Comments 21

冷眼旁观的欧洲

Feb 13, 2016 Ana Palacio

慕尼黑——冷战结束后稳定世界的自由国际秩序正在承压。俄国的复仇、中东的混乱和南海的紧张局势都是系统开始出现问题的症状。

不稳定的驱动因素有很多。包括经济实力从西方向东方转移、正规机构的削弱以及西方民主国家不满情绪越来越严重。但最重要的首推侵蚀自由国际秩序的两大关键进展：即美国放弃全球领导责任和欧洲危机长期化。

但近来有迹象显示美国开始重新表现高调。经过六年的“幕后领导”和划定毫无意义的红线，美国总统奥巴马已经开始寻求创新、灵活的外交军事安排——以便在应对全球威胁的斗争中发挥作用。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 39 in all 39 Comments on this article

hari naidu Feb 17, 2016

I suppose you've to accept that state of permanence in global economics/politics is not an objective criteria; political nostalgia appears to the stuff of Atlantic Council today - end of western liberalism.
Rise of mainland China & India & rest of Asia will define 21st century - irrespective of the asymmetry in their economic development.
The geopolitical issue is not the decline of US global hegemony; the real issue may be the disintegration of EU from inside.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Feb 17, 2016

With Europe, America's staunchest ally being increasingly unable to get its act together, Ana Palacio says the "liberal international order that has helped stabilize the world since the end of the Cold War is under strain." The Old Continent is being engulfed by a refugee crisis, which has a "revanchist Russia" and the "chaos in the Middle East" to thank for. So it has little interest to share America's headache in Asia - "simmering tensions in the South China Sea," and to help defend its system - the Pax Americana.
The onset of the 21st century forces Europe and America to face "a shift in economic power from the West to the East." Western-led "formal institutions" like the IMF, the World Bank, which support the "Washington Consensus" are being weakened by China and other emerging economies, even though they had benefited from free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability. The "widespread disaffection" of voters in the West, who complain about dwindling incomes and the decline in living standards, pose a challenge to mainstream political parties, due to the rise of far-right and far-left populist parties. But the author has identified "two key developments that have been eroding the liberal international order: the United States’ withdrawal from global leadership and Europe’s prolonged crisis."
She claims "there have been signs that the US is beginning to reassert itself" in recent years to counter "global threats." Its new "military budget" serves to fund "naval operations in Asia," and to restock "the military arsenal depleted in the fight against the Islamic State" etc. As the EU is being plagued by crises, the US has quadrupled military spending in Europe to support "NATO allies in the face of Russia’s aggression.” However reassuring this message may be, the author finds it not at all "encouraging," because America is letting its European allies feel that they are feckless. Besides, the Baltic states are genuinely "vulnerable" to Russia's aggression. Apart from realising "that the threat posed by Russia cannot be left unchecked," the main reason for this "engagement" is that Washington needs "Europe’s weight that has served as the critical mass required to move the world’s liberal order in a positive direction." The US economy is no longer as strong as it once was, while the EU economy is still the world's largest.
The author fears that this "latest US security bailout raises the possibility that after more than two decades of growing prominence, Europe will lose its agenda-setting power." Instead of taking matters into its own hands, Europe is not an "actor" but an "object" in geopolitics, "reminiscent of the Cold War," during which the Old Continent was "the chessboard on which the US and the Kremlin play for advantage."
For decades "Europe was America’s partner of first resort. Now, when it is needed once again, the EU is slipping toward the sidelines." The author says: "Unless its leaders change course, the painful unraveling of the liberal world order will continue." The question is whether EU leaders care, and if they have foresight at all. They are too focused on their own political career that they mainly have their voters' interests, but not necessarily their countries' future at heart.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lennart fredrikson Feb 16, 2016

The liberal Internationjal order is just preserving a shattered US EMPIRE! We all know that the Emerging markets with Eurasia etc are the growing potential of World Economy. EU must make sure to participate in the new World Order not run by US Hegemony is a reality. Days of the Hidden Cartel are counted! The awakening of citizens around the World is exposing how Big Corporatiion tries to gain World domain by various Trade agreements TPP,TTIP,CETA . All is just an assault on democracy and civil rights etc. This liberal International Order is the current big LIE named Political Correctness now threatening to destabilize EU and is suppressing US citizens claiming right to know denied in Dark Act.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cam Jennings Feb 16, 2016

The article and comments have been most interesting to read. As a species we have made some mistakes some of which we still have to make as the welfare of man is in a state of eternal conflict. Every previous hegemonic power has had a rise and a fall and America has had two and a half centuries as the hegemonic power.
This is the Asian Century and the new abnormal that we are currently experiencing with the West vs the Rest is merely the transitional period.
The fragility of the global economic and political relationships will require two things if we are to achieve some future stability again, and whilst they have been simplified here, they may just work.
Reform to the system within Europe, the United Nations inclusive of the Security Council and a new American President who has the ability to reform the system within the UiSA.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gerry Hofman Feb 16, 2016

Just another hawk who wants to set the world on fire. The fact that every military intervention in the region in recent times has turned into a complete catastrophe does just not come up in the considerations. Europe is right in avoiding military confrontation, when you don't understand the cause of a problem then you cannot remedy it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Feb 15, 2016

The liberal world order... The one that lied about WMD and violated the UN resolutions in invading Iraq, and started the whole mess?

The one who has been playing with Ukraine and Turkey,while ignoring this countries have borders with Russia?

That's the order you are talking about?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Diego Orlandi Feb 15, 2016

I find that the credit rating indexes, as they were conceived, could be a useful instrument to weigh out migration quotas for EU countries, along with population count. This accurate tool would reflect individual countries' investibility thus ability to absorb labor force., and would apply similar measures are were taken after the crisis on non-virtous economies, but this time based on solidarity ;)
- jagjeet sinha Feb 16, 2016
  
  In the end, "endless migration" created The Anglosphere.
  Human energy is such.
  The European dreams perhaps best achieved by ONE LANGUAGE.
  Rome, on the second day, perhaps should have made Latin its legacy.
  And let endless migration create its LATINSPHERE - like Auckland Brisbane Chicago Denver and Vancouver.
  One Europe does need security guarantees - NATO has secured that precious peace.
  Without which, European Economics can never flower.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Diego Orlandi Feb 16, 2016
  
  Europe can't balance economics because it does not want to balance economics. Same as it cannot balance migration because it has never showed interest in balancing migration. The economic sanctions on the countries most hit by the hedge fund crisis has exacerbated their economies, and often these same countries are those facing the migration emergency first hand, since many years (see Dublin agreement, 2003). So your response is, since we haven't managed, and never will, let's just unbalance it further and focus on the military alliance rather than the union that had been agreed to in the first place by the people. That is, in my opinion, a cynical game. Balancing would mean applying the same corrective causes on non-virtuous economies, on virtuous humanitarian efforts. Simple. (see Island of Lesbos, Lampedusa, ecc.). N.B. this does not in any way exclude further military cooperation, also in view of the migration crises (something which the Lybian experience clearly has proved itself fallimentary until now). One question: in what way does your "Union/nato swap" indicate an end to "endless migration" ?
  I don't mean to be geographically biased when saying this, but, "Rome wasn't built in a day".
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- jagjeet sinha Feb 15, 2016
  
  In the absence of INVESTMENT EQUALIZATION, the one obvious consequence is UNLIMITED MIGRATION.
  One Language is perhaps the best facilitator and more inclusive - unfortunately Latin failed when it could.
  Britain - when it could - incubated The Anglosphere.
  ONE LANGUAGE now becomes The World's Economic Epicenter, 500 years of incumbency.
  Europe's One Language too will eventually be English - 66 % Europeans choice of second language.
  If One Language not possible, then Europe needs multiple Investment Epicentres.
  And Global Capital flows appear to have exacerbated the unbalanced economics within.
  Migration seems the only option across South and East Europe - as The EU can't balance the economics.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Derrick Baragwanath Feb 15, 2016

Since the end of WW2 Europe has been a side player in global affairs and will continue to be so. The creation of first the EEC and then the EU has changed nothing. Unlike the USA, Europe is still an amalgam of disparate states, sharing a few common goals, but divergent on many more. Unfortunately, as membership has increased so has also the number of divergent goals. Probably the biggest impediment to unity is a shared language. Until Europe is prepared to share a common language individual national identity will transcend the idea of European Nationhood. That wont happen in the foreseeable future and therefore Europe will continue to be an economic union and no more. It would have been a very different story if Ancient Rome had been able to press its borders up to the Elbe and make Latin the ordinary man's language of choice. Both were within a whisker of succeeding.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nathan W Feb 15, 2016

Sounds mostly just like you want everyone to spend more on military spending.

Is the 10:1 military spending ratio between NATO and Russia not enough?

The problem is not a lack of assets. It is not a lack of willingness to use them.

The problem is a lack of good reasons to use those assets.

But then, that's not actually a problem, is it?

Military spending across NATO is plenty high enough.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nathan W Feb 15, 2016

"the United States’ withdrawal from global leadership"

On what grounds do you say this? Obama left Iraq when the elected government said America was no longer welcome and refuses to be drawn too far into a fight that includes Armaggedonist actors with an explicit desire to manipulate the conflict in a way to create a global war.

Sometimes the best leaders do nothing.

Don't mistake a lack of action for a lack of leadership. Obama is taking a ridiculous level of criticism for his lack of action.

Au contraite, the ability of a political leader to resist the "do something" mantra is a sign of true leadership.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Feb 14, 2016

Europe's economics post 1945 has been premised on NATO security guarantees.
European political agenda however is premised on cutting off the hand that feeds.
Instead of creating the chemistry that addressed real challenges within Europe, European lust for redrawing boundaries is suicidal.
The insecurity such irredentism breeds often tangentially challenges The Anglosphere.
The Anglosphere became the World's Economic Epicenter, DESPITE EUROPE - since the First Brexit nearly 500 years ago.
European political agenda never accepts the magnanimity of The Anglosphere in rebuilding Europe post 1945.
Endless European migrations to The Anglosphere has enabled millions to achieve their personal economic transformations.
Political gamesmanship - when DeGaulle & Chirac attempted to create The PetroEuro - severely tests The Anglosphere's magnanimity.
By encouraging succession in Britain and Canada - Scotland and Quebec - the political gamesmanship forces The Anglosphere to defend.
The European Union Needs to strengthen its internal issues and become a magnet that sucks in migrations like The Anglosphere.
Instead it continues to perennially produce unending outward migrations - inability to reverse the flow is endemic.
Punching much above its grade in multilateral global institutions - and then requiring American boots on the ground (BOTG) to defend.
NATO ECONOMIC COMMUNITY is the need - European Economics without NATO security guarantees is meaningless.
Yet European realpolitik has its own agenda - the European Economic Community metamorphosis into European Union just one example.
Perfection of wisdom always remains a mirage.
Invincibility always is derived from strengthening of defenses - the possibility of challenging enemies is a consequence.
European economic defenses are creaking - and must receive utmost prioritization.
Global politics is a meaningless diversion - EU must solve its Greeces first and foremost.
- Diego Orlandi Feb 16, 2016
  
  @jagjeet sinha: possibly, less evident divergences between the competing neighbors within the eurozone could have counteracted the effects You are talking about (limiting harsh competition, encouraging solidarity-not just an economic zone but closer political ties), as a result of the hedge fund crisis, as well as a more defined "Eurofederalization" could counteract all of these issues as well. Alternatively, loosening the grip and more independence between countries. As much as Nato is a valid military union, it is not the EU. It is something else, and must be recognized as such, in respect of all the people who have believed in this dream so far.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- jagjeet sinha Feb 15, 2016
  
  @diegoorlandi
  The secessionist forces that have been unleashed appears to be a result of European lust for irredentism.
  Not only in Scotland but in Catalonia, Flanders, Lombardy, Bavaria besides Ukraine.
  European energies are needed in strengthening its economic defenses - rather than in unleashing irredentism.
  European history is dotted with the desire to redraw boundaries perennially - NATO has produced a precious peace.
  That needs to be defended above all - given enhanced insecurities that are visible everywhere.
  In my opinion, NATO Economics is perhaps the answer to European Union proclivities for tangential agenda.
  That weakens NATO and the precious peace of 70 years.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Diego Orlandi Feb 15, 2016
  
  @jagjeet sinha: "By encouraging succession in Britain and Canada - Scotland and Quebec - the political gamesmanship forces The Anglosphere to defend." I would be interested in knowing what You may be referring to. As far as I knew, Cameron invited fellow (and ex-colony) Cypriots to vote at their Brexit referendum. Is that what you mean by institutional encouragement to succession? How was anything similar done in Scotland, Quebec, or Canada? and by whom? please clarify
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Francesco D'Allessandro Feb 14, 2016

Mr. Hurst all the past administrations share a certain degree of blame for our current predicament. There is no denying that. Radical Islam declared war on the West since the days of the Carter presidency. To persist on blaming George W. Bush is inconsequential; that he shoulders much responsibility cannot be erased by any means...but Obama has been in power for the last two terms. He has had ample time to right the wrongs committed by his predecessor. Instead he has definitely made a bad situation get terribly worse.

A true leader acts on current events and tries with sound policies to steer the State out of harm's way; to just hold accountable past misdeeds is not a sign of a strong leadership whether in business, sports or government circles.
- Francesco D'Allessandro Feb 15, 2016
  
  Mr. Baragwanath there is no desire to blame anyone but every leader in any public enterprise has to shoulder its quota of victories and defeats. If you are an American president regardless of the party you represent, you will always be under the magnifying glass. Your judgment will be judged. Every overt action (and covert too if discovered) you take will remain etched in the annals of history. Based on them your legacy will be written. In the cases of George W. Bush and Barrack Obama they do share a nefarious distinction of compounding "an already bad situation" into a worse one.
  
  PS: great post on your analysis of Europe as a side player. It is right on the dot!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Derrick Baragwanath Feb 15, 2016
  
  Why is there so often this desire to blame past and present American Presidents? They may sometimes compound an already bad situation but they didn't for example cause the Islamic schism, or create all of the grotesque dictatorships in the region. Blaming somebody else just allows the guilty parties to avoid taking responsibility. Is it the fault of a particular American President that the region is riven by tribalism, ethnic hatreds and religious bigotry?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Francesco D'Allessandro Feb 15, 2016
  
  Mr. Hurst at the end of the day it is not about defending or lambasting the Obama administration if that is what you think is the issue. Facts cannot be distorted if one uses common sense and keenly observes the events at play. It is true that President Obama did inherit a bad hand at the geopolitical global table but so has every other American president since the US was founded. To truly measure an excellent, good, bad or mediocre presidency is not an easy task but every elected official that has reached 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has been judged by his actions and the outcome of his decisions and not by those of his predecessor. The glaring errors of the George W. Bush era will linger on for decades to come but so will those of his successor. We can only hope that whoever succeeds Barrack Obama won't follow the errant path of both men.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Feb 14, 2016
  
  Hi Francesco
  I have no particular desire to defend Obama but he ended up having to deal with the fall-out of Dubya's policies both military and economic - and the American unhappiness with bodybags coming home yet again. You cannot describe Iraqistan as inconsequential, Iraqi civilian deaths are right now at a record high and ground gained by military deaths in Afghanistan is now being lost. as far as the ME goes it is a proxy war in Syria. Obama was elected with a majority and one of his promises was to bring men home. He was then re-elected by a majority so a minority was unhappy both times by definition. I guess when Trump loses a minority will once again be unhappy. If somehow he wins then he will have to have a reality check
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Francesco D'Allessandro Feb 14, 2016

If you insinuation is that it has been the Obama administration that has been instrumental in the deterioration of our liberal world order I would totally agree. The "leading from behind" and the so-called red lines have never existed. Instead a vacuum of power has been the norm of the day, and thus it has opened a global Pandora box that might be hard to close regardless of who wins the next seat at the White House. Whether it is the maverick aspirations of the Russian Federation, the boldness and increase in Islamic terrorism, China's aggressive moves in the South China Seas, North Korea's continuous belligerent attitude against the West and the constant disrespect by our allies and enemies in regards to American power it all has developed under their watch. However when you state that the US is beginning to "reassert itself" I differ. For example, the deal to rein the Ayatollah's of Qom nuclear ambitions is an interrogation mark. Recent events have shown that the Iranians have no respect at all toward America. The shameful episode of the capture and release of the American sailors in Gulf waters clearly shows the lack of civility the Iranians have toward President Obama's foreign policy (the subsequent release of a photograph of an American sailor crying during the ordeal and the reenactment of the incident at the Iranian Revolution Day Parade displays their unbridled arrogance). Yet there is hardly a comment stemming from the administration.

If American engagement "is necessary to provide momentum" we might have to wait until the next American president gets elected because to expect anything of political substance to come from this one is wishful thinking at its best.
- Steve Hurst Feb 14, 2016
  
  I dont know why you are going on about Obama, it was Dubya's crazy policies that have been a far bigger problem. Then there was Rumsfeld. Brill wasnt he - Turning down the Taliban offer to parley and jointly deal with AQ. As for after invasion policy - 'we dont do that'.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
William Cash Feb 14, 2016

We have drawn Russia back out to the international stage. First by expanding NATO to their borders after promising not to do so. Secondly by financing and encouraging the overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and working with neo-nazi elements to establish a new government. Victoria Nuland and NED were heavily involved. Thirdly by pledging the overthrow of Assaud in Syria knowing that he and Russia were allies. If our allies are threatened, we would defend them. We feel free to overthrow whatever governments we choose to and each time we do it, we make the situation worse. But that doesn't stop us. ISIS didn't exist until we became involved.
- Curtis Carpenter Feb 14, 2016
  
  I think you've given too little credit to Putin's Russia and its own aspirations here Mr. Cash. Simply by the force of geography, Russia would have emerged as a major power in Europe eventually.
  
  The question now, as I see it, is how the West can build a constructive relationship with Russia -- and whether Russia has any interest in such a relationship. The alternative is another century of ultimately pointless provocations from both sides -- or worse.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Feb 14, 2016
  
  @William
  
  I think you will find that ISIS by one name or another predates Westerm involvement. Attempting to 'liberate' de facto Crimea and the naval base was stupid. Going to Afghanistan was crass, nobody has ever won there in millennia
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
James Thomas Feb 14, 2016

"On its surface, America’s decision to confront Russia recalls previous occasions when Europe proved unable to respond to challenges in its neighborhood – most memorably in Bosnia in the 1990s. But the current situation is more dangerous still; it is reminiscent of the Cold War, when Europe was an object and not an actor in geopolitics. The continent risks once again becoming the chessboard on which the US and the Kremlin play for advantage."

The West squandered its opportunities to help shape Russia's economic and political structures in the days following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Instead, it washed its hands and combed its hair and thought, 'well thank goodness that's over.' The descent of the remains of the USSR into a hoovering up of its assets by a few while for the masses the illusion of Soviet-ensured economic security (threadbare as it was) was replaced with ... nothing. This, predictably enough, set the stage for the ascent of a strongman who would assert the dignity and power of Russia and Russians.

This will all but certainly end badly for everyone involved.

That Europe will become again the chessboard for a game between the U.S. And Russia is wishful thinking. Russia is first and foremost Europe's problem. The U.S. Is increasingly focused on the more serious threat of an ascendant China. Russia is bellicose but lacks the structure and the discipline, to say nothing of the time, to develop the economic strength to make its bellicosity a prime concern of the Americans.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Feb 14, 2016

"the military expenditure as a percentage of GDP to know where the problem is," "the US policy assertiveness and the distinct possibility of more outcomes like Iraq and Libya," "American misplaced triumphalism for a short-term tactics over long-term strategy," and "all of the burdens and disappointments of leadership shared in the interest of common Western values," show a very thick layer in the West of excellent knowledge and wisdom of history and international politics.

I would like to add a comment of mine. I understand our universe－our universe, because they say there are other universes－is not unbounded; it is bounded. Liberalist policy, too, is not unbounded; it is bounded. It is historically conditioned in its birth, growth and appliability. It can do a lot of things but there are a lot of things it cannot. For instance; it cannot castigate Putin limitlessly in an unbounded way without incurring negative and resistant responses from him; it cannot turn Iraq into a democratic community; it punished Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people are living in a far more wretched plight. (Of course I am not suggesting disengagement of the West from world affairs; it would diminish and endager the Western values.)
- Curtis Carpenter Feb 14, 2016
  
  Yoshimichi Moriyama has been very gentle with us, and he raises an important and well-stated point about the limits of power -- even liberalist power, and even Western liberalist power.
  
  In practical terms though, how is the West to come to grips with those limits in the twilight of Pax Americana?
  
  To my view, the answer lies in adopting the principles of Blackstone, Montesquieu et all and applying them across an active, working transatlantic partnership, wherein the liberal democracies of the West can check one another's excesses.
  
  Some structure will be required to fill the vacuum left by the end of Pax Americana, and to my view what matters is that that vacuum be filled -- as it will be, one way or another -- by something that does not destroy the West's framework of values and ideals.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Feb 14, 2016
  
  @Yoshimichi
  Are you aware of the study that has been done on the social difference between rice and wheat based societies. Rice being a collective activity and wheat being an individualist action. Rice, at least historically, cannot be grown without collective action. There has even been identified regional differences withing China dependent on rice and wheat areas. The argument is the West is predominately a individualist social outlook because of this basic orientation. This individualism is probably the root problem within the EU and its roots are deep
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Yoshimichi Moriyama Feb 14, 2016
  
  @Steve,
  Colin Clark, born in the UK, was a world-famous, distinguished Australian economist. His son, Gregory Clark, lives in Japan. I did not know the following until I happened to hear him say it on a Japanese TV programme. He said that leaders of Meiji Japan (1868~1912) were very highly thought of in the West. They came from samurai families. Meiji japan was an elitist society. Prewar Japan (1926~1945) lost very much of Meiji elitism; it was cultrally no longer an elitist but a sort of mass society and very many, or perhaps most, leaders of the military came from commoners.
  
  Gregory was asked in 2000 or 2001 by a Japanese newspaper to tell what he thought the most important event that the human kind had experienced in the past two thousand years. He said the rise and development of feudalism in Western Europe. The reason he gave was that it instilled and raised political consciousness.
  Japan is the only other part of the world that saw its rise and growth. "Both Japanese and Western feudalism seem to have resulted from a mixture of two basic ingredients: administrative and legal institutios surviving from a more centralized state and a systme of personal bonds of loyality....Japan is the only well documented case besides that of Europe (Edwin O. Reischauer, Feudal Japan: A Departure from the Chinese Pattern, East Asia: Tradition and Transformation, co-authored by J. K. Fairbank and A. M. Craig.)"
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Feb 14, 2016
  
  @Yoshimichi
  “The ultimate aim of martial arts is not having to use them”
  ― Miyamoto Musashi
  The reason martial arms exist is because of bandits
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
NIKOS CHRISANTHOPOULOS Feb 14, 2016

European intergration is the key answer.European leaders have focused on financial intergration and market's liberalization,which is important,but not enough.Main global issues are requesting political initiatives and actions.National governments of Europe should get rid of their obsolete principle of national interest and expedite political intergration underpinned on high moral values.This kind of intergration could provide solutions through diplomatic and maybe millitary actions.As Europeans we must help US to establish the world order.We are free nations because US served and defended values exempted from their national interest.Freedom and democracy (originated from my country),should be served and disseminated from a powerful intergrated European Union.
- Celt Darnell Feb 15, 2016
  
  Your nation may be free because of the US -- mine is free because of our own actions. We owe the Americans nothing.
  
  Which may be why we in the UK have no interest in political integration and take the issue of national interest very seriously.
  
  After all, national interest is what allowed us to defeat Napoleon Bonaparte, Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler.
  
  Russia was no threat until the EU and US decided to make an attempt to pull the Ukraine out from Russia's sphere of influence. The Russians reacted exactly like the US would have done had Russia tried the same thing in Mexico.
  
  Perhaps respecting regional powers' areas of influence would be a good starting point for peaceful international relations.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Feb 13, 2016

To me, the issue isn't the need for the U.S. to re-engage in Europe, or Europe's need to do more for itself (however fragmented). The issue is the need to create a real, reliable trans-Atlantic _partnership_ in which all of the burdens and disappointments of leadership are shared in the interest of defending our common Western values.

The U.S. needs an engaged European partner in this enterprise; Europe needs to step up to the plate -- and all of us (perhaps the U.S. in particular) need some remedial instruction on how to _be_ constructive partners.

To paraphrase Franklin, if we don't learn to hang together -- and soon -- we will surely hang separately.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Barry Rosenfeld Feb 13, 2016

How does one revive a corpse? Europe has been a free rider on the US taxpayer since the end of WWII. Militarily, it is not an American asset, but a liability. Is the defense of Europe worth one American life if Europe itself will not undertake any risks?

The few states bordering on Russia have good grounds for anxiety; they know European history, in much of which they have been written out because they were part of Russia, Germany or Austria. Their existence is untenable without help from Western Europe, the mistake of granting them membership in NATO notwithstanding. This mistake just served to rub salt into an open wound, a manifestation of American misplaced triumphalism, but a triumph for short-term tactics over long-term strategy.

Poland, for example, wasn't saved by Anglo-French intervention in 1939, and it won't be saved by a few US tanks now. Only the threat of nuclear war can credibly deter Russia, in the long run, from returning to its historical role in Eastern Europe.

Continental Finlandisation, anyone?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Feb 13, 2016

Careful what you wish for. If U.S. policy resumes its assertiveness, you are facing the distinct possibility of more outcomes like Iraq and Libya, That would mean more refugees, While they would love to flee to the U.S., no doubt, Europe happens to be closer.

Authors such as Palacio ignore some inconvenient truths of the last decade's crises to the detriment of their readership, here in the U.s., more so in western Europe, and most of all in the crisis countries themselves.

Namely, that the geopoltical crises of the last decade in Eastern Europe and the Middle East were, one and all, exacerbated by the benevolent yet clumsy hand of long-distance policy from this well-protected side of the Atlantic. From this distance, it's easier to stir the pot than to smell what is cooking.

I look forward to a future when U.S. leadership has the ability and equanimity to have an internationalist outlook, bringing shared prosperity to our own nation and others as well. I also have the highest regard for the talents of our foreign policy planners. As individuals. However, recent results are more than enough to say that the parts are not adding up to a coherent whole. I'm sorry for being so blunt.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Feb 13, 2016

You only have to look at the military expenditure as a percentage of GDP to know where the problem is and its not going to change
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/x0mWJBf/zh;

冷眼旁观的欧洲

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Europe’s Power Deficit

The Looming Taiwan Crisis

What Next for Venezuela?

Taking Vaccines the Last Mile

The Road From Thatcherism

A Very Greek Brexit?

Science and Subterfuge in Economics

What Will Succeed GDP?

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register