Missing MIs

Nothing too substantial to say here but I though people would be interested to know that there were an MI1-MI4. Wikipedia (for what its worth) even has information on MI7-MI19.
enjoy

Matt Bank

The EU versus the East?

It's very interesting to read the three works assigned, and to see how different views are in the four major blocs in Europe (though, honestly Turkey is not a part of Europe). That is, the EU which one can divide in the original 15, and then the new 8 Eastern European, post-communist states (sorry Malta, and Cyprus, though the latter also has a history of oppression by a foreign force); Turkey, which is an important ally (though I would question its future usefulness - honestly you only need some people for a temporary amount of time in your life); and then the greatest state of them all, Russia, which today proudly boasts a nationalistic, pragmatic, autocratic, NGO hating government (but hey, the West wanted Russia to have democracy, and here it is now!).

Regardless, it's important to realize how much history affects the relationships between these four groups. The Eastern Europeans have, though not very successfully, changed their governments to something compatible with the EU, whereas Turkey and Russia have both gone their separate ways. Both have policies that do not give the autonomy or independence of those nations which are unwillingly in their states.

Turkey has demonstrated its lack of mission by not being able to do anything it has aimed for. It is not a rich state, it is not as free as it should be, and overall not fit for EU membership, not yet at least. At the same time it has failed its supposed most important ally, the USA, by not helping with the war in Iraq. Why the Kurdish people suffer, and why the Armenian genocide is still denied is beyond me, especially the fact that Europeans have not done enough to pressure the Turkish government to change its ways. I won't even get into the involvement the military has in their politics.

Russia of course is a much more complicated issue, and for fear that a visa will not be accepted when I try to go there to study their language, I won't go too far. The truth is, though, that the growing relationship between it and Turkey is worrying. The great power politics Putin is playing will bring no good to anyone, only his KGB cronies. With the growing importance of energy Europe, with the support of the US will have to do something.

In the end, once again, it's very historical. The new EU members have achieved national independence after many centuries of occupation by different powers. Of course, knowing what's good for them they ran to the EU as to get away from Russia, and with good reason. Here, the United States is not given its full importance. In many ways it is because of the US that the new states joined the EU. The EU is bigger, and stronger for it, because many Eastern Europeans saw this as the way to go for their future, one where Transatlantic relations are the basis for a secure, and open grouping and polity of free societies, as it should be.

EU presidency bus

This is totally not a substantive contribution, but I just wanted to direct you guys to this URL: http://www.germany.info/form/spot_the_bus.html

I thought it was a cute idea.

Quick Info

If anyone is looking for more material for tomorrows discussion of British nuclear arms, there are a ton of interesting links from this Wikipedia page to a number of different sites and documents, some of which I am sure are more reliable than others. The BBC has also been running a bunch of stories about the issue lately, plus (in my humble opinion) the BBC News website is very well designed and easy to use.

Key U.S. Beliefs Supported by the Example of France

Part of Simon Serfaty’s article made me think about which U.S. beliefs are fed or supported by certain kinds of anti-French sentiment. Serfaty suggests that francophobia in the U.S. implies that “were it not for the French there would be no objection to the United States in Europe.” I agree with his analysis – France makes a convenient enemy for the U.S. because it is a country that is prominent in international affairs, but ultimately doesn’t threaten our security. It’s comforting to pretend France is the main opponent of our foreign policy, because while the French might disagree with our choices, they don’t wish us harm and they don’t have a huge stake in the outcome. The same cannot be said for other parts of the world, especially those that have been negatively affected by U.S. foreign policy. Focusing on France lets U.S. citizens feel angry that our country’s actions are being questioned without having to seriously address the critiques, consider concrete threats to the U.S., or ask if some countries have legitimate grievances.

The U.S. can also hold France up as proof that U.S. multiculturalism and globalization are superior forces, despite French worries about the consequences of lack of assimilation and an Americanized mass culture. Sophie Meunier brought these issues up in her article. I think a lot of people in the U.S. believe the concept of “survival of the fittest” applies to culture and social practices. If something is taking over, this is a sign that it is inherently superior or of more value. Of course, this is not necessarily true: for example, Western-style diets are gaining popularity all over the world despite the fact that they are often less healthy than indigenous ones. Still, we see the popularity of American culture in France as proof that resistance is futile.

Finally, as Meunier notes, demonizing France for its opposition to our foreign policy serves certain purposes in the U.S. domestic context. People who might agree with French criticisms are more easily painted as unpatriotic and dismissed. This reinforces the idea that the world can be seen in black-and-white terms, and people are either with the U.S. or against it.

Trans-Atlantic Relevancy

Walter Mead suggests in his piece that Europe is increasingly seen as irrelevant by US policymakers.

The conclusion seems sadly evident that the Bush administration is pragmatic rather than doctrinal when it comes to multilateral and unilateral options. It has proceeded without closer consultation with Germany and France because it has simply concluded that Germany and France demand more attention and consultation than their support is worth.

Despite Mead's questionable assessment of "red state" political convictions, the point he raises strikes me as being critical to the discussion on how the transatlantic relationship functions or will function. The collapse of the USSR meant the loss of Europe's importance as the major theatre of a potential world war. European powers by and large lack the capacity to project significant military power. So militarily Europe is, relative to the US, weak.

Although Europe is important to the US economy, it is not the primary concern. In terms of imports and exports our immediate neighbors Canada and Mexico along with China and Japan all are bigger partners. (source: CIA World Factbook) Domestic problems within the EU complicate efforts to build an economic block that can compete with the US. The European economy is certainly a major player, but it doesn't seem like the EU has much economic leverage on the US.

All this leaves Europe looking somewhat less important to the US, especially at a time when its attention is being drawn by oil, terror, and the specter of a rising Iran in the Middle East as well as everyone's favorite East Asian boogeyman, China.

For the time being at least Europe still seems to need the US more than the US needs Europe. To reassert the importance of the transatlantic relationship the EU or some other collection of European states must gain enough power to offer meaningful opposition to US efforts outside of Europe. Until then, there are less incentives for the US to exert itself to please European allies.

-Fletcher F

To drift in dixie

I have two things I want to talk about in this post. The first is somewhat philosophical and in many ways is just me thinking out loud on the computer. The second is an analysis of the paper by Walter Russell Mead about German-American relations.

Is there a transatlantic drift?

So far that seems to be the main question we have been discussing in class, with quite a few of the papers coming down strongly on the side of a drift apart. And many of these people have come out of roles inside of the government where they worked very closely on these issues. But this raises another question, did they decided that there was a drift because of what their perceived, or did they perceive a drift because of what they believed. IR has a unique way of becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy. If the people writing papers about how there is a drift are then advising and/or working for the government they are likely to act in a manner that reinforces the drift between the US and Europe. It’s sort of like the chicken and the egg. Perhaps the drift has been created or strengthened by the fact that we think it exists. But then again maybe not. It’s just an idea.

The first thing I would like to comment on is Mead’s way of characterizing what he refers to as “Red State America.” As someone who hails from a red state, and is somewhat conservative (although not a fan of Bush at all) I found the constant religious analogies annoying. Mead refers to red state policymakers as revivalists, he comments on how it would be unlikely for Schroder to seek Baptism at the hands of Billy Graham, he declares that red staters “frequently think the unthinkable and say the unspeakable,” and then works in second Billy Graham reference. If one were to read this article they would think that everyone between the Appalachians and the Rockies was a bible thumping, xenophobic idiot. This is not a good way to try to start a strong relationship. Mead says that he has spent most his life in a blue state, but if Europeans are reading this article they will get the wrong idea. And if this is the perception that Europe holds of Middle America we are in trouble. But I would like to think that Europeans have a better understanding of America. And I can personally testify to the fact that most Middle Americans, don’t have a deep seeded animosity towards Europe and if anything would like to have better relations with them.

But how can we achieve these better relations? Mead seems to have a good idea. The Middle East is an area where both sides have important interests. And both sides would assumedly like to see a peaceful and non-extremist greater Middle East. We have seen a lot of cooperation on Iran’s nuclear program and in Afghanistan, and with a little work these instances of cooperation could be used to work towards mending relations in other areas. By starting with small steps the two sides could hopefully see that they can work together and then tackle other larger issues. The Israeli-Palestinian situation offers another opportunity for cooperation and trust building. If Europe and America want to mend their relationship the Middle East offers a great place to start.

Matt Bank

What is the State of the Transatlantic Relationship?

Anyone familiar with Transatlantic relations knows that there has been a “crisis” since the early days of the European project. So one must ask, if there really is a crisis, and if the Atlantic Community really is on the brink of rupture; though the word divorce may seem to make more sense in this case. The simple answer is no. The end of the Cold War did not bring down NATO, or indeed the EC. It has now been over fifteen years since the fall of the Soviet Union. Not even de Gaulle brought down the European integration process (though he did change it fundamentaly) in the early second half of the twentieth century.

It would seem, however, that the majority of experts as well as the informed public are incapable of creating one realistic argument on what is happening. Furthermore, there is an excessive dependence on history. The truth is that works by experts such as Kupchan, Moravscik, Kagan, and others are well aimed at some of the current problems, but alone they cannot give a complete picture. There cannot be a single factor which will dictate the future of the relationship. Perhaps if one were to argue that political, demographic, and economic changes are created divergence, then there would be a better understanding of what could happen. Better yet, a clear and simple, though extensive, theory as to what is happening would help the average citizen to be able to understand how important the relationship is.

Also, by taking a point of view, and at times a rather obvious bias, those who write about the Transatlantic relation with such a slant that it becomes difficult for certain readers to accept it, are not helping in any way. Though some would prefer to see organizations like NATO disappear, it is important to realize that without it, the world would become much more dangerous for everyone. As incapable as NATO can be in certain cases (mostly due to a select number of member states who are unwilling to send more troops to important missions, especially Afghanistan) it is still the alliance which holds together the biggest block of democratic nations. This is of no small value. The United States may be a hegemon, but it is the most benevolent the world has ever, and will probably ever see. At the same time, Europe deserves a voice in the world, so that all continents in the world are able to reach minimal levels of life sustainability, as well as human rights, something which can, and should be done through diplomacy, and soft power, with hard power only ever being used in the case of real threats.

For the time being, there is yet no concrete answer to the question of whether there really is such an incoming divorce. One could even claim that elites are causing a rift in the relationship by paying so much attention to divergences, when there are enormous cultural, political, economic, and military links. Americans love Europe, and Europeans love the United States. It is the best friendship between nations and states that the world has ever seen. Even though it is human nature to take sides, perhaps it is time to take an eclectic approach to this issue. Only through innovative approaches, can one expect the US and EU to work together to spread the values of democracy, and human rights; if indeed that is the foreign policy both wish to pursue.