Posted on 12/24/2003 8:00:21 PM PST by Shermy
American policymakers should now proceed on the long-term assumption that a European superstate, with a common foreign and military policy, is not going to emerge. The collapse of the constitution conference and talk of a "two-tier" EU means unity has been abandoned. The joint decision of the French and German governments to destroy the stability pact that underpins the common currency must, in the end, mean the destruction of the euro as well. Smaller countries, such as Portugal and the Netherlands, have endured considerable economic pain in order to hold to the rules or have been massively fined for minute infractions.
Now the two biggest EU powers have engaged in a joint conspiracy to not only break the rules but also insist that in their cases the stability pact does not apply. At a stroke this kills the egalitarian basis on which the EU is supposedly founded. It echoes George Orwell's sinister tale Animal Farm about the evil pigs: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." France and Germany have emerged as the big bullies, the lawless thugs that terrorize the European street--as, of course, they have done in the past. France, under Louis XIV and Napoleon, and Germany, under Bismarck, the Kaiser and Hitler, were guilty of greedy wars of aggression, causing the smaller countries of Europe repeated suffering. Now, at the bidding of the Paris-Berlin axis, these countries are to suffer yet again.
Corrupted by Lawless Paris
But there are differences. France is undoubtedly the senior partner in this fraud. President Jacques Chirac has long regarded France as being above the EU's rules and has authorized blatant defiance of them on a score of occasions. Germany, on the other hand, being a law-abiding nation except when under control of a monster, has been punctilious in keeping the rules up to now.
Unfortunately for the French, Germany, now that it has been unleashed from moral restraints, is unlikely to end its defiance with the stability pact. There is rising resentment among Germans that their country is by far the largest net provider of EU funds, while France, though rich, is one of the largest recipients, through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the most generally hated institution in the union.
The Germans are feeling the pain of a stagnant economy, an overvalued euro, actual recession in many sectors and a dramatic collapse in East German property values. A number of German banks are technically insolvent, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to borrow the money necessary to keep German industry up to date. Given these circumstances, Germany's funding of the EU makes no sense to the German taxpayers or to the politicians who represent them. Now that Germany has blatantly broken the rules over the stability pact, what is to prevent it from reneging on EU payments? Nothing.
Coming Unstuck
If Germany cuts off its funds, various EU doles that hold the union together--not least of which is the CAP--will become bankrupt. The CAP was France's original economic reason for creating the EU. Without it, the smoldering rage of French farmers may well burst through the thin crust of France's pseudodemocracy, encouraging other disaffected groups (which are legion) to take to the streets, roads and harbors--possibly to be joined by France's Muslims, who now constitute close to 10% of the population and are huddled in poverty in slums on the edges of France's cities.
I've always maintained that the moment France finds theEU to be no longer of use, it will break it up. A German revolt against the payments system could provide that moment. Hostility to the EU is rising in France anyway, to the point where no referendum on the proposed EU constitution can be held there for fear it would be voted down heavily.
U.S. policymakers' aims should be to forge close links with in-dividual countries that have strong common interests with America in wide areas of policy. Such nations include Britain, obviously (though not Ireland, which is sure to do the opposite of anything Britain does), Spain and Italy. The latter two are deeply resentful of French-German behavior and are anxious to have a powerful friend outside the EU to redress the internal balance of power.
There are other states the U.S. should cultivate in this new situation. Poland is still afraid of both Germany and Russia and regards the U.S. as an essential ally in times of trouble. Then there are Denmark, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria--all of which have good reason to fear Franco-German bullying and are eager for a close friendship with the world's policeman. And if, as I predict, a split opens between France and Germany, astute U.S. policy could persuade Germany to become again, as it was in the days of Konrad Adenauer and Willy Brandt, a reliable American ally. That would complete the isolation of France and severely inhibit its ability to sabotage America's war on terrorism.
In the meantime, the U.S. should keep a tight grip on NATO (news - web sites)'s plans and strategies, ensuring that no sensitive information passes into channels to which the French military has access. The U.S. should also increase its intelligence efforts in Paris and Berlin.
Paul Johnson, eminent British historian and author, Lee Kuan Yew, senior minister of Singapore, and Ernesto Zedillo, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, former president of Mexico, in addition to Forbes Chairman Caspar W. Weinberger, rotate in writing this column. To see past Current Events columns, visit our Web site at http://www.forbes.com/currentevents.
Michael, these aren't perceptions, they're the truth. When did the Berlin Wall fall? Think about it. Now when did George Bush Sr take office? The Fall of the Wall was the culmination of a long series of events that began before Bush had ever taken office.
Reagan was the architect of the policy that led to the Soviet Union's collapse. Reagan was in power before Gorbachev ever came along. Before Kohl ever came along. When Gorbachev attained power in the Soviet Union, the Soviet economy was already too far gone for him to do anything about it.
Think about it. When Gorby came to power, Reagan's policies had already been at work for over 4 years. Reagan's policies broke the Soviet Bank. Leading to the series of changes in the Eastern European nations. The Soviets were by that time too weak to do anything about it. No, I would never take credit away from Bush Sr, Kohl etc but it is just willfull ignorance to claim that Reagan wasn't the major player in all that. It was after all Reagan's Star Wars program that scared the Soviets. It was Reagan that told Gorby 'No' in Reykavik. It was Reagan's arms build up that forced the Soviets to try to keep up- even though they could not (which is eventually what broke them). Germany had no great military to build up in an arms race. The German military was never much of a threat to the Soviets. Even the American military that we had stationed in Germany during the Cold War was considered only a 'speed bump' for the Soviet Army. Our job was to slow them down long enough for us to start flying in reinforcements to Rhein-Main airport. Those guys manning the Fulda Gap were only supposed to last a matter of hours (if that).
It was our military that posed the threat to the Soviets not yours- with all due respect to yours of course.
Reagan was a giant even among great men. A candidate for the best American president of all time. Certainly the greatest modern president. Kennedy couldn't carry Ronnie's jockstrap.
LOL, our nukes are part of our military Michael. That's the whole point. That's a point that seems to be lost on other nations. Developing your military doesn't just mean consripting soldiers and buying bullets. Our nuclear arsenal is just as much an integral part of our military as are our tanks and our aircraft carriers. If Germany didn't build up a nuclear arsenal, you can't really say that you had a military budget that was similar to ours.
I don´t know wether you know it or not, but the fall of the wall was by chance and actually accidental
An accident? I don't know what's gone on in your life the past few weeks Michael, but you've definitely changed somehow. I don't think this is a typical German attitude you're displaying at all here. My wife certainly doesn't see it the same as you. The fall of the Berlin Wall was no accident. It was the culmination of years of purpose, of years of spending and sacrifice. It was the inevitable conclusion to the policy, will and intention of the German and American people. For you to call it an accident is mystifing to me but it is also an insult to all the people- German and American who made it happen.
Because of the trust between the three (Kohl, Gorbatchov and Bush),
Michael, you're just being stupid here. Bush had been in office a matter of months when the wall fell. Certainly he gets a nice slice of credit but to claim that he had a great significance on the events leading up to that moment and Reagan did not is just... I would expect more from the looniest democrat, to be honest. Even the Soviets acknowledge Reagan's influence.
Gorbachev was NOT a great man. He was a just another piece of sh!t communist dictator like all the rest who tried to keep his little house of cards together even though it was obvious it would fall. When history was staring him straight in the face, he had a chance to grab it by the balls and do something with it- instead he blinked and history passed him by. Now, he's a lecturer on the Al Gore 'useless ex-somebodys' circuit. You can say what you want about Boris Yeltsin, but when history presented itself to him- he grabbed it and did something brave with it. Gorbachev- lol. Just another loser in my opinion. Think about it- Mr Reagan said 'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!' A great man doesn't keep his people behind a wall. Those are the actions of a tyrant. Gorbachev 'allowed' the wall to fall because he had no choice- Reagan had broken his back.
And where is Reagan in your calculations? What do you have against Reagan? He gets no credit at all? This is silly and willfull ignorance on your part and you are actually the first person I ever met to think this. It seems to me that you dislike Reagan- it's the only thing that explains it.
I tell you what, it is useless to discuss this with you, I believe. You are in effect claiming something that would equal your saying 'the sky is not blue' or 'the world is not round' if you think Reagan wasn't the major player in the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European communist states. I don't know what's wrong with you but I wouldn't debate someone about the sky being blue and I consider this, likewise, to be beneath my serious attention. It is a fact. If you don't like it- this is your problem and I don't want to be involved in your problem in this respect. Read up on the subject. It sounds almost as if you are getting your info from leftists who would like to wipe Reagan's achievements out of the history books. But I lived during those times. I was in my mid-twenties when the wall came down. I remember it vividly as I do the events leading up to it as I do the drastic contrast between Reagan and Carter.
You are correct in one line of thinking- if men like Carter had been in power all through the 80s and 90s, yes, it would've been an accident if the Wall had fallen. But it was no chance thing that it happened after Reagan.
No sane person would say something like that. Historical events do not just fall out of the sky. To disconnect the event from the causes leading up to it is- it's mad, is what it is.
You are looking at the event from an extremely narrow perspective. The event itself lasted decades. It was not a thing that just suddenly happened one day. It took years and years of effort to bring that Wall down. There is no way in Hell that it just fell down one day.
This is delusional on your part. No, of course, we didn't know the exact day it was going to come down, but to bring down the Wall was a planned event.
Ronald Reagan... It´s just that he isn´t one of the most important characters of the cold wars end.
Michael- I won't discuss whether the world is flat or round. For you to say something like this draws your intelligence and sanity into question. End of discussion. You don't have any clue what you're talking about if you're going to say something like that. I mean this earnestly- if you say something like that, you are just as nuts as those other posters who are claiming that Germany is currently run by National Socialists. It's insane. It's like saying the atomic bombs weren't directly related to the Japanese surrender or that our Island Hopping campaign didn't lead up to that event. It's just that simple. I am absolutely certain that if you were to sit down and talk to the former President Bush, he would explain to you just how important Reagan was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.