Europe’s lead?
August 4th, 2006Will Europe lead on the Middle East issue? Newsweek article
I think it’s about time that Europe try and play a more proactive role in the Middle East. It is right in the neighborhood. Cyprus is a half hour flight from Beirut, if not less. European involvement in the Middle East goes back to the days of the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Phoenicians. Europe has a lot at stake both with its economic interests in the region and its security interests in keeping secure borders and a stable neighborhood. I don’t know why the EU is so afraid to commit itself to global issues. When one country is more powerful and influential than a group of 25 nations, you know you have a problem in global power allocation. Furthermore, Europe has credibility with both Arabs and Jews and it has the political and economic capital as well as military capabilities to implement a ceasefire and make sure it remains obeyed.
Tony Blair in Washington last week told the U.S. president that Europe is ready to act, but that America must immediately stop Israel from turning Lebanon into a desert of bombed buildings. The United States has been compromised in the Arab world beyond near-term redemption. Who, then, but Europe can possibly intercede? As the August holidays beckon, will its leaders head for the beaches, hiding under parasols as Israeli howitzers and Hizbullah rockets claim more lives? Let us see.
Loading ...
Loading...
When one country is more powerful and influential than a group of 25 nations, you know you have a problem in global power allocation.
Patrick, “global” power is merely an indicator of a nation’s economic, military, and diplomatic power. So if you question why Europe in aggregate ranks below the US, you should look at those three areas.
For economic power, most of Europe has descended into the trap that is socialism, which has a tendency to stifle economic growth. Further, Europe does a very poor job of integrating its immigrants – just take a look at the difference in the unemployment rates between “natives” of each country, and immigrant groups. The US, on the other hand, has a strong legal system to combat racism, which encourages immigrants to assimilate faster – and grow the economy. Additionally, the US has been fortunate enough not to have its country seriously invaded in 194 years, so hasn’t had the major setback that that entails. Combined, that puts the US ahead in the economy.
For military, there are really two big distinctions. First, the US has always invested very heavily in all research, but especially military research, realizing that even the civilian byproducts have a worthwhile benefit (aren’t we all happy for microwaves?); combined with economic strength, this leads to having superior military technology. And second, the US military is a volunteer military, with an incredible level of professionalism (even the loudest critics of abuses by US military personnel should admit that those personnel, at least, tend to face swift justice). This leads to a military whose individuals tend to have superior discipline and training, and armed with better equipment, than those of other nations.
As for diplomacy, while the US does have a bad history of abandoning projects (Somalia, Lebanon the first time around), or missing important ones (Rwanda, Darfur), it’s still a more credible force – and more credible ally – than most European nations.
Oh, and lastly – the US may be one nation; but it is a nation of 50 states. The EU only has 25.
And that alone is why Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan will do anything in their power to keep America on their side.