The Eurozone is in trouble. Deep, deep trouble. It has been for more than a year now. Tons of money and words beyond count have been expended in the effort to keep the Euro afloat despite the great gashes torn by the sovereign debt loads of Spain, Italy, and, the mother of them all, Greece.
Bankers have wept and wailed. Politicians have viewed with alarm while making promises that all will be well in the sweet bye and bye. Emergency meetings have been held, recently on an almost daily basis. Special funds have been established. Experts from the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund have developed plans, made demands, issued words both threatening and reassuring.
Still the "crisis" rolls along, a tsunami. And, like all tsunamis, the wave was not self-created but rather is the result of tectonic forces.
In the case of the Euro-debt tidal wave, the underlying tectonic forces are found in the nature of national politics. National political dynamics whether in Germany, Greece, France, or Finland are the cause of the seemingly economic disaster.
The economics of the current Eurozone are easy to understand. Greece and the other so-called PIGS borrowed money, a lot of money. More money than could be repaid without causing pain and misery within each state's population. For some years, the payments could and were made--sometimes with more borrowed money. With the onset of the Great Recession four years ago, the assorted PIGS led by Greece had more and more difficulty meeting extant obligations. As a result, the cost of borrowing more money on the international market ramped up. Ramped up a lot.
The economic slowdown around the world assured that the PIGS, again led by Greece, would have to make tough choices between meeting sovereign debt obligations or meeting domestic obligations ranging from salaries to pensions, from housing subsidies to underwriting the costs of medical treatment. The money to do both simply did not exist.
Absent the Eurozone, Greece would have done something many states have done in the past. Athens would have defaulted on its sovereign debt. Walked away from it. Given the bankers and other holders in due course a haircut. For a period of time, Greece would have had difficulty borrowing on the international market, but that would have passed.
Argentina took the default route a few years back. Today it is in better economic shape than it has been in more than three quarters of a century. Default like currency devaluation imposes only short term costs while usually providing the basis for long term benefits. Greece would have been able to do the same had the Euro not existed.
The common currency, the Euro, like the countries which use it, the Eurozone, exists as a tribute to a concept which owes much to idealism. The Euro, the Eurozone, the European Union are all tributes to High Minded and Lofty Thinking. The notion which propelled all was that of creating a federated Europe, thus preventing future conflict both violent and economic. The visionaries who created the European Union, the Euro, and its zone were convinced that a new, supra-national Europe would put the final nail in the coffin of nationalism and all it spawned for once and all.
Insofar as the EU is concerned, the visions have not yet been so challenged by real world forces as to discredit the dream, at least not entirely. The same cannot be said for the Euro.
The Eurozone was created as a monetary union but not a fiscal one. This has meant that the countries of the zone cannot have a common tax, or a common limit on public expenditures, or a common policy on wages and pensions. More importantly, the zone cannot provide for the orderly and automatic transfer of wealth from richer countries to poorer ones as is the case in another federal union, the one called the USA.
As a result, the Eurozone as an entity could not head off profligates like Greece before the crisis occurred. Nor could the Eurozone as an entity assure the automatic coverage of Greece's "overdrafts" from a common treasury.
Back in the Nineties, when the Euro and its zone were under construction, the assorted Deep Thinkers did debate whether or not the zone would be restricted to a monetary union. The downsides of this limited approach were understood. The overarching concern of the politicians involved in creating the zone had to be sure their respective national legislatures as well as the public which elected each would accept and support the new currency and the mechanism behind it.
In short, an accurate understanding of the limits of democratic acceptance put a necessary constraint on the ambitions of those creating the Euro. It was believed by these people as well as the national elites who welcomed the new expression of European integration that the Euro and its zone were but an intermediate step on the road to full federalism.
Even in its limited form, the monetary union was not greeted with universal hosannas and paeans. There were hard fights in the countries which opted to join the zone. Some states, most notably the UK, decided to stay out in the cold.
The force at work in the UK and within the opponents of the zone was democratically expressed nationalism. "Not to worry," murmured the Eurocrats, "federalism will come. Good times along with the European Union and its parliament will work wonders on the reactionary nationalists."
Wrong!
The Eurofanatics might have deprecated those who opposed the Euro along with those who were against the expansion of the European Union's sway in terms similar to those employed by President Obama and others of his ilk regarding people living in "fly over country," but in doing so they forgot that the hoi polloi had the franchise--and were willing to use it. The Great Recession exacerbated the already growing sense of frustration infecting many in Europe.
The frustration was the product of being, as one Irish woman put it during the vote on the Lisbon Treaty expanding the authority of the EU, "over governed." The climate of frustration over the attitudes and behavior of the political, media, and academic "elite" of Europe was enhanced by the ever growing and ever more evident presence of non-Europeans on the local soil.
The tone deafness if not blatant ideologically predicated stubbornness of the elites with a constant message of multiculturalism and end-of-nationalism stimulated the rapid growth of nationalist political parties across Europe. From Norway to Italy, from France to Austria, people in growing numbers saw and felt themselves to be strangers in a strange land, powerless pawns subject to dictates from Brussels and under siege by hordes of newcomers.
The push back was and will continue to be strong. Election after election with few hesitations have shown the increasing strength of nationalism and the parties which traffic in this commodity. The message has not been lost on the current occupants of elected office.
The American Treasury Secretary and his British colleague have warned the politicians of Europe to take immediate and decisive steps to end the market turmoil caused by the Greek sovereign debt. Both men made this abundantly clear when they sat in with the European finance ministers this past week. Both have good reason to be worried, very worried. A melt down in the European financial sector will have adverse consequences for both the UK and US. Great adverse consequences for two national economies not yet recovered from the Great Recession.
The European politicians did not need the Anglo-American warning. They are perfectly well aware of what is going on. It is just that they and their bosses in Berlin, in Athens, in Paris cannot do anything given the mood of the respective electorates.
The average German and counterparts in the Netherlands, Finland, and even France are not thrilled by the prospect of never ending bailouts of the "improvident" PIGS. The average Greek or Italian or Spaniard is equally disenchanted with having the quality of life beat down by remote bureaucrats from Brussels or the IMF. Undoubtedly, all hands would be quite willing and able to express their disapprobation come the next election.
The elites both in and out of government overlooked the basic truth here. The elites in their ideological fervor have far outrun the limits of general public approval. At the same time, they had forgotten the "unenlightened" members of the hoi polloi have a leash and collar on each and every elected proponent of European togtherness and multiculturalism called elections.
The Greek default crisis served to remind national politicians that the public was willing and able to administer a mid-course correction to policies of which it disapproved. The reminder has taken the form of apparent indecisiveness in the highest circles of European leadership--starting with Chancellor Merkel. Ms Merkel and the others are not indecisive; they are afraid of the costs of making a decision.
Ideals are wonderful. No one should neglect to have them. However, in the world of politics, particularly the politics of the world, it is critical that ideals not be decoupled from the realistic appraisal of what will be both accepted and supported by the majority of the politically articulate within society.
The creators of the Euro and its zone ignored this precept. As long as the world generally and Europe in particular enjoyed prosperity without precedent, all went well regardless. But, as was inevitable, the good times stopped, the dues collector came around. Unfortunately, in the case of the Euro, it looks as if the dues will be collected not only in Greece or in Germany but everywhere, even in the US.
The takeaway?
Simple. National publics are like armies as General George Patton once observed. "They are like pieces of cooked spaghetti. You can't push them. You can only pull them along, slowly."
Showing posts with label European Elites. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European Elites. Show all posts
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Another European Country Turns Hard Right
Parliamentary elections this weekend in Finland have resulted in one more run to the political Right by members of a hoi polloi fed up with the European Union, the Eurozone, and immigration. The True Finn party, which has a microscopic six seats in the 200 seat parliament, has been predicted by Finnish state broadcaster YLE to end up with forty-one seats when the last thirty percent of the ballots have been counted.
This means the True Finns, which are notably Europhobic, opposed to immigration, and death on participating in another bailout of a broke Eurozone state, are in a dead heat with the almost as hard right National Coalition Party and the merely right wing Social Democrats. The big loser has been the Center Party, the senior partner of the current coalition government. The Center Party lost roughly a quarter of the support it had in the 2007 elections.
Before the vote, the True Finns were expected to gain support, but nothing like what has turned out to be the case. The stunning success of the True Finns means that either it or the Euroskeptic NCP will be in the next coalition. The other sixteen members of the Eurozone are hoping it won't be the True Finns, who are completely opposed to Finland participating in yet one more bailout.
Not that the True Finns being in the government will matter that much. Finnish law provides that parliament must vote on every instance of bailout participation unlike all the other Eurozone where the ministers alone hold the authority. The Finns are opposed to bailing out the next candidate for Eurozone welfare, Portugal. Given that every Eurozone decision must be unanimous, this means that Portugal will not get the money. It also means the Eurozone will face its largest and gravest challenge yet.
The Finns are a notably fiscally responsible people. At one time they stood at the head of the list of countries most admired by Americans because they were the only state to pay off in full and on time the money loaned to them by the US during and after World War I. While other, much larger states including the UK, did not pay their obligations to the US, "plucky" Finland did. A few years ago when Finland fell off the fiscal sobriety wagon briefly they could have benefited from some Eurozone understanding and assistance, but such was not forthcoming.
In a sense the current election represents pay back time. However, it is much more than that. Finn after Finn interviewed in the European media showed a remarkable disinclination for taking a share of the ultimate responsibility for money loaned to states which had already proven themselves improvident. There was a great well of resentment directed at the majority in parliament for having signed onto the earlier rounds of bailout, those to Greece and Ireland. "Never again!" became the motto across the Finnish board.
While the True Finn Party rode the bailout horse for all it was worth, they rode another as well: Immigration. As immigration did not have the potential to affect the Eurozone generally, it was not as well covered by the European media. Yet it was the position on immigration which separated the True Finns from the NCP. To the highly nationalistically inclined True Finns, immigration--any immigration--was a suicidal concept for Finland. This nationalistic message would have reverberated deeply in much of the non-elite Finnish population.
The history of Finland is to a great extent the history of nationalism, nationalism frustrated as during the long years of Russian occupation and nationalism triumphant as during the Winter War and Finland's alliance with Nazi Germany during much of World War II. After the war Finland became somewhat of a hollow state with options in foreign and national security as well as economic policy subject to Soviet control. It has been only since the collapse of the Soviet Union that Finland has again been undisputed master of its own house.
That mastery and the Finnish identity which underlies it has been threatened in the eyes of more than a few Finns by the machinations of the EU, the Eurozone, and the influx of immigrants, particularly those from non-European backgrounds. To a degree far surpassing the other parties, the True Finns linked the two issues. Their ultimate message was simply: "Who runs Finland? Who is Finnish?"
Pace the multi-culturalists and others favoring open borders and the loss of national identity and sovereignty, the message of the True Finns as well as its appeal to a large bloc of voters is not inherently racist. Neither is it xenophobic. Nor is it "Islamophobic." The message and its appeal address something fundamental in the relation of individual, nation, and state--identity. It also addresses the equally central matter of just who runs our country, us or outsiders? Given the years of domination either direct or indirect by Russia, it is not surprising that Finns might be particularly touchy on the question of who is in charge in Helsinki.
Should events play out as the movers and shakers of the Eurozone fear, the bailout for Portugal will not happen. In turn this means the Eurozone will be called into question. This is not a bad idea. The Eurozone is a ramshackle construction at best, sold to governments and voters alike as being a currency federation without a central bank. This is akin to being sold a nuclear power plant without the reactor--all the whistles and bells are present but without the guts of the endeavor.
The giants of the Eurozone and EU, Germany and France, will huff and puff about the unfairness of a percentage of the electorate of tiny (five and a half million people) Finland tossing a spanner in the works. There will be pressure put upon the new parliament to vote for the bailout regardless of explicit or implicit promises to the electorate. Inducements will be offered. Arms will be twisted. It will be polite smiles in public and rather ugly frowns in private.
But, these are the Finns. An enigmatic and mysterious people, the Finns are as deep and impenetrable in some ways as their endless evergreen forests, as cold but strangely inviting as the dark blue lakes dotting those forests. The Finns barely seventy-five years ago held off the monstrous steamroller of the Red Army for months, fighting alone against the largest military juggernaut in the world. They did not win a victory, but they won a defeat in which they came off far better than would have been the case had they not fought or not fought with such tenacity. Even Joe Stalin had to respect the Finns.
The Eurocrats may learn to respect them as well. If the Finns, True and otherwise, hold tough, say a firm "no!" to the next bailout, the result will be short term dismay for the Eurozone enthusiasts, but this in the longer term may prove highly beneficial. There is another benefit residing in this election for those European politicians with the wit to see it. The Finnish common folk have shown one more time that they have not bought the bill of goods being peddled by the multi-cultural, post nationalist elites.
There is a lesson there--and not just for Europeans.
This means the True Finns, which are notably Europhobic, opposed to immigration, and death on participating in another bailout of a broke Eurozone state, are in a dead heat with the almost as hard right National Coalition Party and the merely right wing Social Democrats. The big loser has been the Center Party, the senior partner of the current coalition government. The Center Party lost roughly a quarter of the support it had in the 2007 elections.
Before the vote, the True Finns were expected to gain support, but nothing like what has turned out to be the case. The stunning success of the True Finns means that either it or the Euroskeptic NCP will be in the next coalition. The other sixteen members of the Eurozone are hoping it won't be the True Finns, who are completely opposed to Finland participating in yet one more bailout.
Not that the True Finns being in the government will matter that much. Finnish law provides that parliament must vote on every instance of bailout participation unlike all the other Eurozone where the ministers alone hold the authority. The Finns are opposed to bailing out the next candidate for Eurozone welfare, Portugal. Given that every Eurozone decision must be unanimous, this means that Portugal will not get the money. It also means the Eurozone will face its largest and gravest challenge yet.
The Finns are a notably fiscally responsible people. At one time they stood at the head of the list of countries most admired by Americans because they were the only state to pay off in full and on time the money loaned to them by the US during and after World War I. While other, much larger states including the UK, did not pay their obligations to the US, "plucky" Finland did. A few years ago when Finland fell off the fiscal sobriety wagon briefly they could have benefited from some Eurozone understanding and assistance, but such was not forthcoming.
In a sense the current election represents pay back time. However, it is much more than that. Finn after Finn interviewed in the European media showed a remarkable disinclination for taking a share of the ultimate responsibility for money loaned to states which had already proven themselves improvident. There was a great well of resentment directed at the majority in parliament for having signed onto the earlier rounds of bailout, those to Greece and Ireland. "Never again!" became the motto across the Finnish board.
While the True Finn Party rode the bailout horse for all it was worth, they rode another as well: Immigration. As immigration did not have the potential to affect the Eurozone generally, it was not as well covered by the European media. Yet it was the position on immigration which separated the True Finns from the NCP. To the highly nationalistically inclined True Finns, immigration--any immigration--was a suicidal concept for Finland. This nationalistic message would have reverberated deeply in much of the non-elite Finnish population.
The history of Finland is to a great extent the history of nationalism, nationalism frustrated as during the long years of Russian occupation and nationalism triumphant as during the Winter War and Finland's alliance with Nazi Germany during much of World War II. After the war Finland became somewhat of a hollow state with options in foreign and national security as well as economic policy subject to Soviet control. It has been only since the collapse of the Soviet Union that Finland has again been undisputed master of its own house.
That mastery and the Finnish identity which underlies it has been threatened in the eyes of more than a few Finns by the machinations of the EU, the Eurozone, and the influx of immigrants, particularly those from non-European backgrounds. To a degree far surpassing the other parties, the True Finns linked the two issues. Their ultimate message was simply: "Who runs Finland? Who is Finnish?"
Pace the multi-culturalists and others favoring open borders and the loss of national identity and sovereignty, the message of the True Finns as well as its appeal to a large bloc of voters is not inherently racist. Neither is it xenophobic. Nor is it "Islamophobic." The message and its appeal address something fundamental in the relation of individual, nation, and state--identity. It also addresses the equally central matter of just who runs our country, us or outsiders? Given the years of domination either direct or indirect by Russia, it is not surprising that Finns might be particularly touchy on the question of who is in charge in Helsinki.
Should events play out as the movers and shakers of the Eurozone fear, the bailout for Portugal will not happen. In turn this means the Eurozone will be called into question. This is not a bad idea. The Eurozone is a ramshackle construction at best, sold to governments and voters alike as being a currency federation without a central bank. This is akin to being sold a nuclear power plant without the reactor--all the whistles and bells are present but without the guts of the endeavor.
The giants of the Eurozone and EU, Germany and France, will huff and puff about the unfairness of a percentage of the electorate of tiny (five and a half million people) Finland tossing a spanner in the works. There will be pressure put upon the new parliament to vote for the bailout regardless of explicit or implicit promises to the electorate. Inducements will be offered. Arms will be twisted. It will be polite smiles in public and rather ugly frowns in private.
But, these are the Finns. An enigmatic and mysterious people, the Finns are as deep and impenetrable in some ways as their endless evergreen forests, as cold but strangely inviting as the dark blue lakes dotting those forests. The Finns barely seventy-five years ago held off the monstrous steamroller of the Red Army for months, fighting alone against the largest military juggernaut in the world. They did not win a victory, but they won a defeat in which they came off far better than would have been the case had they not fought or not fought with such tenacity. Even Joe Stalin had to respect the Finns.
The Eurocrats may learn to respect them as well. If the Finns, True and otherwise, hold tough, say a firm "no!" to the next bailout, the result will be short term dismay for the Eurozone enthusiasts, but this in the longer term may prove highly beneficial. There is another benefit residing in this election for those European politicians with the wit to see it. The Finnish common folk have shown one more time that they have not bought the bill of goods being peddled by the multi-cultural, post nationalist elites.
There is a lesson there--and not just for Europeans.
Friday, December 17, 2010
The European Union Feels Neglected
The Baroness Ashton, who is the EU's head diplomat, has written a five page paper dealing with the needed changes in the supra-national entity's diplomatic relations. Much of the leaked exercise in whining deals with the perception in Brussels that Europe is no longer the primary focus of American foreign policy.
The Baroness, a person bereft of previous diplomatic experience or, indeed, governmental background beyond service on one of the UK's innumerable quangos, holds the cause of the current lack of EU influence on Washington to be the consequence of European lack of unity. Apparently, Ms Ashton has convinced herself that the failure of Europe to speak with a single voice has assured its irrelevance to American policy makers.
A cynic might be tempted to dismiss her assessment of both cause and effect to be a transparent effort in empire building. Ms Ashton's argument certainly leans in the direction of seeking to elevate the EU's diplomatic apparatus above the foreign policy establishments of the individual member states. There is no doubt that the Baroness's report to the EU is of a piece with earlier proclamations of the supremacy of the EU's ambassador in Washington over those of the individual states.
A less cynical but equally realistic person might conclude that the Baroness has thrown down the gauntlet of challenge. The document by its demands for a more unified European voice asserts that there is an authentic political entity called the European Union which is more than simply the sum of its sovereign parts. As such the document calls on the Euro-fanatics to stage a sort of foreign policy putsch against the national establishments.
Since there is no actual political entity hiding behind the name "European Union," there is no need nor is their any reason for the US to pay any particular attention to the desires or dictates of the Eurocrats in Brussels. Unless and until the EU morphs into a genuine political body with all the features of sovereignty which characterize a state, this situation will not change. Nor should it.
While the notion of a United States of Europe with all the attributes of central government sovereignty such as apply to other federated states has long beguiled segments of the European elites, the dream (or nightmare) is far from achieving reality as the current Euro zone monetary problems demonstrate. As a result, there is really no reason for the EU to have any influence in Washington beyond that achieved by one or another of its member states.
Apologists for the Ashton position would note that President Obama has demonstrated a remarkable lack of interest in or concern for Europe. Beyond the use of European locales for the Great Tour of 2008, Mr Obama has not only ignored Europe, he has scorned it. Even symbolic engagements such as meeting with European leaders on the sidelines of EU conferences have been allowed to slide by. Considering the importance of symbolism in foreign relations, this sort of back-of-me-hand approach has been seen by Europeans as a mark of profound disrespect.
Of course, the Obama treatment has been laden with disrespect. However Ms Ashton is wrong to conclude that they are emblematic of a unique disdain for the EU. President Obama has shown himself to be equally tone deaf in his treatment of individual leaders including those of the UK, the closest ally the US has in the fractious EU.
Then there is the other side of the coin. Just how good have the assorted countries of the EU been as allies and parters of the US? A strong case can be made for the proposition that with allies like those countries the US has no need for enemies.
The European states have not been close nor effective collaborators in the presumably joint effort in Afghanistan with the notable exceptions of the UK and France. The members of the EU were far more against us than with us in the great adventure in regime change in Iraq again with the notable exception of the UK.
In a not dissimilar fashion, the elites of the EU states have not been in close concert with the US on the critical matter of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Indeed, these worthies have been even more willing than their American counterparts to engage in systematic efforts to deny the legitimacy of Israel. Attempts to undercut the right of Israel to exist in peace and with defensible borders in no way assists in the effort to find a way to peace in the region.
While the EU has finally become more forthright and effective in its collective effort to back the American sponsored play in the matter of Iran and its quest for nuclear capability, that development came almost too late to matter. It must be noted that member states still seek creative ways to evade the sanctions for the benefit of their domestic economies. Overall, the EU in both actions and words has given very little reason for Americans to accept the contention that the body and its members are good allies in a common cause.
The EU apparently fears a US collaboration with China which leaves the Union out of the game. There is good reason for this apprehension. China is far more important to the US now and into the future. It is a formidable adversary of the US, which must be handled with great care and even greater realism less it become an even larger threat in the years to come. It is difficult enough to deal with Beijing on a bilateral basis. It is much harder to engage the Trolls of Beijing in the context of multilateral meetings as has been shown repeatedly by the Six Power Talks and their aftermath.
While there is minimal likelihood of the US and China ever establishing any simulacrum of a co-dominion or even the sort of bi-polar environment of the Cold War sort, there is a requirement for the US to establish in an effective way lines across which the Chinese cannot cross. In this context there is a role for the EU to play, but it is not one of equality as the Baroness apparently desires.
The Chinese, not unlike the Russians (or the advocates of violent political Islam for that matter), respect force above all other considerations. The immediate expression of force may be confined to the economic sphere, but must rest when night falls on the credible capacity and political will to use military might in pursuit of policy. The Europeans are even less likely than the Americans to accept this hoary but nonetheless true principle of diplomacy. Attempting to get the EU to agree to use armed force is a task compared to which the Labor of Sisyphus becomes a walk in the sun.
The near universal cuts in military expenditure in the EU underscores the melancholy fact that European diplomatic influence has become a rapidly wasting asset. This in turn undercuts the argument made by Ms Ashton that it will take only a single voice approach to foreign relations for Europe to reclaim its pride of place in American strategic considerations.
There is another very important point left unaddressed by the Ashton report. What is in it for the US should the EU speak with a more unified voice? That is, what advantages accrue to American policy if the EU reigns supreme over the often dissonant European chorus?
There is no immediately obvious answer to these questions. Actually, a stronger case can be made for the contention that European dissonance benefits the US. While the Americans have not and should not pursue an intentionally divide and conquer approach to the several European states, internal divisions in the continent allow the US to follow a course of exploiting to its advantage any of these organic divisions when such is necessary or desirable.
Ms Ashton, like the Eurocrats generally, has an inbuilt distaste for the nation-state. Again, like the European elites overall, she has a fondness for supra-national institutions which surpasses logical understanding. She has no choice but to see the future of European foreign relations in terms of the EU and not the self-defined national interests of its member states.
Ironically, she has a soulmate in President Obama. The Clueless Guy In The Oval would like to deal with the EU as a single voice rather than the cacophony of conflicting voices which has been and will continue to be Europe.
But the reality is the nation-state is far from the scrapheap of history. The Baroness Ashton is simply not attuned to reality. Unlike Mr Obama, she is not elected, not ultimately responsible to an electorate far more given to the appeals of nation and nationalism. As a result, she can afford to be totally out of touch with reality. And, bucko, as this five page ditty shows the lady is beaucoup out of touch.
The Baroness, a person bereft of previous diplomatic experience or, indeed, governmental background beyond service on one of the UK's innumerable quangos, holds the cause of the current lack of EU influence on Washington to be the consequence of European lack of unity. Apparently, Ms Ashton has convinced herself that the failure of Europe to speak with a single voice has assured its irrelevance to American policy makers.
A cynic might be tempted to dismiss her assessment of both cause and effect to be a transparent effort in empire building. Ms Ashton's argument certainly leans in the direction of seeking to elevate the EU's diplomatic apparatus above the foreign policy establishments of the individual member states. There is no doubt that the Baroness's report to the EU is of a piece with earlier proclamations of the supremacy of the EU's ambassador in Washington over those of the individual states.
A less cynical but equally realistic person might conclude that the Baroness has thrown down the gauntlet of challenge. The document by its demands for a more unified European voice asserts that there is an authentic political entity called the European Union which is more than simply the sum of its sovereign parts. As such the document calls on the Euro-fanatics to stage a sort of foreign policy putsch against the national establishments.
Since there is no actual political entity hiding behind the name "European Union," there is no need nor is their any reason for the US to pay any particular attention to the desires or dictates of the Eurocrats in Brussels. Unless and until the EU morphs into a genuine political body with all the features of sovereignty which characterize a state, this situation will not change. Nor should it.
While the notion of a United States of Europe with all the attributes of central government sovereignty such as apply to other federated states has long beguiled segments of the European elites, the dream (or nightmare) is far from achieving reality as the current Euro zone monetary problems demonstrate. As a result, there is really no reason for the EU to have any influence in Washington beyond that achieved by one or another of its member states.
Apologists for the Ashton position would note that President Obama has demonstrated a remarkable lack of interest in or concern for Europe. Beyond the use of European locales for the Great Tour of 2008, Mr Obama has not only ignored Europe, he has scorned it. Even symbolic engagements such as meeting with European leaders on the sidelines of EU conferences have been allowed to slide by. Considering the importance of symbolism in foreign relations, this sort of back-of-me-hand approach has been seen by Europeans as a mark of profound disrespect.
Of course, the Obama treatment has been laden with disrespect. However Ms Ashton is wrong to conclude that they are emblematic of a unique disdain for the EU. President Obama has shown himself to be equally tone deaf in his treatment of individual leaders including those of the UK, the closest ally the US has in the fractious EU.
Then there is the other side of the coin. Just how good have the assorted countries of the EU been as allies and parters of the US? A strong case can be made for the proposition that with allies like those countries the US has no need for enemies.
The European states have not been close nor effective collaborators in the presumably joint effort in Afghanistan with the notable exceptions of the UK and France. The members of the EU were far more against us than with us in the great adventure in regime change in Iraq again with the notable exception of the UK.
In a not dissimilar fashion, the elites of the EU states have not been in close concert with the US on the critical matter of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Indeed, these worthies have been even more willing than their American counterparts to engage in systematic efforts to deny the legitimacy of Israel. Attempts to undercut the right of Israel to exist in peace and with defensible borders in no way assists in the effort to find a way to peace in the region.
While the EU has finally become more forthright and effective in its collective effort to back the American sponsored play in the matter of Iran and its quest for nuclear capability, that development came almost too late to matter. It must be noted that member states still seek creative ways to evade the sanctions for the benefit of their domestic economies. Overall, the EU in both actions and words has given very little reason for Americans to accept the contention that the body and its members are good allies in a common cause.
The EU apparently fears a US collaboration with China which leaves the Union out of the game. There is good reason for this apprehension. China is far more important to the US now and into the future. It is a formidable adversary of the US, which must be handled with great care and even greater realism less it become an even larger threat in the years to come. It is difficult enough to deal with Beijing on a bilateral basis. It is much harder to engage the Trolls of Beijing in the context of multilateral meetings as has been shown repeatedly by the Six Power Talks and their aftermath.
While there is minimal likelihood of the US and China ever establishing any simulacrum of a co-dominion or even the sort of bi-polar environment of the Cold War sort, there is a requirement for the US to establish in an effective way lines across which the Chinese cannot cross. In this context there is a role for the EU to play, but it is not one of equality as the Baroness apparently desires.
The Chinese, not unlike the Russians (or the advocates of violent political Islam for that matter), respect force above all other considerations. The immediate expression of force may be confined to the economic sphere, but must rest when night falls on the credible capacity and political will to use military might in pursuit of policy. The Europeans are even less likely than the Americans to accept this hoary but nonetheless true principle of diplomacy. Attempting to get the EU to agree to use armed force is a task compared to which the Labor of Sisyphus becomes a walk in the sun.
The near universal cuts in military expenditure in the EU underscores the melancholy fact that European diplomatic influence has become a rapidly wasting asset. This in turn undercuts the argument made by Ms Ashton that it will take only a single voice approach to foreign relations for Europe to reclaim its pride of place in American strategic considerations.
There is another very important point left unaddressed by the Ashton report. What is in it for the US should the EU speak with a more unified voice? That is, what advantages accrue to American policy if the EU reigns supreme over the often dissonant European chorus?
There is no immediately obvious answer to these questions. Actually, a stronger case can be made for the contention that European dissonance benefits the US. While the Americans have not and should not pursue an intentionally divide and conquer approach to the several European states, internal divisions in the continent allow the US to follow a course of exploiting to its advantage any of these organic divisions when such is necessary or desirable.
Ms Ashton, like the Eurocrats generally, has an inbuilt distaste for the nation-state. Again, like the European elites overall, she has a fondness for supra-national institutions which surpasses logical understanding. She has no choice but to see the future of European foreign relations in terms of the EU and not the self-defined national interests of its member states.
Ironically, she has a soulmate in President Obama. The Clueless Guy In The Oval would like to deal with the EU as a single voice rather than the cacophony of conflicting voices which has been and will continue to be Europe.
But the reality is the nation-state is far from the scrapheap of history. The Baroness Ashton is simply not attuned to reality. Unlike Mr Obama, she is not elected, not ultimately responsible to an electorate far more given to the appeals of nation and nationalism. As a result, she can afford to be totally out of touch with reality. And, bucko, as this five page ditty shows the lady is beaucoup out of touch.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
The (Not So) Ugly Face Of Nationalism Haunts Europe--Again
The European Union is once again facing crisis. Well, more than one crisis to err on the side of accuracy. The better known one, the crisis which attracts all the ink both real and virtual as well as the attention of those great beasts collectively named "The Market," is the one involving another round of EU bailouts. The lesser volume crisis attracted the attention of EU chief magistrate, Herman van Rompey, who delivered a speech last week in which he equated the growing scepticism concerning the Union with an explosive and destructive increase of the dreaded creature from the depths of hell: nationalism.
The Eurocrats of Brussels are contractually obligated to put loyalty to the structures of the Union over national affections. Even elected national officials are required to put the interests of their governments and people subordinate to the needs and policies of the One Big Union. Beyond those obligations there is a sentiment abroad in the "elites" of Europe to the effect that the days of the petty nation-state are over, replaced by the One Great Society and Polity called "Europe."
The presumptions of the Euro-fanatics have prevailed even when the great hordes of the unwashed, the hoi polloi, have made it clear--as in the famed case of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty--that they want no truck with a supranational entity, another and quite suspect layer of government. Whenever the voices of the lesser orders have shouted loud and clear, "No!," the Eurocrats and Euro-fanatics have simply changed the rules and insisted on another turn at bat, another chance to assure that the peasants get it right.
The rolling thunder of default crises which have and continue to strike the Eurozone have had the net effect of engendering an ever greater distrust in the minds of the peoples of Europe regarding not only the legitimacy of the fiat currency, the Euro, but of the political scheme which resides behind it. Greeks have quite literally taken to the streets in opposition to the dictates of the Eurocrats which accompanied the bailout of the Greek deficit mess. The same has occurred in Spain and Portugal. And, threatens in Ireland.
The Irish, who are not noted for a lack of national identity and pride in that identity, have already made it plain to the Lords Protector of the EU that infringements on sovereignty are unacceptable. The demands made by Brussels that the Irish restructure their corporate tax rate as a part of the price of Eurozone assistance is over the edge.
Imagine that, a government seeking to protect low corporate tax rates! What is happening in Dublin? Has the Irish parliament been taken over by a branch of the Tea Party movement?
No. The Tea Party has remained safely confined on this side of the Atlantic. Rather, the Irish government is well aware of the depth of hostility held toward the EU by the average Irish voter. The government is also aware that raising the corporate taxes would be akin to severing the Irish financial jugular. Also, comments from members of the Dail hint strongly that even the Irish political hoi olligoi is not immune to the powerful attractions of nationalism.
Even in Germany and France, the two strongest proponents of economic and political potency through international cooperation--that is, through the mechanisms of the EU--have been showing an increasingly steep tilt toward national primacy. German taxpayers are not thrilled at the prospect of paying for Greek or Spanish or Portuguese policies of social spending largess. The French, who have long believed that government exists only to strip the individual of his last sou and final shred of liberty, are more and more willing to see the One Big Union as being the worst malefactor in these twin threats.
Herman van Rompey is far from being alone in seeing a direct line connecting doubts about the efficacy and legitimacy of the EU to the rise of aggressive nationalism and its inevitable handmaiden, war. Of course, van Rompey and the others of his ilk are as wrong as a cat barking.
Austria is a member in good standing of the EU. Neighboring Switzerland is a complete non-participant in the One Big Union. Yet the Austrian army is not mobilized on the border ever vigilant, waiting for the Swiss legions to pour across. Nor is EU member Sweden deploying enhanced border protection against the nocturnal commando raids from non-member Norway.
Somehow, go-it-more-or-less alone Norway and Switzerland among others have managed to elude the embrace of the Union while not becoming aggressive exemplars of the sins of nationalism. As Mr van Rompey must know in his more rational moments, there is no necessary tie between primacy of loyalty to one's home country and pursuit of that country's national interest and warfare. The EU is not a necessary mechanism for the restraint of nationalism. It is not a requisite for peaceful intercourse among the several European states.
The long ago precursor of the EU, the European Iron and Coal Community, was a creation, or, more accurately, a reaction to the extremes of economic and political competition which had laid the foundations for both parts of the Great European Civil War of the early and mid Twentieth Century. The original concept actually was formed before German tanks rolled across the Polish border and was well rooted in a proper but narrow interpretation of the conditions which had brought World War I.
The initial Iron and Coal Community worked well. It worked so well that it quickly expanded into the Common Market. The Common Market, as the name makes explicit, was a customs union. As such, it worked to the mutual benefit of its members. But, as it was a limited institution, it made no claim upon the primary loyalties of individual Europeans. It made no political demands.
Even in its limited role, the Common Market did not enjoy universal approbation. French farmers, Italian factory workers, German industrialists all found more than a few reasons to oppose the Market. Nonetheless, the Market was reconceptualized as a political as well as economic institution. Leaving aside all the fits, starts, zigs and zags, the Common Market ultimately morphed into the EU. Along the way, the Eurozone was fabricated, a common currency without the mechanisms of a central bank or an aggregate device of economic governance.
In both its initial and later, Lisbon Treaty based form, the EU was the creation of the political and opinion molding elites of the member states. The people of Europe were not consulted. At no time other than the Irish referendum did the hoi polloi have a seat at the table. This was not oversight. It was intentional as the self-appointed sophisticates of the elites did not trust their own citizens. That was true at the beginning; it is true today.
The EU in both its dot one and dot two forms were crammed down the collective throats of Europeans generally in a manner identical to the passage of Obamacare here. Not surprisingly, the peasants have not been pleased, with the result there is a strong current of resentment, a strong desire to vomit the cram down back in the faces of those who did the cramming.
The current and continuing deficit contretemps has given both a motivation and a focus for those who feel strong discontent with the Union. The Eurocrats are well aware of this. The European Parliament as well as the executive entity have attempted to deflect the worst effects of popular rejection by developing a series of ploys which can be seen as a European version of the American federal government's technique of unfunded mandates. The idea is to displace both responsibility and political blame to the national governments, which are required by the Union to undertake unpleasant and expensive actions.
Nifty, heh? By displacing all unpleasant and politically costly actions onto national governments, not only is the EU held harmless but is actually enhanced. Popular anger directed at national governments can be massaged to become support for the Union. The EU regime can be portrayed credibly as the savior of the common man in a way resembling the elevation of the US federal government as a moral pinnacle compared to the reactionary state governments during the salad days of the civil rights movement.
Whether the Eurocrats will win is both unclear and debatable both as to probability and longer term effect. Should the stresses on the Eurozone cause the collapse of the Euro as a credible circulating medium, the shock waves will not be good for the Union. However, should the Union fail, the failure will be limited to the overreach of entering the sphere of politics, of power over the lives of individual citizens of European countries. In effect, this would mean the Union would revert to the days of the Common Market. It is arguable that this would be a very real benefit for Europeans both as individuals and as nation-states.
As President Obama meets with leaders of the Union's member states (for a scheduled two hours) on the sidelines of the NATO conference, he might be advised to consider that the EU and his administration are staring failure in the face for the same reason. Both he and the Eurocrats held the views and convictions of the average citizen in contempt. Both he and they refused to accept the voice and views of the citizens, listening only to like minded members of their respective elites.
Or to put it very simply: Both President Obama and the Euro-fanatics forgot that the common citizen, the hoi polloi had minds--and votes--of their own. Both Mr Obama and his counterparts in Europe must now pay the price. And, so Mr Obama has. And so they will.
The Eurocrats of Brussels are contractually obligated to put loyalty to the structures of the Union over national affections. Even elected national officials are required to put the interests of their governments and people subordinate to the needs and policies of the One Big Union. Beyond those obligations there is a sentiment abroad in the "elites" of Europe to the effect that the days of the petty nation-state are over, replaced by the One Great Society and Polity called "Europe."
The presumptions of the Euro-fanatics have prevailed even when the great hordes of the unwashed, the hoi polloi, have made it clear--as in the famed case of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty--that they want no truck with a supranational entity, another and quite suspect layer of government. Whenever the voices of the lesser orders have shouted loud and clear, "No!," the Eurocrats and Euro-fanatics have simply changed the rules and insisted on another turn at bat, another chance to assure that the peasants get it right.
The rolling thunder of default crises which have and continue to strike the Eurozone have had the net effect of engendering an ever greater distrust in the minds of the peoples of Europe regarding not only the legitimacy of the fiat currency, the Euro, but of the political scheme which resides behind it. Greeks have quite literally taken to the streets in opposition to the dictates of the Eurocrats which accompanied the bailout of the Greek deficit mess. The same has occurred in Spain and Portugal. And, threatens in Ireland.
The Irish, who are not noted for a lack of national identity and pride in that identity, have already made it plain to the Lords Protector of the EU that infringements on sovereignty are unacceptable. The demands made by Brussels that the Irish restructure their corporate tax rate as a part of the price of Eurozone assistance is over the edge.
Imagine that, a government seeking to protect low corporate tax rates! What is happening in Dublin? Has the Irish parliament been taken over by a branch of the Tea Party movement?
No. The Tea Party has remained safely confined on this side of the Atlantic. Rather, the Irish government is well aware of the depth of hostility held toward the EU by the average Irish voter. The government is also aware that raising the corporate taxes would be akin to severing the Irish financial jugular. Also, comments from members of the Dail hint strongly that even the Irish political hoi olligoi is not immune to the powerful attractions of nationalism.
Even in Germany and France, the two strongest proponents of economic and political potency through international cooperation--that is, through the mechanisms of the EU--have been showing an increasingly steep tilt toward national primacy. German taxpayers are not thrilled at the prospect of paying for Greek or Spanish or Portuguese policies of social spending largess. The French, who have long believed that government exists only to strip the individual of his last sou and final shred of liberty, are more and more willing to see the One Big Union as being the worst malefactor in these twin threats.
Herman van Rompey is far from being alone in seeing a direct line connecting doubts about the efficacy and legitimacy of the EU to the rise of aggressive nationalism and its inevitable handmaiden, war. Of course, van Rompey and the others of his ilk are as wrong as a cat barking.
Austria is a member in good standing of the EU. Neighboring Switzerland is a complete non-participant in the One Big Union. Yet the Austrian army is not mobilized on the border ever vigilant, waiting for the Swiss legions to pour across. Nor is EU member Sweden deploying enhanced border protection against the nocturnal commando raids from non-member Norway.
Somehow, go-it-more-or-less alone Norway and Switzerland among others have managed to elude the embrace of the Union while not becoming aggressive exemplars of the sins of nationalism. As Mr van Rompey must know in his more rational moments, there is no necessary tie between primacy of loyalty to one's home country and pursuit of that country's national interest and warfare. The EU is not a necessary mechanism for the restraint of nationalism. It is not a requisite for peaceful intercourse among the several European states.
The long ago precursor of the EU, the European Iron and Coal Community, was a creation, or, more accurately, a reaction to the extremes of economic and political competition which had laid the foundations for both parts of the Great European Civil War of the early and mid Twentieth Century. The original concept actually was formed before German tanks rolled across the Polish border and was well rooted in a proper but narrow interpretation of the conditions which had brought World War I.
The initial Iron and Coal Community worked well. It worked so well that it quickly expanded into the Common Market. The Common Market, as the name makes explicit, was a customs union. As such, it worked to the mutual benefit of its members. But, as it was a limited institution, it made no claim upon the primary loyalties of individual Europeans. It made no political demands.
Even in its limited role, the Common Market did not enjoy universal approbation. French farmers, Italian factory workers, German industrialists all found more than a few reasons to oppose the Market. Nonetheless, the Market was reconceptualized as a political as well as economic institution. Leaving aside all the fits, starts, zigs and zags, the Common Market ultimately morphed into the EU. Along the way, the Eurozone was fabricated, a common currency without the mechanisms of a central bank or an aggregate device of economic governance.
In both its initial and later, Lisbon Treaty based form, the EU was the creation of the political and opinion molding elites of the member states. The people of Europe were not consulted. At no time other than the Irish referendum did the hoi polloi have a seat at the table. This was not oversight. It was intentional as the self-appointed sophisticates of the elites did not trust their own citizens. That was true at the beginning; it is true today.
The EU in both its dot one and dot two forms were crammed down the collective throats of Europeans generally in a manner identical to the passage of Obamacare here. Not surprisingly, the peasants have not been pleased, with the result there is a strong current of resentment, a strong desire to vomit the cram down back in the faces of those who did the cramming.
The current and continuing deficit contretemps has given both a motivation and a focus for those who feel strong discontent with the Union. The Eurocrats are well aware of this. The European Parliament as well as the executive entity have attempted to deflect the worst effects of popular rejection by developing a series of ploys which can be seen as a European version of the American federal government's technique of unfunded mandates. The idea is to displace both responsibility and political blame to the national governments, which are required by the Union to undertake unpleasant and expensive actions.
Nifty, heh? By displacing all unpleasant and politically costly actions onto national governments, not only is the EU held harmless but is actually enhanced. Popular anger directed at national governments can be massaged to become support for the Union. The EU regime can be portrayed credibly as the savior of the common man in a way resembling the elevation of the US federal government as a moral pinnacle compared to the reactionary state governments during the salad days of the civil rights movement.
Whether the Eurocrats will win is both unclear and debatable both as to probability and longer term effect. Should the stresses on the Eurozone cause the collapse of the Euro as a credible circulating medium, the shock waves will not be good for the Union. However, should the Union fail, the failure will be limited to the overreach of entering the sphere of politics, of power over the lives of individual citizens of European countries. In effect, this would mean the Union would revert to the days of the Common Market. It is arguable that this would be a very real benefit for Europeans both as individuals and as nation-states.
As President Obama meets with leaders of the Union's member states (for a scheduled two hours) on the sidelines of the NATO conference, he might be advised to consider that the EU and his administration are staring failure in the face for the same reason. Both he and the Eurocrats held the views and convictions of the average citizen in contempt. Both he and they refused to accept the voice and views of the citizens, listening only to like minded members of their respective elites.
Or to put it very simply: Both President Obama and the Euro-fanatics forgot that the common citizen, the hoi polloi had minds--and votes--of their own. Both Mr Obama and his counterparts in Europe must now pay the price. And, so Mr Obama has. And so they will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)