Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I don't believe that imperialist and hegemon are intrinsically entangled under 21st century conditions in the way they were under 17th, 18th and 19th century conditions.

So whether the EU occupies the role of hegemon in the World-Economy and whether the EU attempts to behave as an imperialist power are two different questions, and my suspicion is that the answer to the first is only yes if the answer to the second is not only no, but also demonstrably so in a way that allays old memories of colonial imperialism.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Aug 23rd, 2010 at 11:28:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ssshhh! The European Union is the real Foundation. We are building a commercial hegemon to prepare the coming of the second global empire...

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
by Melanchthon on Mon Aug 23rd, 2010 at 01:50:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, but where is the Second Foundation? That is always the question.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Aug 23rd, 2010 at 05:45:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So whether the EU occupies the role of hegemon in the World-Economy and whether the EU attempts to behave as an imperialist power are two different questions, and my suspicion is that the answer to the first is only yes if the answer to the second is not only no, but also demonstrably so in a way that allays old memories of colonial imperialism.

In any given part of the world, yes.

However, it is perfectly possible to rely on economic development, cultural exchange and mutual support in one part of the world, and play the Great Game in another part of the world. The premier contemporary example would be the US: American policy towards most of Europe has been based largely on projecting soft power into those countries (and hard power against their enemies), whereas Latin America and most of Sub-Saharan Africa have been subjected to much more canonical imperial strategy.

The pros and cons of these different approaches are pretty clear: Soft power is a lot more durable in the face of (relative or absolute) decline. Europe remains fanatically loyal to the US, despite having no particularly convincing geopolitical reason for this any longer. Latin America, on the other hand, is in the next best thing to open revolt against the American world order. On the other hand, soft power is a bit more subtle and requires greater finesse. While the US was still able to consistently project hard power into Latin America, their colonial tribute largely arrived on time and in the specified quantities. The European clients, on the other hand, have occasionally been more reticent about providing their tribute (usually manpower and political air cover for playing the Great Game).

My fear is that while Europe will probably continue to rely on soft power in our own immediate sphere of influence - it works well, and few are willing to argue with success - it will be tempting to take shortcuts further abroad. With all the pernicious consequences for both the locals in those places and for European political culture that aggressive imperialist strategy usually entails.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Aug 24th, 2010 at 03:27:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is already SOP. In Washington, I suspect the neocons have always considered Iraq and Afghanistan to resource wars for oil, gas and drugs.

While EU support has been half-hearted in most countries, I'd guess most professional diplomats know a resource war when they see one, and they understand that the rhetoric about trrrrra was always a useful lie for public consumption.

The oil majors have been playing their own hard ball version of the Great Game around the Caspian and in the Middle East since the start of the last century.

You don't need a ground war to play bad cop. Assassinations, terrorism and political gerrymandering work just as well.

The EU currently has the advantage that as long as the US is prepared to do the overtly ugly stuff it can pretend to be a beacon of civilisation in a cruel world.

Considering how Iraq and Afghanistan have played out in the EU, I wouldn't expect that to last if US military dominance crumbles.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Aug 24th, 2010 at 07:56:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... US international economic policy is for, which is the pursuit of profit by transnational corporations that by accident of history happen to be headquartered in the US.

If US international economic policy was for job creation and pursuit of national interest, it is possible to pursue economic relationships that are in the national interest of Latin American and sub-Saharan African nations, and soft power is far more effective when pursuing mutual advantage than when, as at present, attempting to mobilize private interests in the international arena to counter the national interest of the international "partner".


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Aug 24th, 2010 at 02:35:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series