Posted on 04/14/2008 4:30:19 AM PDT by Renfield
Europeans have been hyperventilating over their self-perceived “victories” vis-à-vis the United States at the recent NATO Summit in Romania from April 2-4. “France and Germany Thwart Bush’s Plans,” ran a triumphant headline in the Hamburg-based Der Spiegel. “Europe Waits Out the Bush Administration,” read another. “Only One Lame Duck Here” said the London-based Guardian in commentary that waxes giddy about Russia’s growing stranglehold over Europe. “NATO Should Disappear” said the Madrid-based El Pais.
But behind the spin, the 26-member NATO Summit (arguably the most important such gathering since the end of the Cold War) exposed a security-dependent Europe that is divided, weak, and fickle above all else.
Consider Spain, for example, where newly re-elected Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was far less concerned about Spanish (or European) security than about getting some one-on-one face-time with US President George W Bush. Zapatero, a self-proclaimed feminist pacifist who is arguably the most anti-American leader in Europe today, is (unsurprisingly) one of the only such Europeans never to have been invited to the White House.
But in the Byzantine logic of Spanish politics, that elusive visit to the Oval Office (to see an American president who is broadly despised by most Spaniards) also happens to be the main litmus test by which Spaniards will judge whether Zapatero gets promoted from provincial politician to international “statesman” during his second term.
Thus Zapatero’s permanent non-relationship with the most powerful leader in the free world has become something of a media obsession in Spain, with the issue generating many miles of ink in national newspapers.
Imagine, then, the internecine recriminations when Zapatero’s much-vaunted “mini-summit” with Bush lasted all of about three seconds…just enough for Bush to shout three words (which brings to a grand total of 18 words the two leaders have exchanged during the last four years) that appeared in newspaper headlines all across Spain: “Hola, Hola, Felicidades.” (”Hello, Hello, Congratulations,” referring to Zapatero’s re-election.)
Zapatero then took to the podium and tried to persuade bemused members of the Alliance… to merge NATO with the United Nations! And, just for good measure, the prime minister also announced that Spain would not be sending more troops to Afghanistan, with or without the UN.
Not surprising, then, that Zapatero was captured in a politically devastating Summit photograph sitting in isolation, while the rest of the leaders present were huddled around Bush at the other end of the conference hall. The picture, which made the front page of every newspaper in Spain, opened up yet another pained debate about Spain’s declining influence in the world since Zapatero took office.
Then take Greece. It refused to allow Macedonia to join NATO because Greece wants its northern neighbor to change its name, which Greeks say jeopardizes their claim as the only the rightful descendants of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC).
The controversy erupted in 1991, when the former Yugoslav republic declared its independence from Belgrade and took the name Republic of Macedonia. Although more than 120 countries have now recognized the Republic of Macedonia under its current name, Greece says the name proves that Macedonia harbors implicit territorial claims on the northern Greek region also known as Macedonia. Never mind that by joining NATO, Macedonia would provide Greece with much-needed stability on its northern border.
Then consider Germany and France, arguably the greatest free-riding beneficiaries of American security since World War II. At the Bucharest Summit, they (together with Spain) refused to extend NATO Membership Action Plans to Georgia and Ukraine because they were afraid of provoking Russia, thanks to Europe’s growing dependence on Russian energy.
Germany, for example, already imports 35 percent of its oil and 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia, more than any country in Western Europe. The problem of energy dependency is being exacerbated by leftwing energy policies that are phasing out the country’s production of nuclear energy in favor of increased reliance on fossil fuels. Indeed, Germany’s (and Europe’s) dependence on Russian energy imports may reach 70 percent by 2020, which (if current German behavior is any gauge) will give Russia a de facto veto over decisions on German (and European) security.
Europeans, in any case, know that keeping Georgia and Ukraine out of NATO will not appease Russia for very long. Indeed, the Germans appear to be looking for a face-saving way out of Europe’s long-term geo-strategic dilemma. On March 4, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier gave a speech titled “Towards a European Ostpolitik” in which he suggests that Europe’s future lies in staking out a position mid-way between the United States and Russia. Say what?
Well, if Germany insists on turning Europe into a province of Russian, then debates over the future of NATO will be moot anyhow.
In France, meanwhile, the government on April 8 faced down a vote of no confidence, as leftists accused French President Nicolas Sarkozy of a dangerous “Atlanticist drift” that risked turning France into Bush’s poodle. Socialist leader François Hollande said Sarkozy decided to send 700 French troops to Afghanistan “under pressure from the Americans” and that France risked losing its independence on the world stage.
With allies like these, expect trouble ahead for transatlantic relations, regardless of who occupies the White House next January.
Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_armed_forces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Royal_Navy
British Army changes:
Future Army Structure
The future regimental structure of the British Army, after changes were outlined in the review was announced in December 2004. Significant changes included:
* Conversion of an armoured regiment to formation reconnaissance
* All single-battalion infantry regiments to be merged into existing or new regiments. This measure met with strong opposition, especially in Scotland, amongst former soldiers and nationalist groups. It was however generally accepted by serving soldiers as a necessary step to improve their conditions of service and the general efficiency of the army.
* Conversion of 4th Armoured Brigade to a mechanised brigade
* Conversion of 19 Mechanised Brigade to a light brigade (19 Light Brigade).
* Conversion of a single battalion of the Parachute Regiment to a tri-service specialist special forces support battalion (see Special Forces Support Group)
* Reorganisation of the Territorial Army infantry into 14 battalions that are attached to regular infantry regiments of the British Army.
* Reduction in number of British infantry battalions from 40 to 36.
* Reduction in number and size of regular military bands in the Corps of Army Music.
* Reduction in numbers of Army Air Corps helicopters based in Northern Ireland.
* Creation of the Defence HUMINT Unit (see Special Reconnaissance Regiment)
* Creation of a new commando engineer regiment.
* Creation of a new signals regiment.
European Ostpolitik” in which he suggests that Europe’s future lies in staking out a position mid-way between the United States and Russia.
How you equate that with a slam of Europe's involvment in Afghanistan etc. is bewildering. But since I apparently struck nerve, allow me to add that Europe cannot have it both ways as Steimmeier's fantasy would portray.
Europe can stand up (even straighter in many cases) dig in and fight the hard fight to maintain it's freedoms or it can bend on knee to The Russian Bear.
This idea of navigating the waters mid-way between sounds like the Old Europe of Chirac, Oil for Food, Zapatero's capitualation and Gerhardt Schroeder's Bush derangement syndrome.
Europe would do well to look to leaders who won't follow such paths of duplicity, appeasement and fecklessness. As for Europe's efforts in the WOT, as far as they go, Good always appreciates any and all help.
Oh, and BTW, I meant to add that I tend to largely separate Britain from my criticisms of continental Europe and their behavior in global affairs. The Brits are much more reliable allies than their Euro counterparts. So are the Aussies.
Neither the fighting nor the bending on the knees will happen. The thing is that we Europeans do not have any interest in a bad relationship with Russia. The combination between western European industrial know-how and Russian resources is the future in Eurasia. This is big big business and far more important than some cheap ego boost. Confrontations will simply not pay out.
BTW - the contemporary system in Russia might be not exactly "free", but it is far better than anything that happened there in the past. Through exchange with the (only relatively) free countries of western Europe the Russian political realities will change in the future to the better. Americans probably do not realize it, but the Russians are moving towards Europe in many aspects. To give you a example: Russia abolished capital punishment since it is not accepted within Europe and Europeans anymore.
There are any things I admire about the English, mostly of the last two centuries.
However, your anti-American strain has been rampant since before WWII. Maybe you should look to that, get over losing your empire and recognize that what you call xenophobia is still called Nationalism in some places, and it is not a dirty word. It can come in handy if you are trying to protect your country or your cultural heritage.
No one that I know of “sneers” at the British that are fighting anywhere.
My Afghanistan comment was to AB, so I cannot be held responsible for getting upset at a comment to another bloke.
In a nuclear world there are certainties that have to be obeyed. Each nuclear power has the ability to essentially end the world for all intents and purposes, certainly the parts of it that matter on an economic and political scale. The Russians are as reliant on our business and politics as many parts of Europe are on her Gas and Oil. There are two nuclear powers in Europe, and what point is there from a Russian standpoint of owning the world if there is nothing left of Russia to run it from?
I am confident in Europes ability to drive a new path for the world. Not in a military perspective, which is where our social and political societies differ from your militaristic one, but by leading by example. Supra-nationalism is in its infancy, and time will tell how successful it can be. One thing is for sure, it is vital to the development of the species that we chuck out national rivalries, as the Europeans have done in the past 60-odd years. I can see a North American Union between the US, Canada and Mexico. A Southern American Union. We have African and European Unions. We will have an Arabic Union. We will have a Pan-Pacific Union.
I have lived on both sides of the pond, all over the place. I am English, British and European. When you slander France and Germany, you do the same to the British as well. This isn’t to say we cant be friends, but the US must realise the world is changing and you are in danger of becoming a last vestige of a bygone era.
It might be difficult for America to find anybody else that is as close to them as we Europeans are. At least our cousins across the big pond are somehow a side line of our culture.
(I am aware that I needle things up)
;)
Nevertheless it is true that there is a growing gap between our societies and our values. Fighting against terrorism in a reasonable ratio i.e. is something that is understood within the European majorities while preemptive strikes because of some WMDs that can not be not found later are not.
The Americans are trying to find ‘friends’ that are loyal to a fault, and can be made to do their bidding in the allies region. Think Britain in Europe, Ukraine and other Eastern Bloc countries further East. They use Taiwan in a similar way, to bait the Chinese, and the South Koreans too.
They are all unequal partnerships of course. In time, with allies moving to pastures new, the US will find itself with new friends, but friends who will see the US as being a resource to use.
They will have plenty of yes-men, running their own pseudo-democratic regimes while American turns a blind eye to the crimes they commit in the local arena. Then the US will realise that what they needed were allies to guide them, to disagree, to negotiate, to speak to them on an equal footing. Europe can provide that, but I dont think the other side of the pond wants to hear.
As a terribly young nation, the US just isn’t grown up enough in itself to make the right moves. So power will shift East, towards Russia, towards China, towards Japan.
As for the WMD’s, well, in deference to where this is going, I’ll just leave it with a nod and a wink ;)
Interesting hearing your thoughts AB, I hope to come across you on other threads.
Nationalism is a step on the path to totalitarianism, we Europeans know this at our cost. 100 million of our people lost their lives in wars that were brought about from Nationalism.
You are xenophobic, not by design, but over the time being isolated, in a geographical sense, from the world. We in the UK suffer/ed a similar fate, with an island mentality bringing us to the brink. Nationalism requires its people to want more for themselves, such as wealth, power, basic stuff that signals itself out as being better than that of its neighbours. When it reaches a large enough population or power, the country convulses and the ruler knows he/she must break out of the national boundaries to occupy new lands and ‘prove’ their merit. You are correct that it can protect country and heritage, but it cant add anything new to it. It isn’t a dirty word, but its not a very advanced one either. You cant develop as a nation until nationalism is replaced by a diplomatic/alternative method of discourse.
Think the Napoleonic Wars and the nationalism rampant through Europe at the time. Mussolini used nationalism. As did Franco. As did Hitler. As did Churchill is a more positive light, and De Gaulle too. Fact is once its there, it stagnates, and doesn’t evolve into anything useful. Japan used it in the Pacific, and look at the results. China with the Cultural Revolution. Lenin. Stalin. All engendered a sense of self worth in their respective peoples and convinced them of manifest destiny to win.
Well good. I take it Europe won’t ask us to come over and rescue them from hostile takeovers again. We’ll just wave bye-bye as you willingly march your socialist march toward communism and self annihilation.
Oh, and do be careful who you trust in this world, as history and reputation do matter.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.
So Europe...after intiating and dragging the US into TWO World Wars, is what America needs to to guide them, to disagree, to negotiate, to speak to them on an equal footing. Give me a break and spare me your European elitism. You sound like you have a jones for the UN, LOL!
As for your comment regarding WND's I guess you are finger-pointing just as strongly at French, British and Israeli intel that supposedly got it wrong.
Meanwhile, not a word from you on the possibility they were removed while Bush was dancing his unwise dance at the UN trying to get primarily Europe's approval.
You must be relieved Tony Blair has left office, no? You sure you're on the right forum? LOL!
Seriously I tend to judge people anymore by whether I'd want them in my foxhole. Some people I'd want for their fighting spirit, others for their clearheaded insight, others for their (yes) ability to negotiate.
Rikstir, based on what I've seen of you on this thread consider yourself to not be amongst those I'd want.
Hey man, thats fine, you dont have to like my argument, but giving it the time of day would be nice. I dont think you were dragged into two world wars, rather I would hope that you acted as we Brits did after 911 and 2003 and move in solidarity with our allies. You seem to view the 2 years you did in WW1 (out of 4) and the 4 years in WW2 (out of 6) as a chore to do???? I’m frankly amazed at this point of view, were you boys not happy to be able to assist us in our hour of need? Should I read more into the delayed entry into both wars , the shoddy equipment sold to us at above market rates etc? Come now, we are allies yes?
As for your allies, you seem to suggest that a balanced relationship, much as a relationship between man and woman, isnt what the US wants. That is to suggest you want exactly the opposite, lick-spittle cronies who will say yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir. My perspective isn’t European Elitism, for that would mean that Europe deals with the US in an unbalanced manner. I’m not better than the you, just differently informed in certain areas. I’m your equal, in all respects. You are exhibiting elitism precisely because you dont think that allies can be your equals. You cant break this logic mate, cos its all basic stuff.
I wont comment on US intel vis a vis Iraq, but we Brits were led a merry dance by our government who even had the gall to use an undergraduate level essay as foreign policy material and evidence. By that mark, I’m more qualified that the government that we elected to run the country. If the weapons were removed, then they somehow got past Op southern watch. Besides, there are many other nations guilty of illegally owning non conventional weapons. India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Iran etc... There is just as much reason to attack them as Iraq right, if not more so, because in taking down the old Baathist regime we gave free reign to the nation we least wanted to become to regional superpower in the middle east, namely, Iran.? So then, there was another motive to hand.
Dont mock me sir, I’m on a forum where I used to be able to articulate arguments and enjoy a healthy debate concerning politics, economics and other social issues. Why is it then, in these last few months, that people like yourself keep popping up? You act almost like political/propaganda officers of the Soviet Army, patrolling the threads, looking for something juicy to suck your teeth into. If its got ‘Europe, British’ or any other Euro topic, then sure as spit I’m going to find trolls hawking their baulls to all and sundry.
Prairiebreeze, based on what I have read on this thread, I can place a bet on you not wanting to holiday over here in this cesspit then? If I had to share a foxhole with you at any point, I would be certain that you wouldn’t last a minute sunshine.
“French, British and Israeli intel that supposedly got it wrong.”
Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!! ‘Supposedly’!!!!!!
Ahahahahaaaa!
Cheers for the joke man!
“You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”
The thought never occurred to me. Thanks for the suggestion but I’m not into dressing up girly-time, much less dressing up random porcines I find on my travels.
Still mate, whatever floats your boat. ;)
They won't be doing any marching prairiebreeze. They'll be too busy praying 5 times a day in the direction of Mecca. Such a shame, too. I'll miss my occasional bottle of Mosel Spatlese or Auslese. I grew very fond of Mosel wine during the 3 years I lived in Traben-Trarbach.
Dont think you’re saying anything new here mate, cos you aint. Its the same boring, useless propaganda that has seemingly got into all of you. Also, why make a comment directly to your mate, but include us as recipients too? Unless, you wanted us to read your post, get pissed off, and retaliate????
I miss, already in the past tense, having a sensible conservation here on FR. See I’m already speaking the past tense, its already happened. The dumbing down of FR!
Why do you children play the same card time and time again? ‘You’ll be facing Mecca etc...’
Give it a fluking break boyo! GET. YOUR. OWN. OPINIONS...IF. YOU. CAN’T. PLEASE. PRESS. THREE...
The basic difference between Americans and Europeans is evident here. You are incorrect in your assumption that our sense of Nationalism, which we know as Americanism stems from a basis of isolation. American isolationism, which was a passing tenant of what we knew as Populism in a sense, ended with the beginning of WWII.
Your “island mentality” is what basically saved your country in the late 30’s and early 40’s. It is what gave you your ability to hold a pride in your rich history, culture and heritage. I doubt very much that at this time, your people have much faith in faith, much faith in heritage or any appreciation of your cultural history. I doubt very much that given those circumstances that your people would fight to save any of what they have been taught, as you illustrate here, is not a positive approach, but one of sundry appeasement.
You see, although we speak and write the same language, Americans, even the weakest of us have a sense of who we are, what we have done. As was once famously said, we
are slow to anger, but once angered will assert ourselves as our pride dictates.
A democratic Republic does not stagnate. While we have our warts, the United States of America is still the best idea that anyone ever had. We have done more, freed more people, generated more economic engines, given more to the world than any country on Earth to date. Certainly, part of what we are is who we were. We were Englishmen and women, for the most part who came from a country that brought civilization to 1/3 of the world. Learned behavior that civilization, which came from a proud people who knew who they were. Who are they now?
Regards,
AR
...And the best of what was left emigrated.
I wouldn’t worry too much about what you read here concerning the average American’s view of Europe. If you speak with average American citizens you will quickly see that the great majority of us do not hold Europe in contempt as you see here.
Those of us who have spent time in Europe know (or should know) that most of the hyperventilating and hysterical assertions made here about Europe, as a whole, is comical in its stupidity. Most of those who haven’t been there view Europe as the place of their ancestoral roots and where they would like to go on a dream vacation. That leaves us with the minority who immediately start in with the exaggerations, misinformation, and general bloviating whenever the topic of Europe is brought up.
Not to take away from my sentiments in my last post, but what you say here is absolutely ridiculous.
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.