Like many 'lefty' people here in the UK, I've often been pretty generally supportive of the European endeavour, even indulgent, but for completely the wrong reasons. But recent foreign and security policy developments mean I can no longer afford this luxury.
Living in the UK distorts your view of the issue. Europe can appear as a bulwark against some of the worst depredations of Thatcher's Tories and Blair's Neo-Tories - for instance the protections offered by the Convention on Human rights and the European Court.
This has meant that certain criticisms of the EU haven't really got much attention here in the UK - particularly the European left's view that the EU is too 'American' in its organisational structures and ambitions i.e. is focused on making the world safe for global capitalism and its war-mongering outriders.
Another aspect is unelected cabinets - which is how Javier Solana gets to be appointed European foreign policy 'supremo ', rather than being dragged before a war crimes tribunal for his services to American foreign policy. They may be chosen by our elected leaders, but so what? They sure show no interest in reflecting popular opinion when it comes to foreign policy. Just as long as they can placate their political base.
And there are suggestions he's assembling an unsettling array of powers which will even elevate him above the EU Presidency, but that's another issue.
So he's been responsible for the development of a "more muscular EU foreign policy, including 'last resort' military action to combat terrorism... the strategy recognises that early, rapid and robust intervention may be needed to fend off the most dangerous threats to global security... Mirroring America's preoccupations, the doctrine hammers home the strategic threat posed by global terrorists and weapons of mass destruction - identified as the "single most important threat to peace and security among nations"- as well as failed states." (link)
A dead giveaway.
Oh yeah, terrorism - not the environment, increasing injustice and repression, or even nuclear proliferation, corporate and NGO subversion of governments, and especially not illegal nuclear proliferation in Europe by NATO and the US.
Oh yeah, failed states - they're one's you invade illegally, but it's OK, they were failed states, not really states at all. And of course we will ignore history and whoever had a major role in their failure.
And part of this is the Americanisation of Europe and European foreign policy. European foreign and security policy is taking some dangerous turns; and most have NATO at their heart. And there seems to be a perilous blurring of the line between the genuine concerns of the EU and those of NATO.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
The way I'm reading this it sounds more like you should say no to the EU and yes to NATO - which seems to be the choice that more and more governments over there are making. Which is surprisingly sensible.
I know I wouldn't want to be ruled over by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats who make $500,000 a year for basically promoting more government and more bureaucracy.
Dave
2 - RJ Elliott
So...are you just an anti-American leftist pacifist, or do you actually have a vision for the future?
3 - RogerMDillon
Go on, RJ, and tell about your vision of the future. You know the one where we "topple a cruel dictator and bring democracy and freedom to a land and a people that had been brutalized and oppressed for decades".
Iraq - It Didn't Work
4 - Chromatius
#1 Yup Dave, you're right. It's another manifestation of something that came up in a discussion with Ruvy - it's easy to put up with a big bad guy when you think he's working in your favour. Among other things, I was trying to highlight a blind spot for most of the UK left.
But, just like in the US, there's no doubt this European federal structure will become host to militarist and other parasites.
#2 I have visions of and visions for the future, some outlined in other posts. In this one I certainly enumerate issues I consider of greater importance than the fake war against terror (neither a war, nor against 'terror') - itself an extension/revival of the fake cold war.
But sorry, no 12 point political action plan.
Can we assume you're a great fan of anaccountable military, government and non-governmental structures?
5 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chromatius,
I'm not sure that many American readers really understand what you are talking about. As a rule, they do not see beyond the Atlantic or Pacific shorelines (except when talking about Iraq).
If I were you, I would check out the relationships beteen Mr. Stoiber of the German CSU and the new German pope, as well the relationships between the Spanish king and Javier Solana.
The EU is a European Empire (a resuscitated Roman Empire, if you will) and the United States is a North American Empire. They can fight - or they can work together.
NATO is the one place where American and European ruling elites can coexist in carrying out an imperial foreign policy - like dictating to Israel what it will and will not do.
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chromatius,
I forgot to add one line. Bringing Israel into NATO is the sure way for these elites to insure that they can dictate Israeli policy.
7 - Dave Nalle
Bringing Israel into NATO might be a sure way to guarantee that NATO will spiral down into total destruction even faster than the EU is.
Dave
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
So, gentlemen, it appears that we are all agreed. Israel should not be in NATO. Should we issue orders to see to it that it does not occur?
9 - Chromatius
"If I were you, I would check out the relationships beteen Mr. Stoiber of the German CSU and the new German pope, as well the relationships between the Spanish king and Javier Solana."
Oh I am - thanks for the pointers. I've still got to follow all Constance Cumbey's links too. There's defintiely some back story in Spain. And Benedict, that's a biggy.
And I have no doubt you're right about the militarist & non/supra-governmental elite's plans for Israel.
Of course, casting Europe as the new Roman Empire does at least provide a historical reason for including Israel. And the Maghreb/North Africa, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq - all the way to the old Persian border. But not just Israel as our outsourced aircraft carrier and security/spook operation, all sprinkled with holocaust sparkles.
And from previous chats I can imagine how this type of projection of Israel as 'European' bugs you... back to that colonial experience we were discussing.
"NATO is the one place where American and European ruling elites can coexist in carrying out an imperial foreign policy" - yup, and I'm astonished (kind of) at the lack of discussion about NATO expansion in the corporate media. The Russians have sure worked it out...
10 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chromatius,
NATO also has this "initiative" with the nations to the south of it, including Israel. The link has already been established without having to include these nations in NATO's higher councils. In essence, North Africa and Israel are already NATO "protectorates."
Americans spend so much time whining about Iraq and Bush and Abu Ghraib that they do not look at the power projections of which they are so much a part.
11 - Chromatius
I'm just reading some of the material generated by the prophetic tendency - prophecyfulfilled etc about Solana, the WEU, Recommendation 666 etc.
I'd forgotten Hal Lindsey had fingered the EU/WEU as Rome revivus.
More when I've read it. And more on US/NATO nuclear proliferation:
12 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chromatius,
Read your link. As I mentioned elsewhere, in late 2003 John Dolfus talked about "think tank" stuff - a planned American takeover of all the regimes in the area...
Somehow, whenever the Americans "take over" something around here, we in Israel get to pay a price.
13 - Chromatius
I definitely subscribe to the opening of the Iranian bourse theory as regards the timetable for conflict - which makes this month pretty significant.
As to prices being paid, I'll defer my accounting for the moment. Still reading.
Haven't made much sense googling the '2003 John Dolfus' reference though.
14 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Uh, Chromatius, I made a slight error. The fellow who did the talking was not named Dolfus - but John Loftus. I googled his up and found this at Israpundit, an interview with Sheikh Abdulhadi Palazzi, an associate of John's and someone who is also associated with the Root & Branch Association, whose lectures I MC. I didn't at the time.
The content of the lecture is not mentioned, but the lecture itself is. It is in the 25th paragraph (very short paragraphs) of the interview in which the Sheikh mentions Root & Branch and its activities.
Read through the interview. You'll see a lot of things that should look awful familiar to you from your chats with me.
15 - Chromatius
Still reading - but thought I'd pass this on:
16 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chromatius,
Very similar to the other link, but in bigger font.
For those of you who are not following this back and forth, it deals with, among other things making Turkey a nuclear power in return for allowing an American attack on Iran.
Not interesting?
Go check out Desperate Housewives, Pretty Ricky or Sex in the City...
17 - zingzing
ruvy...
18 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Zingzing, is that all you have to say?
19 - MCH
Re comment #2;
"So...are you just an anti-American leftist pacifist, or do you actually have a vision for the future?"
Yeah, an "anti-American leftist pacifist" is much phonier than a sabre-rattling war-wimp...
20 - mike
The reality of things is Europe although on surface may oppose US or have more "social networks" is still in many ways resemble US and for a good reason. Economically, no other system besides capitalism is sustainable, the question is just the extent of capitalism implemented. From the military stand point, pacifism is impossible in the world where your next door neighbors are russia from the east and islamists in the meditterrenean. as far as empires, by themselves no european country is significant player on a world stage and only through european union and nATO can they have any weight in this world. Without Nato, Europe is defenseless, european capacity is outdated. As far as letting Israel in, i doubt that it throughly makes any difference. Israel is a small country with small economy and even with the military being fairly advanced it is still fairly insignificant and only relies on US, Europeans already have some access to American Weapon systems, so Israel will not necessarily bring anything new, making its assession to NATO insignificant in any way
21 - Chromatius
#20 either through the EU OR NATO - but let's keep them separate; Solana is certainly blurring the two.
#14 OK Ruvy, been busy, but I've had time to digest some of this.
Firstly, there's little or nothing I find hard to believe. The unconstrained behaviour of security and intelligence services, the private domains created and the private ambitions pursued within them, the relations between those domains/ambitions with non/supra-governmental organisations
On the other hand, it reminds me of my earlier real-politik comments about the world you decide to operate in, the alliances you form, the level you apply leverage at etc.
Also, worth noting:
The whole process, Loftus said, was neither pro-Nazi nor anti-Semitic; it was just about greed.
"Americans and Canadians genuinely like Israel, and your Parliament and our Congress consistently support her."
The problem, he said, is the bureaucrats. "It is in North America's national interest to get a cheap supply of oil. The Arabs have it and Israel doesn't," Loftus said flatly. "So we sold you out. In every war, we worked against you."