BusinessWeek has joined the ranks of those in the US who are sulking because of international, particularly European, criticism, concern, laughter, and disbelief about both process and result of the US Presidential election. The magazine’s John Rossant is now beating back in this week’s issue, explaining that – even in today’s Europe – life’s not all beer and skittles.
Quite right.
While this realisation will neither be news for afoe readers nor for all people with even a modest interest in the world they live in, Mr Rossant’s rebuke comes with a Feldsteinian twist, citing Ulrike Gu?rot, a political scientist at the German Marshall Fund of the US and former head of the European Studies of German Council on Foreign Relations, who is allegedly getting scared that the EU could splinter.
Of course, in spite of Robert Kagan’s quip about the postmodern paradise on this side of the pond, that is – and will remain – a remote possibility. And we should never take the achievement for granted. But everyone having a laugh about the possibility of the EU breaking apart would do so at his own peril. Just as laughter is – I suppose unfortunately – quite an inappropriate reaction to the US election. This is no competition: there is no award for the most flawed and ineffective polity.
Europe’s problems – Mr Rossant mentions Turkey’s accession bid, the constitutional referenda, the Common Security and Foreign Policy, and the EP’s refusal to confirm the first Barroso commission, are not just beginning. Such have been the challenges of the European endeavor from its humble beginnings as a treaty about monitoring coal and steel production in the aftermath of world war two.
And despite the continued need to prove its value and viability as a democratic political construct, the last time I checked, the club was still growing…
Mmmm, beer and Skittles?.
I suppose it’s to be expected that someone writing from the US after such a contentious election would look elsewhere in the world and assume the same level of polarisation. Hopefully it’s a tendency that’ll die off after a few months.
“Europe?s problems – Mr Rossant mentions Turkey?s accession bid, the constitutional referenda, the Common Security and Foreign Policy, and the EP?s refusal to confirm the first Barroso commission”
Those are problems?
Yes, David, they are terrible problems. And they make the US look that much stronger and better, with the Re-Cornation of George the W Bush. His Bold Leadership against Islamofascist Sand Nazis and Insightful Economic Wisdom gained from His Christian Beliefs and Businessman experience is now freed to be rolled out across Our Great Land, now that the Evul Librul PC Draft-Dodging Demonocrats have been rsoundingly defeated by a Vast Majority of Right-Thinking Heartland GoodAmericans, and driven up into frozen exile in the Northern Desolation known as ‘Canada’.
And I’m only exagerrating a little.
That’s actually the way that they think.
Tobias:
Americans are “sulking” because of Euro attitudes to the US election? Ha! We’re reveling in it. This is the most fun we’ve had in a long time!
Your spin on the after-election mood is shaped by the fact that you read the reactions of the losing side: in other words, the minority of Americans, not the majority.
RSN,
how is
60,096,556 (B/C votes)
— = .295
203,864,860 (VEP)
a majority of the Voting Eligible Population???
So 7 out of 10 eligible people say either somebody else or none of the above and 3 out of 10 are a majority, explain please.
Thank You
Ah, another relativist argument. This one’s quite familiar, as some ninny on the losing side in any election will always bring it up: the logic that those who did not vote actually voted.
The problem with this logic is that it assumes that those who did not vote did so because they voted none-of-the-above. Yet this is impossible for anyone to know. For example, the reason somebody did not vote might be due to the fact that they assumed the winner would win anyway, and they didn’t have to go to the trouble of voting.
We simply do not know, but what we do know is that we have a winner who won by a majority of the votes.
RSN,
>Ha! We’re reveling in it. This is the most fun >we’ve had in a long time!
good for you then.
“example, the reason somebody did not vote might be due to the fact that they assumed the winner would win anyway, and they didn’t have to go to the trouble of voting.”
Are you going the count the imaginary votes?
Since that’s the criteria, then look at the turnout for CA and NY and tell me how many people did that?
Second, your arguing a moral case of leadership, 3 out 10 is pathetic. It’s not new, but it’s pathetic.
Third, I have always applied this to the idea that someone is the people’s representative, if you can’t get even half the people to vote for you in a winnner take all election system, how can you possible claim a moral leadership position. This applies to everyone and any system of representation.
Fourth, Look at the 1860 presedential election popular vote, Lincoln won because of the system (electoral). He wasn’t the great choice of the people.
Okay, first my disclaimer: We are all bastards.
Secondly, “either you are with us or you are against us”.
Thirdly, the EU falling apart maybe suits some elements in the US administration just fine. BTW, can anybody explain this latest unilateral move by the US?. I am sure it is all very innocent, but I would like to know. This reeks of some deeper significance.
All shrilness aside, I do agree with this quote:
“there is no award for the most flawed and ineffective polity.”
Link to uniteral move by US
Aaaargh! Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3981499.stm
Okay, you can flame me now.
Non Tibi Spiro, please just post the link with out html.
If Turkey wanting to join the EU is called a problem, what would Turkey not wanting to join the EU be called?
PS Can anybody find the “I’m scared” quote attributed to Ulrike? I’ve tried various search engines and can’t find it on the internet.
Michael D.,
I sent Ms Gu?rot an email asking her directly. She replied that she would have preferred “concerned” as opposed to “scared” because the latter could be construed as giving acadmic credibility to the idea of impending European doom.
So let me get this straight. One article get’s written in an American periodical citing alleged problems with EU governance and it draws an immediate response here on AFoE?
I believe, based on what appears to be the challenges ahead for the formation of the EU, that you may want to consider investing in thicker skin. If that’s not possible, perhaps you should consider moving out of your silica/sodium bicarbonate/calcium carbonate-based housing arrangements before casting your concretions of mineral matter?
After all, The Economist did focus it’s attention on real, if bland, issues instead of juicier topics such as how many European countries still have monarchs, or the fact that a certain European opponent of the Iraq operation acted “unilaterally” in the Ivory Coast this week.
I dunno,
I’m not sure a splintered EU would change the facts on the ground much.
What’s more surprising is that the idea of the U.S. splitting up has come out of nowhere, and instead of being dismissed out of hand, is being discussed in a bunch of places.
Of course, it’s not likely to happen unless the Texas Reds that control all three branches of government manage to do something really drastic like, oh say, bankrupt the Federal Government…
Non Tibiro:
“BTW, can anybody explain this latest unilateral move by the US?.” [US recognition of Macedonia’s name]. “I am sure it is all very innocent, but I would like to know. This reeks of some deeper significance.”
The deeper significance is that, as Greece is one of the most rabidly anti-American countries in Europe anyway, it simply did not hurt American interests at all to reward Macedonia with something that they’ve wanted from the US for some time.
Macedonia has been quite supportive of US policies; Greece, on the other hand, has been a shrill critic. It’s clear that as far as the US is concerned, Greek “friendship” can be dispensed with.
>One article get’s written in an American periodical >citing alleged problems with EU governance and it >draws an immediate response here on AFoE?
Felix. You know that blogging is not usually a strategic activity. I don’t think there will be a significant reaction to Mr Rossants article. It’s just that I read it, and I thought it was worth commenting and asking Ms Gu?rot about the quote. As simple as that. Nothing more, but also nothing less.
>or the fact that a certain European opponent of >the Iraq operation acted “unilaterally” in the >Ivory Coast this week.
Again, this is not a news website, but a blog that consists of items the authors have deemed important enough to devote some energy into writing something about it or comment on it. I’m paraphrasing instapundit.com here – a blog that works as a linkhub, as opossed to us – don’t rely on a blog as a one stop news source, as you will be disappointed.
As for the ivory coast, we all know that unilateralism is a bit of a stretchable concept…
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/11/06/ivorycoast.mobs/
“The U.N. Security Council, meeting in an emergency session Saturday, condemned the initial attack on French forces as a violation of a May cease-fire agreement, and demanded the “immediate cessation” of military operations in accordance with that agreement.
France and the U.N. forces were authorized to use “all necessary means” to carry out that directive, a U.N. statement read.
“The council fully supports France, and fully supports [United Nations operations in the Ivory Coast] in actions taken to protect the cease-fire,” John Danforth, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said after the meeting.
The council understands, he said, that “France is clearly going to defend French troops and French citizens that are under attack.”
“What’s more surprising is that the idea of the U.S. splitting up has come out of nowhere, and instead of being dismissed out of hand, is being discussed in a bunch of places.”
Such as?
“Felix. You know that blogging is not usually a strategic activity. I don’t think there will be a significant reaction to Mr Rossants article. It’s just that I read it, and I thought it was worth commenting and asking Ms Gu?rot about the quote. As simple as that. Nothing more, but also nothing less.”
That sounds good to me. For whatever it’s worth then, I retract any real or perceived criticisms.
“As for the ivory coast, we all know that unilateralism is a bit of a stretchable concept…”
It can be. However, don’t preclude me from pointing out that France now finds itself in almost exactly the same situation the U.S. was in before the Iraq invasion, and that France chose to act in almost exactly the same manner today as the U.S. did then.
Note that now the shoe is on the other foot, the U.S. did not attempt to interfere with France’s actions to safeguard it’s own citizens, who are military personnel acting in a foreign country under U.N. resolutions.
I suppose France should consider itself lucky, if for no other reason than that by being France they are automatically assured of not having their actions veto’d in the U.N. by the morally/ethically/diplomatically flexible and contrarian nation of France.
“France now finds itself in almost exactly the same situation the U.S. was in before the Iraq invasion”
Just to clarify – you do know that this is an insane comparison, right?
France responded to a direct attack on its troops, with explicit backing from the UN security council. It didn’t invent WMDs to justify a regime change, and it didn’t complain that the US didn’t send troops over to join in either.
Apart from that though, you’re right, its exactly the same…
Such as ?
Well, it started with this Human Events article that Atrios picked up on.
At least half a dozen of the blogs that I regularly read commented on it. The consensus being: Bring it on.
Bring it on as a modern-day Confederacy would instantly lose its superpower status by jettisonning the populous urban Blue states that subsidize the Red States.
That’s not gonna happen any time soon, but the idea itself is not as implausible as it was, say, 5 years ago.
What’s insane exactly? U.S. troops were fired on every day for over a decade in and over Iraq, operating under U.N. resolutions, including one resolution which authorized all U.N. member states to use all necessary means(notice the identical language) to ensure Iraq adhered to their cease-fire agreement.
As I alluded above, if it were U.S. troops being killed in the Ivory Coast under a U.N. operation, France would oppose U.S. retaliation and people like you would be blaming the U.S. for interfering in the affairs of a sovereign nation.
>As I alluded above, if it were U.S. troops being
>killed in the Ivory Coast under a U.N. operation,
>France would oppose U.S. retaliation and people
>like you would be blaming the U.S. for interfering
>in the affairs of a sovereign nation.
Let’s not get into a UNSC 1441 discussion please. That’s pointless. I am sure, Felix, you are aware that not all international crises are alike. As usual in these discussions, there are those who believe that the war in Iraq was fought to safeguard American citizens and those who don’t.
The problem with the former position is that it has been thoroughly factually debunked by just about everyone who has been asked about it, including a number of US intelligence officials. That’s why those still adhering to that position have to turn more ideological arguments. But that, of course, leaves less room for discussion.
“That’s not gonna happen any time soon, but the idea itself is not as implausible as it was, say, 5 years ago.”
Of course it is, but that’s not going to stop the sore losers from conjecturing on the impossible instead of owning up to an election loss.
I find the similarities between Iraq and the Ivory Coast less interesting (though there are similarities) than the facts that get left out of Main Stream Media reports on the Ivory Coast conflict.
It’s quite significant that France is siding against the government of Ivory Coast – predominantly Christian, and composed of Ivory Coast citizens – in favor of the Muslim, immigrant rebels of the north.
It doesn’t seem that France is an even-handed mediator here. The politics it is pushing are the politics it needs to push, for domestic reasons. And it hardly seems a wise choice to give the rebels legitimacy, if they aren’t even citizens. The anger of the Ivorians is quite understandable.
One can argue that the worst thing we should do is stir up African anger, by highlighting this conflict as a Muslim-Christian conflict (which it is). But isn’t that what Main Stream Media, especially in Europe, has been doing in the Arab-Israeli conflict for decades?
to go back to the Business week article.
Neocons dream is to weaken europe by all means.
Divide to conquer. Bride the Poles, Interfere with Turkey…
“The problem with the former position is that it has been thoroughly factually debunked by just about everyone who has been asked about it, including a number of US intelligence officials. That’s why those still adhering to that position have to turn more ideological arguments.”
With the exception, apparently, of me. I’m sorry, my dog ate my “ideology booklet” so I’m going to have to stick with the facts, which by the way you deflected instead of responding to.
That’s fine, I didn’t mean to take this entry so far off topic anyway. Let me try to steer it back on topic.
I think your response to the BusinessWeek article was right on the money. The EU at this point does have problems, some of them institutional, however they are moving forward and the momentum isn’t likely to change. Additionally, the problems that do exist should be attributed to the complexities of the project rather than to the perceived inadequacies of the solutions.
I just wish that Tobias, and other AFoE authors, used the same level of analysis, understanding and compassion for the issues when they discuss events on the American side of the Atlantic. It would help both your entries and your readers immensely.
After all, it was only 2 weeks ago that the same Tobias, who just spoke quite favorably and eloquently about the future of the EU, was posting entries wondering whether the U.S. would survive the presidential election. And he was actually among the most sober and realistic AFoE authors; Scott Martens, for example, “giggled” regarding some campaign news.
Now, I’m going to go out on a limb and state that the U.S. has a better record of holding successful presidential elections than Europe has a record of successfully amalgamating into a super-state. Out of respect for Tobias’ stated preference to leave ideology out of arguments, I will and leave my example there.
Felix,
>Now, I’m going to go out on a limb and state that
>the U.S. has a better record of holding successful
>presidential elections than Europe has a record of
>successfully amalgamating into a super-state.
As proven by history. But I’m sure you will agree that past achievements aren’t a guarantee for future success. Neither in Europe nor in the US.
>I just wish that Tobias, and other AFoE authors, >used the same level of analysis, understanding and >compassion for the issues when they discuss events >on the American side of the Atlantic. It would help both your entries and your readers immensely.
Thanks for your concern ;).
>After all, it was only 2 weeks ago that the same >Tobias, who just spoke quite favorably and >eloquently about the future of the EU, was posting >entries wondering whether the U.S. would survive >the presidential election.
Please tell me when I did that???
I may have wondered if in the future the US will still be the country I admired throughout my teenage years, or if it will have changed into something unrecognizable. While certainly not being the most qualified observer of all things American, I am certainly not the only one who is concerned about the latter issue, as you will have doubtlessly noticed in the last couple of days, even without referring to the Daily Mirror.
To sum this up, Felix, what is it that you really want out of this debate? I’d be happy to continue but I really can’t tell what your underlying interest are…
Well the ivory coast fracas was all started by a series of moves by cote d’Ivores “president” taking a number of moves to disenfranshise and discriminate against the northen population of the country, and then announcing the dissolution of several (mostly northern) army units. The dissolved units promtly went into rebellion and were heading straight for the capital when the french intervened at the behest of the ivorian government. Now, when 40 % of your population are technically immigrants denying them both the vote and the oppertunity to gain citizenship is just too stupid for words so the french refused to crush the rebels for the ivorian government and told both sides to sit down and reach some kind of compromise. At this point cote d’ivore is at peace only because neither side wants to tangle with the french forces there.
But Gabons entire political agenda is the disenfranshising and preferably ethnic cleansing of the north, and to say that he negotiates in bad faith is understating the problem quite severely. The northeners are not angels either so nothing much happens for a couple of years except that the south rebuilds its armed forces and hires some belorussian mercenaries with combat aircraft. This is where we reach the present. Gabon still doesn’t want to tangle with the french forces and the french are refusing to leave because it is painfully obvious that if they do there will be another rousing african civil war with lots of massacres maimings, slaughters and counter-slaughters until the economic heart of french-speaking westafrica is a pile of smoking rubble and starving refugees.
So. Gabon figures “hey, there are only 5000 french troops here. I can maneuver around them and attack the north.” Only his belorussian mercs either have a problem reading maps or were given bad intel and on the third day of bombingraids against the north hit the french. Say goodbye to those planes and to whatever patience the french still had with the ivorian government.
Thomas, you’ve left out the most important part: that the northern rebels are mostly Muslim, and the southern government forces are mostly Christian. Why?
This is the same kind of self-censorship we see in the Main Stream Media, but why should that extend to the blogosphere, especially when the religious context seems to be one of the motivating factors in defining French policy in Ivory Coast?
Evidence that its a motivating factor?
One can argue that the worst thing we should do is stir up African anger, by highlighting this conflict as a Muslim-Christian conflict (which it is). But isn?t that what Main Stream Media, especially in Europe, has been doing in the Arab-Israeli conflict for decades?
Thomas, you?ve left out the most important part: that the northern rebels are mostly Muslim, and the southern government forces are mostly Christian. Why?
I don’t know which European mainstream media you read, but the impression I get is one of tribal warfare in Africa and a David & Goliath battle over land going on in Israel / Palestine. Neither of them are portrayed as religious struggles per se even though the protagonists happen to follow different faiths and, at least in the case of Palestine, extremists on both sides claim religious righteousness. Even US partiality is usually portrayed as for money and power and not for any higher religious conviction. (Of course, any European partiality is side-stepped by the media and we must think for ourselves.)
Yhea, the northeners are mostly muslim. That doesn’t actually help matters any, but really the Ivorian government seems to be far more intent on inciting hatred on national and racial lines than starting a religious conflict. Part of the whole runup to the conflict was a policy of deliberate “National identity building”, by which they unfortunately meant defining who was an Ivorian in negative and exclusionary terms.
Sorry if that sounds like wishy-washy liberalism but they were, and are, advocating !the disenfrancisement of 40% of the people living in the country! That is just insane. Hmm. Imagine if the US government started to refuse the vote to everybody who didn’t have four american grandparents. I don’t think we need to look for religious roots to this conflict.
Religion might still make it much harder to solve since rebellious muslim groups sometimes turn into radical muslim rebels if the conflict drags on, but it doesn’t seem to have happened yet and pitching the conflict in those terms would just make it much more likely. So no, it is not the most important bit. Not wanting to side with Msulim army rebels may be why the french have not actually thrown the president into the single remaining helicopter and told him not to come back yet (Why else leave one intact?) But it is not what the fight is about. The fight is about land, and identity, and wealth.
Actually, I have a post half-written on the Macedonia thingy.
But, um [blush], I need someone to send me my login and password first.
Doug M.
RSN said that ‘Macedonia has been quite supportive of US policies; Greece, on the other hand, has been a shrill critic. It’s clear that as far as the US is concerned, Greek “friendship” can be dispensed with.’
To call Greece a shrill critic is unfair; during the Kosovo campaign more than 95 per cent of Greeks were opposed to the war, but the Greek government – a centre-left one for what it’s worth – nevertheless the backed the war. That was crucial, as Wes Clarke and Javier Solana said at the time, as the NATO forces needed to use the port at Thessaloniki.
Is it really so wise to have rubbed the current Greek government up the wrong way? Especially when it’s a centre-right one that might be slightly more understanding of the Americans? Surely that’s inviting the Greeks to start vetoing NATO actions the Americans want?
Or is this just another attempt to drive a wedge between Rumsfeld’s Old and New Europe? After all, the Greeks are now actively threatening to block FYROM from joining NATO and the EU…
Calling Kosovo a U.S. policy is stretching reality quite a bit. Europe asked us for help through NATO and we responded, and that was about the sum of our involvement.
As for upsetting Greece… you’d have to convince me that there is a right way for the U.S. to rub them, and then you’d have to convince me that it’s worthwhile for the U.S. to do so.
And no, I’m not being sarcastic. Much of Europe today reminds me of the old adage: “With friends like these, who needs enemies?”
Greg: Greek behaviour during the Kosovo wars was atrocious. It is not a far stretch to say that most Greeks were quite willing to accept Milosevic’s rhetoric regarding “ethnic cleansing”, since most of it was directed at “the Turks”, or Muslim Kosovars.
The fact that the center-left government at the time cooperated with NATO had less to do with their desire to cooperate and more to do with their realization that they could not risk alienating the US, to the benefit of Turkey. And that is the continuing risk they face…
But it is interesting that Powell moved to recognize Macedonia now. It is obvious that the State Department simply did not care about the fact that Greece now has a center-right government. It just speaks of how low America’s regard for Greece as an “ally” is at this point.
As to driving a wedge between Old Europe and New Europe, well, if that’s the prime motivation, all the more better: as I inferred earlier, the US has nothing to lose by supporting New Europe against Old Europe.
I’m puzzled. You say the Greeks couldn’t risk alienating the US to the benefit of Turkey. What do you mean?
I suppose that the US actions were a prize to a country whose police had orchestrated the killing of Pakistanies, migrants who tried to enter in the EU, in order to claim the poor people were terrorists, and in doing so please the USA.
DSW