The meaning of "true human rights" in an Iraqi context was never addressed. Do we accept the idea that human rights are universal? If so, irony rules the day, since this was one of the core neo-con assumptions. Still, if we agree about universal human rights, while obviously disagreeing about the success and even the sincerity of the neo-cons re human rights, it would represent progress. Do we agree? If so, how does Europe plan to convince the Iraqis that European "true human rights" aren't part of a hidden agenda?
On hidden agendas, I don't think the EU has credibility to convince anyone it doesn't have one. I have said that Turkey is the only country in the region that the EU has any leverage with, and that we're pissing that leverage away by racist islamophobic posturing, and also that thinking of the EU as "postcolonial" is "may be" (heh) naive. On the other hand, it doesn't even have an agenda as consensus among the EU is hard to come by. I am mystified that anyone, starting with the European Council of Foreign Relations, would be thinking Europe needs to get involved or else we're doomed.
The Surge in Iraq was discussed briefly. Given how bad things were in 2006-7, I think that to completely dismiss the obvious progress since then is unfair. I accept the larger point that this progress could be reversed at any time, and there are many cynical yet plausible reasons to fear this. Nevertheless, the momentum for now at least is away from civil war, not towards it, and any European engagement in Iraq must take that into account in some way...
On the larger question I think we are basically in agreement. Consensus-based "soft power" will only get us so far. This may be the most that can be expected of Europe in Iraq, which isn't much and moreover can only take place if the players in and around Iraq are minimally cooperative. Case in point: Turkey. If Turkey decides Iraqi Kurdistan poses a credible internal separatist threat there's very little the EU can do to convince them otherwise. We're having enough trouble getting Turkey to even recognize that the Kurds are an ethnic and cultural minority. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I confess I was assuming you'd have a certain commitment to defending your original post. Instead you seem to be treating the post as a sort of hypothetical -- if Europe had credibility on true human rights (you say it doesn't -- yet another point on which we disagree!), then here is how we might proceed re Iraq. This gets us nowhere. If a perfect record on human rights were a precondition for credibility on human rights, then human rights would have very few advocates indeed. What's needed are more advocates, as many as possible, not perfect advocates.
As to colonialism, that originated before the Enlightenment, and continued in spite of the Enlightenment, not because of it. Just as the absurd doctrine of Social Darwinism doesn't discredit Darwin's theory of evolution, Europe's colonial past doesn't discredit a true concern for human rights.
In a different comment on this diary, you asked,
Who are the American counterparts of European Atlanticists?
Well, we exist, and we want to talk, but we get frustrated. Other than Atlantic Review, where are the European Atlanticists willing to disembark from their Utopian Isle and treat with us, mere mortals though we be? __ I am the most conservative Unitarian-Universalist you will ever meet.
I'd like to refer to your last comment:
where are the European Atlanticists willing to disembark from their Utopian Isle and treat with us, mere mortals though we be?
I don't know if this is addressed to us or not, because I'm not sure we'd self describe as Atlanticists (not that there's a "we" here: some might, and some might not). I'd say that a strongly expressed trend here on ET is disappointment that European politicians seem to think that Atlanticism = aligning with the US (and criticism of those Americans who also conflate "democracy" and "dialogue" with aligning with US interests and policies). I don't think people call for a hostile relationship with the USA, but for a more independent-minded one, and a willingness to standup to what could be described as US abuses or bullying (cf Guantanamo, rendition flights, anti-satellite missiles) - but such policies are often described are hostile anyway (see how the French are treated, when they are probably the USA's more reliable ally when the shit really hits the fan).
Again, we're a lot more critical of Europeans than of Americans - but we do think that, while there still can be common causes and interests between the USA and Europe, it is bad policy for Europeans to ignore the differences and in particular to let itself be tainted with complicity with all the abuses of the Bush years. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
a willingness to standup to what could be described as US abuses or bullying (cf Guantanamo, rendition flights, anti-satellite missiles) - but such policies are often described are hostile anyway
I agree that Atlanticism must mean something different than mere Americanism (i.e. not just "aligning with the US"). I would like to think that because of our shared values and history, we are all in some sense Atlanticists. That would mean we think N. America and Europe should have an enduring, special relationship that is more than just normal diplomatic relations between countries at peace.
Are there really that many people in Europe (or on Eurotrib) who see the Atlantic relationship as no more meaningful, special, close, enduring, or exceptional than Europe's relationships with other major powers like Russia or China?
In my opinion, the reason Atlanticism too often ends up looking like Americanism is that there is no consensus as to what Europe wants. Naturally, you are against "US abuses or bullying"...but what are you in favor of? As we've seen right here on this diary...in spite of the fact that European countries are some of the most democratic, open, plural, free societies the world has ever known, some European progressives still somehow feel they are not credible or worthy enough to peacefully advocate human rights!
Also, I would like to learn more about how the French "are probably the USA's more reliable ally when the shit really hits the fan". Certainly, France has been a reliable US ally at times, but surely the UK, Canada, and perhaps even Australia or Israel have generally been more reliable? I am not trying to attack the French, or distract anyone with UK-French rivalries...I am just wondering if there are facts that I am somehow missing?
Perhaps the word "ally" assumes that the UK and the others don't qualify as allies, but rather, are vassal states of some sort. Therefore, of the remaining countries in the world, France has been the most reliable. That position I could at least understand, even though it is absurd.
it is bad policy...to let itself be tainted with complicity with all the abuses of the Bush years
Again, the Utopian excuse...you don't dare speak up for human rights (except to criticise America) because you might sound like Bush. This is indeed unserious, even petulant. This isn't a policy, it is the abdication of a policy. __ I am the most conservative Unitarian-Universalist you will ever meet.
John in Michigan USA:
Perhaps the word "ally" assumes that the UK and the others don't qualify as allies, but rather, are vassal states of some sort.
At the moment, the regime in Washington is not standing up for human rights or democracy; quite the contrary, in fact (I have elaborated on the reasoning behind this conclusion downthread and will not repeat it here). So I fail to see a contradiction in a pro-human rights/anti-Bush stance.
Further, you will note that there is plenty of speaking out in favour of human rights on this site, on a variety of issues arising in a variety of countries across the globe, so I am a bit unsure how you came to the conclusion that anyone here is afraid to speak up for human rights.
Finally, I am not sure why you think that geopolitics should be driven by geographical, cultural or historical sentiments. I think that politics should be driven by policy. And there is no law of nature that says that Europe and the USA will always be in better agreement on matters of policy than - say - Europe and Mercosur or Europe and the African Union.
Even if you disagree with putting policy above history and culture when forming geopolitical alliances, I would point out that Europe has an even longer history of interaction with North Africa, Russia, and the Middle East than with North America, and that the European culture(s) have as much in common with the Russian and Mediterranean cultures as with the American culture.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Yes, and this is why we hold Americans to a higher standard than "no worse than Saddam" (or "no worse than Putin", or "no worse than the French").
And this is why we are especially critical of the absolute hypocrisy of our current batch of leaders, but in particular the current White House, on the topic of human rights, civil rights and freedoms.
how the French "are probably the USA's more reliable ally when the shit really hits the fan". Certainly, France has been a reliable US ally at times, but surely the UK, Canada, and perhaps even Australia or Israel have generally been more reliable?
Being able to stand up to the big boy on the block to remind him of harsh truths, and being able generally to disagree, gives a higher value to agreement when it matters.
And France has probably done more than any other Western country in the fight against actual Islamic terrorism, given our experience over the past 25 years.
it is bad policy...to let itself be tainted with complicity with all the abuses of the Bush years Again, the Utopian excuse...you don't dare speak up for human rights (except to criticise America) because you might sound like Bush. This is indeed unserious, even petulant. This isn't a policy, it is the abdication of a policy.
You misunderstand my point. Being supportive of the Bush administration today does not only mean being supportive of its stated goals - it also means being non critical of Guantanamo, the deadly occupation of Iraq, rendition flights and the so forth. And these really make it hard to claim you have any human right credentials.
In general, "do what I say, not what I do" is not good policy. It is especially so about the rule of law.
The rightwing has hijacked a number of positive words (like "freedom", "reform", "human rights"), distorted them beyond recongition, and made a specialty of criticizing the left for renouncing these concepts whenever it criticzes the right's grotesque version of it. Now that's unserious and petulant. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I don't think anybody argues that one must have a perfect human rights record to promote human rights or that one must solve all the world's problems in one go.
But does it not become just a little bit... discordant, shall we say, when democracy is promoted not in those countries where The West(TM) has most leverage and the human rights situation is most appalling (think Colombia and Saudi Arabia) but in countries where The West(TM) has little leverage and the human rights situation is not nearly as bad (think Venezuela).
If one did not know better, one might almost be tempted to conclude that the principal motivation for "democracy promotion" a la Iraq is to be found less in a sincere desire to promote democracy and human rights than in a desire for geopolitical dominance.
This analysis is what underpins the conclusion that Washington (and their European fellow travellers) do not have democracy and human rights as their primary objective in Iraq - or anywhere else.
I will leave it to the reader's judgement whether this stance is pragmatist or utopian.
I think that what is needed is more sincere advocates of democracy. And rather fewer damning-with-faint-praise "advocates" who use "democracy promotion" as a thin veil for otherwise naked colonialism. Because the latter kind give democracy a bad name.
Again, I will leave it to the reader's judgement whether this stance is pragmatist or utopian.
You and others spend words trying to convince me, or someone, that the US cannot possibly be sincere about human rights or democracy in Iraq. I of course disagree, but it would take us way off-topic to go into why. Based on the other comments on this diary, you seem to be preaching to the choir. I suppose you and others have to assert your bona fides out of fear you'll be attacked by your supporters for responding to me. My supporters do that too sometimes. But none of it addresses the topic at hand: what should Europe do in Iraq?
I think that what is needed is more sincere advocates of democracy
Sounds good to me. Meanwhile, "On hidden agendas, I don't think the EU has credibility to convince anyone it doesn't have one." says Migeru. What is your response?
Forget about what you call Washington's "European fellow travellers". Pretend you are the EU President, you speak for a majority of the EP, AND have the ear of the Commission and the Council, and that no European national governments are in a position to block your policies. What is your plan to convince Iraqis that you are a sincere advocate?
Once you've convinced them, what do you propose to actually do to advance the cause of human rights, in Iraq specifically?
I categorically reject the idea that the powerful, prosperous countries of Europe, and the many learned diplomats who, unlike Americans, are dedicated students of world geography and culture, are somehow impotent in this matter. If the answer is, nothing can be done, then we are back to Utopianism, aren't we? __ I am the most conservative Unitarian-Universalist you will ever meet.
You and others spend words trying to convince me, or someone, that the US cannot possibly be sincere about human rights or democracy in Iraq. I of course disagree, but it would take us way off-topic to go into why.
I would be very interested in such a diary. And I am certain that I am not the only one.
Based on the other comments on this diary, you seem to be preaching to the choir.
I was responding to your comment. Specifically, I was challenging an assumption made in your comment. The reasoning underpinning this challenge can be found elsewhere as well, but I thought it courteous to provide a summary, as you are new to the site and may not be familiar with all the idiosyncrasies of the regular contributors.
But none of it addresses the topic at hand: what should Europe do in Iraq?
Paying war reparations would be a good start. In cash or in infrastructure, whichever the Iraqi people prefer.
Of course, finding out which the Iraqi people prefer is not necessarily easy, since the invasion and subsequent civil war seems to have done a fairly comprehensive job of smashing Iraqi civil society.
I think that what is needed is more sincere advocates of democracy Sounds good to me. Meanwhile, "On hidden agendas, I don't think the EU has credibility to convince anyone it doesn't have one." says Migeru. What is your response?
I think Mig's assessment is substantially correct. Mostly because Europe as currently configured does have several not-so-very-hidden agendas in the Mideast, none of which have much to do with democracy and human rights.
And even if we were to reform ourselves completely tomorrow and start promoting democracy and human rights with complete sincerity and irregardless of dirty colonialist interests, it would likely take a while before we had convinced the rest of the world that we were sincere. Trust once lost, and all that.
How many decades do I have?
Snark aside, transparency would probably be a good place to start, as would asking the locals what they would like to happen in their area. If they want a hospital, then set up a hospital. If they want a school, then set up a school. If they want to bug out, give them safe transport to wherever they want to go to. If they want us to fuck off, then leave.
Of course, in a society as smashed as the Iraqi, precisely who to ask what "the local community" wants is no simple task in and of itself. But going door-to-door and asking "what can we do for you" and "who would you trust to represent you in the community" might be a way to get a handle on it.
Also: Use local labour, use local materials, use local designs, unless the locals specifically ask for foreign stuff or manpower. The locals probably know how to build things for the local climate better than foreign contractors. And even if they don't, it's their place. If they prefer local designs even though they may be somewhat less efficient, then that's their decision.
And if they decide to change their minds midway, don't get all huffy. It's their project. They can cancel or rearrange it midway if they like.
The trickiest item to handle will probably be security, because at some point security is going to involve hitting someone over the head with a big stick. I'd like to keep the stick-hitting to an absolute minimum, though, partly because not everyone in the local community will agree on who needs to be hit over the head and how hard, and partly because so far hitting people over the head doesn't seem to have worked all that well.
At least some of the violence in Iraq is undoubtedly due to simple gangster activity. To an extent, gangsters can be bought off, and we should do that as far as it goes. Give them honest work to do (remember the part about using local labour?) and pay them a more than honest wage. That should solve most of the gangster problem. There will probably still be organised crime rings in Iraq many years from now who will trace their origins to the present civil war, but I think that vast improvements are possible with relatively little effort.
Equally undoubtedly, some of the violence is political in nature. I will leave it to those more qualified than myself to give a prescription for how to best resolve political conflicts in a society where the social contract has collapsed and the political factions do not trust one another to honour agreements. I can think of several templates, but none of them are particularly appealing.
However, assuming that the political actors are reasonably sane and are motivated primarily by material grievances - such as a desire to have reliable access to water, control natural resources, have credible guarantees that they will not be murdered in their sleep, etc., it should be possible to hammer out compromises. Especially if the rest of the world is willing to pony up enough money and resources to make political negotiations a positive-sum game.
Oh, and while I am discussing how to improve the image of Europe in the eyes of the world in general and the Iraqi people in particular, I would also point out the positive influence of an international criminal court and an international war crimes tribunal. Once we started actually prosecuting prime ministers and presidents and generals and war profiteering fatcats from Western(TM) countries, it would send a powerful message that human rights violations are not merely a pretext for colonial wars or a standard that only brown people and Russians have to adhere to.
I am also a big fan of truth and reconciliation. There has been so much death and so many crimes and so many years of war that almost everybody in Iraq is going to be a criminal in some way or another in somebody's eyes. Even if you believe that the best way to get to the truth and provide closure for the victims is a full dress trail (I don't, incidentally), the sheer scale of the devastation will make it impossible to carry out consistently in post-bellum Iraq.
One thing that we should object to - nay, condemn in the strongest possible terms - is any sign that the victors from the civil war start making kangaroo kourts and imprison/execute the losers wholesale simply for the crime of losing a civil war.
But ultimately, how Iraq - or whatever states might form from it as the result of a peace agreement - is going to deal with its victims and its executioners must be up to the Iraqi people. We can cajole, we can commend, we can recommend, we can support, we can condemn or we can argue. But if we impose a "patent solution," it would probably backfire.
Well, once we've brokered a stable peace, helped them rebuild their country, brought most of the higher echelons of our own war criminals to trial, midwifed a truth and reconciliation process, there are a variety of ways in which our grandchildren could promote democracy, liberty and human rights.
Cultural exchange programmes, scientific conferences and presenting an open society that allows Iraqis to experience a society based upon equality, liberty and democracy (of course, that requires that we have such societies to embed them in, should they accept the invitation...), just to name a few of the measures at our disposal.
We may not convince them. We may not convince their children. Or their children's children. But enlightenment has a lot going for it, and it is not going to go away (well, it might, but then we have bigger problems than how to get Iraqis to trust us...).
If the answer is, nothing can be done, then we are back to Utopianism, aren't we?
Not necessarily. The situation might reach the point where nothing can be done to salvage the situation because there is literally nothing left to salvage. If Iraq is turned into a smoking, glass-rimmed crater, for instance. I would hardly call that scenario Utopian, however. Maybe Dystopian, though.
Other than Atlantic Review, where are the European Atlanticists willing to disembark from their Utopian Isle and treat with us, mere mortals though we be?
Also, you sound like "an American counterpart of European Atlanticists" but many of the commenters to nanne's cross-post on Atlantic Review sound nothing like that.
I confess I was assuming you'd have a certain commitment to defending your original post. Instead you seem to be treating the post as a sort of hypothetical -- if Europe had credibility on true human rights (you say it doesn't -- yet another point on which we disagree!), then here is how we might proceed re Iraq.
But instead of traditional geopolitical power-plays and grand-chessboard strategy, assume that the EU's concern would simply be to help Iraq contain the bleeding, restore a semblance of dignity and respect for human rights, and allow a civil society to emerge from the ashes. What would be the strategy, and what would be the roadblocks along the way?
The context of my piece was to respond to Joerg's latest On Iraq, it's time to call Europe. "Call Europe to do what, exactly?" is my answer.
OK, now I see more clearly what you're saying.
It also took me a while to understand the paradox (to me at least) that you are pro-Europe, and pro-EU, and even pro-Lisbon...and yet you also fear that most of your leaders (who are also pro-EU) are irredeemably corrupt vassals of NATO -- so corrupt that they cannot even speak legitimately on issues of human rights. Won't these same leaders, or their colleagues drawn from Europe's bureaucracy, be responsible for implementing Lisbon (or whatever variation or subsection of Lisbon that eventually passes)?
This takes some getting used to.
I suppose the genius of the Lisbon treaty is, the language is so vague and general (except where it is technical and obscure), it becomes an empty vessel into which anyone and everyone can pour their ideals and aspirations.
I understand your skepticism re Europe's role in Iraq, and I share it, although probably for different reasons. Still, you did tentatively answer your own question ("Call Europe to do what, exactly?"), by suggesting a Judo approach focusing on improving the human rights situation. I just wish you had thought that through more, and were more committed to defending it, hypothetical though it may be.
What do you think of my suggestion that the right approach might look less like Judo, and more like a sea change?
Here is how a sea change strategy might work.
A 2005 UPI article (no longer available online, at least not that I can find) talks about how, in Auvergne, France they set up state-sponsored classes to address the problem that many French imams can barely preach in French. In what I think is a separate initiative, Dominique de Villepin, as Minister of the Interior, had talked about universities to train and certify (if that's the right word) Imams. These imams already have the training in Arabic and Koranic studies, so they can speak authentically to Muslims; they will now be also be trained (dare I say, vetted?) in the principles of French laity.
This is a model we couldn't possibly pursue in the US, due to separation of church and state.
So, a sea change strategy might be to set up an exchange program so that these French imams could meet with their Iraqi counterparts.
Now, if the goal were to turn Iraqi clerics into clones of French clerics, who for example would be required to support a hijab ban in schools, I could see how you might say this was neo-colonialist, or at least, inappropriate for Iraq.
But what if the point of these seminars were merely to teach, and demonstrate, the principles of sound financial management, accountability, and good government (don't fudge the accounting, have transparency in government and business, don't underpay civil servants and then expect them to steal or take bribes to feed their families, etc)?
Also, more controversially, perhaps academics could help Iraqis separate archaic tribal customs from the rest of Islamic teachings? In 2006 Turkey's Directorate of Religious Affairs started a three year "Hadith project" to do just that. Source. Another source.
This would take years to implement, and face formidable cultural barriers, yet it seems worth trying and might even work. It seems ideally suited to Europe's soft power, and its academic nature means it wouldn't require the sort of broad and deep consensus that would be needed for more active measures in Iraq.
What do you think? __ I am the most conservative Unitarian-Universalist you will ever meet.
This "reform Islam" project would require a stable political climate and very low level violence if any to even begin to think about implementing it.
Anyway, it's not like the EU doesn't do anything like "teaching and demonstrating the principles of good government". Check out this list: ongoing missions include
But I don't think that's viable as long as there is a significant insurgency. Which brings us back to Judo.
It also took me a while to understand the paradox (to me at least) that you are pro-Europe, and pro-EU, and even pro-Lisbon... and yet you also fear that most of your leaders (who are also pro-EU) are irredeemably corrupt vassals of NATO -- so corrupt that they cannot even speak legitimately on issues of human rights.
Won't these same leaders, or their colleagues drawn from Europe's bureaucracy, be responsible for implementing Lisbon (or whatever variation or subsection of Lisbon that eventually passes)?
So, the "problem" with Europe is not the EU, it's the national governments, IMHO.
You may find my diary The Bigger Picture informative, or maybe not.
Anyway, you only have to look at what happened with the CIA flight/prison scandal, with the passenger data transfers, the SWIFT data protection violation, the EU's stance on Israel's war on Lebanon in 2006, and the proposed missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, and the recognition of Kosovo, to understand why many on this site think that our governments (and the EU Council as a result) are corrupt US vassals. It seems that at the EU Commission (below the political appointee level) they have no illusions about being able to have a constructive relationship with the US... When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
But what if the point of these seminars were merely to teach, and demonstrate, the principles of sound financial management, accountability, and good government
I didn't mean to suggest that Europe should teach Iraqi imams how to be good accountants. I mean that European imams trained in the principles of laic society might be able to engage Iraqi imams and establish the philosophical or theological basis for the conclusion that nothing in the nuts and bolts of good government is a threat to Islam, and that in fact, good government is required for Islam to flourish.
For example, one of the major barriers to good government is the taboo on open debate, and its corollary, an irrational obsession with conspiracy theories. Might there be some sort of positive alchemy between Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's Quietist tradition, which has ancient roots in Islam, and European-trained imams? Perhaps Europe could engage on that front.
and might even work
By that I don't mean it would directly lead to in peace or human rights in Iraq. What I mean by "work" is, set the stage for the outbreak of good government, in which imams don't necessarily have a direct role, but do preach things like accountability, open dealings as opposed to secret pacts, that sort of thing.
This is what I was getting at, way back when I asked, what does the Iraqi concept of human rights have in common with the Western view. Human rights are universal, in the same sense that math or science are universal, but they still have to be taught. One could start with the basics, such as addressing the Iraqi (or indeed, Middle Eastern, but not necessarily Muslim) cultural taboo against open discussion.
...
Or, maybe there is just no way that European soft power can help in Iraq... __ I am the most conservative Unitarian-Universalist you will ever meet.
Now, as far as I was aware, Sistani does not agree with Khomeini's doctrine on the rule of the Jurisprudents, and that appears to be a position that he shared with his predecessors. He is not interested in leading a political movement (unlike Sadr), and he has been consistent in demanding more democratic (even secular liberal) government practices such as when he insisted (and gained that as a concession from the US) that the Iraqi Constitution be approved in referendum.
Other than that, I'm out of my depth. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
A few examples of many:
From what I've read, Iraqi domestic politics are just as byzantine. It becomes so pervasive, people actually do engage in conspiracies preemptivly, since they're convinced everyone around them must also be conspiring. This creates a vicious cycle of conspiracies that takes on a reality all its own.
Why not deploy some of Europe's soft power to debunk the more fantastic of these, with long-term goal of breaking the vicious cycle, while avoiding controversial issues like Colonialism, Palestine and Geopolitics in general? __ I am the most conservative Unitarian-Universalist you will ever meet.
You seem to misunderstand the reason that people create conspiracy theories.
To take an example, there is no obvious rational reason for the invasion of Iraq, and people like simple stories, so they make up the one that seems simplest to them: Iraq was invaded so the US could take the oil (with a side order of mendacity by whoever you happen not to like).
That the Iraqi invasion was the result of a collection of forces acting in their own perceive short-term interests in such a way that it became possible for the Bush regime to invade Iraq without any great overarching conspiracy is more complicated to explain than the "simple" conspiracies. On top of that, an analysis of the reasons for the Iraq war would be less than flattering to an awful lot of players in Iraq, the US, the Middle East and Europe. I'm not sure that explaining that Iraq was, in part, invaded because it meant that arms manufacturers would make more profits is going to have a positive effect on the Iraqi zeitgeist.
Well, perhaps, but the institutional framework is different.
While one should always be careful with transatlantic parallels, I think that a useful comparison would be to the civil rights movement in the US. Would you trust most of the US states to protect civil rights for gays (or for blacks thirty years ago)? Not a chance. Why, then, trust the federal government to protect them - isn't the federal government just as corrupt as the local governments?
Now, it's been a couple of years since I was up-to-date on what the American counter-creationists and gay rights people were doing. But last I heard, they still considered the federal constitution a superior platform for promoting civil rights compared to most of the state constitutions, and the federal bureaucracy was seen as less bigoted than the state bureaucracies.
In principle one can apply the same reasoning to the EU: The federal level may well be able to stand up to the neo-cons currently ruling in Washington despite the state governments being a gang of Quislings. Or at least more so than the collaborationist state governments. For whatever reason, that in fact seems to be the case (the torture flight investigation, for instance, was initiated at the federal level and opposed strongly at the state level).
As for your cultural exchange model for what Europe can do in Iraq, well, i kinda like it - at least as long as it is a part of a bigger process. In fact I believe I included academic exchange in my own suggestion. I'm not sure that the clergy would be the best venue of exchange, but then again, that may simply be my Scandinavian secularism speaking.
yet you also fear that most of your leaders (who are also pro-EU) are irredeemably corrupt vassals of NATO
They are NOT pro-EU! Brown is not, Berlusconi is not, Sarkozy is not. Just because they say they are (and I fail to see where Brown or Berlusconi even do that!) does not mean they are. Just look at their policies!
Merkel is better, and she also has, coincidentally, the most critical position towards the US nowadays. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
