Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
American exceptionalism is not limited to Bush, it is part of the American fabric. Bush is just the example of how it ends up if coupled to pugnacious power politics and neoconservative radicalism. It will be expressed completely differently under an Obama presidency (though I fear it will still lead to ill-guided military interventions).
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 05:18:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Part of the American fabric? Exactly. That's why there have to be power counterbalances to the United States. The European Union should be one of them. During the Cold War, with the Soviet Union as a superpower, American leaders knew that if they did something gross, they would wake up in the morning and find a big hole in the ground where Chicago had been the night before. Britain's Margaret Thatcher pointed out a number of times that the superpowers' mutual threat kept the peace for a very long time, and that was an awful truth to admit. Now, we've seen adaquately what the Land-of-the-Free-and-the-Home-of-the-Brave gets up to when the United States takes center stage alone. It's an ugly picture, and the trend is going to continue with the next US president.
by Anthony Williamson on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 07:18:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The US got up to plenty during the Cold War -- see Wikipedia, List of United States military history events

I think the only post-war President who did not effectively wage war was Jimmy Carter. On the other hand, three of these wars - Korea, Iraq (Desert Storm) and Afghanistan - had the required support in international law.

I don't think setting up the EU as a competing block is the solution. The solution is ultimately to strengthen global governance and tie the US into it.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 08:15:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They won't even buy into what little international governance there is now - seeking to destroy the UN, not signing up for the Hague and Kyoto conventions etc.  American exceptionalism does not allow for America to be ruled by any "global governance".

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 08:42:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
American exceptionalism does not allow for America to be ruled by any "global governance".

The ideas do conflict, but there is nothing logically exclusive about American exceptionalism and global governance. For instance you can believe that America is the last, best hope of earth, or "the indispensible nation", or history's shining moral beacon, and still think it is worthwhile to sign and abide by treaties and support the UN. Much of international law has been shaped by the US. By and large, outright opposition to global governance has come from the post-1994 Republicans.

Signing up to the Kyoto successor treaty and the International Criminal Court are critical tests for the next US President.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 05:21:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The whole international system, UN, World Bank and IMF and WTO were set up to the US specification when the US was powerful enough to dictate the terms and control the institutions. Under Bush the US has been trying to undermine the international system because since the 1990's it is increasingly unable to control it. the "Saner" US presidential candidates want to reassert control, while the others will continue with the dismantling. But the US will rather retreat into isolationism than accept being an equal to any other entities.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 05:38:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The general point being that Global Governance is all very well so long as it is led by the US of A.

It's a bit like the EU being all very well and good as long as long as it is led on UK lines!

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 09:30:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The general point being that Global Governance is all very well so long as it is led by the US of A.

It's a bit like the EU being all very well and good as long as long as it is led on UK lines!


It's a good argument. We should aim for more IMO, but whether we can expect more... I don't know.

Now, whether the UK has ever lead the EU is eehm... something that can very well be questioned.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 09:43:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
(drop the a in lead)
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 09:45:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... UK are two entirely different things. The FT demand for Anglo disease EU-wide is not that the UK imposes Anglo disease ... they are perfectly happy if it is a self-imposed disease instead.

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 Jan 8th, 2008 at 04:51:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series