The EU's soft power relies to some extent on the threat of the USA's hard power. And the EU can't see itself existing in isolation without allies. The truth of this should not be underestimated. In all honesty, I think that in terms of economic gains, Europe is a greater beneficiary of American hard power and the ability to enforce open markets than the United States itself.
The truth of this should not be underestimated. In all honesty, I think that in terms of economic gains, Europe is a greater beneficiary of American hard power and the ability to enforce open markets than the United States itself.
Perhaps in the universe that we are expected to believe in, it is true. It makes complete sense.
Did the EU experiment start better because of NATO sitting off its shores, or would it have gone even smoother without the US influence over England, for example.
Does China or Thailand or Japan or the Middle East trade more with the EU due to the largesse of NATO?
Could it be said that the EU would have had to confront and come to terms with a united foreign policy with a united military, and hone a force vector harmonious with its soft power should NATO not have been here?
And as far as getting what we wish for, what is the consequence of the US pulling out of the land it occupies here...outside of the benefit that it might help them get their financial house in order sooner.
I think that it could be said that a working EU without the NATO factor would serve a good example in contrast to the US example.
I'm not trying to be snarky; I can think of some disruptions, but none with more impact than the benefits. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
I do see the elites staffed by dedicated Atlanticists who are unwilling to consider making a clean break. And individual states still mired in nationalisms - often sponsored by US influence - which make a clean break even less likely.
Very few leaders in the EU seem to be considering a federal vision that isn't, at the very least, a partnership with Washington. Very few appreciate the extent to which the constant propaganda for reform and 'liberalisation' undermines national autonomy and federalisation while appearing to support both.
This is very useful for EU pols, because it provides deniability. When terror flights land in EU countries, EU politicians can cluck unsympathetically in public - which is always useful for a few poll points - while offering support in private.
And that's where we are. Rather too much of the EU leadership is like a French- and German-speaking wing of the Democratic party - outraged and disapproving in public, spineless or even actively supportive and complicit in private.
I don't see any evidence of genuine disdain for Washington among the pols. Bush is considered an aberration rather than a symptom, and the Atlanticists are convinced that AngloSaxonia is still basically sound and entirely friendly.
Populations may be suspicious, but they hardly count. And it's easy for the US-sponsored financial and nationalist media outlets to bring them to heel by promising a few gaudy nationalisms which will teach Brussels a lesson and put the Eurocrats in their place.
What's tragic is that hardly anyone in Brussels seems to see the reality of the situation. The EU is so completely a vassal state that true independence of thought and action has become unthinkable. The best we're going to get is a few slaps for Microsoft and maybe a banana war. But there isn't going to be a serious questioning of the Atlanticist view - which means the neoliberal Washington consensus - any time soon.
When even the Greens support the Iraq war, you know that dissent has pretty much been sidelined into electoral insignificance. (No matter how big it is numerically.)
