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.
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.
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.
John in Michigan USA:
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.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
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
