Display:
Current US policy is insanely stupid and guaranteed to cause more problems than it solves. For that reason it needs to be contained.

Yup. But the commenters here are not talking about a short term tactical shift in European foreign that will then revert back to Atlanticism when US policy goes back to a sanity, but rather a long term strategic reorientation.

The moral argument is a horrified aside.

That's not the way I read the comments on this thread and many others. From what I can tell the moral argument is an integral part of what I see as a call to something akin to US containment policy during the Cold War - though of course conveniently eliding the moral compromises such a policy would require if it were to be anything more than EU isolationism.

by MarekNYC on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 03:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But the commenters here are not talking about a short term tactical shift in European foreign that will then revert back to Atlanticism when US policy goes back to a sanity, but rather a long term strategic reorientation.

Perhaps you'd like to explain the point of Atlanticism to us? Maybe a diary that explains what the strategic benefit of it to Europe is? Because in the changed strategic environment that applies now I don't see it.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 03:39:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe a diary that explains what the strategic benefit of it to Europe is?

Will do.

by MarekNYC on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 04:01:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am looking forward to Marek's diary.
by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 06:22:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Marek, you have now attained a level of unsubstantiated assumption, or interpretation, of what people say here and what it may be supposed to entail, that you have a diary to write elucidating just quite what you mean. Otherwise, if it's all the same to you, I'll call bullshit.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 03:52:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Give him a break. He is going to write a diary on a difficult subject. Give him some credit.

So many folks constantly complain about the US rather than outlining what an independent European policy would look like.

Such a European policy independent from the US would be great and much better than staying on the sidelines and complain about US policy 24/7.

Why hasn't the EU progressed any furhter with such European Foreign Policy?

It has been declared a goal for ages, but the EU countries can't get their act together.

Even the mission in Lebanon isn't an EU organized mission. Solana wasn't even coordinating it very much. The EU member states did not let him.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 06:27:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The atlanticist EU member states did not let him.

Remember who opposed an EU call for an immediate ceasefire? The UK, Germany, Czechia and Netherlands according to press reports.

The fact is, Atlanticism is a major axis of opinion [in the sense of the dimensions of the Political Compass: I lack a name for the opposite direction to Atlanticism] in the EU. There doesn't seem to be any likelihood of a consensus on that dimension for the foreseeable future.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 06:39:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If pressed, what I personally would probably advocate is an independent foreign policy for Europe, and I see Atlanticism [embdied in NATO] as submitting European policy to US diktat. Sure, with Bush in the White House "containment" seems like a fair description of what Europe should be (or maybe is increasingly) doing. With a more civilised administration that is actually interested in working within the international system, Europe would likely act as an ally of the US.

Less NATO, more UN, a multipolar world. Feel free to make a realpolitik argument for why it can't work.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 04:19:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But the commenters here are not talking about a short term tactical shift in European foreign that will then revert back to Atlanticism when US policy goes back to a sanity, but rather a long term strategic reorientation.

I mean, before Europe has the leeway to tactically shift its position with respect to the US, a strategic reorientation needs to take place. Right now, US strategy seems to define the boundaries of Europe's tactics.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 04:22:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Because the majority of the Europeans on this site urge Europe to break with the Atlanticist tradition in favour of a European foreign policy that seeks to contain the US.
---
Yup. But the commenters here are not talking about a short term tactical shift in European foreign that will then revert back to Atlanticism when US policy goes back to a sanity, but rather a long term strategic reorientation.

That's a rather limited account of what some of us advocate. For example, have you read this reply to wchurchill?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 06:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series