Europe-US Split ... Ramifications May Last For Years

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Frogger
Now, either this will: delegitimise the SC

or

Delegitimise the US

Now, given world reaction to this crisis, what do you think will be the case?

Are you joking? No question about that! The US have a democratic system, something the SC is light years from.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why do you equate the desires of rest of the world with those of Europe?

Right. Enough of this missinformation please.

[Harovan]

Miss Information?

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Miss Information?

That's the name of that pretty girl that presents the news every night I think

[Sikander]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Sikander:

"If the world trends more and more toward democracy and tolerance, then the need for a country like the U.S. will be less and less."

What exactly do you mean by that "need" ?

Roland,

Have you ever seen the movie "The Untouchables"? The U.S. is like the character played by Sean Connery, a tough old cop who realizes just how violent the gangs they are cleaning out are. Without him to show them how to fight and win against the gangsters the group of FBI men wouldn't have been able to accomplish much. This is the need I am speaking about, the need for an ally that generally supports the goals of a democratic and peaceable world, and who has the strength and the knowledge to fight the least peacable and democratic among us.

[Sloth]

Originally posted by Sikander


generally supports the goals of a democratic and peaceable world,

I beg your pardon???
The US (like anyone else) supports first and foremost its own intersts. And it is not shy of supporting tyrants and dictators when it so choses. at least so far I thought we could agree

[HershOstropoler]

So you mean the need for a tough cop. Well I'm very sceptical about the "generally supports the goals of a democratic and peaceable world". That was limited to western europe and japan even after WW2, and it has completely disappeared from the agenda since, maybe apart from the Carter years.

The Bushies gloating about the coup attempt against Chavez and their use of "democracy" as a threat against unwilling regimes, while not giving a damn about it in Pakistan, Egypt etc, doesn't make me more confident.

[randomturn]

[minor threadjacking] wow -- roland adamsmith and dans -- I love it! Adam and dan--what's up with you guys? I come down to DC every so often for business; we should get a beer. Rol-why the handle-change? I actually do work with a large education company that buys and builds both bricks & mortar and especially online colleges. But I'm not in that group. Maybe you should LBO--you could change name to Apolyton University! Other news on my end is I'm getting married in April and spending honeymoon travelling thorugh France and my uncle is running for president. [/minor threadjacking]


And back on topic -- I agree largely with Sikander's views. I wonder though if the time hasn't come for the US to recuse itself from this role. I wonder even if the US should have gotten out of this game after WWII. Between the Marshall Plan and 10s/100s of billions a year in global military deployment, we seem to have bought oursleves more international trade opportunities. It just seems lke that can't possibly stack up against the cost of being the world's policeman. It's not like anyone appreciates it anyway -- they hate us for it. Strictly economically, wouldn't it have been a better trade for the US to let the Soviets take over Europe, trade there being so small a part of US GDP? And if that was true then, it can only be more so now that the rest of the world is so much more stable. Why doesn't the US retreat entirely from the world except for trade-related matters? If we just stay home and mind our own business we will be much less of a lightening rod for terrorism, etc. Israel will be in a tough spot, and the next Milosovices will be free to run amok but how is that in US national interest?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sloth


I beg your pardon???
The US (like anyone else) supports first and foremost its own intersts. And it is not shy of supporting tyrants and dictators when it so choses. at least so far I thought we could agree

So you think that the U.S. prefers war and dictatorships? Was it in our interest to cut Kosovo out of Serbia, or to put Aristide into power in Haiti? Take a clear look at our record after the Cold War. How many democracies have we destroyed to further our interests? How many wars have we started? How many dictators manage to thwart democracy due to our support? Give me examples, I want chapter and verse so I can see what the hell gives you this impression.

[HershOstropoler]

Sikander:

"So you think that the U.S. prefers war and dictatorships?"

The US prefers what the government considers in its (not the country's) best interest. War or peace, dictatorship or democracy are far down the list from that. Some benevolent action not withstanding, like Somalia.
The US motivation for Kosovo is a mystery to me though.

[HershOstropoler]

randomturn:

"Rol-why the handle-change?"

Mostly just for the fun of it.

"Maybe you should LBO--you could change name to Apolyton University!"

Considering what one would have to buy in the package, HELL NOOOO!!!

"Other news on my end is I'm getting married in April"

Congrats. How voluntary is it?

"my uncle is running for president."

Poor guy. Who is he?

"Strictly economically, wouldn't it have been a better trade for the US to let the Soviets take over Europe, trade there being so small a part of US GDP?"

It's not so sure the soviets would have taken over. But if they had, the US would have been in a load of trouble.

"If we just stay home and mind our own business we will be much less of a lightening rod for terrorism, etc."

I don't think it's a good idea to be isolationist when the insulations don't work....

[Sloth]

Originally posted by Sikander


Give me examples

Chile (!!!!!)
Greece
Philippines (Markos)
Iran -> http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php)
Central America (Guatemala, El salvador, Panama, etc)
Pakistan (Mousharraf was NOT elected democratically, I guess)
Many others

That said I can agree that in other instances the US acted as the "good guys"...but still....

[randomturn]

Roland-- i think you just got embarrassed at how high your post count was. LOL! Looking forward to getting married; no complaints. met wife on Wall St and she still works there so I get my markets fix through her and her colleagues. See "Which Democrat" thread.

It's not so sure the soviets would have taken over. But if they had, the US would have been in a load of trouble.

Don't think the US would have been in much trouble at all. Certainly not in terms of security and I think while there would have been some economic costs, these were more than outweighed by how much we spent to help rebuild europe and fight the cold war. And if you're correct that the Soviets wouldn't have taken over, that that reduces from little to none the any reason the US had for getting involved.

Frankly, I think it makes no sense at all for America to invest anything in European security. I think it's a waste of money and creates all sorts of "agency" problems across europe. As for isolationsim, it *reduces* the need for insulation. It does not destroy all American ability to exert influence. America could still exert force when it absolutely needed.

[HershOstropoler]

randomturn:

"i think you just got embarrassed at how high your post count was."



"Don't think the US would have been in much trouble at all. Certainly not in terms of security"

The USSR never had more than about a third of the US' GDP. Western europe had about half around 1950. Unless there had been a similar split as USSR/China, the communist bloc would have been a lot stronger. The economic impact would not just be trade with europe, but also with other parts of the world. The ME for example would certainly look very different from now.

"these were more than outweighed by how much we spent to help rebuild europe and fight the cold war."

On rebuilding, the US spent about 15 billion $, money well invested. As for fighting the cold war, the cost would have been higher with the US alone against a much more powerful communist bloc.

"Frankly, I think it makes no sense at all for America to invest anything in European security."

I agree, but that ended in 1990 anyway. Bosnia and Kosovo were not cases of western european security.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Frogger
Sikander: IMO, the US gained a hell of a lot by being able to hide behind the UN and NATO on a lot of big issues. Now they've said they don't need the UN, and have come close to saying that about NATO.

It doesn't mean they can't invade Iraq, but it does make me question the long-term viability of an interventionist foreign policy without somebody else to share the blame with...

Frogger, for once, you and I agree.

[Ned]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Ned:

The Kosovo precedent does not make law on its own. It also leaves a lot of questions open: what is a sufficient collective? what is a legitimate target? what kind of SC failure is required?

Roland, yes these indeed are the questions that must be answered. Kosovo does not grant a blank check for any action by any group if the SC does not approve.

At a mininum, I would argue:

1) Collective action must involve a permanent member of the SC. Two clearly would be acceptable.

2) The "target" must be in violation of international law. Kosovo showed us that threat to international security is not necessary. But, if international security is not involved, the target must be at least be in the process of genocide such as was the case in Kosovo and earlier in Rwanda.

3) The question of what SC inaction is necessary for the coalition to proceed without the UN is now under debate. Clearly Blair believes that we need 9 votes in favor of the proposed action to justify it. That is why the diplomatic effort continues.

[HershOstropoler]

"1) Collective action must involve a permanent member of the SC. Two clearly would be acceptable."

Why SC members? Why two? Why not three?

"But, if international security is not involved, the target must be at least be in the process of genocide such as was the case in Kosovo and earlier in Rwanda."

There could have been an international security argument in the Kosovo crisis. But ok, what is the rationale for the Iraq war here?

"Clearly Blair believes that we need 9 votes in favor of the proposed action to justify it. That is why the diplomatic effort continues."

Which means you'd abolish the veto right. Does that also apply to US vetos?

[Jon Miller]

your last statement does not make since

never was there a connection between justification and passing the UN

Jon Miller

[randomturn]

seems to me like Marshall plan was money well spent for europe but not for US. Soviet dominated europe does not increase US security costs; it decreases them by freeing US from projecting so much power in bases, mapower, navy, etc overseas, not to mention all ancillary costs (all the dollars that presence pumped into local economies, etc.) Yes, USSR would have been momentarilly stronger, but so what? they're not going to invade america. Far east is more important trading bloc for US anyway and USSR was never likely to make mischief there because of China. US maintains interest in middle east, but let europe go to the russians. We cut 100BB/year off our military budget and lose just a fraction of that in market inefficiency/inflationary effects that represent the opprtunity cost of European trade relationships. This is what we should have done. Americans are very idealistic, though, and behaved too altruistically.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by Sloth


Chile (!!!!!)
Greece
Philippines (Markos)
Iran -> http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php)
Central America (Guatemala, El salvador, Panama, etc)
Pakistan (Mousharraf was NOT elected democratically, I guess)
Many others

That said I can agree that in other instances the US acted as the "good guys"...but still....

All these actions were required to win the Cold War. They were undetaken to oppose increasing Soviet influence in these countries. In order to do so, the US had to support some bad dudes and some retrograde regimes. The long run outcome was that the USSR was successfully countered, and peace and democracy were made safe. If the USSR had gained in these countries tyranny and opporession would be the order of the day.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Sikander
If the world trends more and more toward democracy and tolerance, then the need for a country like the U.S. will be less and less.

Excellent point. I agree wholeheartedly.

[HershOstropoler]

randomturn:

"seems to me like Marshall plan was money well spent for europe but not for US."

Well... european GDP around 1950 100-125 billion $, US GDP 200-250 billion $. The 3 billion or so per year for the Marshall plan were a small amount; they gained their significance from balancing the distortions created by Bretton Woods.

"Soviet dominated europe does not increase US security costs; it decreases them by freeing US from projecting so much power in bases, mapower, navy, etc overseas"

Ehm... what nrs for US and european defense spending are you assuming for the time?

"We cut 100BB/year off our military budget and lose just a fraction of that in market inefficiency/inflationary effects that represent the opprtunity cost of European trade relationships."

Odd calculation. Why would that allowyou to cut your defense budget?

" Americans are very idealistic, though, and behaved too altruistically."

[Ned]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"1) Collective action must involve a permanent member of the SC. Two clearly would be acceptable."

Why SC members? Why two? Why not three?

I believe that if two Security Council permanent members were involved, that the action could not be considered to be in unilateral action of a single permanent member who had gathered around him his lackey's to justify the requirement that there be a coalition.

"But, if international security is not involved, the target must be at least be in the process of genocide such as was the case in Kosovo and earlier in Rwanda."

There could have been an international security argument in the Kosovo crisis. But ok, what is the rationale for the Iraq war here?

Iraq clearly involves international security. There are 17 or 18 UN Security Council resolutions on this point.

[Quote] "Clearly Blair believes that we need 9 votes in favor of the proposed action to justify it. That is why the diplomatic effort continues."

Which means you'd abolish the veto right. Does that also apply to US vetos?

The obvious problem here, of course, is the failure to respect a veto may lead to world war. Which leads me to believe that breach of international law for which a remedy is sought must be related to a violation of prior UN Security Council resolutions -- assuming, that is, that breach of international law is not of the "genocide" variety.