Feeding the Dragon, Hurting the Alliance

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Depends how you define hegemony.

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm taking "American hegemony" to mean a situation with America as the "lone superpower". A situation like now, with America in a league of its own above everyone else in political and military power.

And of course we do not intend to be the sole steward of world politics, not can we afford to be. We want to work together with our ALLIES toward common goals.

Well, duh. A willingness to work with others to achieve common goals is a basic requirement for sanity. I don't think anyone here is arguing that the American leadership is psychotic.

The question is, what goals are shared with with what allies. It's easy to see why continued American supremacy might be an American goal. It's less obvious that it should be a European goal.

We have been cooperating with Europe, from Haiti to Ukraine to Darfur to the Tsunami, to Lebanon. And now our cooperation in Iraq is likely to increase as well.

Surely nothing could be as frightening to the foes of peace and democracy as a reconciliation between the US and Europe?

If you by the foes of peace and democracy means the Axis of Evil with friends and associates, considering that part of the price of such reconciliation is likely to be greater American restraint in invading offending countries, I don't think it ought scare them all that much.

[Dinner]

Elok, Taiwan is the most likely but the Spraqtleys (that's the English name but the Chinese & Japanese have their own names) have a fair amount of oil and are claimed by at least a half dozen countries. The Japanese are expanding their navy & air force (though cutting the army) in order to guard against a Chinese grab. There's also the problem of what China would do if North Korea ran into serious problems; it's doubtful they'd favor Korean unification since that would mean a pro-US state on their border. Lastly, there are the various border disputes meantioned in previous posts.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Personally, I can't think why America shouldn't try to maintain its position as top dog, nor why it shouldn't try and convince Europe that's the best possible world.

Personally, I think it would be much cooler if EU - US would be the top dog, thus EU would have a say in thinks, rather than try to be failed multipolarists.

Eurocentrism

[BeBMan]

I think EU uand US should take the "good cop, bad cop" approach

[Last Conformist]

I wouldn't personally object to a western "dyarchy" on the global level, but I doubt it's realistic in the medium term.

[Saras]

Lets assume BP wants to deveop Spratly oil. EU sez, please, let us develop spratlys US sez, terrorsist with WMD's were seen on spratlys.

win win

[Saras]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I wouldn't personally object to a western "dyarchy" on the global level, but I doubt it's realistic in the medium term.

It would become much more realistic if France was kicked out of EU.

[BeBMan]

Or Poland

[Odin]

Alliance of all western nations:

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Saras
It would become much more realistic if France was kicked out of EU.

Well, no. Ejecting France wouldn't help the EU bloc getting either stronger or more independent.

[BeBMan]

...led by Finland

[Saras]

Originally posted by Last Conformist



Well, no. Ejecting France wouldn't help the EU bloc getting either stronger or more independent.

But it'd be fun to propose officially

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Last Conformist

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm taking "American hegemony" to mean a situation with America as the "lone superpower". A situation like now, with America in a league of its own above everyone else in political and military power.

In the short run the only possible alternative superpowers are the EU, Russia, and China. I think we share a common interest in Russia not reemerging as a superpower, esp if that means Russia reasserting dominance over the "former Soviet space". What the rise of China means for Europe is what we're debating. What the unification of Europe means to the US depends on what that Europe intends to do. I, personally, am less pessimistic than most on the right in the US about Europe, and think European power is a net gain for the US. Doesnt mean we wont disagree on a lot.

If you by the foes of peace and democracy means the Axis of Evil with friends and associates, considering that part of the price of such reconciliation is likely to be greater American restraint in invading offending countries, I don't think it ought scare them all that much.

well you see Ive never thought the Bush admin really intended to follow up Iraq with more full scale invasions, at least not in the kinds of circumstances that the Iraq war took place under, which would set us apart from our allies, in quite that way. I think actions we can take together could make wars on those countries unnecessary.

[Dinner]

Ideally I'd like to see closer relations among all western nations including Russia since that would form a completely dominate block. Realisticly, we can't really hope for much more then NATO plus maybe Brazil, Australia, and New Zealand but an economic free trade zone covering the Americas, Europe (including Russia), and the ANZACs would be a good start.

It would have to be truly free though so the farm subsidies would have to go.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well I do have to thank you for the informative posts though. It was enlightening.

Don't forget my posts are mostly speculation, though I have a fair knowledge of how the EU works, and I have generalized it to the current situation, but that's my only claim to "educated" guess.

I do have to ask though how much serious opposition is there to removing the embargo within the EU?

A very quick scan on the French and German press tells me that the matter is considered as nothing more than a bone of contention between the US and EU. The very act of lifting the embargo is mentioned nowhere in the media I scanned. I guess some peace associations will mount an ad-hoc opposition, but as with most diplomatic matters, the parties and the population in general won't be involved.