Bush and Europe: moving apart?

[fable]

I've been hearing a lot of news reports and reading a fair amount of coverage from the European press (both liberal and conservative) over the last few months regarding the traditional close ties between the US and Europe being severed by Dubyah's administration. Europe has repeatedly complained about the US arbitrarily scrapping signed treaties, bowing out of those under discussion, or even working to see the defeat of treaties it once favored. European heads-of-state who were solicited to join the "War on Terrorism" are now claiming that they haven't been consulted about Iraq, and are simply being told why they should agree to US policy. European concerns about the Palestinians have been ignored by the US administration, and for the sake of this year's elections, the US has placed high tarriffs on European steel and Canadian timber. Trade sanctions are currently being formulated.

The BBC did a panel discussion earlier this evening with three relatively distinguished experts on US-European affairs, one of whom was a high-ranking official in the Clinton administration. Reactions to the problem were diverse. An Italian historian of note believed that they were watching an unprecedented shift away from Europe. (Unprecedented to him, perhaps. The US closed in on itself during the 1920s, as well.) The Clinton administration official said nothing was changing, and that the Bush team was merely do the same kind of adjustments that every new administration does after entering the White House. A former British diplomat now affiliated with a Washington thinktank said that Bush had many ideologues on his team who believed in a kind of New Right unilaterlism, one that stressed that the US was economically superior to the rest of the world, and therefore all US ideas concerning government, economy, religion, etc, were superior to anything being tried elsewhere.

Which of these people do you feel were right--if any? Or do you hold to another position? Why are the US and Europe moving apart, and what can be done to reverse the situation?

[HighLordDave]

I think that we must also factor in protectinism into the equation. Remember that Big Business is one of the Republican Party's (and especially Dubya's) core constituencies; not only did they help get him elected, but many of his advisors come from that arena. As a result, their mindset is to protect US industries from foreign markets, including Europe. Here in West Virginia, there is a big bruhaha about US vs. foreign steel and how other countries dump an inferior product on the American market. Even though WV has only five electoral votes, he still panders to the United Steel Workers of America because he needs each and every vote he can get for his party in November and for himself in 2004. I'm sure many of the other industries in the United States have a similar claim on Dubya's "allegience".

I think his fundamentalist Christian mindet also has something to do with it. It seems to me, over several years of observation, that the ultra-conservative elements within this country are incapable of compromise. In my opinion it is because they are so convinced that they alone are right that they cannot stand to come down from their high perch and make a deal with the opposition. The NRA has this mindset, as does the Right to Life faction. Dubya has none of Reagan's charisma, nor his father's moderation, so he is going off and doing whatever the hell he wants, the rest of the world be damned. Conservatives love it, but I think in the end it will spell his doom.

As the US economy goes, so goes the rest of the world. That's what Dubya and his number-crunchers will have you believe. And they're correct. What they fail to understand is how the world economy goes, so goes the United States. It's not just the world economy that is tied into our own, but we are an integral part of it. If we fail to consider the global ramifications of things like withdrawing from the ABM Treaty or ultra-protectionist tarriffs, we are only spelling our own doom. Fortunately, unless Dubya does something miraculous with the economy, or starts a war in July 2004 (which I wouldn't put past him, by the way), I think he'll lose his job in a couple of years.

[Weasel]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I think his fundamentalist Christian mindet also has something to do with it.

I believe this has a lot to do with it. As M&M said in one thread, the "right" in Europe is the "left" in the US.

[fable]

Originally posted by Weasel
I believe this has a lot to do with it. As M&M said in one thread, the "right" in Europe is the "left" in the US.

The right in Europe is pretty far to the right. It's approximately where the conservatives were in the US before the "New Right" appeared about 20 years ago, the latter being the loony extreme American rightwing, fleshed out by the far-right Christian sects and their political machine. I once had the pleasure to witness one of these self-righteous, New Right Congressmen idealogues utter a put down of former Senator Barry Goldwater at a political forum. (The latter was extremely conservative in the old sense of the term, and ran against Johnson back in the 60's.) Goldwater just looked at the simpering zealot, then proceeded to methodically tear every platform the Congressman held to shreds with detail, facts and humor; and then proceeded to do the same with the faux-history that the Congressman was spouting about American founding fathers favoring a mixed Church and State. The divide between old and new conservatism is pretty broad in the US, and if it gets much broader, I might expect some of the older conservatives to jump ship and ally with moderate Republicans and Democrats in 2004. Interesting times lie ahead.

[EMINEM]

"Ultra-protectionist"
"Fundamentalist Christian mindset"
"Ultra-Conservative"
"Lunatic extreme right-wing"
"Self-righteous"
"Far-right Christian sect"
"Political machine"

Wow! All in just three posts! I wanted to write a detailed response, 'cuz I DO think Americans and Europeans are drifting apart when it comes to social values, but I'd rather watch this kind of liberal polemic on Crossfire.

[C Elegans]

Certainly Europe and the US is drifting apart, something I find both worrying and sad. Anti-american feelings seems to be increasing in Europe, and it seems anti- European feelings are increasing in the US.

Intitially, the Bush administration was been heavily critisised by many Europeans because of the clear unwillingness to participate in important international issues. The US refusad to sign the Kyoto protocol although the board of American scientists Bush appointed came to the same conclusion as the international committee that Bush previously mistrusted. The US refused to sign the small arms and the anti-landmines treaty. The US also refused to participate in an international agreement to make AIDS-medicine cheaper for 3rd world countries.
All of this within a few months, and with the same argument: "IT may potentially damage US industry".

In a Europe where both globalisation and concern about the environment have been increasingly important issues to politicans as well as people for a long time now, it's no wonder the Bush administration gets impopular. As far I my memory goes, I have never seen a US president who is despited among people in Europe, especially young people.

Then came the WTC attacks, and this partly changed people's focus. The US got a lot of sympathy, and I believe a majorty of people were fairly satisfied with the Bush administrations acting in the war in Afghanistan.

But now focus is not only on 9/11 anymore, other political issues start to matter again, and thus the Bush administration again loose respect and popularity in Europe. The protectionism and the lack of concern about global issues that Europeans think are important, is only one part of this. As HLD points out, the fundamental christian values that mix into Bush politics, also plays a part. By European standards, Bush is a fundamental Christian with values most (also Christian) Europeans feel are totally outdated and hypocritical. It shares many features with the 19th century colonial time in Europe, something the vast majority of Europeans abhor today.

posted by Weasel
I believe this has a lot to do with it. As M&M said in one thread, the "right" in Europe is the "left" in the US.

With the exception of the ultra-right parties that previously never took any parlament places, this is correct. The right-wing in countries like Scandinavia, France, Holland or Germany is usually viewed as far left liberals by US standards. However, we must also note than the "right wing" in Europe does not represent the same type of values as the right wing in the US.

Originally posted by fable
The right in Europe is pretty far to the right.

The ultra-rights is Europe (such as the recently murdered Fortyun in the Netherlands, France's Le Pen or Denmark's Pia Kjaersegaard) don't at all represent values similar to the Bush administration. Instead, the issue they all have in common is anti-immigration politics. They all propose that immigration is the problem in European society today, and instead of working on improving the integration programs that today are lousy is most countries, they choose the simple way, and attribute the problems to the immigrants instead.

"Immigrants take your jobs" - yeah right, perhaps they would do if they could ever get any other jobs than washing dishes, cleaning and unqualified heath care jobs, such jobs that Europeans born in Europe reject because of the hard work for a very low salary.

[Robnark]

"Immigrants take your jobs" - yeah right, perhaps they would do if they could ever get any other jobs than washing dishes, cleaning and unqualified heath care jobs, such jobs that Europeans born in Europe reject because of the hard for a very low salary.

indeed, and in this country there was a report that found that immigration, as a whole, created jobs (i'm currently trying to find out exactly which report it was, watch this space), as well as accounting for a huge proportion of the money sent to poor and third-world countries.

also, there is the fact that if the earnings to retired people ratio is to be maintained, substantial increases must be made in the numbers of people coming in from outside europe. if this doesn't happen, the only way to support the elderly at the same level as today in a decade or two will be to drastically increase the birth rate across europe.

[/-\lastor]

But immigration also increases criminality. The immigrant youth isn't used to the light punishment most Europian countries, in their original cultures the law-enforcers are much harsher consider the local police officers "wimpy". I live in the Netherlands, possibly the country with the most tolerant immigration procedures, and the people here are afraid to go into some parts of town or go to the local clubs.

I, for one, am in favour of making the immigration laws a bit "harsher", making it more difficult for immigrants to get into the country. I do not mean to close the borders only narrowing the doorways to Europe. Let the people in who are willing to adjust to the local laws, ways and procedures. We have 3d generation immigrants here who refuse to speak dutch, go to school or even accept dutch people, while they are our, forgive me the expression, guests!

[fable]

Let's keep focused on the Bush administration/Europe issue, folks: what's causing the perception in both Europe and the US that there is currently a growing split between forces that have seen themselves as allies since the end of WWII?

[C Elegans]

@Robnark and Alastor: I'll be happy to continue this discussion in another thread. I'm going away for a couple of days now, but feel free to start a new thread and I'll join you later

Sorry for the spam Fable, the immigration issue would probably be apt for another thread. I however do think it's part of an important difference between the European and US concepts about what "right wing" politics represents. The strong christian influence in US right wing politics, where political questions are viewed in a religious context, is highly infrequent in Europe. Very few European countries discuss for instance abortion or homosexuality issues in relation to religion, it's connected to other areas.

Another issue that demostrates the US-Europe differences in left-right continuum is protectionism. In Sweden, protectionism is conncected to the extreme left, whereas the right wing support free trade and increased globalisation. The Swedish Green Party, who are very far left, is the most protectionist party ever seen in Swedish politics.

Something I've always found interesting as a striking difference between US and most European countries, is what the parliamentary system v the two party system leads to in people minds, how it affects peoples' way of conceptualising the world.
In the US, it seems like many issues become dichotomised, IMO a false dichotomy is often presented, like either you support the US "war on terror", or you are on the terrorists side. Now, it should be obvious that it's fully possible to support neither of the two - a person might be a pacifict for instance.
This dichotomisation of issues is not common in Europe, where we in most cases are more used to parliaments consisting of many parties negotiating and compromising with each other. Sometimes this of course leads to lack of swift decisions and efficiency, but it also leads to people getting many different alternative solutions to every issue. I believe the Bush administration has underscored and enhanced this to Europe strange dichotomisation.

[Tamerlane]

Originally posted by fable
Let's keep focused on the Bush administration/Europe issue, folks: what's causing the perception in both Europe and the US that there is currently a growing split between forces that have seen themselves as allies since the end of WWII?

Well I'll attribute it all down to the tall poppy syndrome. Where one group (EU) resents the power and success held by another group the US.

That and the constant arguments over trade. How could the EU view themselves as equal partners with the US, when they disagree over what is normally a friendly issue such as trade.

I'd say that there are too many reasons to go into...

[Obsidian]

The way I see it, this new isolantionist policy of the US, tariffs, immigration laws etc, is a predicable response to recent events. Just as it was a likely response after WW1. The world more or less follows a pendulum, especially politically and socially, with charisteristics of cultures changing in an almost set pattern. 80 some years ago, the US split away from Europe because of a) the war, and b) the US's rising economic/military might. Now, after 30 some years, the EU is presenting a serious threat the America's economic monopoly. They now have REAL competition. And predicatbly, they don't like it.

The "War on Terror" (*cough*vengeance*cough*) is now spreading to beyond the party with a direct tie to 911, to basically every nation the US wanted to deal with but couldn't due to political pressure. Europe, doesn't want to be drawn into another military operation, but neither do they want to get on the US's bad side. As dubyah so terrifinly put it, "you are either with us, or against us". Paraphrased of course.

With the withdrawal of a half dozen major treaties, primarily the Kyoto accord, (which I personnally have some thoughts on), the elimination of AP Mines, and the ABM treaty, which threatens to bring the world to destruction. 2 of those 3 threaten life on earth, and the other, landmines, is just ridiculous!

What the US really needs is a Scott Nearing in power...

that'd be interesting eh fabs?

(I'm assuming fable knows who I'm talking about)

[Quark]

Okay, I don't know what is spread by people, but there is no way that a 100% defensive system could harm people. Whether or not it would work (and if it's worth the money) is a whole other point, of course.

The whole idea behind the ABM Treaty is stupid: Let's prevent ourselves from being able to save our citizens in order to still be able to kill our enemies. What?

If your afraid of some knight harming you, would you take away his shield or his sword? People may think Mutual Assured Distruction is 'safer', but it was given the name MAD for a reason!

Back on topic, it'll be interesting to see how the GOP deals with the short memory of the American public. Bush is having free reign right now on all of his issues because of support he gained after 9/11. Once that passes (and it's only a matter of time), people are gonna start realizing how much Bush is messing up the rest of the foreign policy job. The November elections should show us how far it's coming.

The sad thing is I expected Bush to do a better job than Gore in foreign policy. I knew Gore wouldn't do anything right internationally, but at least he wouldn't do so much wrong.

[fable]

What the US really needs is a Scott Nearing in power...

that'd be interesting eh fabs?

Won't happen while the industrial American culture of the last 120 years or so remains intact, but it is an interesting thought.

For those who don't know, Nearing was a prescient environmentalist and figure opposed to the commercial/industrial practices of modern Western culture--who surfaced around the time of World War 1, when he was an economics professor in Pennsylvania. He was a peace activist who analyzed the economic and political causes of war, and saw governments as self-perpetuating organisms that used war sloganeering as a method of feeding. He died at the age of 100 in the early 1980s, as I recall.

How do you think a Nearing, in power anywhere in Europe, would come to terms with a US led by Dubyah? What are the best possible European reactions at the moment internationally to the rise of Bush?

[Nightmare]

Damn, Obsidian beat to what I wanted to say.

[fable]

Originally posted by Gaxx_Firkraag
Damn, Obsidian beat to what I wanted to say.

Have nothing distinctive and your own to add?

[HighLordDave]

@Quark:
It's not the principles behind the ballistic missile shield I'm disputing (although I'll talk a little bit about its cost effectiveness later), but that by remaining in the ABM Treaty, the United States is showing the world that we are committed to being a part of the international community.

By unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM Treaty (as the Russians showed no interest in cancelling it), we are essentially telling the rest of the world that we are going to do whatever the hell we want and everyone else be damned. This is rubbing our European allies the wrong way, and for good reason.

Mutually Assured Destruction was what kept the Cold War from turning hot. You used the analogy of taking away a knight's shield and expecting him to do battle. If one knight has armour and a shield and his opponent does not, the other knight is going to be very aggressive. However, if you take away both combatants's shield and armour, they are going to be much less likely to start fighting. That's what kept the peace from 1945 until 1991.

Now the world is a different place. Without rival superpowers or even opposing blocs, the threat of nuclear annhilation is becoming less and less likely. Neither of the west's traditional enemies who have ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile) technology (Russian and China) have the desire to use them against the United States; we're the golden goose and they'd be crazy to try and kill us.

The people who want to use nuclear weapons against the United States currently don't have them. Twenty years ago, there were no Al-Qaedas, no Osama bin Ladens and no Talibans. They simply would never have existed as they do today. Upon formation, they would have been absorbed by either the United States or the USSR and used as proxies in the Cold War (as the Mujihadeen, the Shah, Saddam Hussein, Kim Il-Sung and others were). As their patrons, either the US or the Soviets could exert some control over individuals and organisations and they would be made to play by the traditional Cold War rules.

The people who want to use nuclear weapons against the United States are no longer operating under the observations of either the KGB or the CIA. They are far more dangerous. Currently they don't have the technology but they do have the desire and the will. If you listen to Tom Ridge, Donald Rumsfeld and Warren Buffett, such an attack is imminent, and they're probably right. So now seems like a good time to build a shield to protect us from the barrages of nuclear weapons the bad guys are going to throw at us, right? Wrong.

What proponents of the ballistic missile shield fail to take into account is that building an ICBM requires two different technologies: nuclear weapon production and long-range ballistic missile production. Both are prohibitively expensive and short of large state-level sponsorship, terrorist organisations can't afford to develop both. According to CNN, the countries that currently have the bomb are: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, Pakistan and India. It is also generally accepted that Israel has the bomb and the Russians still have some nuclear weapons stationed in Kazakstan and the Ukraine.

Other than the Russians and the Americans, there is no one else in the world who has both the means and the desire to build an inter-continental delivery system for a nuclear weapon; it's simply too expensive. Plus ballistic missile are not small items. They're nearly impossible to construct or maintain that is out of the range of our spy satellites. If Al-Qaeda wanted to build a ballistic missile (and launch silo), you can bet the either the Spetznaz, SEALs or a similar special operations group would be sent it to destroy it.

If I were a terrorist and I wanted to delivery a nuclear weapon to American soil, I wouldn't use a missile to do it. For one thing, the kind of nuclear device a terrorist is likey to use is probably small because weapons-grade uranium is hard to come by and hard to transport and contain. Weapons-grade plutonium is virtually impossible to obtain. At most a terrorist organisation is likely to get enough material for one or two bombs. Even then, they're going to be small in effect and the bad guys would be counting more on the harmful effects of radiation poisoning than the explosive power of such a device.

The United States's primary ballistic missile, the Minuteman III, is about 60 feet (18m) long and is launched from a ground-based silo. For a terrorist organisation to build one, they would not only have to build their own warheads, but they'd have to build their own missile, buy fuel and build/purchase a guidance system. It's simply not feasible for anyone other than large nation-states to build them.

A nuclear attack on the US will probably involve a device either being smuggled across the border, or perhaps assembled inside the United States, delivered by a truck or other vehicle and detonated in a city. For all of the money that Dubya wants to pour into the ballistic missile shield, that money could be used to train Special Forces units (Green Berets, SEALs, Marine Force Recon, Delta Force, etc.) that specialise in counter-terrorism, put NSA agents on the ground to gather intelligence and infiltrate terrorist cells or deter countries from sinking into the kind of anarchy that led to the rise of the Taliban.

It is my opinion that the ballistic missile shield is a way for Dubya to reward his buddies in the defense industry with sinecure and pork-barrel government contracts. We don't need it. The military doesn't want it. Those resources can be used more effectively in other projects.

I'm not eager to see the United States get bombed. However, I would rather my tax dollars be spent on projects that are actually useful.

[CM]

Ok my 2 cents, after HLD's post, anything will look like 2 cents!

Also i will be very interested on the immigration issue CE so please open a new thread.

The mindset of the govt and politicans is very different in the two countries. This will sound rude, but frankly US politicians don't give a damn about the rest of the world. They tend to work from within Fortress USA, looking out. The Europeans are the complete opposite. They see themselves being part of the world and they have to live in it with everybody else. They are more orientated towards the problems of Asia, Africa and Latin America than the US politicans are because they don't see it as a us (fortress USA) and them (the rest of the world).

Also the Europeans are more humanitarian orientated than the US. They emphasize the human problems far more domestically and internationally then does the US govt or the people. Then of course there is the whole pre-concieved notion about Americans in the Europe. They aren't held in very high regard. And well the govt is held at an even lower standard from what i have heard in swiss.

Many people have said this before, but i will repeat it any way. In Europe as a majority of the world the US is seen as a lone gun. Always doing its own thing without consulting or even advising Europe in many cases as Fable has stated. I don't think this is something that happens all the time. This is very specific to Bush's policies and agenda. During Clinton's period there was a lot of agreement.

[fable]

It is also generally accepted that Israel has the bomb and the Russians still have some nuclear weapons stationed in Kazakstan and the Ukraine.

I can't speak for Kazakhstan, but the Ukraine was ceded ownership of the nuclear weapons on its territory in the mid-1990s. They immediately sought the aid of Western nations in dismantling and disposing of their entire nuclear stockpile, becoming the first nation to ever volunteering "unmake" their nuclear capability. I strongly suspect this was done to curry economic favor in a troubled nation with high corruption, crime, and unstable neighbors, but whatever the reason behind the move, it worked.

Regrettably, the Ukraine's success with dismantling its nuclear arsenal remains in stark, ironic contrast to its failure in procuring funds for the dismantling of Chernobyl. The aged, leaking reactors--one of which, it will be recalled, caused the worst nuclear accident in history, with more than 5,000,000 lives lost thus far to its accumulated credit--are still in operation, because the Ukraine cannot afford to build any other power generator of comparable magnitude. There are been offers of help, but no one thus far has come forward to foot the bill. Clinton had made some efforts to round up businessmen inclined in that direction, but the project died when Bush entered the White House. Again, the myopia of the current administration even to its own longterm interests appears to me extraordinary.

[Obsidian]

Interesting.
As for Nearing in power in Europe, whichever nation he spoke for would surely be well on it's way towards sustaible development, putting incredible amounts of pressure on the US towards signging the Kyoto, and strongly opposed to the War on Terror. All in all, relation would probably be WORSE between US and Europe if a Scott Nearing was in power.
btw, he died in 1985.
I love it when fable answers obscure stuff perfectly