Democratisation in the Middle East - the debate

Well, c.i., that's the price in a quite famous café (would be even nearly the same in my hometown's 5* star café).
A pot of coffee and a piece of cream cake costs less than 4 Euros in the hotel where you stay here (and less than 2.50 in the bakery around the corner) :wink:

That $6.25 price I quoted is at the corner coffee/donut shop in London in Picadilly. No 5 star restaurant/hotel.

I think the US is concerned about a challenge to the dollar from the euro. The euro jigsaw puzzle would be complete if Britain joined. That imo is why US owned British newspapers (Rupert Murdoch lets not be shy here) are full of scare stories about joining.

With 25 states becoming one trading block with one currency and population 450m, the EU already rivals the US.

And another point, if you ask the rest of the world not European or American who they would rather look to as world leaders, it overwhelmingly favours Europe. Didnt used to, but things change. America is feared by the rest of the world, when it use respected...and not so long ago.

And if you want to look further ahead then its China which will become the economic and military superpower of the second half of this century. Very long term I can even see a Eurasian block EU Russia China Japan forming an alliance that will leave USA out in the cold.

Once again the GDP of the Euro bloc is less than 72% that of the US, - AND THE GAP BETWEEN THEM IS GROWING AT A SUBSTANTIAL RATE. If this is what you call rivalry you are welcome to it. I see no indication of concern on the part of our government.

Perhaps this is because it has been a long time since the world has had a taste of European leadership. The last one wasn't so good.



China will certainly grow throughout the century, but not at the current rate - this is a period of massive change in China and there is no possibility of her maintaining the recent growth rates through the major social and political changes that inevitably lie ahead. - Nothing does. I believe your vision of a united China, Russia, and Japan is quite fantastic and contrary to the facts. The accelerating population declines of Europe generally and Russia in particular make your long-range forecasts for them exceedingly unrealistic. The truth is that politically and economically Europe is stagnant and in the grip of a major demographic problem which it has not yet begun to resolve. You can buy long-term Euro bonds, but I wouldn't.

georgeob, A very good point about the demographics between the Euro countries and the US. They've a got a big problem on their hands, and their ability to change course at this juncture is already too late unless they open up immigration at a very high rate which they have not the means or the stomach.

It is interesting to note that, on average, Americans are almost four years younger than Europeans, and that this gap is also growing. From France to Russia female fertility in Europe is about 25% below what is required for a level population. As with economis matters the UK does a good bit better in this area - yet another reason for the Brits to think twice before they leap.

I'm of the same opinion concerning the Brits jumping into the Euro. They will lose many of the benefits of curbing inflation through the tweaking of their interest rates.

When house prices in Britain come down, all will resolve naturally :wink:

good piece in today's Guardian, well worth reading

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1433430,00.html

by Eric Hobsbawm

"The belief that the US or the European Union, in their various forms, have achieved a mode of government which, however desirable, is destined to conquer the world, and is not subject to historic transformation and impermanence, is the last of the utopian projects so characteristic of the last century. What the 21st needs is both social hope and historical realism."

Interesting piece, and I agree with most of the points made.

A few quibbles;

The fall of the Soviet Union WAS forseen and even planned by some folks in the early '80s. This was indeed a central element in the strategy of the first Reagan Administration - our very rapid srms buildup was explicitly planned to either drive them to economic ruin or force them to a decisively secondary role. I was then Chief Operations Officer for the Atlantic Command then and recall numerous explicit references to these points.

There have indeed been extended periods during which the world, or major parts of it have lived under the domination of a single power, only occasionally challenged by serious rivals. Rome is the obvious example, but there are many others - Britain in the 18th and 19th centrries; Spain in the 16th century; the Soviet empire during the 20th; and many others.

The United States does not "aspire to be" the sole power dominating the world. It is simply a fact that, since the fall of the Soviet Empire and, given the stagnation that infects Europe, we have become that by default. Since WWII we have contributed enormous economic and political capital in attempting to restore a war-ravaged Europe. Since the earliest moves toward the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community we have consistently supported the evolving European Union - even at its most difficult moments. We aggressively supported the reunification of Germany, even as many timid European (and German) politicians held back fearfully. We similarly supported and encouraged the newly liberated states of Central Europe in their at first tentative movements towards association with NATO and the EU. These are NOT the actions of a state bent on preserving a supposed domination of the world. The European complaints that we do so are merely symptomatic of the sclerosis and paralysis that infects their societies.


"Lead, follow, or get out of the way" is a phrase that often comes to my mind with respect to the Europe of today - vain and sensitive, but timid, lacking principle, and, instead, focused on the minutia of process and procedure.

[There are a couple more who claim to be the father and/or mother of the German unificication but when you thump on it ... (Do you think, we could send the bills to the Oval Office?)]

Might be a stupid question, but who 'decided' that you became the sole power dominating the world by default?
I mean, you wrote a lot of examples, where you said the USA was engaged as the prime and only factor - so why did you (the USA) do something what others didn't want? Or couldn't do (someone had to decide here, too: they can't do it).

I don't at all suggest that the United States brought about german reunification. There were - as you say - many factors involved in bringing that about, not least the generosity of the FRG which assumed the severe economic burdens of lifting the GDR our of its socialist torpor. However, I do assert that the United States actively encouraged and supported both the reunification of Germany and the speedy assimilation of the liberated states of Eastern Europe into the European family. If the U.S. is determined to become and remain the sole superpower of the world - as Steve asserts - then we wouldn't have done such things.

Frankly i don't even buy the notion that we are the only superpower and all that stuff. There is no lack of potential challengers in Asia and other places. Whatever dominance the United States has right now is by accident of history - not design on our part.

If that's really so - why didn't you pay the premiums for the First City National World History Accidents Insurance Company Ltd. & Cie SA anymore?

double post, deleted

George

The United States does not "aspire to be" the sole power dominating the world. It is the sole power dominating the world.

The problem for the US is to consolidate that position in an increasingly "global" world where NGOs have international reach, where the very concept of the nation state is becoming redundant in some parts and elsewhere nations are arising (China) that threaten to challenge US dominance.

You come across as having a deep loathing of all things European. Perhaps loathing is too strong a word, but you never pass by the opportunity of pointing out the venal wickedness of the old imperialists whilst denying the reality of the new American Imperium. You see young thrusting America cleaning up the world after tired old Europe's mess.

But here we see things exactly the opposite way round. A lot of people are actually quite inspired by the concept of the new Europe. That we have let go of old rivalries and (however difficult) are working together for the common good. Maybe its because we have learned some difficult lessons from history. Maybe its because we were never that dis united in the first place. I don't know all the answers, far from it. But I do know that there is tremendous good will for the European project from the peoples of Europe. The European civil wars of the 20th century are over. The ideological divide between W and E Europe is over. We have problems sure, but there is a willingness to overcome them and great potential for the future. And the rest of the world increasingly looks to Europe for leadership and guidance, if only because we are NOT America.

By contrast we see America as fat and lazy with a standard of living based on the profligate use of fossil fuels, the sweated labour of developing countries, and by printing dollars. We see the tremendous inequality in America and a foreign policy made at the point of a gun. America has failed to develop into the equitable and civilised society as envisioned by its founding fathers and constitution. In short we feel Europe is leading by example, America gets what it wants through coercion. Perhaps its this that gets up your nose (!)

Steve,

A nicely written and persuasive post. You have indeed put your finger on a few key areas on which we disagree and where we interpret recent history differently.

I do believe the history of Europe since the fifteenth century has been a mostly ghastly thing, and that the American experiment has been an effort to develop an alternative to it.

There is no doubt that we have failed to fully live up to the promise of our foundations. However, I believe that overall we have done far better than have any of the European powers, and that we are far better adapted to deal with the challenges ahead than is Europe.

I agree with your sentiments about a United Europe. The EU has achieved far more success in its integration than I (for one) had thought possible. Moreover it has (so far0 ended the legacy of centuries of destructive intra-European warfare - that alone is a most praiseworthy achievement. However, I also believe that contemporary Europeans may have come to see more fundamental and lasting importance to their achievements than they merit. History did not end either with the fall of the Soviet empire (as the article you cited above pointed out) or with the creation and perfection of the EU. There are still rivalries between nations, peoples, and cultures that will not lend themselves to resolution through the bureaucratic measures so favored by Europe. The methods used so far so successfully by Europeans in achieving their remarkable unity are not as exportable as perhaps many Europeans believe.

European contempt for the vulgarity and materialism of American culture is hardly a recent thing. References to it can be found throughout 19th century European literature from Dickens to Bunin (see his "Gentleman from San Francisco", circa 1885).

Inflation of the currency in the United States has been roughly equal to that of the Euro Bloc for the past decade - I don't understand your reference to "printing dollars". Suggestions that we are living on the "sweated labor of developing countries" sound decidedly odd coming as they do from a citizen of the world's former foremost colonial power. Indeed, even today, per unit GDP, Britain derives far more of its income from extra-national investment and ownership than does the United States. Just who is sweating whom?

The distribution of income in America is indeed less equal than that in most European countries. At the same time the average income here and the incomes of each quartile of American society are higher than the corresponding parts of nearly every European country. While you may call it inequality, I call it a superior adaptation to the competitiveness of a modern world with free trade and relatively free movement of capital.

The fact is that Europe has serious problems with depopulation, immigration, economic stagnation, unemployment, and productivity relative to America - and to the rising economies of Asia. Will you be able to compete in the century ahead? I believe that issue is in serious doubt. Life was very good in the Roman world of the third century. However as that wonderful British historian, Gibbon, so eloquently pointed out, the fatal decline was already underway, and the challenges from cruder, less polished, but more competitive and vigorous external rivals was immediately at hand. The barbarians are at your gates as well.

Lastly, America is more optimistic than Europe. We see and expect new technological solutions to energy and other problems, while Europe sees only rationing as a solution - a very telling difference in my view..

I also agree with much of Steve's opinion, but he must also remember that the majority of Americans are from Europe.

George

Well if we agree to differ, at least we understand where the other one is coming from...

By printing dollars, I was alluding to the fact that the dollar as the world's reserve currency, appears to be insensitive to inflationary pressures that would destroy other currencies. That is the American government is the only administration in the world that can buy itself out of a hole by printing more money. Other countries have to earn their dollars through trade with the US to enable them to buy the dollar priced commodities they need to keep their economies going - such as oil. [We are getting back to Iraq here].

I'm not saying the dollar is inflation proof, but its less prone to inflation than all other currencies. If a barrel of oil costs $50 and the US government speeds up the printing presses, after a year or so, a barrel of oil will still cost about $50. But if the government of any other country suddenly started producing huge amounts of its own currency (not supported by economic growth), its value against the dollar would plummet. They would end up trading bucket fulls of money for that one barrel of oil.

Regarding Gibbon, not sure if I understand you

you said "The barbarians are at your gates as well. "

did you mean your as in Britain's
or your as in Europe's?

And does the "as well" mean that you accept the Barbarians are already at the gates of the American Empire?

"the majority of Americans are from Europe."

I'll bear that in mind next time we meet ci

Hopefully in May?

I meant Europe's, not Britain's. The reference to Gibbon and 3rd century Rome was a suggestion that, though things are good now, Europe may not do so well in the century ahead. Rigid social welfare systems, declining populations, evident difficulty in adapting to immigration, economic stagnation - all point to serious challenges to which Europe has not yet begun to adapt.

America faces these challenges too, but our more competitive (and less equal) society, greater optimism and creativity, etc. makes us a much better candidate for survival.