I read a Speech by Professor Jolyon Howorth called ‘Strategy and the importance of defence cooperation among EU Member States’. The speech was given on 13th of July at a seminar on Permanent Structured Cooperation which was organised by the Belgian Presidency. Overall, the speaker argues in favour of more integration in the field of security and defence. As always, the writings of Jolyon are thoughtful and stimulating. Howorth mentions some sound ideas that would boost integration in the field of security and defence: the establishment of a European Security Council, a formal Council of Defence Ministers, a European White Book on Security and Defence, an integrated Intelligence Agency, a permanent OHQ, an upgraded EDA (p.3). The author is also right in underlining the importance of the upgrade of capabilities and the pooling of resources. These measures are more than necessary in times of funding cuts.
Howorth mentions that the obstacles of cooperation in security and defence are due to national inhibitions. He claims that no one expected such guerrilla warfare on the tiniest details of External Action Service responsibility. Indeed, the resistance and cautiousness of the EU Member States to any form of EU empowerment in foreign affairs is characteristic of the climate of inward looking ‘re-nationalisation’ that one sees in Brussels. The failure of the Europeans to provide a cohesive approach to the current financial crisis is also a proof that narrowly defined state interests prevail.
The author also claims that a new narrative is necessary and that Europe needs a new strategy. However, we did not lack narratives in the past. On the contrary, we had too many of them. All these narratives have failed to build a common identity and to forge a common strategic culture. Some of them were truly wonderful texts with great ideas. The European Security Strategy had a notion of a Grand Strategy. But what happened to it really? The new comprehensive EU strategy called EU 2020 also failed to cause any major debate. None of the EU texts managed so far to inspire citizens or stir any major debate that would contribute to the creation of a European demos.
I am also sceptical when it comes to the advantages of the EU in foreign affairs that are mentioned in the Speech, one of them being the idea of the EU’s strength of effective multilateralism. Indeed, there has been an increase in frequency of multi-lateral contacts. There are too many roundtables, too many discussions, too many meetings and frequent exchanges of views. However, this frenetic activity does not necessary guarantee results. Many of the multilateral fora are simple talk shops with no appetite for action.
Howorth also claims that the EU engages in an intensifying circle of complex interdependence. But is this intensifying circle of interdependence characterised by ‘deepening’ or simply by a loose enlargement of themes and actors? A simple glimpse of the external relations of the EU shows that little has been achieved. Relationships with Russia remain inconclusive with none of the two players (EU/Russia) knowing what they really want to make out of the bilateral relationship. The EU’s Neighbourhood Policy is undermined by national priorities and institutional weaknesses. No major plan exists on how to deal with the rise of China. The EU-US relationship is not characterised by effective synergy. In short, the EU is good in talking about interdependence but I am hardly convinced it knows how to deal with it.
It is positive that the EU has understood the importance of combining civilian and military instruments in foreign policy. As the author claims, international crisis management is an added value which the EU is well-placed to deliver. However, the inertia that follows the actorness of the EU in the field of crisis management isn’t.
The same accounts for the EU’s ‘radical IR approach’ that the author mentions. The EU simply says too many good words but in most cases is unwilling to act. And I still remain sceptical on Howorth’s sentence ‘where human rights become as important as states rights’. A look at the sanctions of the EU on human rights abuse shows that they only happen in a small number of cases, against small countries where no major financial interests are endangered.
Howorth also describes a ‘new acquis’ in International affairs which has to take the form of a Global Bargain. According to Howorth, ‘[t]he global grand bargain will involve a necessary series of trade-offs, some bilateral, some multilateral, between the rising and the declining powers’. In addition, ‘[w]hat the new grand narrative should aim for is a world of cultural and political diversity in which, nevertheless, stability, security, prosperity, development, environmental sustainability, and self-determination are considered in holistic terms as key elements of global inter-dependence’ (p. 6). But isn’t this process already been taking place for a long time? Isn’t cultural and political diversity already being part of the EU’s dealings? Aren’t these ideas already part of the European Security Strategy?
Howorth is on the pro-European side and has always seen the EU in an optimistic way. However, optimism may well be part of the problem. The idea that ‘the EU can do it’ that many of the EU academics subscribe to (including myself) may have led to a general climate of self-satisfaction, arrogance and laziness. The idea that the EU is able to move on by a series of mini developments (an idea mentioned in many academic texts) also helps to perpetuate inertia. The message that should be transmitted by the academic circles is that the EU should run to catch up the lost time. ‘Run before you get completely marginalised’ rather than rest on your laurels and improve.
No one disagrees with the fact that there has to be a new type of EU motivation in both EU internal and external affairs. But what kind of motivation can this be? Boredom has replaced enthusiasm. Rigid EU bureaucracy has killed any form of innovation and creativity. Lacklustre political elites provide no vision and have no roadmap of values. A soul searching exercise is important: a reflection of where we stand and where we want to go is always useful provided the fact that it is based on true motives to improve. This may take the form of an EU Security and Defence Strategy. However, in order to fight the climate of inertia the EU must work with the aim of producing tangible results. Dynamic actions must accompany an integrated strategic thinking if the EU wants to be successful.
‘Strategy and the Importance of Defence Cooperation among EU Member States’ by Prof. Jolyon Howorth.
For a full copy of the speech please visit the Egmont Institute webpage:
http://www.egmontinstitute.be/
#1 by Freeborn John on September 14, 2010 - 12:32 am
No EU defence must ever be allowed.
Nor must the EU be allowed to rest inert; it must be knocked into reverse with it’s illigimate powers stripped from it and returned to the democratic arena of the nation-state.
#2 by Sebastian on September 14, 2010 - 1:37 pm
I could not agree more, Vasilis. I have been thinking myself that it is not the narrative that is the problem, it is the feeling that nothing is happening and that money is being wasted on nothing other than bureaucracy. If we believe the EU can work, which I do believe, then we must be willing to take the risk and make it work the way we believe it would. This includes a very strong security and defence policy.
Another problem for the credibility of the EU is that it is seen as being undemocratic. Whether this is true or not does not matter (indeed in my view it is not true). But it is bad enough to be seen in this light. What to do to change the image? Instead of ministers attending the European Council, have people elect their representatives. Of course there is little appetite among the governments for this kind of change so it is unlikely to happen. Yet this is exactly what we need.
The EU also needs the courage to be MORE controversial. People don’t report on the EU because the happenings are not controversial enough to outrage. Media need credibility and they get it by reporting on things in a way that their readers/viewers agree with. If EU wants to be in the media, it has to provide the food they need to report it. In other words, it has to stand for something, even if a bunch of people disagree. And what it stands for must be amenable to change through elections to the European Parliament.
#3 by Freeborn John on September 14, 2010 - 2:40 pm
Sebastian: You advocate more of the same old approach that led directly to the current undemocratic nightmare. The EU Parliament has total failed for 30 years and counting to provide democratic legitimacy to Brussels decision-making. Indeed increasing its powers has made the democracy problem worse because all its powers have come at the expense of national parliaments and voters who increasinly regard the EU Parliament as an alien transplant into the body politic.
The EU Parliament is nothing, and cannot legitimize controversial decisions taken by the EU Commission whose thread-bare legitimacy hangs on the slender thread of being appointed by national governments; a thread you would cut. In the absence of a ‘demos’ controversy would inevitably fracture the unity of the non-existent European demos and the EU will break up along national lines. And when this happens it will be the fault of numb-skull federalists like yourself who advocate blindly ploughing ahead with the same old federalizing agenda that created the current mess.
The only to democracy is to restore powers to nation-states.
#4 by Sebastian on September 14, 2010 - 3:23 pm
Freeborn John: I respect your wish for democracy and freedom. But what I have observed is that war and conflict are the best way for wannabe autocrats to take those freedoms away. Europe before the WW2 had a tremendous problem in maintaining peace with all the conflicting interests at work. Nation states were the 19th century attempt at the solution of this problem. It did not work. Now we have the EU, another attempt to crack the problem. So far it has worked for 50 years, but nobody can guarantee it will work forever. And indeed, the biggest danger EU’s success is indeed its credibility and the perceived lack of democracy. And I think you are right when you say that the European Parliament failed in the past to provide a greater degree of democratic legitimacy to the EU.
This was mostly because of several reasons:
1) EU parliament severly lacked in power and
2) Nobody cares what the EU does (this is still true)
If we do not solve these problems, EU will break up along the national lines anyway. We need to be bold and decisive, otherwise this solution (I am referring to the EU), which has worked for 50 years to bring peace, will fail as well.
#5 by RCS on September 15, 2010 - 3:00 pm
If Sebastian really thinks that the EU can mount a serious (repeat) serious military operation, he is deluded. The whole structure of the EU militates against taking decisive action on anything.
Fortunately we have NATO, which kept the peace in Europe, not the EU.
As someone who has had experience of conflict, the idea of an EU army, full of gender-normed senior officers, with health and safety restrictions on what troops can do in action, orchestrated by van Rompuy and Ashon, fills me with horror.
The EU is a failing institution. It cannot possibly mount a serious military campaign. Instead of banging on about bold and decisive institutions, I would settle for ones that actually work.
#6 by Petr on September 15, 2010 - 9:39 pm
No need to duplicate NATO.
#7 by Etienne on September 16, 2010 - 1:23 pm
We don’t need EU. It is accomplishing nothing. Has no added value for Europe states.
Let’s go back to normal mode and also skip this Euro which made starvation in Europe a fact.
#8 by Sebastian on September 16, 2010 - 4:09 pm
@RCS, I do not think that the EU is able to mount a significant military deployment. But this is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether it has brought peace or not.
The role of NATO, while important, is not in itself nearly sufficient enough to guarantee peace in Europe. This is almost obvious from the fact that NATO is a purely military structure, whereas state interests are dominated by economic interests (which of course are in part and in turn achieved through military means). It is clear that peace can only be sustained when the states in Europe do not have wildly conflicting economic interests. The European integration was instrumental in achieving such a state of affairs through the initial Coal and Steal Union and the later EEA and EU.
Any Security and Defence policy in Europe would be a more integrated a closer union than that provided by NATO. It would allow Europe to exercise its interests more effectively, both through and outside of NATO. Russia, at our doorstep, is aggressively modernising and rebuilding its armed forces while Europe is bickering over whether we should do anything at all or not. If we do not solve these problems, which considering the sentiments of many Europeans as well as the European governments seems increasingly likely, we are going to descend into a state of global irrelevance in due time. When the harsh realities of such a situation hit the people of Europe, it will already be too late.
#9 by Petr on September 16, 2010 - 8:17 pm
This is the usual mantra of EU federalists while conveniently ignoring the blatantly obvious lack of desire among the population to pursue \an ever closer union\.
What makes you think that \NATO, while important, is not in itself nearly sufficient enough to guarantee peace in Europe\? It has worked for 60+ years
Intersting you bring up the issue of increasingly aggressive Russia. Perhaps it would be a good idea to read up on Russian foreign policy doctrine, which keystones is to marginalize US presence in Europe and emphasis on Yalta-based institutions such as the OSCE.
I am not that naive to trust one nanosecond Germany or France as the leading forces in some exclusively EU-based security structure to stand up to Russia.
An eye opening read: http://www.cicerofoundation.org/lectures/Francoise_Thom_RUSSIA_AND_EUROPE.pdf
#10 by Sebastian on September 17, 2010 - 12:25 pm
@Petr, if you had read my post you would already have read the reasons why NATO has actually not been the main peacekeeping factor of Europe in the past 60 years, it was the European integration. Read the post above.
As for Russia, I am of the opinion that is in Europe’s interest to cooperate with Russia. But having said that, without a sufficient military power on our side, the security of the eastern EU states is not guaranteed and Russia would not think twice about using its military advantage to secure agreements that are in their interest. America is going to remain important in that regard for some time to come, but we better learn to stand on our own soon if we do not want to risk our future later on.
#11 by Pedro on September 20, 2010 - 9:43 am
I would prefer that all EU states withdraw from NATO so as to strengthen ties with Russia. We need the best relations possible with our neighbours. Russian suspiscions of Europe would greatly diminish if we Europeans were not so cozy with war-mongers such as the americans (war-mongers and liars, I’m still waiting for WMD’s to be found in Iraq). Common defence structures, and closer military cooperation with Russia would go a long way in securing peace in Europe, all of Europe. The u.s. is not our neighbour, Russia is. Canada is not our neighbour, Russia is.
#12 by Joe on September 20, 2010 - 6:08 pm
Recreational “home-tructh” anti-Americanism aside, are you naive enough to believe that the Russians have never warmongered/lied/whatever you believe to be negative virtues? Their behaviour is that of a passive-aggressive expansionist, and NOT presenting them with any kind of potential deterant posture with have them become bad, not good neighbors.
They will economically and politically be able to dictate their terms on nearly half a billion wealthy Europeans with no stomach for defense as though they were Ukraine. Never mind the fact that the Baltic states would be hung out to dry. If selling out fellow EU states and fellow Europeans is the defense strategy, I hope you like the idea of being poor and servile.
As for the Americans, based solely on the sort of treatment given to them, I would not rely on them any longer should Europe be in a pinch.
I, for one, don’t believe that Americans should shed one drop of blood for the likes of Jose Bove, or spend one cent continually defending the boundaries or interest of the wealthiest entity on earth if it is unwilling to even send service personnel on EULEX. They had to hire off of the street for that mission, knowing what a childish row there would be over anyone deploying forces, even WITHIN Europe’s boundaries.
This, of course, is the last resort of the desperate. To call the nation that have universally and entirely secured your well being as “warmongers”, and any other irrelevant, unrealistic characterization.
Tell me, where are the blue patches, aid carrying ships, planes, and helicopters when a disaster arises? Or is that compassion one limited to feelings of solidarity and sympathy?
The proposed mission to Sudan to try to guaruntee the safety of refugees was hung up for TWO YEARS because no-one in Europe would commit a dozen helicopters and their crews in an EU where the fleet count more that 2 500.
I suppose passively letting people die is, at least, NOT warmongering.
Frannkly, I don’t think Europeans are any longer worth defending.
#13 by Pedro on September 21, 2010 - 12:52 am
FRANKLY JOE
It is my hope that Europeans do not care what you and yours think. You are unable to make a distinction between the Soviet Union and Russia. Moreover, it is not us (Europe) that needs defending, it is you (u.s.a.) that is despised and hated throughout the world (including many in Europe). So take your patronism elsewhere, we need you people for absolutely nothing!
Defend? Let us know when you are no longer soundly defeated by countries such as Vietnam, Korea and/or Cuba! Defend yourselves instead of looking like fools with needy and desperate statements such as: “If you’re not with us, you’re against us”
You people are not worth defending, just as France and Germany deemed.
#14 by Anonymous on September 21, 2010 - 7:46 am
@#12
“Recreational “home-tructh” anti-Americanism aside, are you naive enough to believe that the Russians have never warmongered/lied/whatever you believe to be negative virtues? Their behaviour is that of a passive-aggressive expansionist, and NOT presenting them with any kind of potential deterant posture with have them become bad, not good neighbors.”
Why would you ever think that us Europeans are willing to trade one expansionist – Russia – for another – the US? Why would you think we aren’t capable of taking care of ourselves?
“They will economically and politically be able to dictate their terms on nearly half a billion wealthy Europeans with no stomach for defense as though they were Ukraine. Never mind the fact that the Baltic states would be hung out to dry. If selling out fellow EU states and fellow Europeans is the defense strategy, I hope you like the idea of being poor and servile.”
Why is it that we should enjoy being dictated by Americans more than being dictated by Russians? Should we opt for the lesser evil? Hell no, I say lets opt for the one we’ve never tried before. We’ve been dominated by the US for 65 years now. Enough is enough!
“I, for one, don’t believe that Americans should shed one drop of blood for the likes of Jose Bove, or spend one cent continually defending the boundaries or interest of the wealthiest entity on earth if it is unwilling to even send service personnel on EULEX. They had to hire off of the street for that mission, knowing what a childish row there would be over anyone deploying forces, even WITHIN Europe’s boundaries.”
Who ever wanted Americans to shad blood for other people? It is they who put their noses where they don’t belong so as to serve their own selfish interest. Let’s be clear on this, I don’t blame them for that, all countries in all eras have been prone to such behaviour. All I’m saying is that it is in our best interest to control our back yard ourselves rather than let them do it for us. One thing is to invite your good neighbor for barbecue. Completely another to let him run the place as if he owns it.
As for your stupid EULEX remark, had it not been for US’s mingling into the internal affairs of other countries, Yugoslavia still would’ve been a country and part of the EU too. Count on that.
“This, of course, is the last resort of the desperate. To call the nation that have universally and entirely secured your well being as “warmongers”, and any other irrelevant, unrealistic characterization.”
Oh, many thanks indeed for securing our wellbeing. Wasn’t it your own wellbeing you had in mind when you undertook “all those steps” to “secure European wellbeing”?
We, the true Europeans, have got one thing to say to you: Yankee go home and never return! We are better off without you.
#15 by Pedro on September 21, 2010 - 11:38 am
TO ANONYMOUS
Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!
Judging from the decisions made at the WTO (World Trade Organisation). It is the European Union which ‘dictates’ to the united states, and the world!
I just have one question for anyone that cares to tackle it: What military ventures (wars) has the u.s. won without the efforts of their allies? Panama? A country without a military to speak of? Grenada? Does it’s own civil war count?
Certainly not Vietnam (soundly defeated). Certainly not Korea (the North was beyond reproach). Somalia? Talk about not having “stomach” for war! A couple of Blackhawks down and ‘let’s run!’
We Europeans are more than capable of defending ourselves! We are greatly more capable than Vietnam, Korea, and/or Cuba?
How many u.s. presidents has Fidel Castro buried? And only 70 nautical miles from u.s. (Florida) shores!!
#16 by Petr on September 22, 2010 - 2:07 pm
Geez Pedro, you are so naive it hurts. What part of Europe are you from and how old are you to be able to afford such luxury romantically naive views of Russia?
Soviet Union was a product of traditional Russian expansionism (hence intense russification of all conquered and annexed Soviet republics, a major problem with a Russian 5th column Baltic countries have to deal to this very day). Also, “political borders” of Russia in its very own doctrine of “near abroad by coincidence copied the borders of the USSR, so it is the Russians themselves who confused and confuse Soviet Union with Russia. And it’s Putin weeping over the demise of the USSR and who would restore it if he could.
blockquote cite=”#commentbody-498″>
Anonymous : @#12
had it not been for US’s mingling into the internal affairs of other countries, Yugoslavia still would’ve been a country and part of the EU too.
Had it not been for the US and British, who had been the only ones able to project some serious military force in Balkans, Europe would stand by and let Milosević, Moscow’s pet, ethnically cleanse the rest of the country just as it stood by when Serbia attacked Slovenia, attacked Croatia, Bosnia… Yugoslavia was an artificial product of Versailles (just as Czechoslovakia was) and it ended up the way it did because of the mess and underlying tensions 6 nations and above all 3 religions create when forced into a federation.
#17 by Anonymous on September 23, 2010 - 5:49 am
@#16
I suppose you Poles get what you deserve. You finally have achieved what you have long strived for – independence, and you are still failing big time to learn from your past. The message from the past can’t be louder and clearer – stop confronting your neighbours cause their bigger, stronger and braver than you! You’ll get divided again should you fail to quit being such damn hard nationalists!
Rather, you should embrace liberalism in order to maximise your wellbeing. And here’s another one for ya:
Liberalism IS NOT siding with the US against your fellow Europeans, liberalism is fully and honestly devoting to the European project. I’m afraid you will have learned nothing until you have understood that.
This be my last post in this thread. Wouldn’t want to get into squabbles over history.
ps. Yugoslavia was as artificial as Poland is or any other country in the world is for that matter. If you relate nationhood to religion and ethnicity you really belong in the 19th century.
#18 by Jan, Pardubice, CZ on September 23, 2010 - 11:17 am
Just for the record, I am not even Polish or do not live in Poland…
Oh please… spare us your patronising and lecturing on what liberalism is and is not, which by the way has nothing to do with setting one’s national foreign policy priorities.
How Poles siding with the US as you claim “against your fellow Europeans” (is it really all Europeans or just the bent out of shape, left leaning “Old Europe” Europeans who spent their formative years in the 1960s or 1980s running around in Che Guevara t-shirts or Arab scarfs, playing peacnik “useful idiots” thinking it is so cool to be anti-establishment?) any different from Germans or French notoriously siding with the Russians “against their fellow Europeans”?
Why should the latter be the only ones allowed to pursue their national interests, perhaps without broader considerations?
#19 by Pedro on September 24, 2010 - 2:43 am
Petr wrote:
“Geez Pedro, you are so naive it hurts. What part of Europe are you from and how old are you to be able to afford such luxury romantically naive views of Russia?”
I am a grateful citizen of the European Union (southwestern Europe). Furthermore, I am old enough to know the difference between Russia and the U.S.S.R, reject xenophobia, and old enough to appreciate the great positive contributions that the EU makes in Europe and the world!
#20 by Sebastian on September 24, 2010 - 1:47 pm
@Petr
I do agree with your assessment of Russia, but being from former Yugoslavia (Slovenia), I can tell you that by the time the United States intervened, war in Croatia and Slovenia had more or less been over with Serbia defeated. The real reason for the bombing of Serbia was that Milosevic was, in the eyes of Washington, a rebel. He was trying to annex Kosovo to create pro-Russian influence in the Balkans. Hence Serbia was bombed. This had nothing to do with Americans being the good guys and saving the poor people of Balkans from Serbian oppression. Simple real politics, I’m afraid.
Another thing that is not obvious to me is that Yugoslavia collapsed simply because 6 nations could not work together. I would dispute that strongly. The reason it went down was mainly that ever since the end of WW2 Yugoslavia was ruled by a dictator who had developed a very powerful personality cult. In the early 80s he died and the image of Yugoslavia was suddenly shattered. Had there been a non-dictatorial system of government in Yugoslavia without the element of a personality cult, I dare say that Yugoslavia would still exist. Nationalism only resurfaced because of the vacuum left by the absence of the personality cult.
#21 by Marcel on September 24, 2010 - 3:39 pm
Dear Americans, don’t mind Pedro, he likes the EU and therefore absolutely hates and despises democracy and wishes that the EU establish its dictatorship today rather than tomorrow. Good ol’ Franco-style so ‘dissidents’ like me (whom he despises because I do like democracy) can be made to ‘disappear’. Franco’s acolyte (Juan Carlos, amigo de Franco) is still the illegitimate head of state for Spain so who knows?
You see, the EU was constructed so politicians could increasingly bypass national democracy. The elites all support it, like most journalists, because they despise the ordinary people and look down upon people like me. All those who fervently defend the EU all think it but do not dare say it: we hate the people and think a mutually appointed EU Politburo (Commission) filled with ‘progressives’ should make all the important decisions.
The EU has maliciously destroyed large parts of African agricultural and fisheries industries to prop up French farmers and Spanish fishermen through the use of the BLATANTLY RACIST policies called ‘Common agricultural and fisheries policies’. Anyone who supports the EU supports these racist policies designed by France to block competition from black farmers.
Also, CAP and CFP have increased peoples weekly grocery bills to prop up the way too large French agricultural sector, so the UMP can pander for votes.
The EU has had zero positive contributions and only served to destroy democracy in Europe and destroy agriculture and fisheries in Africa. Only the vilest of vile would continue to support this vile institution. Disband the undemocratic EU TODAY!
Of course, none of us should forget the undemocratic neo-fascist way in which the odious unelected clown Barroso and his fellow democracy-haters helped push through the neo-fascist Lisbon Treaty.
#22 by Pedro on September 25, 2010 - 1:27 am
Dear readers, don’t mind me. I’m not bigoted and xenophobic.
#23 by Pedro on September 25, 2010 - 1:33 am
TO MARCEL: Will you address the following, or again run and lick the wounds inflicted by truth?
If you have such a huge contempt for the European Union due to it’s “Democratic Deficit…
Then why not put your energies towards eliminating the ‘democratic deficit’ of the European Union? Why not?
Why not be honest with yourself and everyone else? The question for some people is not about “transparency” and “openness.” For some people it is about living in the past (can’t have anything to do with Germans, look what they did in ‘39). It’s also about arrogance and ignorance (if we can’t dominate, then we shouldn’t participate). Xenophobes hold such views. Simply be honest…..
Personally, I look forward to the day when the European Union will evolve into a Democratic Republic (it will take longer than it should because of people that work against the Union). I look forward to the day when I, and my fellow 500 million citizens have greater input in the governance of the European Union. You see Marcel, I’m not a xenophobe, I don’t live in the past, and I don’t harbour hatred for people whom weren’t even alive in 1939.
Germans, French, Spaniards, Maltese, Finns, etc. are my fellow citizens…something I am very grateful for.
I look forward to your reply.
#24 by Ursula on September 26, 2010 - 12:07 am
I honestly do not understand what do people who believe that the EU should be ‘dismantled’ or ‘disintegrated’ are even doing on a website called euobserver?
But first things first and to answer the original question. YES. There should definitely be a common security and defense strategy that would ideally abolish the idiocy that we have going right now with 27 standing armies. The thought that i.e. Luxembourg has a ‘military’ is beyond ridiculous, not to mention a complete waste of money and resources that could be much better spent elsewhere. I honestly do not understand what drives nations these days so wild with the concept of an ‘independent’ military. That’s like talking of ‘independent’ economic system. Simply unjustifiable in our very highly interdependent word. Our combined military budget is roughly half of the US, but our capabilities? Zero. Because split apart we really are not worth all that much and only as a unit are we strong. Same goes for the single market etc.
Now to the idea that the EU is somehow undemocratic. What is it that you want from the EU? And do you for example in the UK consider YOUR system to be very democratic? Should one even start with your electoral system that’s about as logical and antiquated as the one they have on the other side of the Atlantic. Not once have I read from the EU ‘skeptics’ any real and actual solutions to their screams of a democratic deficit. There’s actual a great debate within the EU about the subject, which is the reason why the parliament has been given more DEMOCRATIC powers, why we have such principles like subsidiarity, why the Council vote still weighs more in what used to be the second and third pillars etc. and so forth. The EU is not by any means perfect but please stop with the screams of it not being democratic. Without the EU you’d all be doing China’s bidding in 20 years, and trust me, democracy is not one of their highest valued principles.
As to the US and the Yugoslav wars. No doubt the US contributed to the separatist movements that started in Slovenia and Croatia under the Reagan doctrine that helped split up the last socialist block in Europe. But the Balkans have been a powder keg region from the beginning and didn’t exactly need a lot of incentive before the killings started. And please don’t be mistaken that it was only Serbs that killed. In that war there were no innocent parties.
Marcel – “The EU has had zero positive contributions and only served to destroy democracy in Europe and destroy agriculture and fisheries in Africa.”. Oh Marcel… You know what your statement reminds me of? That quote from Life of Brian “All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Brought peace?
Oh, peace…shut up!”. That’s pretty much your argument. Yes of course we can all agree how wrong the CAP has been/is still, not that it in any way differs from the similar subsidy programs that exist in pretty much every other developed country (and especially the US). It all goes back to no political system being perfect, or moral, and strong powerful entities protecting their interests. Also believe me, many African states have had a great time of destroying their crops and export due to domestic turmoil quite without any additional help from the EU. But it all comes down to the fact that the world is not black and white as you try and make it out to be. If you look for just a second, I bet you’ll be able to find at least a couple of good things the EU has done. But do let me know if you need help, I’ll gladly oblige.
#25 by Pedro on September 26, 2010 - 2:57 am
TO MARCEL:
I’m still waiting…
#26 by Joe on September 30, 2010 - 5:17 pm
Actually I did make the distinction clearly. In fact I lived in the DDR when it existed, have spent time in both the Soviet Union and Russia, so don’t pander me with the stale saw that all who disagree with you are ignorant. And don’t lie to me.
Otherwise, your stock bromide about Cuba, Vietnam, etc., etc., tells me that while you have an (auto-erotic) ideological interest in the subject, you have very little genuine knowledge of it.
If indeed, you are the same Pedro who has posted literally thousands of pedantic pro-marxist authoritarian/anti-american/anti-anything peddled to you that makes you feel righteous comments at Speigel.de’s fora, then you are certainly too uninformed to force the issue. Lionizing the likes of Morales, the Castro dynasty, and Chavez is deeply foolish because you’re letting your own ideology filter what facts you permit yourself to take in.
I have been running into clowns like you for decades. Virtually none of them have any significant life experience, and virtually none have looked at the philosophical nature or consequences of the anti-individualistic radicalism that they promote.
The vocabulary changes from year to year, despite it’s overuse, but the “blood libel” routine and tone just don’t change at all. It’s also boring.
As for NATO, it would be better served by removing the member states of the EU, and including the EU itself. As it is, they preoccupy most of it’s management and issues, and have offered very little in the way of detterent capacity, even on the presumed secret-weapon-of-soft-power level. Case in point: German technology sales go up, in spite of a decade of EU-3 sanctions and “getting tough” with Iran.
So yes, it is NOT hard to understand why these louts who lionize themselves and talk in circles about their magical mediative abilities, which, by the way, have NEVER protected ONE civilian EVER, would draw feelings from those that have secured their safety, including Indians, Canadians, Australians, etal., that they “aren’t worth defending” when they do so little themselves, and undermine others for the same of their exports.
What’s worse, the condescention that they come to these pointless summits with, the bickering with one another, only further convinces the rest of the world of the Europeans’ irrelevance to real, not concocted or overpromted “global issues”.
If all they want to do is look good in fake internatiobnal presidia, summits, and in hosting social issues meeting, sobeit, but the idea that they can commit others’ resources to their social objective is power is delusional.
As to your beloved lost golden age of Marxist-Leninist Authoritarianism, they shared none of your presumed humanism about the innocents of the Smurf village that you imagine your favorite populations to be. They were brutal, unhelpful, uincharitable, and unequitable even with their own servile populations, let alone any others.
If all you really know about it is what academics, equally unfamilar activists, and social theorists tell you about it, then you are likely wrong because so much of what I hear from that sad, dependant complex is factually incorrect, even about the ameliorative Socialism-as-waystation outlook of that world-view.
#27 by Joe on September 30, 2010 - 6:27 pm
Actually, you rather ARE.
You lionize a political ideology that has murdered well over 100 million people, and take up a canned hatred, played out peevishly on the nation that built the ideology that provided your elders with the means of removing the authoritarian yoke they were under.
Worse still, you PROMOTE a dessicated and retrograde political movement that idolizes an invasive and overbearing state with unchecked powers that has a history of arbitrary brutality… yes, I mean Socialism. And yes, I know what I’m talking about because I’ve seen it first hand.
You, on the other hand, look like it’s product: easily led and too ideologically deterministic to understand how the world really lives.
#28 by Joe on September 30, 2010 - 6:28 pm
As a “humanist” with an promoting interest in Socialism, your penchanse to dictate is not surprising. Let me guess, you’re aged between 16 and 24?
#29 by Joe on September 30, 2010 - 6:31 pm
Name one contribution. One real, material contribution. Not just fables of its’ own \illumination\ of others tacitly deemed uninformed in the art of being European.