0
   

Europe's Opaque Opinionated “opinion leaders”

 
 
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 04:48 pm
"Does Europe have a common foreign policy - one that can be regarded as of equal weight with America's?
Everyone knows the answer is no.
But maybe the problem is not the people of Europe, but the so called elites of Europe - the senior European Union officials, mainstream political leaders and press commentators in most European countries. If one consults the people it is a different story - one that has been taking shape since the massive marches all over Europe when the U.S. and Britain were preparing to invade Iraq. Then there appeared to be a common European foreign policy and it was clearly anti war.

This dichotomy between a wide range of thinking people and the small crowd at the top has not much changed over the five years of the war. Although the elite in Europe will now say the war in Iraq is a bad mistake, they still seem to cling to the notion- one that Americans themselves very much hold on to- that the world badly needs strong U.S. leadership, with the implication being that on balance American leadership is usually benign and often enough not self-interested. This viewpoint of the European elites is confirmed by a study just published by the University of Sienna after conducting a wide range of interviews.

However a study published at the same time by the German Marshall Fund of the U.S. of rank and file public opinion tells a different story. 88% of Europeans want the EU to assume more responsibility for tackling global threats, yet they don't want European troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, or threatening war with Iran. Indeed a high 77% say they don't want Europe to be sending more troops into combat around the world.
It's hard to see how European leaders can in the long run retain their rhetorical commitment to supporting Washington. According to the German Marshall Fund poll European public opinion does not expect that America will radically change its militaristic, America-first, attitude after the election.
Most people may not have read the essays penned by the leading presidential candidates in Foreign Affairs but it is doubtful if they would be surprised to read that Barack Obama says the U.S. " must lead the world once more"" and Mitt Romney says "Radical Islam's threat is just as real" as that posed before by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

If they read the report "Forging a World of Liberty Under Law", recently produced by the Princeton Project on National Security with 400 contributors, mostly the great and the good, European public opinion would not feel reassured that political opinion among the American elite which shifted so far to the unilateral right under the influence of 9/11 and the neo-conservatives is capable of returning to a more moderate stance.

Whilst throwing out some liberal morsels such the imposition of 50 cents a gallon gasoline tax rising by another 20 cents each year thereafter, it is essentially a most conservative, America-centric document. For example, it suggests that the use of force, which under prevailing international law can only be legitimised by a UN Security Council vote, should be authorised by "another broadly representative multilateral body like NATO." It seems to forget that Europe and the U.S. make up only 12.5% of the world's total population and why should such up and coming powers as India, South Africa, China and Brazil, not to mention Russia, settle for this? Indeed why should their opinions be ignored in the solving such conundrums as the Israeli-Palestinian dispute?

It is a big problem that the elites of Europe, led by the new arrivals, Nicholas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel, are out there smoothing America's ruffled feathers at a time when the need is to educate both American public opinion and its governing class how far, since 9/11, the U.S. has drifted from what most intelligent people regard as both sensible and doable.

There is still no sign of contrition in America for past sins- the irresponsible insouciance in the face of Israeli intransigence and settlement expansion that has so provoked even middle of the road Arab opinion; or the still burning American resentment with Iran over the taking of American diplomats as hostages back in the time of President Jimmy Carter that has allowed the blood feud with Iran to go on for (nearly) 30 years too long, turning Iranians into putative enemies when most of them want to be friends. Most Europeans are uninterested in a crusade against Islam. America, despite the debacle of Iraq, gives the impression it still is

Are Europe's opinion "leaders" truly tuned into what their compatriots think? It seems not."
http://www.transnational.org/Columns_Power/2007/37.Europe.html
Pour forth your views, opinions please
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 567 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 12:09 pm
Quote:
If one consults the people it is a different story - one that has been taking shape since the massive marches all over Europe when the U.S. and Britain were preparing to invade Iraq. Then there appeared to be a common European foreign policy and it was clearly anti war.

Quote:
88% of Europeans want the EU to assume more responsibility for tackling global threats, yet they don't want European troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, or threatening war with Iran. Indeed a high 77% say they don't want Europe to be sending more troops into combat around the world.


Anti war, assume responsibility, don't use troops, don't trust the US. These statements are not a "common European foreign policy". They are more like core tenets around which policies could be developed. The next step would be to actually develop policies that allow the EU to "tackle global threats" without the ability to deploy troops or "threatening war". After developing and implementing such policies, you could judge their effectiveness and modify them appropriately. That's the really hard part. The contention in this article that the "European elite" would have it all figured out if only they listened to the wise population is pretty simplistic. Another view would be that in a representative form of government, we elect people (here designated as the "elite") to study issues and use their informed opinions to make better decisions than the populus might otherwise suggest. Right now those informed opinions say that the world would be better off with the EU and the US pulling on the same side and that that goal is achievable.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 12:20 pm
Engneer.
Thanks for your clear views.
But the majority of the citizens of Europe are not satisfied with the wishy washy elites' (Rulers ) dancing doll politics.
Two glasses of contaminated water will not quench the thirst .
Let the future produce some statesmen to make the world better.
Thanks
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 12:54 pm
Ramafuchs wrote:
But the majority of the citizens of Europe are not satisfied with the wishy washy elites' (Rulers ) dancing doll politics.
... Let the future produce some statesmen to make the world better.
Thanks

How did the current politicians get elected? They must have had sufficient support (50%) in their countries to be elected. If 70-80% of the population is truly unhappy with their leadership, wouldn't that be reflected at the ballot box?
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 01:07 pm
Engneer
Kindly accept this.
Germany had not selected the present Government.
German had voted according to their political affliations.
Grand alliance is there because no party got the majority.
In G B one elected leader is replaced with another leader without going for general election.
In USA many vote with their feet. And the present occupant of WH had not got the majority of ELIGIBLE VOTERS( I mean many eligible voters had stayed at home)
In India they had a multy party co-habitation.
So My view is this.
If there are 100 people there and 80 are eligible to vote.
But only 57 had used their franchaise which was shared by two parties then I can say that none of the party got the approval to dictate the 100.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 10:37 pm
Engneer

Some are thinking like me to shape a better democracy.


"After many years of political disappointment, more progressives, liberals and conservatives - and certainly moderates and independents - know in their hearts that voting for Democrats or Republicans is a waste. Just imagine if voter turnout was cut to 25 percent or less! Let the whole world see Americans boycotting a broken and corrupt political system and rejecting what has become a delusional democracy. To keep voting in an unjust political system makes us willing political slaves that the rich and powerful elites exploit.

Just leaving the major parties is not good enough and, besides, most Americans are not party members. We need a bolder strategy. We must humiliate the political elites in both major parties and the corporate interests that support both of them. We can send a shock wave throughout the political establishment by not voting in the 2008 presidential election.

Stop playing THEIR game. Take back control. Take back YOUR nation. Time to boycott voting. This strategy is consistent with the thinking of Gandhi and King: peaceful resistance to political tyranny that can bring the corrupt system to its knees. Ultimately, the most effective protest is through civil disobedience - to visibly and stubbornly refuse to respect what has become a corrupt, untrustworthy system. Before it can be fixed it must be deconstructed and then rebuilt. Taxation with MISrepresentation means we need a Second American Revolution; it must begin - not with violent action - but with massive withdrawal by citizens that have seen the light. We have a good head start with about half of eligible voters already so turned off that they don't vote. Obviously that has not been sufficient to change the system.

Whether you are on the political left or right, you will fear that not voting will help put in office people that support policies your abhor. But decades of objective political reality tell us that even people from the party that we align with do not, when elected, fulfill their promises and our hopes. Sadly, most Americans have become lesser-evil voters, deluding themselves that this is the best, least worse, yet awful choice. Instead of feeling bad about voting for candidates that we know in our hearts are not worthy of our votes and public office, we must have the courage to say "enough is enough; I will not play in this shameful game any longer." We must stop legitimizing and abetting our disgraceful government.

Many may fear that not voting sets a terrible example to children. But isn't it more important to tell America's children that true patriotism must reveal itself by rejecting a political system that no longer merits respect? Thomas Jefferson believed in periodic rebellion. Now is the time for all good Americans to come to the rescue of their nation, peacefully by boycotting elections.

The small number of third party members may be screaming: yes, don't vote for Democrats and Republicans; come over and join us! I have been a strong third party supporter, but we must face the painful truth. The two major parties have so rigged the political system in their favor and against third parties that voting for third party candidates for federal office is a futile action. We must first boycott voting to create sufficient pressure to open the system to genuine political competition. That requires a number of electoral reforms, possible if the nation gets its first Article V convention (see www.foavc.org). With reforms we can increase voter turnout to over 90 percent, as routinely seen in other democracies.


Be brave. Stick together. Save voting for a reformed political system worthy of respect and participation

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18490.htm
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2007 06:52 am
So instead of voting to make a difference, campaigning for your chosen candidates and working to support your views at the local, regional and national level, you think the best action would be to withdraw from the field? Doesn't this leave a political minority in charge of all the arms of government? Do you really think this will "humiliate" them? I think they will laugh at your naivete and once they realize they do not need to represent your interests to obtain your vote, your representation will further erode. The US Republican party is actively engaging in efforts to stop people from voting, so maybe your plan will come about, but you should wonder why you're in their camp on this issue.

I suggest a different strategy. Suppose that you focus on local elections. Get people elected at the city/district level who support your views. Often you can win a local election with a few thousand votes and minimal spending. In a decade, you will have a broad base of politicians with local support from which you can launch moves into regional and national politics.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2007 04:18 pm
Engneer
You are partially correct.
I think and I wish all the people should stand in Q and vote for xyz.
I think that disappointed voters and non voters should also go to the poles and make their votes in valid.
My English is not that perfect.
Say for example
In a poling booth there were 100 persons to cast their votes.

Among the 100 some 50 persons know and motivated to uphold their views.

And the other 50 make their votes invalid ( Purposely and Intentionally)then our puny pathetic show business should pack the box with ............................................
I am active in politics .
I say this not with anger but with agony.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Europe's Opaque Opinionated “opinion leaders”
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 05/25/2025 at 05:34:23