Replies

That’s sort of the point. The EU is ensuring that it will not need much military power, in part because it doesn’t care who it’s cozying up to. It is more than willing to use its economic clout in ways the U.S. frankly just does not do, even though we do bring economic pressure to bear to a degree. Economic power alone can make you a quasi-superpower, especially when your economy is as large as that of the European Union, and most especially when you become integral to the economic vitality of the nations you wish to influence.

That's not the point in the world of Real Politik. There are times when you cannot buy your way out of trouble. In fact, it is a two-edged sword that your enemies can use against you. The economic vitality of China and India will surpass Europe. They don't depend on the EU market. There is no such thing as a quasi-superpower.

The EU likely does not have the money to become a military superpower short of scrapping the welfare state almost entirely, as it already runs somewhat comparable deficits to the United States. But I truly don’t believe that is its goal. Brussels has been relatively pragmatic about these wider decisions (despite the ongoing fiasco of internal micromanagement). I believe it rightly calculates that a smaller but high-quality, competent military is all it needs to augment its emergence as a soft superpower which uses economic carrots and sticks as foreign policy pressure.

The US spends more on defense than the rest of NATO combined. The quality and quantity of the European military establishment have declined to the point that its forces have a difficult time of interoperability with US forces, which are way ahead of them technologically. It is nonsense to say that its objective is a "smaller but high-quality, competent military." It all boils down to affordability. They have opted out of the defense business after the fall of the Soviet Union, a luxury made possible by the security umbrella of the US. They are having a difficult time jsut meeting their meager quotas in Afghanistan.

The EU’s path especially with regard to foreign aid and trade in Asia and Africa in particular has been remarkably similar to that of China’s. Iran is one of the few sticking points, and I believe this plays into the EU’s heel-dragging on the issue.

The Chinese are spending more and more on defense. Their economic prosperity has given them the wherewithal to become a major player militarily. They no longer have to rely on foreign aid and trade to further their influence. The Chinese path is arcing upwards while the EU's is headed downwards in terms of military strength. The EU's feckless response to Iran as a nuclear power demonstrates how economic clout is a two-edged sword. Four of the five largest exporters to Iran are European countries, i.e., Germany, France, Italy, and Switzerland. A boycott of Iran by the EU would have economic consequences in countries that already have significant unemployment problems. And Japan and China are not about to join a boycott since they are the two biggest customers of Iranian oil.

Very true, but should Europe really try (and I from my reading I believe this is where things would ultimately go) they could turn their population situation around (or at least arrest it), and the social welfare system could be modified.

Try how? Many countries are already offering incentives for women to have children. It is not working. Moreover, the largest population increases are coming from immigrant groups, which are not being assimilated. The social welfare system is already being "modified." My 88 year old mother in law in Germany has had her benefits cut. The problem is that there are fewer and fewer workers to support the system, something we will soon be experiencing here.

The architects of the EU know all of this, regardless. They know Europe’s options are limited militarily, and they know Europe is in danger of truly becoming a has-been. But, again, they are at least on these issues pragmatic. They are not dead yet. They recognize their problems, and they know there is one way out - economic union forged into power by political union. Everyone from Chirac to the lowliest Brusselscrat has acknowledged publically that the only way for Europe to compete globally is through union that allows them to use their economic power as a tool.

Spoken like a true European elitist. There are reasons why there are so many countries in Europe--countries that have maintained their culture, language, and national identity for centuries. Those preaching what amounts to a United States of Europe are facing a strong backlash from the people, who still want to retain their national identity. The Euro has been a disaster for some countries. The redistribution of wealth from one country to another under the EU formula has also been met with a rising tide of opposition. The gap is growing between the political elites and the average European.

Again, I don’t see the EU fielding 12 carrier groups and maintaining large military bases around the globe, but they don’t need that to become a serious military power vs anyone else on the planet aside from the United States, China, India, etc.

They are not even pulling their weight in NATO. No one is asking them to become a military superpower, but rather, just shoulder their fair share of the defense burden.

Europe’s only true problem demographic, in the sense that they will have a very difficult time overcoming it, is the aging of the population, and even this could be somewhat ameliorated with increased immigration. They’re between a rock and a hard place on this one, it’s true, but I’m not quite ready to write them off solely due to demographics just yet.

You don't turn around the demographics overnight. And Europe does not welcome increased immigration, especially from the third world. Assimilation is a growing problem. The guest workers don't go home and yet they are not fully integrated into the society. Bringing in more immigrants will exacerbate the problem.

They will be more than able to ensure - at that point - that there are no fissures in EU foreign policy, no one tilting America’s way, no one allowing basing rights, no one in Africa lending support for U.S. ‘adventures.’ It’s not a full-spectrum superpower, but it would be a single economy as large or larger than ours (currently larger, and vastly different even from the days that Germany and Japan were ‘economic’ superpowers despite being half our size or less) and which would be used to bully large regions of the planet. (The EU is _already_ doing this.)

Dream on. There will be no united Europe. And the economic influence will continue to decline along with its military capability. What Europe really wants to do is have the US continue to shoulder the defense burden, but be able to control our behavior and do their bidding. They would like US foreign policy and military actions to become more under the control of international and multilateral organizations like the UN and NATO, which would give them more leverage on our actions. In their eyes, we are the Gulliver that needs to be tied down by the Lilliputians.

My point is that whatever the fate of the EU in the latter half of this century, for many decades to come they represent a massive population (2.5 times our own) and a massive economy (no other economic entity comes close to ours at exchange rates, which are what matters in the end, except that of the EU and its economy is larger) with a decidedly and active counter-American strategy. It’s not something we can dismiss so easily.

2.5 times our own? That equates to 750 million people. You are including far more in your calculations than what is normally considered to be Europe. I think you also grossly overestimate the ability of "Europe" to act in concert. As long as Europe maintains similar values and supports democratic institutions, we will be friends and sometimes partners in various areas. The decline of Europe is not anything we should welcome. Unfortunately, it is a sad reality.