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
