McTag wrote:It is my gloomy though self-imposed task to attempt to hold up a mirror. What you see in it is up to you. I personally am ashamed to be ruled by a government which followed the course America set, I'm not levelling all blame at Washington.
.
Dour Scot ! Are you sure that your mirror is not just a bit distorted?
I suspect that a central difference here is that you place a good deal more value and hope on the instruments of international governance than do I and several others here. That is also, in my view, a central part of the friction between the United States and Europe. I assume some still entertain hopes that the lofty words of the UN Charter can be turned into practical political practice in the current era. I believe the practice of 50 years has demonstrated clearly the internal contradictions in the UN structure and that, in practice, it can function only in cases in which there is already general agreement or in which the outcome is unimportant. In other more serious issues it either evades them entirely or facilitates only the illusion of meaningful action. Perhaps the passage of more time will enable the political maturation of major areas of the world necessary for the reliance on such trans-national institutions. We can all hope and wait for that outcome, but until it occurs, we must rely on the actions of nation states to ensure ther safety and stability of our lives.
I was quite bemused by the hubris of the Belgian goverrnment in its claims of universal jurisdiction for its courts in certain matters. If my recollection is correct, at one point there was even a suit filed against Secretrary Rumsfield. What is most interesting to me was the concurrent absence of any action with respect to some of the real villains in this world, in the former Belgian colony of Rwanda, or more recently Sudan. I believe this and the corrupt UN Human Rights Commission are accurate models of the futire behavior of the much-vaunted International Criminal Court. I'm not necessarily opposed to the development of such things - they may one day become useful. However presuming to rely on them in the absence of any effective political structure is foolhardy. In practice it can provide only false comfort, the illussion that serious problems are being dealt with, -- and that is positively dangerous.
I susprect that Europe is both weary after a century of war and revolution and, at the same time, a bit intoxicated at the so far brilliant success of the EU. These experiences may have created an excess faith in the potential of organizations and bureaucratic process for the resolution of serious problems. My experience of life has reinforced a personal maxim to the effect that " real problems require real solutions, but reorganization is almost never a real solution." As the recent EU constitutional crisis illustrated, the next few decades are likely to involve some very difficult times dealing with the inevitabvle contradictions in the EU political process. Moreover this must be done while Europe confronts the accelerating consequences of its demographic decline. Difficult tasks indeed.
Putting all this together, I believe you should broaden your field of view as you consider just what are the relative high and low points of Western Civilization. Contemporary judgements on these questions are usually wrong, and there are many relevant factors here which I believe you have left out of your calculus.
All that said, it is a big world and there is room enough for the odd dour Scot, the Westphalian humorist & fact checker, and even a few hot-headed Irish Americans.
