like the U.S. will be less and less."

What exactly do you mean by that "need" ?