Debate
Free World: The book
Latest Commentary
Suggested Websites
Timothy Garton Ash

 Designed by Thomas Ash

Does America really want a united Europe?

Does the United States still want a united Europe? There have been signs lately that the Bush administration prefers ‘cherry-picking’ among European countries, in order to make ‘coalitions of the willing’, issue by issue. Is that really in America’s long-term interest? What can Europe do about it?

Debate - Page 2/3

Go to page 1 2 3

WJ, UK

Michael Remler, United States
I think "Tom, USA" is the authentic voice of the US. Highly sophisticated (contrary to Euro self indugent hypocracy) highly sympathetic to Europe (contrary to Euro arrogance) and highly realistic (contrary to Euro self dilusion. My advise to Europeans is to read Tom and then read it again.
I think that cuts both ways. It's like picking faults with a brother. It gets nastier and the insults deeper just cos you know they can take it. I personally feel hostility to the current American administration. I can't really be bothered to pick out numbers now, but there are a fair few americans who feel that too I've traveled a little and realise that almost anywhere you go in the world, the people are friendly and disagreements happen, but everyone just wants to earn an honest buck and look out for their family, the rest is just interesting conversation :-)

Michel Bastian, France

To Will McElgin:
I think I can agree to most of the very reasonable comments in your last posts. Many people will be surprised to hear a frenchman say that, but I also think there should be a limit to french gloating about Iraq, mainly because it just isn´t right to wallow in somebody else´s misfortune (even if it´s self-induced), but also because it´s not in our own best interest to see the US fail there. I tried to explain this in one of my posts on another thread: nobody can have an interest in a politically unstable Iraq. At the moment, it´s unfortunately pretty clear that a US failure in Iraq would ultimately just lead to a new dictatorial, possibly islamic dictatorial regime. Nobody wants that. Also, as Will McElgin stated, it would undermine the global status of the US even more, which, I agree, is not a good thing, especially in view of other hotspots like Israel, North Korea or Iran where US clout is needed. So the US have to stay in Iraq, at least until a genuinely democratic and stable society emerges there, and I think that´s what they´ll do despite public opinion. Also, they should be supported more than they are now by Germany and France. Yes, in my opinion this would indeed imply sending troops to alleviate the pressure on the US military, at least a little. It works in Afghanistan, I see no reason why it shouldn´t in Iraq.
As for China, I´m not quite up-to-date on the hows and whys of EU policy towards the arms embargo, but I agree: we shouldn´t arm China, especially since it already is the source of a lot of unrest in Asia. It´s morally wrong and it would be politically unwise. Incidentally: China´ll be quite capable of producing advanced arms by itself pretty soon. It won´t need the EU for that.

Scott Loranger, US (only wish I could say 'EU')

Does America want a united Europe? The majority of Americans would probably say no. Does the Bush administration want a united Europe? Definitely not. Would a united Europe be in the best interests of America? Probably yes. Do I, myself, want a united Europe? Definitely yes. As my ambition is to move to the EU (the UK, France, or Germany) upon completing university (unfortunately because of financial obstacles, i.e. I'm poor, I am restricted to attending university in the US, instead of a university in the EU, which I would much prefer), I am pulling for a united Europe. My anger at the results of the last presidential election run deep. The "moral values" (gay bashing, bombing abortion clinics and ending scientific research) the economy (those tax cuts that stimulated nothing), and most of all, foreign policy (Iraq war and the inconsideration for the rest of the world, especially our closest ally, the EU). All this and more awoke me to the whacko neo-conservative nation I live in. I can't wait to get out of here and move to Europe. Please Europe, make the EU work. Myself (and many other Americans) are pulling for it.

Jan Paul, USA

Correct on China being able to arm itself. They are currently developing super quiet Nuclear subs that are more quiet than any on earth including the U.S. They are also running pipelines and transportation line to rural areas where the wage is still 25 cents an hour. But, in areas like Hong Kong they have millions of middle class citizens whose buying power on $6.66 an hour is the equivilant of over $25 an hour if they buy Chinese goods and what don't they make?
The question is, will Europe and the U.S., Canada, and other countries currently high on the economic ladder be prepared as more manufacturing jobs go to China and Aisa and we become more of consumer nations with few factory jobs. Are we preparing our younger factory workers and high school students for the possibilty?
We need to see all nations have people with a living wage and decent living conditions, but there is a transition in economics when that happens to the countries that were previously the manufacturing base for the world. How many colleges are teaching these economic trasitions and preparing the future leaders for this trend?
There are a few people in all our countries that don't want us to be at peace with each other becasue it keeps our eye off what is really happening and what we really need to be concentrating on. It isn't culture. There is room for diverse culture. It isn't military. There is room for debate on the ethics of current military action but it isn't a threat directed towards Europe. The Military of China is more than likely more a "defense" military that is preparing for the enemies it will create as it takes more manufacturing jobs away from other countries and increases it demands for oil raising the price. It isn't the economy since we are all in the same boat of competing more with Asia than each other although "new" Europe and Ireland seem to be causing France to complain that their lower business taxes are taking business away from France. At least they are filing that complaint with the EU.
Nope, it looks to some like the animosity is a false animosity that is being fueled by some groups who probably hope to see both Europe and N. America slide economically because that will give them enough "poor" people to convince a "new" government and economic system is needed.

Youness, England

TOWERBOODA
"Eurabia" was a good peice of science fiction, you came up with, Mr Land of the "Free". If you go a bit back in the past, you will find out that Arabs were twice, unprovocally, attacked by hords of barbaric cruisaders from Europe. The first took place in 10 centuary and the second was in 19 centuary. Arabs managed to defeat both atttcks. Unfortunately, you people, do not learn from history. The West(government and media), under the control and influence of certain dark forces, I am sure you know who the talk is about, has launched another savagery against the Arabs that started in 1991 (Gulf War). These controlers, for reasons you seemingly do not know, are duping you and managed to convince you and your likes that Arabs are a threat to Europe/the West. You know Why? because they have failed so far to minipulate the Arabs, as they are doing with you. Add to your meagre knowledge that not all Arabs are Muslims. There are Christian and Jewish Arabs who lived and still do, side by side and together defeated the medivial European savages who did not segregate in their bloody savageries between Christians, Jews or Muslims. When Kalif Salladin (Muslim) put an end to their tyranity, he rebuilt the churches, the sinagogues and the mosques that your vandals destroyed. Islam is not spreading in Europe only, it is a universal religion, whether you like it or not. Go to Spain Portugal...and see what the Muslim Moors left there, in terms of architecture, cuisine, science, medicine astrology, hygien etc. the Moors brought civilisation to Europe when Europeans still lived in caves. The Moors were forced to leave, after 800 years, spent in civilising your ancesters, who rewarded them by launching Philipe and Isabella for this great civilisation. During their 800 years in Europe the Moors never imposed Islam on the natives; they shared power with them. had the Moors been conquerors or agressors the native would not have lived with them all those years. It is commun knowledge that occupied nations never progress. Spain and Portugal emerged great civilisations under the Moorish rules and conquered America and Africa, but unlike the Moors, they were tyrants; massaquered the native populations and impauverihed them. The consequences are still apparant.
You are a victime of media manipulation and advise you to wake up, unless you are one of the dark forces.

Donald L. White, United States

Abbreviated Postings and My Commentary
Mike Neff, Texas
Dear Europeans,
Don't need you, Don't like you, Don't trust you, Don't respect you.
DON: Another Texan heard from!
Tom McLaughlin, USA
Two points: 1) the only thing Americans ever *fear* concerning Europe is the possibility that we will once again be forced to intervene to quell one of Europe's periodic bouts of suicidal warfare.
DON: Europeans realized the need to avoid conflict long ago. It takes multi-national institutions to accomplish. NATO was first. The Common Market was next. Finally, we have the European Union. I do not expect the need for America to rescue Europe will ever occur again. RATHER, there is strong argument America right now needs Europe to RESCUE it.
Michel Bastian, France
Ím getting tired of Americans on this boards feeding me nonsense on how or what my country is or isńt. Not only do they not understand our way of living, theýre obviously completely uninterested in learning about it. Ím sick and tired of some Americanś repeated ignorant, stupid insults against France . .
DON: Quote: „Washington was able to march down to Yorktown, while Lafayette marched up. With DeGrasse blockading the Chesapeake so that no reinforcements or supplies could reach him Washington was able to destroy Cornawallis's army and end the war.‰ From the Review of 'The First Salute' by Barbara Tuchman in „Director‚s Notes.‰
In addition, France was the first and only European power to recognize the United Colonies. France furnished most of the black powder, lead balls and muskets, all essential to carry on the War. France also furnished much of the cash used to pay the Continental Army and to sustain the Revolution. It is fair to say, without France there would be no United States. This ought to cover a lot of differences of opinion with Jack Chirac. .
Tom, US
To Michel Bastian: America's focus now is on Asia, as it should be, since the Near and Far East are the source of all the major threats and opportunities for the U.S.
DON: Question: Will China or Wal-Mart be first to own the world?
Tom, US
To Michel Bastian:
I am a realist. Europe's day passed long ago. It is an aging, declining semi-power that has already been eclipsed by China and will soon be surpassed by India as well. Asian Century now. America is, as always, looking westward.
DON: GDP is not the only measure of quality of life. Cuba, for example, manages to equal the United States in both infant mortality rates and average longevity, good measures of the quality of health care, despite Cuba‚s average per capita income ($3,000) being barely half the amount spent in the U.S. on health care alone! ($5,000)
CONCLUSION
America has a lot to learn, from the EU, from the world, including Cuba.

Alex Paterson, Europe

To All,
The European Union is an inevitable fact.
To all our American cousins who as usual see the world in terms of self interest, WAKE UP, not for long will you be the big kid on the block.
The strength of the European Union in terms of economy and the almost inevitable fact that the Euro will become the currency de jour frightens the shit out of your governments and financiers. No longer will the American get a free ride at the expense of the rest of the world with it's unredeemable dollar assets.
Your unconscionable economic deficits will come home to roost and your so called vibrant economy will be shattered and blasted all to hell.
Do you realise that if China,Russia,Japan or several other countries including European ones, tomorrow morning stated that it was transferring it's assets to Euros, that the US would shut down almost immediately?
One of the real reasons that Iraq happened was that they stared to trade oil in Euros instead of dollars, Venezuela was considering doing the same (look where that got mr Chavez).
An interesting fact has recently come out of China about plans to defeat the US in a war. Not necessary to go to a shooting war, simply destroy the US economy by carying out the actions stated above! Ironic isn't communism defeating Capitalism by using Capitalism. I just can't stop laughing.
As with most things American the house is built on sand, your leaders know it, that is why there is all the sabre rattling and false flag wars and promised wars going on. IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!!!!

Samuel, USA

Of course America doesnt want it, but it would unite Europe in a way they have never been united before. I believe that would be good and it would be for the world. From then on maybe be other areas of the world would follow.

Dee Klein, Paris

To Alex Paterson, Europe
China and the developing Asian nations will be the new powers in this coming century. In that respect, we can see America brokering alliances with the likes of India, South Korea, Japan and further afield, Australia, as a means to offer a democratic alternative to Chinese power in the region. Whats most alarming from a European such as yourself, is that you align this geopolitical future as being somehow relevant and of benefit to the European Union. You look on and mock the US in expectation of the new multipolar challenges it faces, with joyous applause for a country restrained by a dying communist ideology. You detest American power so much that you failed to realise that this power was accumulated by American choice. The same choices that China will make in rejecting communism and embracing liberty. Cheerleading the advent of the Chinese century only serves to highlight and contrast the result of European choices: that in 50 years from now there will be little more than a touchline view for Europe in the multipolar world it craves.

William Jensen, USA

I would have to agree with Alex' note above. Obviously, the Bush Administration does not want a united Europe, particularly with respect to economic issues. The exposure for the dollar and the strength of the Euro are real problems for America that put its economy at risk. There is no assurance that the dollar will plummet, but it is certainly possible and becoming more so every day given the dual deficits. The Euro affords a competitive alternative for creditor nations to invest their surplus funds. The Bush Adminstration rightly fears the competition and would greatly prefer multiple currencies. God forbid if the pound or the kroner went the way of the Euro.
Equally important, the regulatory strength of a united Europe scares the crap out of American business. European regulations can have an impact on American products, even those that are ultimately sold in America. As an example, Jack Daniels whisky is sold in liters. Most Americans have no idea about the metric system - and, incidentally, probably could not name 10 European countries - but its slowly creeping in to our system because of European restrictions.
While American, I would prefer a united Europe, and I don't care whether it is Atlantis or Gualist as distinguised by Mr. Ash. It seems to me that the economic competition would ultimately be good for America. Perhaps it would force us to take care of our own house instead of looking over the the Middle East to repair theirs.
It looks to me like the Bush Administration isn't going anywhere in further dividing Europe as it pertains to Iraq. The non-coalition members have promised limited help, which is, frankly, more than America probably deserves or expects. We behaved poorly in the buildup to the war and should have never gone into this with the help we had and to ask for it now is really kind of, well, unrealistic and bizarre.
With respect to Iran, I am more optimistic. All we have to do is buy time. The demographics are in our favor if we don't do something ridiculous like drop a bomb on the country. (Just heard David Letterman - late night talk show host- say "Bush says attacking Iran would be ridiculous, so you know what that means. We will be attacking Iran." Not all Americans are yahoos.)
Environmentally, I hope Europe enacts every kind of regulation it can, particularly to cars. Perhaps that will push the techonology forward quicker and will have a postivie effect on America.
In short, I think a united Europe is America's best hope.

Michel Bastian, France

> I would have to agree with Alex' note above. Obviously, the Bush Administration does not want a united Europe, particularly with respect to economic issues. The exposure for the dollar and the strength of the Euro are real problems for America that put its economy at risk.There is no assurance that the dollar will plummet, but it is certainly possible and becoming more so every day given the dual deficits. The Euro affords a competitive alternative for creditor nations to invest their surplus funds. The Bush Adminstration rightly fears the competition and would greatly prefer multiple currencies.
Yes, and as a european, I have to admit that the Euro´s strength is not mainly based on the strength of its economy. As far as I understand it (I´m not an expert in economic matters, so I´m willing to learn), the main reason for the devaluation of the dollar and the strength of the Euro is not european-made. It´s mostly due to the fact that the Bush administration insists on weakening the dollar through massive increases in national debt. There are some economists that already start thinking about stock exchange crashes due to massive dollar sell-offs. I just heard one yesterday on the BBC who said that there is already a very real risk of the dollar plummeting if one of the bigger national banks (he was talking about South Korea or Japan, as an example) started selling off their dollar funds. This, apparently, could lead to a mass movement away from the dollar with potentially catastrophic consequences for the US economy.
Europeans can´t be indifferent to that. A dollar crash would NOT be good for us at all. It would massively destabilize our own economy. Don´t forget that one of Europe´s main economic players, Germany, is an export economy with huge export interests in the US. A dollar crash would massively affect at least the germans, the french and the brits (who are not in the Euro-zone but who´d be affected anyhow). The only ones who might possibly profit from a dollar crash are asian economies. Another example of how the american and european economies are linked to the point of interdependence. So here goes my argument again: the US and Europe HAVE to work together if they want to face the rising asian economies on equal terms.
> God forbid if the pound or the kroner went the way of the Euro.
I don´t think there´s too much of a risk for that. The main "value" currency at the moment seems to be the Euro.
> Equally important, the regulatory strength of a united Europe scares the crap out of American business. European regulations can have an impact on American products, even those that are ultimately sold in America. As an example, Jack Daniels whisky is sold in liters. Most Americans have no idea about the metric system - and, incidentally, probably could not name 10 European countries - but its slowly creeping in to our system because of European restrictions.
Don´t know about the metric system, but it´s true the regulatory power of the EU in economic matters is huge indeed, which many people even in Europe don´t seem to realise. Actually, in some cases the EU has a tendency to overregulate, but that´s another story. The decisions taken in Brussels affect the american economy greatly, since there are lots of american export interests in the EU member states. Also, in many sectors european firms are the main competition for american ones. One of the most blatant examples for this is the aeronautical sector: nobody has had the power to compete with Boeing for the last forty years, except EADS (makers of Airbus etc.). The same goes for the banking sector (german and french banks, especially Deutsche Bank and BNP Parisbas etc. have gobbled up huge chunks of business in the US). All this goes to show that the US and America are bound together by their close economic ties. We can´t afford governmental trade wars (just to be clear: I´m not talking about healthy competition between american and european firms here; competition is quite ok; I´m only referring to things like protectionist taxes, subsidies, massive devaluations of one currency against another etc.), because that would be equivalent to mutual economic suicide. We have to concentrate on the new markets, i.e. Asia, and we have to do it together.

> While American, I would prefer a united Europe, and I don't care whether it is Atlantis or Gualist as distinguised by Mr. Ash. It seems to me that the economic competition would ultimately be good for America.
Ultimately yes, if it doesn´t degenerate into a trade war.
> It looks to me like the Bush Administration isn't going anywhere in further dividing Europe as it pertains to Iraq. The non-coalition members have promised limited help, which is, frankly, more than America probably deserves or expects. We behaved poorly in the buildup to the war and should have never gone into this with the help we had and to ask for it now is really kind of, well, unrealistic and bizarre.
That´s the problem: public opinion in Europe sees it exactly as you do: let the americans sort out their own mess in Iraq. However, I think this is short-sighted. We can´t afford to snub the americans in Iraq because they treated us poorly in the run-up to the war. We don´t have any leeway to stroke our own egos by being righteous. Iraq has to become a stable democracy, or else we´ll all be up the proverbial creek with no paddle. I´m not sure whether it´ll work out, but we have to help the US to the best of our abilities in Iraq.
> With respect to Iran, I am more optimistic. All we have to do is buy time. The demographics are in our favor if we don't do something ridiculous like drop a bomb on the country. (Just heard David Letterman - late night talk show host- say "Bush says attacking Iran would be ridiculous, so you know what that means. We will be attacking Iran." Not all Americans are yahoos.)
I do hope the Bush admnistration doesn´t do anything rash like bombing iranian installations, because that would instantly cut off any diplomatic option. However, as far as I can see, the US isn´t going to strike militarily at the moment. I think what Bush is doing right now is enacting the good cop/bad cop routine in concert with the europeans. I´m not overly optimistic, but this might actually turn out all right.

> Environmentally, I hope Europe enacts every kind of regulation it can, particularly to cars. Perhaps that will push the techonology forward quicker and will have a postivie effect on America.
Hmm, possible. However, I think the environmental discussion has to take a more global approach than just Europe and America. Kyoto has a long way to go before it will actually work, even if the US signed up now, which isn´t very likely.

> In short, I think a united Europe is America's best hope.
Well, I´d say it´s definitely in America´s interest to have a politically united and economically strong EU.

William Jensen, United States

Michael, thanks for your comments. We seem to only disagree on the assistance Europe should give America with respect to Iraq. You think it is in Europe's interest to help. While I agree in principle, I don't in the instant case. To assist America in Iraq at this juncture would simply enable Mr. Bush to continue making bad judgments and likely allow him to cause even greater harm in the future. Don't think for a moment that his Administration has been humbled by events in Iraq, particularly if they gain assistance from Europe. If anything they will become more strident, more irresponsible, and more unilateralistic.
I hate to be such a cynic, but our President's life has been a series of him getting into trouble, getting someone else to help him get out of the trouble and then getting into even worse trouble. I don't relish the thought, particularly because tens of thousands of people have died and will die, but the world and America are probably better off if Europe lets America and its "coalition" partners deal with Iraq on their own. To assist them is to give them an opportunity of doing greater harm in the future. Perhaps the quagmire will cause some to appreciate the need to get strong world support before executing a military invasion.
I was not necessarily against America's invasion of Iraq, not because of WMD or ties to al Queda, which I suspected were simply propaganda tools, but because Hussein was a thug and the world needs to get rid of thugs. And therein lies the issue, the long-run view is that the world needs to participate in the debate and determine whether it will stand up to thugs. As it stands now, I don't know that Iraq got us any further along on the debate and may have moved the policy of thug removal in the opposite direction.
In short, for the balance of Europe to now come to the aid of America and its coalition partners would simply enable Mr. Bush to move forward with his unilateralist agenda, which, I dare say, does not include real diplomacy and most likely would create even worse problems than what we currently have in Iraq. It is a horrible thing to say for an American, because we - and Iraq for that mater - could sure use the help. But in the long run to let the situation in Iraq remain mired is to mitigate the damage Mr. Bush will cause to America and the rest of the World. Admittedly, damage will be done in Iraq, but it is possile that we can limit it to only Iraq. To allow Mr. Bush to get out of the trouble he has created in Iraq is simply to allow him to cause even worse damage down the road.

Michel Bastian, France

To William
> Michael, thanks for your comments. We seem to only disagree on the assistance Europe should give America with respect to Iraq. You think it is in Europe's interest to help. While I agree in principle, I don't in the instant case. To assist America in Iraq at this juncture would simply enable Mr. Bush to continue making bad judgments and likely allow him to cause even greater harm in the future. Don't think for a moment that his Administration has been humbled by events in Iraq, particularly if they gain assistance from Europe. If anything they will become more strident, more irresponsible, and more unilateralistic.
Oh, I don´t think that Mr. Bush has learned from his mistakes either. In fact, I´m pretty sure he´d make the same mistakes all over again today. And I agree he might take european help in Iraq as a vindication of his actions. However, there is a limit to what US military power in the middle-east can do now, so the options for Mr. Bush to invade another country (like Iran or Syria, for example) aren´t really there anymore. For starters, he´d have to convince congress to grant him more money for troops, which I´m pretty sure even a republican congress will at least think twice about, what with the enormous budget holes the Iraq occupation has created already. Then, he´d probably have to institute the draft, since he just doesn´t have sufficient forces for another full-scale invasion (especially in Iran; pretty big country, that). Imagine how popular that would be in the US. Also, he wouldn´t have any support from anybody in a new invasion, especially not Tony Blair, who might as well just give up his post now instead of waiting for an embarassing defeat in the next election if he supported Bush again.
So Bush´s potential to sow chaos in the middle east is pretty much reduced. Against that, weigh the consequences of Iraq becoming another Vietnam where the US eventually have to pull out in the face of a massive popular uprising: what will follow is most certainly a civil war with uncertain outcome. The likelihood of another fundamentalist muslim regime taking over would eventually be pretty high. We´d have another pre-invasion Afghanistan complete with religious fanaticism and terrorist training camps again, and that´s not even the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario would be that this kind of state might have and be ready to use WMD. I don´t even want to think about what would happen then. So the europeans have an interest in Iraq becoming a stable democracy. That can only be done with a massive military presence at the moment, and this is the responsibility of the US. European military support wouldn´t be sufficient to make a huge difference on the ground, however it would send a message of renewed unity between the US and the Europeans, so I think at least a token military presence by the EU (excepting Britain, of course, who already has a lot of troops there) would be helpful. Unfortunately, this won´t happen since public opinion and the political leaders in nearly the whole of the EU are against it. So the main way the europeans can help is by making sure that Iraqi civil society is made functional again. I´m talking about building up the power grid, building hospitals, schools etc. . One of the main problems the Iraqi population has with the american occupation (besides them not being able to ensure security) is the fact that they´re still lacking basic infrastructure in most parts of the country. That´s where we can come in.

> I hate to be such a cynic, but our President's life has been a series of him getting into trouble, getting someone else to help him get out of the trouble and then getting into even worse trouble. I don't relish the thought, particularly because tens of thousands of people have died and will die, but the world and America are probably better off if Europe lets America and its "coalition" partners deal with Iraq on their own. To assist them is to give them an opportunity of doing greater harm in the future. Perhaps the quagmire will cause some to appreciate the need to get strong world support before executing a military invasion.
Hopefully, this is already the case, though considering some of the posts on this board, I share your doubts.

> I was not necessarily against America's invasion of Iraq, not because of WMD or ties to al Queda, which I suspected were simply propaganda tools, but because Hussein was a thug and the world needs to get rid of thugs. And therein lies the issue, the long-run view is that the world needs to participate in the debate and determine whether it will stand up to thugs. As it stands now, I don't know that Iraq got us any further along on the debate and may have moved the policy of thug removal in the opposite direction.
Oh, the debate is not about needing to remove the thugs, it´s about how to do it.

> In short, for the balance of Europe to now come to the aid of America and its coalition partners would simply enable Mr. Bush to move forward with his unilateralist agenda, which, I dare say, does not include real diplomacy and most likely would create even worse problems than what we currently have in Iraq. It is a horrible thing to say for an American, because we - and Iraq for that mater - could sure use the help. But in the long run to let the situation in Iraq remain mired is to mitigate the damage Mr. Bush will cause to America and the rest of the World. Admittedly, damage will be done in Iraq, but it is possile that we can limit it to only Iraq.
Not sure about that. Cf. above.
> To allow Mr. Bush to get out of the trouble he has created in Iraq is simply to allow him to cause even worse damage down the road.
I can appreciate your point of view. Indeed I´m not totally convinced that it´s wrong, and I´m willing to change my argument if future developments disprove it (if Bush decides to invade Iran after all, for example). At the moment, though, I think it´s better for everybody to help the US in Iraq.

William Jensen, America

Michael, I appreciate your optimism, but I don't think you appreciation the Bush Adminstration's incompetence. They don't understand or care about math, they don't care what Europe thinks, they don't care what anyone in the Middle East thinks, they don't care what half of the Americans think. They think they are right and the practicalities of math, common sense, human nature, allocation of resources, and theories of guns and butter don't apply. You believe that those common sense reasons will limit Mr. Bush's ambitions. Don't be fooled.

Ray Vickery, Canada

The less help the Americans get in Iraq, the safer the world will be. If Iraq had been as easy as the Americans had hoped, where would the American army be now? Back home? I don't think so.
You will remember when Afghanistan seemed to have been so easy, the American press was full of piss and vinegar with articles on "who's next".
The insergents in Iraq, by tying down the American army, are helping another country, probably also Arab, stay free of American control.
And, of course, as the invasion was illegal, the insergents are the only people in Iraq whose armed action is legal.

Michel Bastian, France

To William:
Only time will tell. Let´s plan for the worst and hope for the best.

Jan Paul, United States

Interesting that the conversation is Europe vs. the U.S. when China is the threat to both. Check the import export ratios for Germany and France. Look at the ranking of real GDP growth for Europe The site is http://www.theodora.com/wfb2003/rankings/
China ranked 11th
Germany 176th
France 164th
The U.S. is ranked 116th, so do you think they are more concerned with Europe or China.
Hungary 94Th
Poland 154th
Netherlands 180th
Ireland 32nd (25% of all money from U.S. investments for Europe went to Ireland in a recent year due to their tax cuts, positive business environment, low unemployement,etc unlike the Eurozone which is running about a 9% unemployment rate with France and Germany around 10%. The Chinese are now building and buying cars left and right and would greatly appreciate a lot of regulations on European manufacturers.
I believe the population of EU is about 440 million or so. That means that in 2010 it is estimated China will have 500 middle-class citizens or more than the entire population of the EU. So should the U.S. care whether or not the EU even exists? Both the EU and the U.S. are going to be fueling the Chinese Consumer and economic engine but they won't benefit much now that China has been given WTO and restrictions on the export of textiles has been lifted which has resulted in a huge jump in Chinese exports.
The EU needs to unify and start doing some of the things "new" Europe is doing to cut taxes and increase business investment and employment if they want to compete with China which has been exempted from Kyoto and emissions. All Kyoto has done is weaken Europes ability to compete with exempted nations. Yet, who are we focusing on in this debate? The U.S. and Europe! Instead it should be each of these vs. the Chinese Economic Powerhouse that will be causing even more economic problems in both Europe and the U.S.

Nobody, Nobody's Land

I`m really disapointed with what i`ve read here, when i thought that the US and Europe were acting together (although some differences, eg.Iraq, but even inside america there were such) and co-operating with common goals..i read something like "don`t need you, don`t respect you" and "as an American, this is good for me"...well for this people, hopefully not all americans...heil hitler!...for the rest, lets hope this kind of people doesn`t increase the hate toward the americans...

Red Dragon, Wales, United Kingdom

Why do all Americas say WW2 was Europes problem? Im sure Hitler would have came after America when Germany had become stronger. Also Europe doesnt need to grow as fast as China as its already a very developed continent. Anyway a unite Europe? I dont think so, most of the UK do not want a united Europe as they know that secret laws of the EU constition, gives the EU power over nearly every issue of the country, from immigration to military. As a newspaper also featured the new leader of Spain telling the Sun (newspaper) that the EU is out to destroy the UK and absorb it into the EU "superstate". Also the French people are againest the EU constitution as they start to realise what the constituion means. So when the referendum comes for France and the United Kingdom, and one says no (if not the French the UK will DEFINATLY say no) and the dreams of a united Europe will die as the UK is an important country to the sucess of a united Europe as the UK's economy is assumed to be (by the labour party) much better than anyone else in Europe.

antti, vainio, finland

hi red dragon
if you had benefited from the Union funds there's a fair chance you could write. "Superstate" my ass. my experience is that as soon as we Europeans are outside of our borders we gather together and forget about bad Swedish kings, Margaret Thatcher, Bismarck and the guy nobody wants to remember from Austria. our kids will marry across borders that are not only porous but virtually nonexistent. go on, stop it you monoglot Welsh and Texans

PsyObs, World Citizen

WWII, WWII thats what I always hear from Americans. Firstly, the Russians played a bigger role in defeating the Nazis than the US. Secondly, all of you talk about the US and EU running the world in 40 to 50 years time. Both the US and EU share a common enemy: the nations of the poor world whom your nations have in the past plundered and looted. let it be known that a movement which grows stronger by the day will be declaring war on all these rich, greedy nations unless social justice is delivered around the world. For too long the governments of these nations have perpetrated crimes on the weak and helpless and for too long the "free" citizens of these nations have allowed their elected representatives to carry on in such murderous ways. By the year 2050, there will be a completely new world political and economic landscape. So does the US want a united Europe? For whats coming, absolutely.

Ross Gurung, France

To Tower Buddha,
„Buddham saranam gatchami,
Sangam saranam gatchami;‰
„Om mané padmé hum!‰ The gist of what I wrote in Sanskrit: „Oh Thee! Who attained the Self Illumination (Nirvana) poised on the flower of Lotus, I bow down my head before your innermost wisdom of oneself. »
Here are some verses in Sanskrit to thank you for your frowning and implying impertinence relevant to „the possible, would be future of the EU if it did not, overnight, take care of the vicinity.‰ If someone drops a pebble in a quiet pond, many ripples are formed, similar to the family and friendly circles that form around our social life, so with the countries around the EU. Some are acceptable some others are not likewise in our social life. So why, after a creative thought so many considerations come into light.

Straightaway, I figure it is your point of view and it is up to you to see and act accordingly. How do you feel at the pinnacle up above the tower? The circular view must be just heavenly. Out here, it is pretty bad. Who created this nasty atmosphere but man. These kind of cross quetions would for sure implement the Board's goal to make people think and then act accordingly.
In fact, it happened that I wrote something of the sort in my previous interventions some where on other boards. In light of all that, who knows what kind of surprises our future would preserve for us come 2050 and so forth.
Unfortunately, Youness distributes sticks to make every body beat him. It is no slur on him to say that the crux of matter is getting invariably out of control. Let us not throw stones to a passing by Ambulance. That is the way to be screwed and to be bamboozled as well.
In fine, once again Condi and ŒW‚ should pick up Sharon and drive him upright to the Camp David, in a way, to make him get a stroke of diplomacy of which only Condi has the secret, amidst thousand of white doves (symbol of Peace) freaking him out deliberately with comforting words and for sure reminding him the fact that the whole world is simply jaded and faded because of no peace as yet is pointing out on the horizon between the two protagonists, Israel and Palestine.
A glimpse of hope was dawning when he began to evacuate Gaza strips. To my mind, now Israelis must give Peace a chance by not erecting barriers and by not allowing the new 30,000 settlers to erect houses near about east Jerusalem for the sake of human consciousness. Now the Jews of Diasporas all over the world are no more persecuted anywhere. We find them all extremely happy and prosperous in all aspects of life in the countries where they got settled for centuries. That will do! In addition, for the generations to come this would be the doing of Sharon come what may. That will be to thumb Sharon‚s nose at the late Arafat. If not, we are doomed to cuss to infinity.
That is just an inoffensive cut at Sharon. Pin drop silence! Verbatim: Peace is on the threshold∑!!PS: I recommend you to go thru‚ a best seller of the day, ŒThe European Dream‚ by an eminent but controversial US author and University lecturer, only if youŒre in favour of the EU

Jan Paul, USA

PsyObs, World Citizen
I agree that the economic power of the world will be much different and that the U.S. and Europe won't be leading it. I beleive China will be the economic power of the future. However, it may end up being just as ruthless with the 3rd world nations as it will be with Europe and the U.S. Both are losing companies to China and then having those companies export back to the U.S. and Europe. China is making deals with all the oil producing countries and agreeing to supply them with consumer goods at fair prices in return for guaranteed supplies of oil. Thus when theire is a shortage, China will continue to get oil and Europe and the U.S. will see their supplies reduced. However, since Europe is rethinking the EU and several countries are starting to balk at the EU Constitution, unity may be farther off or even not possible. Maybe Europe will see much of itself become a Muslim country since so many are immigrating to Europe. Whatever happens, it will be interesting and I doubt if the U.S. is concerned either way since Europe doesn't have the power anymore, just like the U.S. doesn't have much power anymore. There is a new kid on the block that will have as much power as Europe and the U.S. combined in about a decade.
China is already the number one consumer nation, second in GDP behind the U.S. and scheduled to pass the U.S. in GDP in about 10 to 15 years. It is building highways, rail lines, pipelines and new factories at a rate faster than all of Europe and the U.S. combined. It has 100 million middle class now and will have 500 million (that 200 million more than the entire population of the U.S.) by about 2010 to 2012. The major auto companies are building there to supply the ever increasing demand for autos there. The have bought 2 and 1/2 the number of cell phones the U.S. has. They are doubling the number of computers owned about every 28 months. They will be the number one consumer of oil in just a couple more decades.
Nope, I don't think the U.S. needs to worry about Europe and Europe doesn't need to worry about the U.S.

Jon Hareide, Norway, almost EU

The US contributions here are predictable - arrogant, nationalist, the voice of the hegemon. "We won WW2". 20 million dead Russians. "Vietnam was horrible. We lost 50.000". Vietnam lost about a million.
Alex Paterson puts the finger to the sore spot - the Economy. Foreign policy is 95% about economic interest, and the thrust of the EU is towards economic integration. That means less influence, less business for the US. Did you hear the speeches when the new Airbus doubledecker was unveiled? It was basically a lot of gloating that they had Boeing (the Yanks ..) beat! Blur, Chirac, -- they were all there.
We are moving towards a new block structure - EU, US, China, with some hangabouts like Japan, Russia. Then there is India ... And yes, the cheap labour in China is a threat to the working classes of both the US and the EU. The US are already feeling the effects, with purchasing power for the middle and lower middle class dropping.
So the US "feelings" for this phenomenon are largely irrelevant, except they are trying to delay the EU's integration by playing the UK, the Poles, the Turks.
Will the EU develop a proper fighting force? Of course. All Empires have armies.
And the French... well, they have the bomb, but beyond that, their power is a thing of the past. They still have the power to annoy the US, though! Hurrah for that! :-)

Osvaldo Brasao, Portugal

1 ˆ Comments on Comments
William Jensen is certainly in stating in would be unwise to take the Bush Administration out of trouble. (Often the shortest path is not a straight line.) However, it is no accident that Iraq is not working. If is was already fully functional, then the US would have no excuse. Remember, Iraq is being privatised to a few highly connected corporations, disguised under many names.
I feel distressed by the huge bridging effort Michael Bastian has been making. While it is certain that some things need to change, some things much be said of France. Since I have no elective affinities to French culture, I feel particularly comfortable to state that - A - French people are many years ahead of others in guaranteeing democracy by organized protest. They have things as personal bankruptcy controlled by courts of law, anti-publicity. They say no. B ˆ what US does not like in France is the fact that they are the only truly independent country in Europe. You see, they possess all sorts of technologies it takes for that purpose, even when theirs are not so good as those of others.
2 ˆ Zooming out
We both, Europeans and, more recently, Americans, have been the plunderers of the world, but only recently. More precisely, Europe plundered Africa, North and South (Latin) America in since the XVIth century. However, for most of history, as Andre Gunder Frank points out, it has been South and East Asia, China in particular, who has occupied central stage based on strength of numbers. China, whose bureaucratic core went into collapse in XIX century, but rose again with the communist party of Mao.
However, Europe did change after the 1850s, its main role slowly switched from exploitation of others to production. A movement anti-globalization appeared. Rising nations turned into industrial output. And after WWII, no-one had the force to dominate in other continents by force. The US threw us out of the colonial business. It came Suez, 1956, for instance. Little wonder the idea of a strong united Europe became central. What else could we do then? What else can we do now?
3 - On the US
In the early sixties, a magic bullet killed not a saint, but a scrupulous person. Later on, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were killed too. Software was free. The years pass ∑ nowadays we have Microsoft, and the great stories (read authentic) which come from that country are stories of losers, told by a fine guy who worked in a shoe shop and, at a given time, decided to go west to impersonate lone heros. Now he is one of those.
Remember, the wilderness was free, meaning it had no price tag. Until too muchpeople came, that is. No wonder „Heaven‚s gate‰ did not sell. Too much reality, Jung would say. The US does not know himself. The reorientation of US demography towards west is unimportant compared to this.
(On WWII and WWI) Do you know what is an Offshore Controller? Hint: WWI started in 1914 and you joined in 1917; WWII started in 1939, you joined in 1941, and even then not at December the 7th, but a week later, after Hitler having reconsidered and decided to comply with the treaty with Japan. Definitely, you should speak only of WWW instead.4 ˆ On Europe
Who knows the future of Europe? I‚m reasonably certain of a few elements:
A - there will be independent countries, at least this century, perhaps for all centuries. In fact, the XXth century was the latest stage of maturation of the European continent ˆ the affirmation of eastern Europe nation-states, Ireland and Finland -, as the XIX had been for the central countries of Germany and Italy. Notice, however, that the sum of contributions of talented people from these two areas, in the previous centuries, while not in nation-state format, had no match at continental scale.
Now, you see, nothing is as hard to give than recently acquired liberties or statusˆ that‚s why woman have problems in giving up smoking -, so don‚t expect that to happen. Furthermore, there is no reason to happen. We don‚t need to, and it is doubtful we could. Geography says no; history says ˆ why?
European Union is based on the subsidiarity principle: do together what you cannot do individually, such as:
- stand up to gigantic nations. Today, it is the US. Tomorrow it will be the US, China, India and Brasil.
- Galileo; CERN, Cadarache.
B ˆ the moment Turkey will join EU, the other countries will get out. Perhaps to create something else. I still don´t understand Tim Garton Ash on this. Judging by his latest comment on the Guardian, he may be having second thoughts.
C ˆ EU is only worthy if citizens are involved. Since the Treaty is being served with sugar to disguise the neo-liberal taste, I‚ll vote „No‰.4 ˆ On both America and Europe
In October 2003, Susan Sontag made an outstanding speech on this subject, entitled „Between Europe and America‰, at the acceptance of the Friedenspreis award. You can find it in the web.
5 ˆ Actually answering the question
This is embarrassing. Having gone so far now I realize the place I‚ve entered is marked with a question which is shameful to answer by someone on this side ˆ and certainly a bit manipulative to ask -, since it is none of their business. Therefore I must be more a slave of the framed ZeitGeist than I thought. Oh well, at least let it be told.

Ron Walker, UK Euroskeptic (heart), Federalist (head)

The USA should be considerably bothered by a United Europe, in that the two blocks will trade, and it's near-impossible to divorce "trade" from "politics" in two such culturally different (and indeed diverging) blocks. This is something of which Europeans should be very aware - we've experienced the creation of a "Single market" accompanied by tabloid headlines about the straightness of bananas, legality of British sausages, chocolate and icecream.... If you're going to allow foreigners access to your markets, then the competition between imports and domestic produce MUST be on a level playing field. The EU is more inclined to regulate than the USA, (where legistlation is influenced by "corporate financial donantions to campaign funds that would get both parties locked up in most European countries.) This reflects to a large degree the different cultural aspirations of the two blocks: Europeans mistrust corporations, Americans tend to mistrust governments. I have to declare that I think in 2005, Europeans are probably more sensible. The EU has spent decades "harmonising" the internal market. If you buy something at the local market - which is open to all EU members - then you're not going to be fobbed off with inferior imported goods mislabelled as the same as what's produced domestically. One side effect is a legal requirement for accurate labelling of packaging. If I buy a can of "chicken soup", (1) It has to contain SOME chicken (2) I can check the label and find out how much, and what else is in it. Labelling requirements are MUCH higher in ther EU than the USA, and legally imposed minimum standards are also often much higher. There are other considerations - like the balance between profits nd health and safety. Holland is the EU's main meat-packing centre, in the USA it's Chicago. Holland's H&S requirements are significantly higher than Chicago's, resulting a far lower level of industrial accidents... but higher costs. Should Europeans allow import of meat at a LOWER cost that undercuts domestic production? Costs that are lower because of poor H&S standards? Pick one, and you wipe out the domestic producers... OR you allow another nation to determine the acceptable level of health and safety of YOUR workforce (which you'd have to lower to match their costs) Of course... it cuts both ways. The tendency will be for Europe to allow US products access to European markets... PROVIDED they can match the quality and packaging levels set for domestic production. Almost none does - so the US would need to raise its game considerably. As Microsoft has demonstrated so ably over the years... "he who controls the standards owns the market." Would US producers have TWO production runs - high quality for export, lower for the domestic market - and thereby wipe out what's given them a large part of their economic "edge" since WW2? Or do they simply conform to EU standards for one bigger (more efficient and cheaper) production run? The answer is probably that they run whining to the WTO and complain that Europe's refusal to be fobbed off with crud as easily as US consumers is "unfair".
The EU is mainly about trade. Anyone who thinks that trade doesn't impinge heavily on a huge range of other issues just hasn't thought things through. Compare the EU with NAFTA, and you'll find that the underlying ideologies are about as different as chalk and cheese. Consumer rights are written into one... and all-but written out of the other.

Theodore, Netherlands

Donald, dont forget the Netherlands, you Francophile...
Jan Paul, Eire is part of the Eurozone...

Alistair Mulir, UK

Although there is large ideological divide between the US and Europe, I believe the US still has to support a United Europe.
I believe that enlargement and integration will be a good way of spreading democracy. Assuming the accession of the Meditteranean candidates and the accession of sub-Meditteranean countries in future, many of the burdens would be lifted off the US. The US of course, has a responsibilty to fulfill the road map to peace, through militarial democratisation.
While the US plugs away at the Middle East using military force, Europe will be aiming for the same outcome, except on the European periphery expanding south and east, and using negotiating force through expansionist diplomacy. So, it seems that there are two main routes to freedom. Only time will tell which one will be best.

Thomas, French and World Citizen

For Mike Neff, Texas
"Dear Europeans,
Don't need you, Don't like you, Don't trust you, Don't respect you."
Ah! What a good proof of a permanent non-use of a brain! No just kidding!
But Mike how can you think that!
1/ You need us, we need you just check the imports/exports but also the cultural exchanges.... We always need others, we cannot live alone nowadays, either on a economic point than on a cultural point! And you'll need us when China is going to overtake your economic power!
2/ You are not obliged to like us but why don't you like us? Because we take our own decisions and sometimes they are different from yours? But this is our main right! I saw a lot of "USA country of democraty", so why should we think like US? Don't we have the right to have our own points of view?
3/ Trust? At the moment, I really think that your government lied much more in 4 years (to the entire world , not only to you)that any european government. And if you don't trust me, first stop looking to FOX NEWS and try to get informations from others channels and medias. Moreover you could simply read the repot that YOUR congress wrote and in witch it's written that YOUR President (Bush junior) lied about the MDW, that you tried to fear the world with a fake Antrax bottle (was really funny) and (but it's my own opinion) that you gonna make war with Iran! And even if I don't recognise Iran as a deocratic country, and that I consider them as a POSSIBLE threat WAR IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE PROBLEMS!
There could be many more examples but if you want a sum up (not 100% true but almost) just take a look to the latest M. Moore movie (and don't forget he is American and he , he either, has the right to speak freely and to give his point of view)!
4/ You don't respect us? This sentence really shows what kind of personn you are! Why can't we have your respect once again? Cause we don't agree on everything? But isn't it our right? Why should YOUR point of view be better than yours? Don't forget that USA is still a young and ambitious country and that Europe has lived much more than USA! Don't forget that there are something like 200 countries in the world and not only 1 or 2. That's why you cannot act like you were alone! DON'T FORGET WE ARE YOUR FRIENDS NOT YOUR ENNEMIES orelse it would mean Europe = ex-Iraq = Saddam?
5/ I would add that:
- I really love USA, I've been to the US many times and I've been working there for 2 months (in a Denny's)
- I'm only 20 so pardon me for my english and maybe my poor arguments!
- We all live in the same world and please take that into account ( please sign the Kyoto protocol)
- All muslims are not a threat and this is important to make that understand by everybody!
- France not gonna become a Muslim country and don't worry for that I really think it's never gonna happen and every French citizen know that!
- Be open-minded, travel and try to understand why others can have different points of view!
- And for those who wrote that the Charia can one day be applied in France are really really really mad and ill!!!

Adam Drummond, UK

I'd like to thank George W. Bush and his administrations for their contributions to European Unity. The Foreign Policy of this administration has managed to galvanise the attitudes of most of Europe into contempt.
Is there some sort of award we can give him?

antti vainio, finland

right on. 20th century was dominated by the USA, they say the current one is going to be the Chinese. I would prefer a laidback Australian century. the ozzies I've met, they don't want to dominate anyone, neither they want to be dominated. I really admire their attitude towards bullies.

Jan Paul, USA

I see more people in both the U.S. and Europe are beginning to see the economic threat of China. In about 15 years it will have the larges GDP and soon after that it is esimated China will be consuming more oil than any other nation. It will in just about seven years have 500 million middle-class purchaser of goods. That is only a couple of hundred million below the total of all Europe and more than the entire population of the U.S. by a couple hundred million.
That means that if we had good competition, they would be buying all kinds of things from us. Instead they are getting more and more of the jobs from both Europe and the U.S. and we are both running deficits. Then you add that more and more of the European countries are finding fault with the EU constitution. The U.S. and Europe are in more economic trouble potentially than we really know. The trend is all towards China. They are making the deals around the world now. They are the ones buying oil around the world and driving up prices. They now make the goods, not Europe and the U.S. that maore and more countries are buying.
Good luck. The party is almost over if we don't start changing the way we compete against China. Eastern Europe will probably do alright. They are preparing. Heck they are even getting businesses from the U.S. and Western Europe.

Michael Woodley, United Kingdom of Great Britain

It is not a case of whether or not America wants a United Europe; it is a case of whether or not Europe wants a United Europe. The Union of Europe is an attempt to create a supranational entity bound by political and economic ties, one where the concept of the sovereign nation-state has no place.
We humans have various levels of social organization, we have the family, the township, the county, and of course the nation. The nation is defined by ties of blood, centuries of history and a common destiny for its people. Usually, a Nation has to have withstood the test of time without changing its parameters significantly, in order to justify its self as the most stable mode of political/social organization. A nation possesses a distinct aspect, it is that which is not of the others, its people through centuries of proximity have developed a unique outlook on the world. Indeed, the British outlook is distinct from the French outlook, which is in turn distinct from the Spanish outlook. There are barriers that separate nation-states, racial ones, linguistic ones, geographical etc. But most importantly, cultural ones. The European Union is doomed to failure, because it is based on the Socialist Internationalist principle. It combines into its world-view that same fallacy that Marx did ˆ namely the notion that Nation does not matter, and that there are common ties of humanity that go deeper than allegiance to ones nation of origin.
But History has a way of vindicating the Nation, look at the First World War, socialist internationalists believed that rather than fight, the soldiers would link with their class brethren and mutiny, this did not happen, as a matter of fact the soldiers were more than happy to collaborate with their class betters, many of whom were their commanding officers. The thing that bound them was nationalism, the common defense of a common way of life, against a commonly perceived foreign way of life that sought to impose its self upon the Nation.
Just like in the Great War, the Socialist Internationalist architects of the ŒBrave New Europe‚ will have to contend with Nationalism, already we see the Constitutional glue, that was meant to be the binding principle of Europe, being rejected by many of the nations that were supposed to embrace it whole heartedly. Should France reject the constitution, a mortal will be struck into the heart of the European Union, one from which I doubt very much it will ever recover. It appears that the Socialist internationalists will have to learn the hard way, once again, that their Utopia is unobtainable. Human nature will teach them this lesson, sooner rather than later, it is hoped!

antti vainio, finland

so the European lifestyle is obsolete. it's either Chinese communist style or American capitalist style which are so intertwined they are the same. never trust a guy who says therea are no options

Michel Bastian, France

To Michael Woodley:
> It is not a case of whether or not America wants a United Europe; it is a case of whether or not Europe wants a United Europe. The Union of Europe is an attempt to create a supranational entity bound by political and economic ties, one where the concept of the sovereign nation-state has no place.
No, I strongly disagree with that assessment. The novelty of the basic idea of the EU is the fact that there will still be sovereign nations with distinct cultural and political entities who just pool their resources, so to speak. To do that, a certain amount of sovereignty will have to be transferred on EU institutions, but not all of it by far. And if a kind of "european national state" emerges through the next decades, well so much the better, but it´s not a necessity.

> We humans have various levels of social organization, we have the family, the township, the county, and of course the nation. The nation is defined by ties of blood, centuries of history and a common destiny for its people. Usually, a Nation has to have withstood the test of time without changing its parameters significantly, in order to justify its self as the most stable mode of political/social organization. A nation possesses a distinct aspect, it is that which is not of the others, its people through centuries of proximity have developed a unique outlook on the world. Indeed, the British outlook is distinct from the French outlook, which is in turn distinct from the Spanish outlook. There are barriers that separate nation-states, racial ones,
Racial barriers? Clarify please.
> linguistic ones, geographical etc. But most importantly, cultural ones. The European Union is doomed to failure, because it is based on the Socialist Internationalist principle.
No, I have to disagree again. The European Union is not based on any socialist principle. It´s based on a common understanding of Europe´s role in the future and the desire to live in peace together instead of continuing our long history of conflict and war.
> It combines into its world-view that same fallacy that Marx did √ namely the notion that Nation does not matter, and that there are common ties of humanity that go deeper than allegiance to ones nation of origin.
"Nation" does matter, but it doesn´t matter to the exclusion of everything else. After all, no nation in Europe has been a nation since the beginning of time. Germany was a collection of medieval fiefs and baronies until the middle of the 19th century, France and Britain have only really started existing as nations since the end of the middle ages etc. etc. Nations will mutate, dissolve and reform into other nations given time. So will language and culture. Indeed, the concept of "national identity" and "national superiority" was mostly the brainchild of the 18th and 19th century. Therefore no, the idea of "nation" should not be seen as an absolute, but as an ongoing development over a long period of time. It certainly shouldn´t be seen as an obstacle to the European Union.
> Just like in the Great War, the Socialist Internationalist architects of the ‘Brave New Europe∫ will have to contend with Nationalism, already we see the Constitutional glue, that was meant to be the binding principle of Europe, being rejected by many of the nations that were supposed to embrace it whole heartedly. Should France reject the constitution, a mortal will be struck into the heart of the European Union, one from which I doubt very much it will ever recover. It appears that the Socialist internationalists will have to learn the hard way, once again, that their Utopia is unobtainable. Human nature will teach them this lesson, sooner rather than later, it is hoped!
You´re mixing things up badly here. Is your argument that everybody who agrees with the european idea is a socialist dreamer? Most of the architects and also many opponents of the EU would probably disagree quite strongly with that assessment. I doubt very much that Konrad Adenauer or Charles de Gaulle could be called "socialists" or "dreamers". In fact, given their overall political orientation, I´m sure they were anything but socialists, and given the way they ruled their respective countries, they were far from being dreamers either. Yet they were two of the strongest proponents and architects of the European Community.

Tito the Norman

Youness,
Let's get the history of the Crusades and Saladin corrected, if not in better perspective.
The Crusades were in response to Muslim invasion the Byzantine Christian Holy Land in 637, Byzantine Christian North Africa in 643 and Catholic Christian Spain in 711 and finally stopped at the Battle of Tours (732-33) by Charles Martel where the Franks won a 'defensive' battle by hammering the Saracens (Muslims). In 969 the Fatamid caliphs (Muslims) denied Christians the rite of pilgrimage to the formerly Christian Holy Land, specifically Jerusalem. The Muslims also destroyed and razed the Church of the Holy Sepulcher to the ground in 1009.
From 637 up through the 20th century, Muslims made Christians and Jews pay protection money, Muslims called it the Jizya tax, in order to live under Muslim rule if they didn't convert to Islam. Christians and Jews were made into second and third class citizens and were called dhimmi's.
Furthermore, if the middle east, Spain, North Africa weren't enough for the bloodthirsty Muslims, that Muslims raided the Italian peninsula (where the monastery of Monte Cassino was destroyed by Muslims in 883).
Hence the Crusades were provoked by the Muslims.
Youness, you think that the Crusades were started in a vacuum? You think that the Crusades were created by the evil Catholic Church and the evil Pope? For a European you seem dreadfully uneducated, insincere, and poorly informed.
The Crusaders were intent on not only preserving what was left of the decimated Christian populations, but also to restore the rite of pilgrimage that was denied to them by the so-called 'peaceful' coexistence that has been falsely claimed in secular pseudo-history.
No there is no doubting Saladin's gallantry and Islamic chivalry. He is certainly one of the middle ages most prominent characters, right up there with his colleague, Richard the Lionheart and El Cid of Spain.
But when spouting 'hate' and 'vile' towards anything Christian is unnecessary and degrading to your own heritage.
Know your history before spouting out falsehoods.

WorldLover, Geneva

Hi everybody. I have read with interest what US and Europeans have written in here. I am an Italian living in Switzerland. My feeling towards Europe would be what Jeff from Texas said against the Europeans: dont' like you, don't trust you, don't respect you. I would also like to say "dont need you", but that's another story...
He guys, I am an European at heart and do not need Brussels to teach my Europeanity. But really, why should I like, trust and respect a supra-national power that will inevitably, once enforced, put in place everything possigle to kill my identity, my roots, my freedom to live and die MY WAY. Europeans, don't be silly and be realistic: this Europe they are proposing us is an old, very old dream, that under our eyes is coming true in the end: the Romans, Napoleons, the Nazis dreamt it, but failed, thanks God. Now EEC is succeeding and we all clap our hands like children, we can't wait to see what's coming next.
What's coming next? Intuitively I would say, nothing good, neither for us Europeans, nor for the rest of the world. Europe will try once again - and hopefull for the last time - to dominate the world. Why for the last time? Because as someone in this forum said it, Europe is an old place, an old continent, its time is behind, and even if the old lady had a surgical operation to appear younger, it is still a very old lady - with lots of blood on her hands - and death is nearby. The mother of all lies, arrongances, etc. is Europe: imperialism, fascism, nazism colonialism were all born here. From here they moved on to other places, but they are native from here.
I know I am being very pessimistic, but I think I am right. Anyway Europe is not the center of the world. There are other people, other places to experiment life and its great gifts, among which freedom is the greatest.
America is part of our culture, as someone said "America is Europe's oldest dream". We European are often arrogant and critical towards the Americans. I am not saying that America is perfect, all the contrary, it's got a lot to do to achieve the goals of a real democratic country. But still: in America, there are possibilities, in Europe, we are done, there aint' any.
Old sleeping demons will wake up again and I am afraid that the fear of someone in this forum will come true: we will need American military help to get out of trouble. But that day, my intuition says that America will say to Europe "go to hell". And they will be right in saying so. Enough blood has been given for Europe. If Europe can't save herself, then let it die.

polish pumber, Pozna

heh, now, after french 'non' we can be sure that USA don't
need UE wchich can't pass go it's own problems and just now
lost long time of empty talking... As a enthusiast of SF Euro-federation I'm not surprise but disappointed. EU have 2 ways in future:
1. 'USE' inspired by America, wchich would be strong and realy helpful for USA. USA can't protect all world in XXI century from its problems. look at AIDS epidemic, last tsunami, terrorism, it's too much work for one superpower. Americans must understand that EU25 is anti-bush chirac-schrooder alliance, we have too much common ideas, buisness and to much hard work to do together, that we can't wasteing time and energy on rivalry. I think, after last enlargement of EU, american goverment understood that USA gain new, huge favourable partner, and cancel 'divide et impera' policy. Anyway, USE wouldn't become anotother empire, because most of todays UE citizens don't want it.
2. wrong way: UE inspired on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569-1795) with huge decentralisation, liberum veto, anarchy-democracy, complacency, self-centred, not working policy. Should i write what's happend in 1795?... No one will waiting for this Europe. Regions and nations going from prosperity to stagnation, just like China after medival. Suicide of Europe was in both world wars, the union can be resuscitation, but we can't be sure that we will thumb a ride. This seckend Europe will not be hopeful, it will be just another problem. (sorry about my english...)

polish plumber, Poznan

rectification of my last note
"...must understand that EU25 >ISN'T< anti... bla bla bla"
i hope i didn't give casus belli to anyone :)

Michel Bastian, France

To Jan Paul:
> I see more people in both the U.S. and Europe are beginning to see the economic threat of China. <...>
Good luck. The party is almost over if we don't start changing the way we compete against China. Eastern Europe will probably do alright. They are preparing. Heck they are even getting businesses from the U.S. and Western Europe.
Thank you very much for that post. At long last somebody finally understands what the problem is.

thomas riccardo, U.S.

All this U.S. centric talk that I hear from most of my native people, Americans.
We are not the center of the world nor will we be in the future. The U.S. had a great run for about 50 years after World War 2 but Europe, Russia and Japan rebuilt themselves and now China is becoming a World Power.
The European Union as it is now would be a power for any country or countries to reckon with.
Will they give up their individual Statehoods totally to form one European Superstate? That is a question only answered by time but they are already economically one and the courts in the E.U. are already very centralized. The E.U. Military is moving along, they are building up their military rapidly.
The question is-do the Europeans want to keep the present form of Government where they all belong to the E.U. and yes in limited way are already a Superstate but with the power to veto actions from Brussels that the individual Countries and people do not agree with or do they want to give all their Political Power to Brussels, which is a mistake in my opinion.
The E.U. is already a Superpower and a very powerful one, why should they integrate totally?
They have the best of both World's, Combined economic and Military power with each country retaining democratic vetoes when Brussels wants to do something, Undemocratic!
In world trade terms, Europe exports close to 2 trillion dollars worth of Goods and services every year to all corners of the world. It is the largest importer, more then the U.S. when combined as one unit.
Europe has a powerful military, not centralized as of yet but taken as a whole, no country really wants to screw with them and nuclear armed.
Manufacturing, yes certain industries are having problems competing with China but at this point in time, Europe, taken as a whole, dwarfs the U.S. when it comes to manufacturing capacity. They make more steel, chemicals, ships, civilian aircraft, cars, trucks, machinery,textiles,etc. The U.S. has about 10 percent of it's workforce in Manufacturing while the E.U. has about 25 percent, who has more economic power?
Europe has a trade surplus in manufactured goods while we have huge deficits.
They are the world's largest aid Donors and also the World's largest private investors, by far!
Europe in reality is stronger then they have ever been but they are transforming many of the Eastern European countries into modern states and that takes alot of money and time.

Antti Vainio, Finland

To the Polish Plumber:I suppose a majority of Scandinavians think like I do:Let the former communist countries go on with their random wild market economy. We in Finland are suffering because the labour is cheap in baltic countries and places like Chech Republic and Hungary (and everybody knows and in those countries they have the sharpest brains in the world). Let them get over of the communism, let them, fuck I don't know, even abuse the union. We can afford it, we can benefit. This far they have shown that when rich get richer the poor get as well is utter bollocks

Go to page 1 2 3

Debate - Page 2/3