BRUSSELS -- A mere two years ago, the British author and thinker Mark Leonard published a book titled "Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century." Today, one wonders to what degree Europe will even participate in the 21st century. It's not just the deadly blow struck by Ireland's rejection Thursday of the Lisbon Treaty reorganizing the European Union. I've spent six of the past eight years in the capital of the European Union, and I've noticed over this period a steady loss of self-confidence in Europe, a turning inward and a growing pessimism about the future.
For all the focus on the ills of the American economy, few Europeans feel they are about to inherit the world. Germany's economy is riding high these days, but it is exceptional, and even Germans fear it may be temporary. The pleasure Europeans take in the weak dollar and the high euro is a welcome distraction from deeply rooted fears that the Asian giants are overtaking and out-competing Europe in the international economy. Europe's big neighbor also causes angst. Every day some European official pleads for a common energy policy to confront predatory Russian monopolists, but every day the Russians cut a new deal favoring one European interest at the expense of another.
Europeans worry about immigration and cultural identity much more than they did when I arrived here. Most elections in Europe these days have immigration and assimilation issues as a subtext, and most people I talk to doubt Europe will be able to integrate the new immigrants. Even secularists worry that what they call "Christian" Europe is being undermined by the endless flow of Muslims and Muslim culture -- hence the outcry early this year at the archbishop of Canterbury's modest suggestion that sharia law be accommodated in Britain.
More surprising, perhaps, is the continuing challenge to European unity. The European Union remains a miraculous organization, and no one should ever bet against its continued progress. But the big European powers jealously guard their prerogatives in matters of foreign policy, especially and understandably when it comes to putting troops in harm's way.
To compound matters, the consensus here is that Europe is bereft of strong leadership. Gordon Brown is seen as weak. Angela Merkel is locked in her grand coalition. Many Americans and Italians like Silvio Berlusconi, but most Europeans outside of Italy do not. When as a typical American I point to the refreshing new leadership of Nicolas Sarkozy, outside of France I get mostly silence or scowls. In Britain and Germany, Sarkozy is viewed as all flash and in it for France, not for Europe. Self-interest is seen everywhere to be trumping the common interest.
The Lisbon Treaty was supposed to solve some of these problems. It would have created two potential leaders to represent Europe on the world stage: a president and a foreign minister. Names being bandied about for the two jobs, from Tony Blair to Sweden's Carl Bildt, made it possible to imagine Europe taking a stronger role in the world, even amid all the doubts. To Euro-enthusiasts across the continent, the new constitution was the answer to Europe's malaise and the next step toward global leadership. But what now, since the treaty is dead?
All of this is bad news for the United States. In a world of rising great powers, of which two happen to be autocracies, the United States needs its fellow democracies to be as strong as possible. A unified, independent, capable Europe is in American interests, even if we may disagree at times. I would much rather see Europe run the 21st century than Vladimir Putin's Russia or Hu Jintao's China.
The danger of this latest blow to European confidence is that our allies, including Britain, could gradually sink into global irrelevance. Already there are voices in London welcoming it. The Financial Times's Gideon Rachman believes that the majority of Europeans, if not their leaders, prefer irrelevance and are right to do so. It's better than having to be like the United States, with responsibilities all over the globe. After all, "being a superpower can be a burdensome and bloody business," he writes. Europe's weakness is a kind of "nirvana."
Rachman is certainly right that many Europeans prefer it this way. Europe has started to settle into a role akin to the chorus of a Greek tragedy, endlessly commenting and pronouncing judgment on the actions of the protagonists -- "O Oedipus, by reckless pride undone!" -- but with little or no effect on the outcome of the drama. And perhaps Europe -- the Europe lacking in leadership, the Europe now lacking a new treaty -- is the way it is because that's what the people really do want. If so, the 21st century, decidedly not run by Europe, will be a very tricky time for the United States.
Robert Kagan is transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund and senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment. He writes a monthly column for The Post and is most recently the author of "The Return of History and the End of Dreams."
Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929
every year 12 student needs to read the republic by plato
as compulsory
without it our senior students will be clueless to the origins of western philosphy. having ignorant students at such a senior level is almost criminal
our youth are quite cultureless and oblivious to the world around then and have no idea how the mind can triumph over the brute forces of nature.
western philosophy is for the good guys.
This message has been edited by Areianos on Jun 17, 2008 6:14 AM This message has been edited by Areianos on Jun 17, 2008 6:13 AM
"Even secularists worry that what they call "Christian" Europe is being undermined by the endless flow of Muslims and Muslim culture -- hence the outcry early this year at the archbishop of Canterbury's modest suggestion that sharia law be accommodated in Britain.
"
more europe hypocrisy lying duplicity trickery thugs murderous killers.....
the article is right, most european countries welcome irrelevance. The only one that do something is france but our partners always drag there feet and are only able to criticize without proposing anything. For example there is a lot of thing going on currently in Africa with french (and european) interest being threatened by China and the US. But the only thing our partners are ble to say is that it's french foly of grandeur or colonialism. The last time we heard that is when we warned them against salafy threat in the 90s. see what happened later. Guess they didn't understood the lesson.
Roland, with all due respect I want to say to you two things:
1 - Europe doesn't go anywhere as one political bloc because of the interests of bigger countries like France United Kingdom and Germany, which are uncapable of giving away part of their sovereignty as smaller countries like mine have given away countless times for the good of the all EU sake.
2 - You can't expect I believe what you say about the role of France in western Africa. Although I love your country and what it represents for all westerners, France always sabotaged our efforts in Guinea-Bissau, for instance, just because they speak portuguese inside a bigger french speaking area. In both small civil wars in the 90's, France supplied weapons to senegalese invaders and even sent an LPD and marines openly showing force against portuguese troops who even save french citizens there and in kinshasa whenever there's problems and there's a lot.
With these two examples I show you how a small country like mine is a "good student" of European Union doctrine, always ready to help bigger "allies" and in truth, that takes us nowhere.
Louis Roland, with all due respect I want to say to you two things:
1 - Europe doesn't go anywhere as one political bloc because of the interests of bigger countries like France United Kingdom and Germany, which are uncapable of giving away part of their sovereignty as smaller countries like mine have given away countless times for the good of the all EU sake.
France shares its base in New Guyana for rocket launch, shared the lead in Airbus and Ariane, gave equal right to the German when EADS was created despite Aerospatial turnover was 2 time bigger than DASA one and Aerospatial helicopter division turnover was 5 time the one of MBB, if it's not working for Europe, then what it is.
Needless to say it was expected to be our long term interest but a strong EU is expected to be our interest else we wouldn't even participate. Now is it a mistake, depend on how our partners consider it as well, doesn't look good currently.
2 - You can't expect I believe what you say about the role of France in western Africa. Although I love your country and what it represents for all westerners, France always sabotaged our efforts in Guinea-Bissau, for instance, just because they speak portuguese inside a bigger french speaking area. In both small civil wars in the 90's, France supplied weapons to senegalese invaders and even sent an LPD and marines openly showing force against portuguese troops who even save french citizens there and in kinshasa whenever there's problems and there's a lot.
With these two examples I show you how a small country like mine is a "good student" of European Union doctrine, always ready to help bigger "allies" and in truth, that takes us nowhere.
France don't hesitate to help EU citizen as well in Ivory coast, Chad, etc.
I didn't know about Guinea_Bissau if you have a link about that. Just out of curiosity because your argument doesn't stand imo. I understand perfectly our interest can clash between EU members (here if I understand well France supported Senegal, that is a strong french allie, as Portugal supported Guinea-Bissau). Then may the best win when it's internal EU dispute. But what I don't like is when EU countries don't gang together when one is struggling to defend its interest and EU interest against NON EU power.
One for all, all for one, it's how the EU should be.
i feel that the longer it takes to unife europe the more irrelvent it will get, now i was allways against joing with the us, but as the eu cant get its act 2gether i feel that will be the direction britian will be takeing when the world polorises again, which is a shame for europe because the uks wealth population and miltery would make up a very large proportion of the eu's power,
Let's be honest here. The only major EU country that is pushing towards more EU and less indepence is France.
Is it because France thinks it's the right thing to do?
I doubt it. I think it has more to do with:
-France is not part of the anglo-saxon world and wants to be a world power again
-France thinks it may have more power through the EU
That's how I see things. I'm interested in the opinions of our french members.
Mobile airpower
"The enemy dies relaxed," observed a Lockheed Martin manager.
Let's be honest here. The only major EU country that is pushing towards more EU and less indepence is France.
Is it because France thinks it's the right thing to do?
I doubt it. I think it has more to do with:
-France is not part of the anglo-saxon world and wants to be a world power again
-France thinks it may have more power through the EU
That's how I see things. I'm interested in the opinions of our french members.
Mobile airpower
"The enemy dies relaxed," observed a Lockheed Martin manager.
Europeans have been fighting with each other, militarily and politically, for centuries. You don't forget old animosities in a few decades of the EU.
The EU has the POTENTIAL to replace USA in world esteem, but it won't happen for a few years yet. They still think like French, Germans, English, Dutch, Austrian, Italian......etc..
Eric Let's be honest here. The only major EU country that is pushing towards more EU and less indepence is France.
you mean less dependance ?
Is it because France thinks it's the right thing to do?
certainly else why would she do it ?
I doubt it. I think it has more to do with:
-France is not part of the anglo-saxon world and wants to be a world power again
-France thinks it may have more power through the EU
I don't understand. You doubt it's the right thing to do then you point some good reason to do it. so it's right finally ?
It's not a question of france wanting to be a world power againt, it's a question of france having some position she have trouble to defend alone or some opportunities she have trouble to take advantage alone.
France does not want to be a world power, she is already a world power (a little one but still)
It's just that she is willing to share the burden but of course share the advantages too: nothing is free in this world.
So what do you want to do: continue to live comfortably like an old retired and wait that others decide for you or negociate with france and have some fun, adventures, love, wars, kick @sses in team and defend and improve European positions in the world ?
E: Let's be honest here. The only major EU country that is pushing towards more EU and less indepence is France.
R:you mean less dependance ?
--------
I meant more dependence to the EU. So that's less personal indepence.
E:Is it because France thinks it's the right thing to do?
R:certainly else why would she do it ?
--------
I meant "right thing" as it's in the best interests of every EU country, not just France.
E:
I doubt it. I think it has more to do with:
-France is not part of the anglo-saxon world and wants to be a world power again
-France thinks it may have more power through the EU
R:
I don't understand. You doubt it's the right thing to do then you point some good reason to do it. so it's right finally ?
------
Yes, it's good for France but not for the other countries.
R:
It's not a question of France wanting to be a world power again, it's a question of France having some position she have trouble to defend alone or some opportunities she have trouble to take advantage alone.
France does not want to be a world power, she is already a world power (a little one but still)
It's just that she is willing to share the burden but of course share the advantages too: nothing is free in this world.
So what do you want to do: continue to live comfortably like an old retired and wait that others decide for you or negociate with France and have some fun, adventures, love, wars, kick @sses in team and defend and improve European positions in the world ?
-----
More Europe is certainly good for France, or that's what the French believe. The thing is, no other (major) EU country is pushing in the same direction as France is.
Mobile airpower
"The enemy dies relaxed," observed a Lockheed Martin manager.
Eric
I meant more dependence to the EU. So that's less personal indepence.
the thing is one can't be independent alone today. So more dependence to the EU is likely to mean more independence because ay least each EU country have a say in the comon decision but is irrelevant at world stage.
I meant "right thing" as it's in the best interests of every EU country, not just France.
where did you see that there is a contradiction between the interest of france and the interest of the EU ?
Yes, it's good for France but not for the other countries.
why that ?
More Europe is certainly good for France, or that's what the French believe. The thing is, no other (major) EU country is pushing in the same direction as France is.
If other members are in the EU that's may be because that's there interest too. now the real boss of Europe is Germany. no problem with that on the principle, they didn't stolen there place. Germany prefer a more "isolationist" and more centered to the east europe policy while france is more global. there is no contradiction between that, we can play both. But the thing is Germany doesn't need france for its policy while france need her and the rest of europe. But if each time we propose something, the answer is no just because it's france who propose it, that wont do for long.
This message has been edited by ultrarep on Jun 18, 2008 2:17 PM This message has been edited by ultrarep on Jun 18, 2008 2:17 PM
Eric I believe most countries just want an economical partnership not a political one.
the thing is that raw material supply, aerospace industry and defense industry for example are both political and economical as well as global.
not to say that if you discare what happen in the world, the world is likely going to bite you in the arse soon or later.
This message has been edited by ultrarep on Jun 18, 2008 2:46 PM
every year 12 student needs to read the republic by plato
as compulsory
//
That's the smartest thing I've read on this forum in weeks.
And it's quite correct.
I think all pacifists should read the Peloponnesian wars by Thucydides (A former Athenian Captain IIRC).
Move to an area; conquer it; and offer terms.. or if you are not feeling merciful or if time is a contraint, kill everyone of fighting age; put the women and children into slavery. BOOM. The end of a people; their history, and they will never be remembered by your grand children. Like the Eqyptian's, erasing your enemies from history is the greatest of projected horror.
When they realize that this is what could happen if you lose a war.. you might find their idea's change.
As Tacitus said (IIRC) "war is never the answer, victory is the answer".
"That's the smartest thing I've read on this forum in weeks.
And it's quite correct.
I think all pacifists should read the Peloponnesian wars by Thucydides (A former Athenian Captain IIRC).
Move to an area; conquer it; and offer terms.. or if you are not feeling merciful or if time is a contraint, kill everyone of fighting age; put the women and children into slavery. BOOM. The end of a people; their history, and they will never be remembered by your grand children. Like the Eqyptian's, erasing your enemies from history is the greatest of projected horror.
When they realize that this is what could happen if you lose a war.. you might find their idea's change.
As Tacitus said (IIRC) "war is never the answer, victory is the answer".
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
Current Topic - In Europe, a Slide Toward Irrelevance
