--- "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 6. A unipolar West, in which each European nation's > relationship with and > deference to the US is regarded as more important > than its relationships > with its neighbors, is good. Each nation would have > just enough of a > military to assist the US in international affairs > but not enough to > threaten its immediate neighbors. And somehow each > nation would recognize > that this state of affiars doesn't compromise it's > own interests > significantly. > > Of course this list is off the top of my head and > unencumbered by the > research process...but I don't see how a number 6 > could ever be brought > about. > > Marvin Long
I would say that this is, in large part, where we are right now. Except that European nations (save Britain) don't have the ability to assist us. Ideally, they would. But if they don't, we can live with that. It's not the best of all possible worlds, but it might be better than the alternatives. Even if it's not achievable, a world in which the US is dominant (as it is now) and works closely with most European powers (Britain, Italy, Spain, all of Eastern Europe, check) is one that is working pretty well. If I had to guess, Germany will, when Schroeder falls, move back into a fairly close alliance with the US. France is obstreperous but has, historically, cooperated with the US when the chips are down. So I don't think the situation is that bad. My major point for a domestic audience is that the fact that France and Germany don't side with us in Iraq doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. For an international audience it is that if you want to, over the long term, preserve relations with the United States, there are two choices. The one that we _want_ you to make is to build up your military to the point where it is useful and help us in maintaining world order. If you choose not to do that, then stop interfering with us as we do that. But the third option - the one taken by France and Germany right now - of refusing to act on behalf of world order while hindering us as we do so - is not acceptable. Note, btw, the ludicrous extremism of Germany's position. Schroeder has stated that _even if_ there is public proof that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction _and_ there is UN Security Council approval of removing him, _even then_ Germany would oppose doing so. Absent a nuclear attack on New York by Saddam, there are apparently no circumstances in which Germany would approve removing him from power. That's ridiculous, and we Americans should not feel constrained by a country that is acting in such an absurd fashion. The last thing I'd add is that over the long term - the next 25-50 years - this will become less important. The combination of substantially faster American economic and population growth rates, combined with the demographic collapse of much of Europe, means that in real terms with every passing year the nations of Europe (again, save Britain) become less and less important on the international scene. The knowledge of that fact might, actually, be one of the chief reasons for Germany and France's current behavior. Gautam __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
