Transatlantic Relations Conclusion

Given Professor Egan's concluding lecture on the state of Transatlantic Relations I would like to add that yes I do in fact believe that Europe needs to figure out whether it wants to be a global or a regional player. This is ONE priority. However, Europe also needs to realize that the partnership with the US has significantly changed and that it cannot count on the US as an ever-reliable ally. As we all know, the end of the Cold War utterly altered the geopolitical structure of the world. The loss of the Soviet Union as a common enemy led to a re-thinking of the existing strategic alliances including the US-EU alliance. However, it wasn't until 9/11 and the disagreements that followed regarding a variety of security issues including how to handle the Iraqi threat that Europe and the US finally realized that their alliance was one based on convenience rather than similar values and morals.
During the time period leading up to the Iraq war, we Europeans including me liked to believe that the somewhat irrational and unilateral US foreign policy was being conducted by a group of hawkish republicans who didn't really take other opinions into consideration and who were merely concerned with achieving their foreign policy goals that had been thought out a long time ago. The frustration about the US decision to invade Iraq was often directed towards the incumbent US government only, most of the time towards people such as Bush and Cheney. However, most Europeans failed to realize that the US has always acted unilateral when doing so was considered necessary to achieve its own interests. As I said previously Europeans liked to direct their anger at Bush and/or Cheney or Republicans in general and thereby disregarded the fact that Democrats such as the then next potential US president voted for the war as well. Additionally, Europeans were incapable of understanding what a devastating and traumatizing effect 9/11 has had on the psyche of American policymakers and Americans as a whole. To have the first attack on one’s own soil come in the form of hi-jacked planes flying into buildings that represent(ed) US economic or political power and killing thousands was a truly mind-altering experience which we as Europeans will never be able to fully understand (since a terrorist attack of such magnitude has never occurred on European soil). Since it is human nature to act impulsive and sometimes irrational following events of such scale the rather uncharacteristic and unilateral US foreign policy that followed can only be understood as an example of impulsive and reactionary behavior. Then again, how much of this foreign policy was actually impulsive and how much of it was calculated we will never really know.
What I’m trying to say here is that in order for us to prevent the transatlantic drift from getting worse we need to analyze and understand our differences before looking at our similarities. Europe is very different from the US in a variety of ways, which we extensively covered in class. As we all know Europe and the US approach economic issues very differently. Labor markets are rather inflexible in Europe whereas social welfare in the US is too flexible meaning practically non-existent. Indeed, both Europe and the US have democratic political systems; however the way the democratic system works in the US is quite different from the way it works in France. Additionally there are a variety of significant cultural differences, which encompass differences in religious beliefs, labor, the importance of family and many others. The differences are too long to list, but so are the similarities and it is therefore my belief that we can’t allow this partnership to waste away due to an altered geopolitical landscape and the lack of a common enemy. And yes maybe the US has less incentive to cooperate with the EU because it does not gain as much from it as the EU does from cooperating with the US, however both have so much more to gain from a flourishing and effective partnership than from a stalled and inefficient one.

-Tiago Talard

Reflections on Prof. Modelski's Presentation

Today's presentation by Professor Modelski struck me as being somewhere between overly-optimistic and fatalistic at the same time. The idea there is an unstoppable trend toward democracy (optimistic) and that there is nothing anyone can do to promote democracy other than lead by example and support other democracies (fatalistic). Maybe fatalistic is too harsh but definitely deterministic (ehh can’t find the right word). It seems logical to me that there are ways that external forces can contribute to democratization in countries that are on their way there. Does his argument mean that help with institution/capacity building, aid for development and poverty reduction, political democratic conditionality, NGOs, international exchanges, political pressure on authoritarian regimes or support of democratic opposition (the list goes on and on) are completely irrelevant to democratization? If none of that works and it is only "innovation" that leads to inevitable democratization, does that mean that foreign policy or any other efforts for democratization from the outside are completely useless? What do you think?...If I understood him correctly, I am not convinced.
Claire de Lacvivier
PS Thanks to Matt for finally hlping me figure out how to post here!

Law and Disorder

Putting aside the irony of having Henry Kissinger write an article about the ability of third parties to prosecute people for human rights abuses or crimes against humanity, I believe the article raises some good points. Each country should be able to decide on its own what will happen to its own ex-despots. Different cultures have different ideas of what a just punishment is and what constitutes illegal behavior. Anti-death penalty Europe would not like it if an Arab country tried to hang one of its former leaders. Thus each country should be left to its own to decided how to deal with past leaders that might have committed crimes.

That being said I believe there are certain crimes that should be punished by an international court. Genocide is one of those. Heinous war crimes committed during an international conflict might also apply. But I would argue that they would have to be extreme war crimes. It is too easy to say that someone targeted civilians or something similar. War is not pretty and to expect it to be a totally clean enterprise is misguided. But if a country were to use WMD’s unprovoked that might be bad enough for an international trial.

Allowing third party countries to prosecute ex-leaders opens up to many difficult questions, while achieving very little, thus I tend to agree with what Henry Kissinger is arguing.

Matt Bank

Economist Article

Its like the author of this article is giving a summary of our last few classes. Touches on everything from trade to aviation to social welfare.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8960350