The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
It makes a lot more sense to listing to a meaningless harangue from an Iranian, or Cuban, or Venezuelan, or Libyan leader than to have to go to war against them. Talking is just better than shooting most of the time as a basic imperial policy. The institutions don't have to accomplish anything other than to prevent nations to trying to shoot at the US, so anything else they might also achieve, or not, are gravy.
Such a string of decisions exists for the European powers. But there is a change of management upcoming in Europe, because the current management has made denial of easily observed reality a major plank of its political program. And the new management may or may not continue to view a special Atlantic relationship as being in Europe's best interest.
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
An alternative would be Karl Schmitt's solution to the problem of determining who is actually the sovereign power. (In his framework there is only one truly sovereign power in a given international system, so it is comparable to the use of "hegemon" in this discussion.) The sovereign power is the one that can break its own rules that it expects of everyone else in the system without actually undermining the institutional framework of the system for everyone else.
I would say this is an understatement. Of course breaking the rules erodes ("undermines") the legitimacy of the "sovereign". It's just that it takes a lot of undermining for the sovereign to lose sufficient legitimacy for it to lose its hegemony.
Every time the sovereign uses its position to avoid the consequences of breakign the rules it increases the disaffection of its clients. And sovereigns derive their power from the consent of the governed.
guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
That's problematic because determining "national interest" is a subjective exercise.
On both grounds, it is fairly obvious that the European Atlanticists and that neoliberals anywhere are not advancing the national interest.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 21 33 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 19 16 comments
by IdiotSavant - Sep 18
by Oui - Sep 21 10 comments
by Oui - Sep 17 17 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 14 18 comments
by IdiotSavant - Sep 13 5 comments
by fjallstrom - Sep 8 16 comments
by Oui - Sep 2110 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 2133 comments
by Oui - Sep 191 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1916 comments
by Oui - Sep 18
by Oui - Sep 1813 comments
by IdiotSavant - Sep 18
by Oui - Sep 1717 comments
by Oui - Sep 1411 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1418 comments
by IdiotSavant - Sep 135 comments
by Oui - Sep 133 comments
by Oui - Sep 12
by Oui - Sep 104 comments
by Cat - Sep 103 comments
by gmoke - Sep 103 comments
by fjallstrom - Sep 816 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 454 comments
by Oui - Sep 45 comments
by gmoke - Sep 43 comments