November 4, 2003
WHAT SHARED VALUES? (via Political Theory):
Does the West have a future? (Graham Barrett, November 4, 2003, The Age)
The rise of international terrorism seemed at first to provide a new common foe. But while sharing some - although by no means all - of the American obsession with Islamist extremism, the Europeans and indeed many Australians differ sharply with the Bush team's response. It drives to the heart of all those shared values that define the West: democracy, the rule of law, freedom of expression, respect for human rights and international conventions.To a popular European way of thinking, developed over decades of substituting consensus for conflict, they have been compromised by, among other things, an American total war on terrorism that includes a Guantanamo Bay-style of policing and justice as well as a unilateralist invasion of Iraq. To an American way of thinking, such a European outlook is typical of those who are unable to differentiate between good and evil, and who remain unreliable ingrates after twice being rescued from destroying themselves as well as enjoying protection from Soviet hegemony.
Intriguingly, just to demonstrate that history still enjoys a nice twist, they have swapped styles in international relations, with the Franco-German alliance embracing Wilsonian ideals while the United States, supported by Britain and Australia on Iraq, has gone Bismarckian. To adapt Churchill's quip that the British and Americans are divided by a common language, the Europeans and Americans are now divided by common values as the extent of the differences in their political, philosophical and social cultures becomes increasingly evident.
In what sense can a people who believe in Evil be said to share common values with people who don't, particularly when the entire American experiment depends on the recognition that Man is Fallen? Posted by Orrin Judd at November 4, 2003 7:10 PM
There is so much amiss with this analysis that it's hard to know what to pick on first. IMO, a pointed commentary is more than the thing is worth. I'll settle for two points:
1) For those that cannot accept the existence of evil, it may be enough to say that there is a "characteristic" inherent in certain adversaries that renders the Franco-German approcach to multilateral negotiations ineffective. In euro parlance, their failure to seek an understanding of their adversaries makes them blind to the subtle nuances of the situation.
2) With respect to this shot at our Iraqi aid program:
"Some observers are asking why Iraq, with the second-biggest world oil reserves, is destined to receive about $US50 billion ($A70 billion) in aid and development when only a fraction of this sum is available for global causes such as helping the 2 billion people living in serious poverty, the millions of people condemned to death by HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, huge environmental problems and other mass maladies..."
This guy deserves the same answer that domestic critics get -- We're fighting a war. In fact, as many in France are beginning to realize, we're fighting their war.
Posted by: Dave in LA at November 4, 2003 7:53 PMIt is a serious error to say that Europe relies on consensus rather than conflict. Since 1990 at least, they have relied on proud blindness and haughty deceit (the French much longer than that). More and more, Rumsfeld's demarcation between old and new Europe looks right on (one doubts Spain, Poland, Romania, et.al. would have allowed the Balkans to go until 1995 without some forceful response).
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 4, 2003 8:40 PMAs Mr. Barrett notes, business and personal relationships between the US and EU are unlikely to be much effected.
Given that until WW II and the Cold War, the US and Europe weren't all that close, militarily, I see the future as merely a reversion to the historical norm.
In addition, Mr. Barrett asserts that the US' future will be drawn from Central and South America, (as well as Asia, which he fails to note), and the EU's from Africa and the Middle East. Since that is likely to further exacerbate the cultural differences between Europe and the US, it seems like a good idea to disentangle the US from the EU, before the US is drawn into further intra-Europe military squabbles, as in Kosovo.
As to the aid to Iraq: In the first place, the earmarked aid is nowhere close to US$50 billion, even including the international donor's pledges.
The figures I've seen are about US$38 billion, all told.
Secondly, as Mr. Barrett writes, Iraq has the world's second largest known oil reserves. That, along with the Iraq's geographical location, was the reason for the US invasion. It is in the US' best interest to stabilize the region, and if we do not, the invasion will be a failure, Saddam's deposing notwithstanding.
As much of a shame it is that 2 billion people live in poverty, the primary cause is their totally incompetant governments. So, unless the plan is for the US to overthrow all bad governments, (which I am not opposed to), simply throwing money at the problem will result, in two decades, with absolutely no change in the situation.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 5, 2003 4:47 AM