Article. The west's blurred vision

[Stuart Mackey]

The West's blurred vision

Paul Kelly
March 08, 2003

EUROPEANS and Americans no longer share a common view of the world. This thesis of US writer Robert Kagan seems to be right. The Franco-US dispute transcends Iraq and mirrors different conceptions of the 21st-century world.

The most influential article in the US and Europe this past year was Brussels-based Kagan's 2002 warning (in Prospect magazine) that Americans and Europeans belong to different worlds, that "Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus".

Kagan's prophetic article (now published as a book), written before the UN Security Council crisis, argues that "on the all-important question of power – the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power – American and European perspectives are diverging".

French President Jacques Chirac takes as his text the rejection of military force to disarm Iraq – the exact solution George W. Bush proposes. At his media conference yesterday, Bush signalled he would confront the Franco-German-Russian axis over Iraq: the US will demand a vote over the new resolution.

Europe must buckle or take a historic stand to deny the legitimacy of US military action and possibly signal the end of the Western alliance.

This crisis recalls a 1993 Foreign Affairs article by Australia's Owen Harries that predicted the collapse of the West. He argued that the Western strategic alliance, only 50 years old, was a product of the Cold War, which imposed a unity upon Western states that had usually disagreed with each other. With the common enemy gone, it was "extremely doubtful" whether the alliance would survive.

Harries said the idea of the West as an entity was "wrong in itself". It confused a common civilisation with a common political unity. History showed the concept of a "political West" was attractive to Europe only when Europe was in danger. The West was linked in Europe's mind with subordination, an unacceptable fate for proud peoples.

Kagan writes: "It is time to stop pretending that Americans and Europeans share a common view of the world. Europe is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and co-operation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and prosperity, the realisation of Kant's 'perpetual peace'. The US, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defence and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might. This state of affairs is not transitory, the product of one election or one catastrophic event. The US and Europe have parted ways."

Despite US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's cut-through "old and new" Europe line, the philosophy of the Franco-German axis on which the European Union is built is not likely to dissipate. Yes, the EU contains different views and will incorporate more nations – yet new nations may also be absorbed into the prevailing EU ideology. Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder have gone beyond opposing Bush's Iraq policy: they have become popular heroes stoking anti-Americanism at home.

In Europe the Bush administration is depicted as a disreputable caricature that still believes in good vs evil, a righteous Christian God worshipped by a President who prays, the power of the nation-state, solutions not process, war in the national interest, battlefield death for a just cause and a market-based liberal order.

The insults are returned. Oxford University's Timothy Garton Ash describes (New York Review of Books, February 13) the corresponding anti-European stereotype in the US: "Europeans are wimps. They are weak, petulant, hypocritical, disunited, duplicitous, sometimes anti-Semitic and often anti-American appeasers. Their values and their spines have dissolved in a lukewarm bath of multilateral, transnational, secular and postmodern fudge."

In a recent Washington Post article Kagan laments the descent of the European mind: "In London where Tony Blair has to go to work every day, one finds Britain's finest minds propounding in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the 'neoconservative' (read: Jewish) hijacking of US foreign policy. In Paris all the talk is of oil and 'imperialism' (and Jews)."

He concludes that "in Europe this paranoid, conspirational anti-Americanism is not a far Left or far-Right phenomenon – it's the mainstream view. When Schroder campaigns on an anti-American platform, he's talking to the man and woman on the street."

Kagan's thesis is compelling, over-drawn yet defective. He puts too much emphasis on military force, attributing the split to US strength and EU weakness. He argues that the US propensity to use its military power is matched by Europe's aversion to military force. As a result Europe wants to construct a world where it can "multilateralise" US military power to the point of delegitimising that power.

Enter Iraq.

What is the Chirac-Schroder objective? They have split the alliance, alienated Bush and threatened the utility of the UN to save Saddam Hussein and let him keep his weapons. Where is the logic? It lies in their assertion of a European moral and strategic position. They have the ability to discredit the US attack, provoke global protests against Bush, increase their own popularity and even destroy pro-Bush leaders such as Blair.

Yet there is a bigger message at the heart of their aims: they will have denied moral legitimacy to the US attack – and this act of pre-emption desperately needs such legitimacy. They will have shown the US that Europe's soft power of rules and process and regulations is a weapon against the US's hard power, a more potent weapon that Kagan grasps.

They will also send a strategic message. Within the Harries framework it is that Europe no longer feels threatened. The US may be at war after September 11, but Europe is not. And because Europe feels no threat, it has far less strategic need to maintain the Western alliance when the US adopts a new brand of military assertion.

But it doesn't stop here. The US-EU split reflects a conflict over the best way to organise the international system. This is the coming global debate.

It is a debate with great consequences for Australia; a conflict between the EU philosophy of imposed transnational rules based on Europe's values and the US belief in an order of liberal-democratic nation-states each realising an individual destiny.

[Mr Bean]

France and German Does not the EU

Despite how much they want that to be true

[Edi]

Neither do Britain and Spain control the EU, and in case you haven't noticed, the public there is also opposed to the war despite the actions of the governments. Spain will likely have a new government come next election time if the war goes forward, and Britain is only supporting you because Blair has the opposition backing him. There is right now no common EU foreign policy.

Face it, that article is pretty accurate.

Edi

[Mr Bean]

Ok Admended Statment


Germany, France, Britian, Spain, Do not the EU make

Their are other EU countrys out their folks and of the ones out thier opposed to War are three

France, Germany, And Belgium


Those For war we have quite a few
Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Spain, Portugal, Italy, U.K., Hungary, Poland and Denmark, And The Czech repulbic

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Neither do Britain and Spain control the EU, and in case you haven't noticed, the public there is also opposed to the war despite the actions of the governments. Spain will likely have a new government come next election time if the war goes forward, and Britain is only supporting you because Blair has the opposition backing him. There is right now no common EU foreign policy.

Face it, that article is pretty accurate.

Edi

What's wrong with Hobbes? For his era he had a pretty good view of the world. For that matter, so did Thucydides. People have made rather the great game out of tearing holes into Kagan.

Both Spain and Britain are certainly more conservative than the rest of western Europe, and I wouldn't bet that Anzar is ousted just because of the war. Especially with the uncertain situation in Morocco - And, besides, everyone likes a winner (especially in Spain), so it more depends on the outcome than the simple act.

As for Blair - His position is not as insecure as it's been made to sound. If Old Labour throws a fit over going it alone, he doesn't need them to remain Prime Minister. New Labour and the "in it for power" types clinging to the Labour party together provide a majority a sufficient majority that Old Labour bolting will just see the death of a serious Left party in the UK, and the death of their more extreme policies. Blair would have to play the internal politicking in the House of Commons just so to do this, but he's obviously good at it and rules in the British Parliament are weird enough that more bizzare things have happened in history.

[Dahak]

What's wrong with Hobbes? For his era he had a pretty good view of the world. For that matter, so did Thucydides. People have made rather the great game out of tearing holes into Kagan.

Both Spain and Britain are certainly more conservative than the rest of western Europe, and I wouldn't bet that Anzar is ousted just because of the war. Especially with the uncertain situation in Morocco - And, besides, everyone likes a winner (especially in Spain), so it more depends on the outcome than the simple act.

Aznar is acting that way because he already decided not to run another time as Prime minister.

As for Blair - His position is not as insecure as it's been made to sound. If Old Labour throws a fit over going it alone, he doesn't need them to remain Prime Minister. New Labour and the "in it for power" types clinging to the Labour party together provide a majority a sufficient majority that Old Labour bolting will just see the death of a serious Left party in the UK, and the death of their more extreme policies. Blair would have to play the internal politicking in the House of Commons just so to do this, but he's obviously good at it and rules in the British Parliament are weird enough that more bizzare things have happened in history.

Blair's position is getting extremely insecure.
The first member of gis government already quit, and at least one minister openly said she'll step down if there'll be a war without UN resolution.

And as a side note: Labour lost some 40,000 party members in recent times due to Blair's rigid position...

[RedImperator]

And as a side note: Labour lost some 40,000 party members in recent times due to Blair's rigid position...

40,000 party members who oppose him quit and that weakens him? Who's going to challenge Blair in England? Old Labor doesn't command enough votes to take over, and from the perspective of those who'd oust Blair, the Tories are even worse. The Third Way technocrats are running the country, and they support him.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

So, old Europe trusts international organisations and treaties to keep the peace, and America trusts brute force and economic force.

Stupid asses! A contract is only as good as the honor of the signators, or the power of enforcement.
How much honor does ANY ruthless man have?
Only strength will keep you free, as demonstrated by ALL written history.
Hasn't any of these idiots ever been cheated?
If so what did they do?
They sued, or sucked it up, and moved on.

Note to the stupid. There is no international court of law. It's very exsistance would presuppose some outside stronger force.

There is a reason they call police "law enFORCEment"
Without brute force, the good are at the mercy of the evil, and we KNOW how merciful dictators are!
Laws are MEANINGLESS without police, and treaties are worthless without millitary backup!

Once again, you have to go to school and LEARN to be so stupid, as it sis not in your nature. All school children know the supremicy of brute force, as the bully only loses when faced with the teacher, (superior force) or an other child willing to fight.(brute force)
When is this knowledge lost?

[Darth Wong]

At the risk of getting in the way of all this lovely Europe-bashing, the reason is obvious: Europe still remembers the horror of total war, quite vividly. America does not. While an outright refusal to use military force under any circumstances is excessive (indeed, the UN did vote for the first Gulf War), it is quite understandable that Europe would have a stronger aversion to war than the US does. In the US, much of their national pride is still based on their exploits during WW2, and it is even widely believed that wars are good for the economy.

[Joe]

At the risk of getting in the way of all this lovely Europe-bashing, the reason is obvious: Europe still remembers the horror of total war, quite vividly. America does not. While an outright refusal to use military force under any circumstances is excessive (indeed, the UN did vote for the first Gulf War), it is quite understandable that Europe would have a stronger aversion to war than the US does. In the US, much of their national pride is still based on their exploits during WW2, and it is even widely believed that wars are good for the economy.

Most economists have thrown that outdated idea out the window, fortunately.

[Enforcer Talen]

and therefore. . . we need a really good world war, so everyone remembers. every inch, a warzone.

Im not entirely sure if Im serious or not.

[Stormbringer]

it is quite understandable that Europe would have a stronger aversion to war than the US does.

I think that's some of it but hardly the main issues. European powers have gotten into any number of bloody little wars since then. Not to mention a lot of their politicions are coming from the post-rebuilding generation.

I think it has more to do with the leftward slant of Europe and the fact that several countries have crawled into bed with Saddam and want to protect their interest no matter what.

In the US, much of their national pride is still based on their exploits during WW2

We do. But just as prominent is Vietnam, and we still have a lot more Vietnam vets around.

The real deal in America is our leadership has decidely (rightly in my opinion) that Iraq is a threat that has been left alone to long and will only get worse. So they've decided that something permanent and desicive be done.

[Stuart Mackey]

Neither do Britain and Spain control the EU, and in case you haven't noticed, the public there is also opposed to the war despite the actions of the governments. Spain will likely have a new government come next election time if the war goes forward, and Britain is only supporting you because Blair has the opposition backing him. There is right now no common EU foreign policy.

Face it, that article is pretty accurate.

Edi

snip
As for Blair - His position is not as insecure as it's been made to sound. If Old Labour throws a fit over going it alone, he doesn't need them to remain Prime Minister. New Labour and the "in it for power" types clinging to the Labour party together provide a majority a sufficient majority that Old Labour bolting will just see the death of a serious Left party in the UK, and the death of their more extreme policies. Blair would have to play the internal politicking in the House of Commons just so to do this, but he's obviously good at it and rules in the British Parliament are weird enough that more bizzare things have happened in history.

Ahh, Marina, if Blair does not have the support of the majority of the house or his party he will no longer be able to command the votes to continue the government, as his position as leader of the labour party will be in doubt. This is especially true if the Torys go for a no confidence vote.

[Dahak]

So, old Europe trusts international organisations and treaties to keep the peace, and America trusts brute force and economic force.

Stupid asses! A contract is only as good as the honor of the signators, or the power of enforcement.
How much honor does ANY ruthless man have?
Only strength will keep you free, as demonstrated by ALL written history.
Hasn't any of these idiots ever been cheated?
If so what did they do?
They sued, or sucked it up, and moved on.

Note to the stupid. There is no international court of law. It's very exsistance would presuppose some outside stronger force.

There is a reason they call police "law enFORCEment"
Without brute force, the good are at the mercy of the evil, and we KNOW how merciful dictators are!
Laws are MEANINGLESS without police, and treaties are worthless without millitary backup!

Once again, you have to go to school and LEARN to be so stupid, as it sis not in your nature. All school children know the supremicy of brute force, as the bully only loses when faced with the teacher, (superior force) or an other child willing to fight.(brute force)
When is this knowledge lost?

You, my dear friend, are an idiot.
And you also have no grasp of the European mind.
I rather live in this Europe, than to fall back into the petty power politics of the 19th century.
The EU is fairly stable, with some hick-ups here and there.

Unfortunately for your limited world view, we do believe that the Right of Force is not a right at all. As a constitutional state, law is placed above that. And that is good.

And as Darth Wong pointed out, it certainly does something to your view on wars and view on politics if you had fought as many wars on your ground aswe have.

[Sea Skimmer]

At the risk of getting in the way of all this lovely Europe-bashing, the reason is obvious: Europe still remembers the horror of total war, quite vividly. America does not. While an outright refusal to use military force under any circumstances is excessive (indeed, the UN did vote for the first Gulf War), it is quite understandable that Europe would have a stronger aversion to war than the US does. In the US, much of their national pride is still based on their exploits during WW2, and it is even widely believed that wars are good for the economy.

However, many of the nations in Europe which support a war with Iraq are those which have suffered most recently until oppression, in addition to being devastated by war. Most of Germany and all of France suffered massively under the Nazi's and WW2. But Spain had its fascists dictator into the 1970's, and its only been 14 years since communism fell in Eastern Europe.

[Colonel Olrik]

snip

We are strong enough that anyone who seriously messes with us would meet his end in nuclear hellfire.

Also, no one but the U.S is strong enough to pass our conventional defense army (and if that happens, MAD).

What we lack is the power to play bully in the other side of the World.

We trust diplomacy on dealing with that.

Very different from what you decribe.

[Dahak]

However, many of the nations in Europe which support a war with Iraq are those which have suffered most recently until oppression, in addition to being devastated by war. Most of Germany and all of France suffered massively under the Nazi's and WW2. But Spain had its fascists dictator into the 1970's, and its only been 14 years since communism fell in Eastern Europe.

Only those governments support it. The populace does not.

[Darth Servo]

In the US, much of their national pride is still based on their exploits during WW2, and it is even widely believed that wars are good for the economy.

Most economists have thrown that outdated idea out the window, fortunately.

Good. While WW2 did pull us out of the Great Depression, I can't believe that so many lay people still make the hasty generalization that any war will help any economy.

[Sir Sirius]

Ok Admended Statment

Germany, France, Britian, Spain, Do not the EU make

Their are other EU countrys out their folks and of the ones out thier opposed to War are three

France, Germany, And Belgium

Those For war we have quite a few
Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Spain, Portugal, Italy, U.K., Hungary, Poland and Denmark, And The Czech repulbic

Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic are not members of the EU.
On that list there are only five EU member nations; Spain, Portugal, Italy, U.K and Denmark. And if I am not mistaken majority of the people in most of those countries are opposed to the war.

[TrailerParkJawa]

In the US, much of their national pride is still based on their exploits during WW2, and it is even widely believed that wars are good for the economy.

Most economists have thrown that outdated idea out the window, fortunately.

Good. While WW2 did pull us out of the Great Depression, I can't believe that so many lay people still make the hasty generalization that any war will help any economy.

I remember during the Gulf War most people believed a war would help with the sluggish economy. Its a very common belief, although this time I think people are more inclined to believe it hurts more than helps.

[salm]

Ok Admended Statment

Germany, France, Britian, Spain, Do not the EU make

Their are other EU countrys out their folks and of the ones out thier opposed to War are three

France, Germany, And Belgium

Those For war we have quite a few
Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Spain, Portugal, Italy, U.K., Hungary, Poland and Denmark, And The Czech repulbic

Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic are not members of the EU.
On that list there are only five EU member nations; Spain, Portugal, Italy, U.K and Denmark. And if I am not mistaken majority of the people in most of those countries are opposed to the war.

arch, thank you. damn, why did it take 14 posts until someone noticed?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Yo, Dahak.

You misunderstand, or can't grasp this, because of your world view.

Force IS the final arbiter of ALL disputes. Like it or not.
When in history has this NOT been so?
Moral, ideal, ond real, do not always coincide.

I also think it's telling that you think, that by disagreeing with a demonstrated fact, you feel smarter, better, or "more advanced" in your thinking.
Keep saying that, when a criminal comes to your door, intending to do you harm.
You will feel smarter, and more enlighted, but poorer, or dead!

You have police where you come from, right? Law enFORCEment?
Why?
Youhave an army don't you?
Why?
When you can correctly answer these questions HONESTLY, ask your self, just how advanced is the human race?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

And just how long would a "newer more 'advanced'(pacifist) race last competing head to head with us "primative brutes"?

Last point, are you "advanced" enough to ignore your sex drive?
The urge to fight is just as basic, and innate, as the urge to sex.
Food, Fucking, and Fighting are the big three motivatores in ALL lifeforms!
But you are more advanced.
Show your courage, and don't lock your front door at night.

[Edi]

Show your courage, and don't lock your front door at night.

While this might be a surprise for you, there are people here who don't lock their front door at night. It's very common in the countryside and relatively common even in suburbs, but naturally not in apartment block houses. I imagine that the same is true of many other places in Europe too.

In general, I don't disagree with you about the necessity of having a capability for defense by brute force, but I do disagree with your assertion that force and only force is always the single deciding factor. This is not the case in every instance, though lack of force does often result in a disadvantageous position even when things are not resolved through the application or threat of force.

Edi

[Dahak]

I can honestly say that I feel ways superior to you and your "world view". I actually pity you...

If you feel like force is the greatest of all, then go to some country were this still may be true, like Afghanistan, or Somalia. I prefer to live here, where the law is the ultimate force. Makes for a much safer living.

btw, it's only law enFORCEment in your language, it's not that way in others.

The police is there to observe the compliance to LAW, not to oppress people using your beloved force or somesuch.
Our army is per default only there to defend us in the now improbable case someone attacked us. It's strictly forbidden from using that force aggressively. Even says so in our constitution.