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.
As a recovering liberal interventionist (and there are a number of us on the blog), I simply don't see the obvious benefits of intervention. My point is, by the time intervention becomes your best policy option, the European project is a failure. So you're no longer debating from the point of view of the European interest. I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS
If we have war, then the European project is a failure. But the continent and its people continue to exist, regardless of institutional structure, so the question of the European interest is still pertinent. The EU, or its constituents, had no institutional obligation to intervene in Yugoslavia in 1991. Is that a valid excuse for not doing so? Do you think any such intervention would have made things worse? It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
There's one thing worse that either military intervention or no intervention: incompetent military intervention. I am confident the EU won't disappoint. I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS
If we have war, then the European project is a failure. But the continent and its people continue to exist, regardless of institutional structure, so the question of the European interest is still pertinent.
In the event of a war in Europe, the entities which are able to put boots on the ground will be, at best, acting in their own national interest (and more probably in the narrow special interests of a certain slice of their oligarchy). In terms of pertinence, the European interest is located somewhere slightly below the interests of the people being intervened in. The latter can, at least, shoot back.
The EU, or its constituents, had no institutional obligation to intervene in Yugoslavia in 1991. Is that a valid excuse for not doing so? Do you think any such intervention would have made things worse?
In practice, given that the same countries who were going to be intervening had been the loudest cheerleaders for starting the civil war they were intervening into in the first place, yes.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by Oui - Apr 20
by Oui - Apr 191 comment
by Oui - Apr 197 comments
by Oui - Apr 18
by Oui - Apr 17
by Oui - Apr 162 comments
by Oui - Apr 1618 comments
by Oui - Apr 156 comments
by Oui - Apr 14
by Oui - Apr 145 comments
by Oui - Apr 131 comment
by Oui - Apr 124 comments
by Oui - Apr 112 comments
by Oui - Apr 10
by Oui - Apr 93 comments
by Oui - Apr 91 comment
by Oui - Apr 83 comments
by Oui - Apr 69 comments
by Oui - Apr 6