Partners in Terror?

Coalition of the Spilling?

~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~

Partners
My comment responds with --shall we say factual premises-- to another comment attempting to explain a "relationship" between members of two --EP and US-- institutional bodies and their wide-ranging policy objectives. Let us note here that "relationship" is ambiguous diction and commentary here and there scarcely bothers to interrogate the apprehension (dread; arrest; understanding) of intent and result, commercial or diplomatic, disguised by its usage; whereas "partner," being a specific type of relationship, which by definition forecloses contemplation in the reader of uncoordinated (but not incompetent) and mutually exclusive organizational goals.

Obviously I do not think the distinction is trivial, when commentators assume a duty to evaluate the extent of "European" political independence as compared to US political independence (vaunted hegemony), according to inferences drawn from statistical measures of popular opinion or idiosyncratic speeches. A rigorous examination of events would illustrate the type of "relationship" in force demonstrates simply by example: To what extent does EP legislation cooperate with US legislation and to what extent does such cooperation curtail or subordinate the agency of each state's constituents  and sovereignty of legislatures to a patent political economy of domination?

Such an enquiry is impossible if an analyst is incapable of asking the questions which might upset the apple cart of "good speeches" and rotten conspiracy theories.

Data privacy, NSA detention, and GMO trade; finance "reform" and fiscal rationalization; immigrant sanctions and surveillance; war production; and sexual discrimination: These issues represent a few, recent legislative acts that pass muster of "partnership" with the US government in marketing --distributing, advertising-- terror and free trade.

A subtext to the abundance of animated PR produced by state celebrities --notably Mr Obama's singular representations and symbolic feelings about US "interests" (legal usage) by contrast to the multilateral messaging system employed by Council members-- is the press analyst's confidence as to whether actualized policies are mutually beneficial or exclusive to either the "interests" of government agents or expressed "interests" of the general populaces for whom these agents purportedly act. The analyst's ambivalence about claiming "the right side" of The Agency Problem for the current US president is abject.

Terror and free trade
Following is the sort of remark that illustrates the disingenuous discourse one might have come to expect from Sarkozy's appointees, in particular, and MEP jingoists, generally. It is incredible. It is incredible in light of historical events. It is incredible in light of eight, long, and defensive years of surrender monkey and poodle "meme" flinging. I cannot recall an instance in US history, when a president's or Congressional majority's "interest" in local or international European affairs was not wholly motivated by financial opportunism. Not one -- Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Ike, Nixon [WTF], Clinton. The diplomatic strategy, if it may be so-called, advanced by Mr Obama's administration to collect state "partners" hither and yon has not deviated one iota from this American "tradition."

"A senior aide to President Sarkozy of France said: 'Obama does not come from the same tradition as his predecessors. He is interested in Asia and Russia, not Europe.

Furthermore, both US and European states' "interest" in Asia --including Pacific Rim-- and eventually insurgent Russia is more than 100-years-old and reeks of the most foul odour of racism and genocide in practice. The anonymous bureaucrat continues.

There is no sense of a privileged relationship. They seem to take us for granted sometimes.

Such is the principle of opportunism: The surfeit of forethought, planning or ethics, that predicates a beneficial result of action; charitably characterized as the ability of an individual or an organization to respond, or adapt its behavior, to unexpected stressors. The EP presents no stress to US "interests" which are diverse. Whence emerges a highly sexualized, approving characterization --dare I say homophobia?-- of the "relationship" of the representatives of European peoples to the promiscuous Mandigo Swedish-like persona of the US shuttling about the free world murmuring, "Baby, you so fine."

He's not your boyfriend.  And he could use a lot more focus on domestic issues.

I will resist the temptation to analyze the paradox implied by "partner" in this context.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.