The resentments of old Europe

The Spectator (U.K.) ^ | 03/15/03 | William Hague

[danneskjold]

Americans are not warlike people, but they will now go after rogue states and terrorists because, if they don’t, no one else will.

The bottom line, plain and simple...

[danneskjold]

And who decides who is a "rogue state" and who is not? Do we, as the only superpower? Sounds strange to me, I have to admit.

Strange, maybe, but only because it hasn't been voiced this way before.

[aBootes]

They share with Britain, but not with other European powers, the distinction of leaving democracy and freedom in their wake wherever they can.

This article ought to be read and re-read all across America. And I might add that this line ought to be expanded to include the other English-speaking nations, which have, until the recent decline of Canada, been excellent partners.

[Trailerpark Badass]

And who decides who is a "rogue state" and who is not? Do we, as the only superpower?

No, we as a sovereign nation with the right of self-defense. If our war on rogue states that threaten our safety happens to make other nations safer as well, so much the better.

Whom do you think should decide? China? Iran? France?

[aBootes]

And who decides who is a "rogue state" and who is not?

Maybe it's like porno: you know a rogue state when you see one.

[ellery]

bttt

[McGavin999]

And who decides who is a "rogue state" and who is not? Do we, as the only superpower?

If someone is holding a gun to your head, who do you think you ought to consult to find out if he's a threat or not?

[An.American.Expatriate]

Be gone troll!

[Tomalak]

Well said. People who want to deny the obvious always revert to relativistic "Who decides?" style arguments, as if a rogue state can't exist independent of perceptions of its rogueishness. Invading multiple neighbours, developing WMDs and gassing your own people make you a rogue state even if no one else in the world sees it that way.

---

---

[XJarhead]

And who decides who is a "rogue state" and who is not? Do we, as the only superpower? Sounds strange to me, I have to admit.

Of course we rely on our own judgment. Whose judgment should we rely upon? Perhaps that of Zimbabwe, Iraq, and North Korea, and the other enlightened members of the U.N.?

Now we are going to be prosecutor, judge and hangman at the same time without anyone else having a say in this? This does contradict our constitution, if I remember the clear separation of Judiciary and Executive correctly from my government classes.

Did you flunk your high school government course or something? The article talked about what the U.S. should do as a nation. It said nothing about which branches or government should be involved on those decisions, and your reference to the "Judiciary" and "Executive" makes no sense. The U.S. Constitution says nothing about the substance of the foreign policy conducted by the U.S.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Well stated by Mr. Hague... One thing he neglects here, at least somewhat: It was also American determination, investment and might that won the Cold War in the face of great opposition by much of Europe, thanks to the enlightened leadership of Ronald Reagan. Yes, PM Thatcher certainly also deserves credit, but it was Reagan's leadership backed up by US investment in defense spending that broke the back of the Soviets and ended the spread and advance of Communism in Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa. How many people now live in relative freedom and budding (sometimes stumbling) democracies because of this victory? Again, this victory came despite the active opposition by much of Europe (Germany, France, etc. protesting the arms build-up that won the Cold War).

Now think of what has happened since the tumbling of the Berlin Wall and the victory in the Cold War: "Old Europe" has essentially dis-invested in its military entirely, relying almost completely on the US Defense shield. France and Germany depend on US leadership in Serbia-Kosovo to solve this regional problem (no strategic interest for the US other than better stability in Europe) which the UN ignored. Terrorists represent a threat throughout the civilized world and the worst attack ever hits US soil: Europe grieves for the USA for about 6 months but when it is time to confront the sympathizers and supporters of terrorism, they use every trick in the book to tie-down the US in their diplomatic charade of the UN.

At some point, Atlas (the US) is going to "shrug" and let the likes of France and Germany sink into the abyss that they seem to yearn for. I wonder if they will ever wake up in time to avoid that disaster.

[XJarhead]

And who decides who is a "rogue state" and who is not? Do we, as the only superpower? Sounds strange to me, I have to admit.

Of course we rely on our own judgment. Whose judgment should we rely upon? Perhaps that of Zimbabwe, Iraq, and North Korea, and the other enlightened members of the U.N.?

Now we are going to be prosecutor, judge and hangman at the same time without anyone else having a say in this? This does contradict our constitution, if I remember the clear separation of Judiciary and Executive correctly from my government classes.

Did you flunk your high school government course or something? The article talked about what the U.S. should do as a nation. It said nothing about which branches or government should be involved on those decisions, and your reference to the "Judiciary" and "Executive" makes no sense. The U.S. Constitution says nothing about the substance of the foreign policy conducted by the U.S.

[Prysson]

strangely put...but I have to agree with you.

Despite all the liberal whining in the world, issues such as this are not relative. A nation that funnels money to murdering thugs who target innocent civilians for the purpose of enabling just such activity is a rogue state.

A nation that creates nuclear weapons and then sells them on the black market to any interested party that comes along is a rogue state.

In short any nation dedicated to pursueing policies of blatent and undeniable evil are rogue states. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see it...though it might take a frenchmen to be blind to it.

[Mr. Thorne]

Not strange at all. It seems the logical extension of self defense.

Consider. We are the target of choice of any number of ill-meaning types. Why? Because of our friends and our culture.

We are a living refutation of the policies and cultures of most of those who despise us. We are a living 'I told you so.' It must be annoying to be, for example, France. Desiring power that they no longer merit by force of arms or philosophy. Will people fight and die for the French welfare state? Their most effective force is the Foreign Legion. Telling, is it not?

So. Here we stand. Under assault from all sides, with few friends and allies, and many detractors.

To move to the metaphor, we are the citizen on the block, threatened with mob violence. We turn to our neighbors, and to what we have been told is the lawful authority. We find them, for the most part, either doing business with the godfathers of that mob, or happily planning their own criminal enterprises.

Above this lawful authority, there is nothing. So. What must we do?

I must admit that I agree with the initial post, and with danneskjold. Will we decide who is a rogue state? Yes. Because, out of fear or prurient interest, NO ONE ELSE will do so.

And if they threaten us, well... they have been warned. If they don't believe the warning, so be it.

[Prysson]

I am more inclined to wonder if America is going to Shrug in time.

[danneskjold]

I think there very well may be some "shrugging" after the dust settles in Iraq...