Mark Steyn’s Funny But He’s Wrong: Chirac’s Western Front Folds
I love Mark Steyn’s work.
His latest column compares American-European relations to a pair of old and finished lovers warily chatting over latte.
Great writing –absolutely brilliant writing– BUT, wrong conclusion, unless you’re like the French and you think “Europe” is another word for “France.”
I know, “Mark Steyn, he ain’t no French. ”
The Iraqi election smacked Monsieur Chirac and Herr Schroeder. The Chirac-Schroeder axis smells defeat and their “western front against America” is folding. The Iraqi people’s Jan 30 electoral show of force sealed Chirac’s defeat. Even in the benighted Bastilles of Paris and Berlin, those ink-stained indicators of democracy in the line of fire — purple fingers — point the way to the future.Besides, Chirac and Schroeder’s “Greater Europe” is simply too divided, as I point out in my column this week. (Thanks to StrategyPage.)
Steyn’s “bleakest last sentence” (to quote Roger Simon) is way too fin de siecle. Steyn writes: “This week we’re toasting the end of an idea: the death of “the West”.” Try and tell that to Ukraine and Poland– and for that matter, Denmark. Post- Theo van Gogh Holland may also object.
France itself is ripe for reform –I’ll say it, American-like economic and political reform– and that may come when Chirac leaves power and faces a judge. Remember, “Vote for the crook, no the kook?” Ex-President Chirac’s legacy of curruption should put him behind bars.
I’ve already received this email from a reader: “The President has shown grace, he has to, but he won’t forget. When Chirac is finally trundled down the Champs Elysee on a rail of his own making, carried along by his nation of sheep, W will be watching tight lipped with a twinkle in his eye.”
I have a slight disagreement with this email. The French won’t be a nation of sheep when Chirac rides the rail– okay, they’ll be sheep but they’ll be ANGRY sheep ready for real change. The Parisian excuses –eg. Bush, America, and oh yes, Bush– won’t fake out the electorate and hard facts will trump Napoleonic fantasy. The 21st century French revolution will be televised and I’ll watch it while sipping a fine glass of Australian Penfold’s Grange.
UPDATE: A response to comment 13: that’s part of the France I detect. As for declining birthrates in Europe, I’ve been watching that a long time, and so have the Europeans. Germany started paying kindergeld to urge families to have kids (to avoid the “kinderlos” society) and that program dates from at least the late 70s or early 80s. (In the early 80s, I worked one summer as a stringer out of Time Magazine’s Bonn office, and the “kinderlos” family was already a concern.) Fin d’siecle thinking is flip– the West isn’t dead, it’s expanding. We have a tough, bitter fight with reactionary Islamists. Chirac’s France shirked that fight. First Pim Fortuyn and then Theo van Gogh put the twin issue of immigration and integration square on the Dutch table. It’s why the Dutch can argue that fighting for New Iraq is a fight for a free Holland as well. The Iraqi and Afghani elections are a big public lesson for disgruntled young Muslim (primarily Arab) immigrants in Rotterdam.
UPDATE 2: Janet Daly in today’s Telegraph.
UPDATE 3: Comment 35– that is the big picture. Walid Jumblatt told David Ignatius of the Washington Post he sees it. Jumblatt’s a Lebanese “socialist Druze.” The burned out Simone de Beauvoir wannabes toking Gitanes and regretting zip may not see it. I’m not sure what they see. Jumblatt once said Arabs were always waiting on elections in America– meaning guys like him were waiting for the US to elect a Chirac and not a Reagan. Now he’s seen elections in Iraq– which is what the Arab world has really been pining for. I suspect the Left Bank will eventually hear about those Iraqi elections. Where the news needs to penetrate –and will– are France’s Arab neighborhoods.
Jumblatt’s telling qu0te:
“It’s strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq,” explains Jumblatt. “I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world.” Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. “The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it.”
Another worthwhile quote from the Ignatius column:
Over by the Martyr’s Monument, Lebanese students have built a little tent city and are vowing to stay until Syria’s 15,000 troops withdraw. They talk like characters in “Les Miserables,” but their revolutionary bravado is the sort of force that can change history. “We have nothing to lose anymore. We want freedom or death,” says Indra Hage, a young Lebanese Christian. “We’re going to stay here, even if soldiers attack us,” says Hadi Abi Almouna, a Druze Muslim. “Freedom needs sacrifices, and we are ready to give them.”
UPDATE 4: Hat tip to Glenn. Der Spiegel runs an article entitled “Could George W. Bush Be Right?” The last line has a very nice echo.” Read the whole thing, but here’s a smorgasbord selection:
“…the Germany Reagan was traveling in, much like today’s Germany, was very skeptical of the American president and his foreign policy. When Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate — and the Berlin Wall — and demanded that Gorbachev “tear down this Wall,” he was lampooned the next day on the editorial pages. He is a dreamer, wrote commentators. Realpolitik looks different.
But history has shown that it wasn’t Reagan who was the dreamer as he voiced his demand. Rather, it was German politicians who were lacking in imagination — a group who in 1987 couldn’t imagine that there might be an alternative to a divided Germany. Those who spoke of reunification were labelled as nationalists and the entire German left was completely uninterested in a unified Germany.”
This, in fact, is likely the largest point of disagreement between Europe and the United States — and one that a President John Kerry likely would not have made smaller: Europeans today — just like the Europeans of 1987 — cannot imagine that the world might change. Maybe we don’t want the world to change, because change can, of course, be dangerous. But in a country of immigrants like the United States, one actually pushes for change. In Mainz today, the stagnant Europeans came face to face with the dynamic Americans. We Europeans always want to have the world from yesterday, whereas the Americans strive for the world of tomorrow.
With reference to East Germany’s sudden disappearance:
When analysts are confronted by real people, amazing things can happen. And maybe history can repeat itself. Maybe the people of Syria, Iran or Jordan will get the idea in their heads to free themselves from their oppressive regimes just as the East Germans did.
The last line?
Just a thought for Old Europe to chew on: Bush might be right, just like Reagan was then.
New Iraq will put interesting pressures on Old Europe. It may well resolve –bloodlessly– the immigration and integration issues. (Over time I think there’s a good chance it will contribute to a fair and just social resolution.) But the way “business gets done” will change. France won’t be able to go to Saddam or Assad to broker deals.
UPDATE 5: Comment 36 is very much in line with my take. The new European revolution will be televised and blogged– and Le Monde will not comprehend it. Thanks for posting, 36.
A sliver of 36: “The truth will eventually come out. It always does and it?s seldom worth losing sleep over (when the opposition lies to itself, it just makes the eventual correction that much stronger and longer lived. Reference the recent U.S. elections). Europe?s middle class will force a transformation if only because they realize that our poor live as well, if not better, than they do (in terms of access to, and quality of, real goods and services). ”
UPDATE 6: See this post from February 25–discussing David Ignatius’ latest column. It adds context to this discussion.
UPDATE 7: Commenter 41. Read one of the February 25 posts on this page, ref: Norm Geras’ “War and Law.” See the paragraph Geras extracts from the March 2005 Atlantic Monthly. It goes a long way to answering your comment. But thank you for posting it. In fact, with two obscenity-strewn exceptions (now deleted), thanks for all the comments, including the one taking me to task for poor spelling. Despite five years of French (and passing the French qualification exams for my PhD in English at Columbia U), I’m spelling deficient in French. But my German spelling’s worse, even when typing slowly. Blogs are what they are. While it’s not always quick shots from the hip and lip, much blog action is just that. The feedback (comments and email) serves as editing as well as expansion.
If there is yet another French Revolution, it will likely be as effective as the last five. While Chiraq is a crook, he well represents the French. Is there a single mainstream French politician who would have handled Iraq differently? Did that politician speak up in the crisis? The French are not in the streets asking for his head. And they will likely work out an arrangement that preserves his immunity from prosecution. Spain is no better and Belgium is worse. Italy and Germany both remain question marks. Even post-Blair Britain can not be assured. So it isn’t until we get to the former Warsaw Pact countries that we find allies who understand the stakes and are willing to stand up, to the extent they can, and be counted. If the French have suffered a defeat they should be ready to turn around on Iran gaining nuclear weapons. If the French have suffered a defeat they should be ready to renew the ban on sales of weapons to China.
Comment by Mrs. Davis — 2/23/2005 @ 7:36 am
As I wrote in my post “What can we expect from Bush’s Grand Tour?”, Chirac is playing to the crowd—they’re probably more anti-American than he is. The most Bush can expect from his European tour is to separate Old Europe from New Europe by revealing how churlish the French and Germans are and to strengthen his hand at home.
Comment by Dave Schuler — 2/23/2005 @ 8:20 am
just a batch of he said/he said etc Why not wait and see? Bush is wrong, Chriac is wrong. One may be right and the other wrong. Both may be right…read People Magazine for further insights.
Comment by freddie — 2/23/2005 @ 10:22 am
Is it just me, or has France overreached with their “we’ll give you _one_ guy” ‘commitment’ for Iraq? Bush may make nice now, but it strikes me as a very calculated insult he’s not going to forget..
Comment by TedN — 2/23/2005 @ 10:38 am
Chirac is the last hurrah of the Ancien’ Regime. France is changing, and could change to a degree we can’t see from our vantage point. France may come to an end. I contend that the Left is lead by extreme conservatives these days. The prospect of change scares them, so they’ll do most anything to keep change away. But, the longer you keep the cap on, the worse the inevitable explosion when it comes. And it well come. Better to allow change, and do your best to ride out the waves. Things will settle down soon enough. As it stands now, I forsee upset and struggle in Europe. Likely around the world. Change is coming and much of what we take for granted today is going to end.
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 2/23/2005 @ 10:40 am
Gentlemen, it doesn’t matter what Chirac thinks or does. Steyn’s primary thesis stands: NATO is dead. If the French were to suddenly develop a spine, what could they do? Send the Charles de Gaulle, mostly outfitted with reconnaisance aircraft? The Poles are a great ally, sure. But the Hungarians are worthless (nagyon sajnos, de igaz — egeszen borzalmas a magyar hadsereg ). What about the rest of “New Europe?” How many battalions can they muster? How much lift capacity? There are certainly Europeans who are our friends. But there are very few who are actually capable of being our active allies.
Comment by Russ Mitchell — 2/23/2005 @ 11:05 am
There will be no revolution, nothing will change in France, the corruption will prevail, the anti-americans feelings too. Just like the corruption in the american system and the anti-french sentiments will. But I think they will reach an agreement on Syria and Iran since they both have interest there. I think if Europe and the USA stand strong against these countries, I think the pressure will be enough to make the Iranians stop their nuclear development and Syria pull out their troops from Lebanon.
Comment by Henrik Holst — 2/23/2005 @ 11:08 am
Perhaps France and Germany have suffered a defeat in some sense. But don’t expect the slightest change in their behavior. Chirac and Schroeder NEED external enemies. Without them, they’d have to focus on their sky-high unemployment rates, anemic economies, seething Islamic minorities, and general malaise in their own countries. If the US didn’t exist for them to denounce, they’d have to invent it. If Steyn’s analogy needs work, it has to do with the assumption that the ex-girlfriend is also reasonable and mature. Europe is more like the ex- you avoid because she can become hysterical and abusive at any moment for some imagined misdemenor you committed years ago. You’re over her, but unfortunately, she’s not over you. Besides, what do Chirac and Schroeder have to offer us anyway? They have no serious military capacities to add to ours: all they provide is political interference. It is time to recognize that the European alliance was premised on the shared goal of preventing the Soviets from overrunning the continent. In the absence of that shared goal, U.S. and European interests are drifting apart, which leaves NATO as little more than an object of nostalgia. We Americans have to accept that most of our Western European allies don’t see any immediate need for our services. Instead, they find our demonstrated “hyperpower” humiliating. I imagine that the failed French/German/Russian effort to prevent the war in Iraq has put a dent in their efforts to sign up new client regimes, and has reduced the revenues from the ones they already had. Why should dictators pay off Chirac’s and Putin’s cronies when they can’t restrain the U.S. anyway? We have two great allies of principle: Blair’s Britain and Howard’s Australia. Of course, it seems that one or both of them could defect in the years ahead. Perhaps there are a few others of less certain standing such as Italy. After that, we have allies of shared interest such as Israel, Taiwan, Japan, Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states, etc. They are united by their fear of Russia, expansionist China, or radical Islam. And that’s all there is.
Comment by Kurt — 2/23/2005 @ 11:13 am
France will change… … when there is a majority vote in the referendum to approve the Eighth Republic’s constitution… … which implements sharia law.
Comment by Former CNN Watcher — 2/23/2005 @ 11:25 am
One of Steyn’s repeated themes on Europe is the collapse in birthrates. Currently, not a nation in Europe has a birthrate that meets the replacement level (2.1/women). Because of this, they need to immigrants to keep their economies going. Part of the problem is that the muslim immigrants have not integrated well, and Europe will start to see problems that are analogous to the racial strife that the U.S. has had to deal with. Efforts to integrate muslims into a liberal democracy will produce strife in these muslim communities, but few have the back bone to condemn the hard-line muslims who condemn pluralistic societies. Western Europe could try to limit their immigration to Eastern Europe, but that wouldn’t work well either, since Eastern Europe (including Poland) has pathetically low birth rates as well. If they had a Meixco just south of them, they could solve most of their problems right there (catholics would integrate more easily than muslims), but such is the fate of geography.
Comment by Geoff Matthews — 2/23/2005 @ 11:26 am
The French are toast (pun intended) geopolitically. The reason being, having no capability to project militarly beyond their own borders they lack credability. Their navy can’t keep their propellers on. Their air lift capability is a joke. Few former colonial governments are willing to invite the French for peace keeping purposes (See Ivory Coast debacle). Their 50 year Franco-Arab alliance is unravelling having been undone by the one man they considered a dunce and a cowboy. As a consequence, ever since WWII they have been forced to cast about for alliances to bolster their lack of capability. Most of the bigger players know this. Why the Chinese would want to purchase from them is beyond me. It will be interesting to see which is more realistic in 20 years — EuroDisney of France itself. Personally I am picking Disney.
Comment by John McGinnis — 2/23/2005 @ 11:33 am
The conclusion seems to be, in other words, that even though NATO is dead, that—at least this week, with Bush’s tone and tour—we’re demonstrating the reality that The West isn’t dead, finni, or kaput. “The end of an idea:” the idea was the so-called “death of The West.” I’ll toast to that.
Comment by Joan of Argghh! — 2/23/2005 @ 11:47 am
Mrs. Davis: Is there a single French politician who would have handled Iraq differently? Well, yes–Nicholas Sarkozy, Chirac’s great rival, for one. JP Raffarin also is not notably anti-American. Conflating France with Chirac is just as much an error as conflating Bush with Americans–yes, they’re both powerfully representative of views whcih are widely held throughout their respective countries, but neither France nor the U.S. suffers from a monolithic ideology, despite that appearance in (especially) France’s MSM.
Comment by Daniel Calto — 2/23/2005 @ 11:50 am
Long after Greece was a hollow shell, Rome ruled. Likewise, while the European center of the West as we’ve known it may be rotten to the core, the peripheries, both in Eastern Europe and America remain committed to the idea of the West and the defense of the West. As long as America stands, the West stands. In a not-so-famous-as-it-ought-to-be comment, G.F.W. Hegel (the darling of the left) stated that the World Historical Spirit had moved to America. In that, Hegel was more right than he could know.
Comment by CatoRenasci — 2/23/2005 @ 12:24 pm
The EU cannot be strong if NATO continues. When they rely upon themselves they will pay for defense, or not. And sobeit. The US military uses Europe only for logistics; it would be inconvenient to withdraw but we should do so. A stable Europe, forced to think, is the best we can hope for. It will not happen while US troops and planes tackle every little local (Kosovo) problem. Personally I think the EU will disintegrate anyway and their future is chaos. But that is only a guess not a hope.
Comment by Ken — 2/23/2005 @ 12:30 pm
Mark Steyn is right. I spoke to many Europeans over the winter. They were universally anti-Bush. This is what Chirac and Shroeder see. The people there really believe they are right. We’re just going to have to write them off. (Until the next time they need us).
Comment by william goetsch — 2/23/2005 @ 12:35 pm
I think that folks are correct: the liberals in france are terrified of change. However, do realize that they can see the underbelly of change within their system and it is something which could very well make *us* blanch. The problem is that they’ll have to confront their demons one way or another and it is better to get them before they’re full grown.
Comment by hagan — 2/23/2005 @ 12:35 pm
Hagan; I’m 70. Their record in confronting their demons is not good.
Comment by william goetsch — 2/23/2005 @ 12:37 pm
As a pro-US, pro-Iraqi liberation European, I would say both are right, but mostly Steyn. Yes, it was a defeat for Chiraq and Scroder. And, yes, Chiraq is corrupt and unloved even by the French. But, the French and a large part of Europe envy and resent the US and its power, just as much as Chiraq does. This will go on. Europe will never play together in any significant way militarily, with the US. And Europe will never build any worthwhile military capacity, it is just not possible, given the political, economical and technological limits that Europe faces. NATO´s big idea was to stop the Soviets. It worked, and it is finished. What is left is the girlfriend-like rhetoric, that Steyn points out. I think we will see and environment which is more like pre-WWI, with each larger power playing as best it can in its own interest, and with alliances shifting and based on a case-by-case situation. E.g. we see that in Lebanon, the US and France are allied to get the Syrians out.
Comment by KH — 2/23/2005 @ 12:50 pm
NATO already died, and the instances that Steyn references are merely the latest nails in the coffins. NATO was revived when Europe needed an institution to force a peace on Yugoslavia, with the promise of a new mandate for Atlnaticist cooperation. Refusals to participate in Afghanistan and Iraq merely exposed the lie–the Eurots needed any vehicle to tap American power for ending their in-house civil war, but promises of new mandates were proven as lies. NATO is dead–kill it before it stinks up the place even more. Besides which, ending our promise to protect Europe merely serves to force us into underwriting their welfare lifestyles. When they have to choose between 35-hour work-weeks and self-protection, that will bre the beginning of their recovery. Time for some tough-love.
Comment by Ursus — 2/23/2005 @ 1:01 pm
I think Steyn is being misunderstood here. The new ties between the Ukraine, Poland, and other fromerly eastern countries with America, Britain, Australia is exactly what Mark’s saying. The traditional concept of who’s “Western” is changing. Fast. Reagan once said “We started out to change a country, and we ended up changing a world” (paraphrase). Its still happening.
Comment by Robbie — 2/23/2005 @ 1:02 pm
Interesting how the one industry that the EU governments will do somersaults to assist with exporting is aerospace and weapons, yet they won’t buy any of the military items for themselves. Obviously, none of their “anti-war principles” have anything to do with either opposition to war or with actual principles. As the late John Roche said when describing his ex-boss Bobby Kennedy, “he wouldn’t know a principle from a tire iron” (I have the quote a bit wrong, but the sentiment is exactly correct), and that perfectly describes the leaders of the EU. The game with China is a classic case of Lenin’s selling the rope for the hangman’s noose.
Comment by Duane — 2/23/2005 @ 1:08 pm
As noted, Chirac is a symptom, not a cause. You have to realize that Chirac and Shroeder were the _right wing_ candidates in their elections. Chirac ran against a communist and Shroeder against a Green. These guys were thought to be the friendliest to America. The bottom line is that their nations are _at least_ as anti-american and pacifist as they are, often moreso. Europe didnt come to realize Reagan was right after the Cold War, quite the opposite. And it wont happen after Bush, no matter how wildly successful the ME turns out. Every single ME nation could turn democratic sponteniously and it wouldnt matter a whit to the prevailing orthodoxy in Europe. They like being socialist pacifist contrarians, and American successes only fuel the jealousy. They will never forgive us for being right, because it means facing changes they have no desire to face.
Comment by Mark Buehner — 2/23/2005 @ 1:33 pm
Arabs lounge peacefully on weekends below the Palais de Chaillot. Their children play in the fountains, but the adults are dignified and peaceful. The young men run in packs, playing tag with the gendarmes. They jump the turnstiles in the Metro, but so do the other young men of Paris. They do not steal your wallets like the Gypsy kids, and they do not drinks so much like the tourist. In the suburbs and in the south of France, things are not always so congenial with the Muslims. Some of the Jews have problems, but that has always been so, non? As to dealing with China, that is just business. Surely Americans understand business? We give them what they want, they give us what we want. The Americans will invent new things so they can keep their secrets and feel clever to themselves.
Comment by laurence — 2/23/2005 @ 1:47 pm
The French and their Old Europe cronies have more than catastrophic birthrates to fear. They also have a static economy with chronic slow growth and high unemployment. Per Capital GDP is nearing 70% of USA levels and rapidly headed toward 50%. The math is daunting. They must grow 30% faster just to maintain 70% per capita GDP. They’ll be lucky to grow half as fast in 2005 and 2006. Add to that their progressively less sustainable welfare state liabilities and the growing but still unassimilated minorities. Consequently, talk of the new EU forming a credible defense structure outside NATO is laughable. A recent poll show the French as a nation are depressed. At least that’s some measure of common sense. They have every reason to be depressed. The Netherlends, Belguim, Sweden, Spain and Germany all share same characteristics.
Comment by RDW — 2/23/2005 @ 1:50 pm
I agree with Daniel Calto. Sarkozy is openly pro-American. The French public (and their politicians) are certainly not monolithic, which is clear when you look at domestic politics here (there is no real interest or public debate about French foreign policy). Insofar as the invasion of Iraq is concerned the left opposed it for varying reasons (in varying degrees, from the Vedrine “hyperpuissance” argument to the old left anti-capitalist/imperialist — which dovetails with the emerging new amorphous “anti-mondalisation” crowd(s) … and the right opposed it from the view that we all well know enunciated by Dominique de Villepin (need for multilateralism, international law etc.) In the end the French right that opposed the war (most) sound basically like US Democrats. There is also the minority of politicians/intellectuals/journalists/academics who supported the invasion, usually for the same reasons more or less as the “neo-cons” in the US. The French overall don’t accept that there is a “war” on terrorism. Like many Dems and their academics they think this is a metaphor. But I suspect that on the operating level of military and police (which seem to function in Afghanistan and elsewhere) there is less contention than on the world diplomatic stage.
Comment by bertignac — 2/23/2005 @ 2:25 pm
laurence: as far as lounging around the Palais de Chaillot … you seem to ignore that in the suburbs it has become dangerous to be an Arab girl … there has been for a long time growing fundamentalism which tries to indoctrinate and intimidate, much of it successful … in the meantime, there has never been real political integration of North African (nor African or other black citizens) citizens. I do not want to exaggerate the danger, but there is a real danger of French state authority being locally co-opted by fundamental imams. Laurence, maybe you should take a little RER ride out to the cités in the suburbs and check it out, I think it may surprise you.
Comment by bertignac — 2/23/2005 @ 2:34 pm
France has always been the apple in the worm. DeGaulle may have been a hero to the French — all of whom belonged to the resistance, to hear them talk — but he was a pain in the ass to FDR, Churchhill, Eisenhower and everyone else trying to conduct the war. The cold war and the threat of the Russian bear that followed prevented the French from playing their balance-of-power game, but the end of that freed them to return to their old policies of duplicity and double dealing.
Comment by Jerry — 2/23/2005 @ 3:07 pm
Steyn is talking in long-term trends, and here he is correct. This is a recurring theme of his and something I too have looked at. The leaders can mouth whatever platitudes they choose, but in the end, Europe will remain militarily inert and strategically useless. More on this here: http://posseincitatus.typepad.com/posse_incitatus/2005/02/austin_baymark_.html
Comment by Posse Incitatus — 2/23/2005 @ 4:45 pm
France did not just “oppose” our actions in Iraq; opposition could have been vehement speaches in the UN and an abstantion on UN1441. The reality is that over 80% of the French public lauded de Villepin’s efforts to make sure as many American boys died as possible in this effort. If we do not demand that France’s SC seat goes to the EU, that AirBus does not get one dime of taxpayer money rebuilding our airports, that third world agriculture not be cripple by French ag subsidies, etc., shows Bush’s lack of seriousness in defending the national interest.
Comment by wayne — 2/23/2005 @ 4:53 pm
The Bush grand tour has energized the punditry class to wail about the state of European/American relations. I look at our relations as an aberration to our long history. Before the Iron Curtain dropped, the USA kept Europe at arms length. We did nothing effective as France fell to Germany in WWII and nothing as France bled itself to near death in WWI. The Soviet Union bound us together, now its gone, ol tyme National Interest is back. France and Germany see a different world than the USA does. They see their national resources on at least an equal plane as the USA’s, so they are determined to influence the world. Just as we do. They believe they can counter America’s messanic impluses by allying with China, India or Russia. We’ll see, because that ole tyme game of National Interest has started. One final thought. This ruckus about arms sales to China has been in progress for over a year and the US government has been following the European debate all along. The US might very well attempt to split European countries away from the French proposal, but at the end of the day, the US will have to regard much of Europe as unfriendly to US National Interests. Arming China is the lastest overt act and probably the decisive act to break Europe and American from its un-natural Western Alliance.
Comment by RBarry — 2/23/2005 @ 5:10 pm
PS: you got the link to Mark Steyn wrong, remove the second http.
Comment by Berend de Boer — 2/23/2005 @ 5:16 pm
As a dutchman, I’ve to disagree on you take on The Netherlands. Since a couple of hundred years the MAJORITY hasn’t shown any courage. Remember, they were not defeated by the Napolean, they embraced him. Same for Hitler, they fought for a few days, but when Hitler left, there were no Jews around. The discussion in the major parties does certainly not recognize the take on Holland you and I would agree on. Oh yes, the Labour Party (PvdA) would like to see some law changes that would make life for religious people harder, but their main target is the remnant of conservative Christians in the Bible Belt, which they view as a much larger threat than the Muslims. The muslims vote PvdA anyway, so the PvdA sure won’t do anything to antagonise them. The biggest threat to the cozy political correctness is Geert Wilders, who might become a big party. But it’s hard to form a new political party, mainly because so few able people are willing to become a politician. Especially as your wife and kids might become a target, or if you, as Geert Wilders has to do, life under 24 hours surveillance, away from your family. He sees his wife only once a week. The main parties on Holland are socialist. Starting to solve the problems in Holland would require a non-socialist approach as you sketch. I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
Comment by Berend de Boer — 2/23/2005 @ 5:33 pm
There needs to be a long view on this whole process. Let’s keep in mind that the point of the Afghan and Iraq campaigns was more than just anti-terror. The introduction of democratic processes into Islamic culture is also a high priority. If a political evolution can take place in those countries, it can provide a blueprint for other Islamic cultures down the road. And, down the road, which continent’s demographics point to a potentially Islamicized political landscape? The question is not Iran, whose younger generation is already disaffected with the Mullahs, and are being contaminated by the fledgling democracy next door on a daily basis. That’s all over but the shouting. If the ME can be reformed along democratic lines, perhaps the coming Islamic republics of central Europe can also be steered toward more representative models and away from a Sharia-based authoritarianism. Since the future of the US economy is clearly focused in Asia, the less energy we have to expend in the ME and Europe, the better.
Comment by veryretired — 2/23/2005 @ 5:52 pm
We forget that (old) Europe, on the whole, is a couple of decades behind us - markets, politics, institutions, social experience. They have yet to live thru crises like the race riots of the late 60s (when will their guest workers and Muslim communities say “enough is enough”), demanded transparency in government driven by LBJ and Nixonian paranoia and corruption, settled individual liberty and self-reliance v. entitlements-as-rights arguments, achieved corporate transparency, stability and quality of government, access to old and new media, civil (i.e. non-governmental voluntary) society, conscript v. professional military, even our individual wealth (and a lesser inequality of distribution of wealth and power than exists in Europe)… So it’s not that Europe is different, they are “just” behind in some important areas (granted, the 2nd and 3rd world are even more behind, but they aren’t reluctant to admit it, and take steps to leapfrog and change the basic competitive equation). And if all you see or know of the U.S is filtered thru European (mostly government beholden) big media, you wouldn’t think much of us either. The truth will eventually come out. It always does and it’s seldom worth losing sleep over (when the opposition lies to itself, it just makes the eventual correction that much stronger and longer lived. Reference the recent U.S. elections). Europe’s middle class will force a transformation if only because they realize that our poor live as well, if not better, than they do (in terms of access to, and quality of, real goods and services). Amazing how much of their big media is now proclaiming how Europe intangibles are what matter, and how fortunate they are to have avoided the “rampant” consumerism of the U.S. (and our heroic medical investments, esp. at the beginning and end of life). Shades of the Pravda I used to know.
Comment by Ari Tai — 2/23/2005 @ 9:28 pm
Nato will try to perpetuate itself though it’s mission has been accomplished. It may have a useful new mission if it makes eastern Europe feel able to resist Russian domination.
Comment by Joe Deegan — 2/24/2005 @ 11:19 am
NATO will continue on. It is irrelevant that the power imbalance is skewed heavily in America’s favor, for power is not what the Europeans contribute to the alliance any longer. Instead, their specializations (including specialized units), diversity of viewpoints, experience with other nations, etc. will now be their contribution. Likewise, the definition of “the West” is changing. I would go so far as to say that soon we will not be able to call it “the West” anymore. If “the West” includes half the Arab world, Iran, India, Japan, and Australia… is it truly “the West” anymore? Perhaps the old term “the Free World” is better, but it is freighted with Cold War connotations. “The Core”, from the Pentagon’s New Map, might be appropriate, or perhaps “The Networked World”. I would say that the defining element of our civilization is its communications and trade networks, and our emphasis on keeping channels open.
As for the Old European mindset, do bear in mind that the people who remember la glorie de la patrie will not live forever, and the delusion of any sort of French Empire will die with them. Europe will always have factions; the very rules of consensus make it possible for any member of Europe to tie the EU up in knots if they don’t like something being forced on them. Meanwhile, the demographic situation will force a Christian/Muslim rapproachment. I like the idea that the WoT will positively influence this process, but I fear that the European/Arab dynamic will become zero-sum. Will the Arab lower and middle classes have to choose between investing in freedom by staying at home or moving for economic gain in Europe? And what of Europe’s economy and demographics if the Arab world booms and their people no longer look for jobs in Europe?
Comment by Catfish N. Cod — 2/24/2005 @ 2:55 pm
I am REALLY looking forward to seeing Jacques Chirac “frog-marched” out of office and off to a jail cell.
Comment by whack — 2/24/2005 @ 7:47 pm
In the words of that Wilson guy, of Nigerian “yellow-cake” fame.
Comment by whack — 2/24/2005 @ 7:48 pm
Has it occurred to no one that France and Germany were right? That there were no weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam did not pose an immediate threat, etc. etc. Iraqi elections are wonderful but they were not the rationale for the war. No amount of harping on the elections is going to change the fact that they were not the original rationale for the war. No amount of blogging, editorializing and writing is going to change that either. France and Germany based their decision on the original rationale that the U.S. was porposing.
Comment by Chris Martin — 2/25/2005 @ 11:10 am
NATO continues to exist because Americans continue to supply most of the modern equipment, air power, airlift capacity, etc., for the peacekeeping missions in Balkans. Prior the the 1990’s the US had never been involved in civil conflicts in Europe, and since 1995 we have never NOT been involved. We will be stuck in these eternal, go-nowhere peacekeeping quagmires as long as we continue to behave as the bottomless pocketbook and open military warehouse for NATO. And, by the way Chris, France and Germany did not “state” that there were no WMDs of any kind in Iraq prior to the war. Chemical weapons are WMDS.
Comment by Elizabeth — 2/25/2005 @ 8:49 pm
It’s tempting to think that Europe (and France) will see this Islamicization crisis through, just like it did with imperialism, nazism, and communism before it. A lot of bloggers here harp on how Europeans, ossified in anti-Americanism-anti-capitalism-etc. fervour, will never change; but the same could have been said of previous generations who were equally in thrall with nazism and all the other aforementioned evils. When things came to a head, they had to ditch these ideologies or imperil their continued survival. True, in WWI, WWII, and the Cold war the Europeans had America to bail them out of their own mess, which is not the case with the current crisis. The US will fight Islamic terror & fascism abroad, but Europe will be on its own to deal with its festering, anti-liberal muslim minority (soon a majority if current demographic trends prevail). This will be a test for Old Europe to prove that it is still strong and capable after half a decade of adolescent-like dependency on an overly protective US. It could either prevail or cease to be Europe, which will at least finally decide the question of whose side (western) Europeans are on. On a more specific aside, I wonder about the cause of France’s (and Europe’s) inability to successfully integrate muslim immigrants like the US. I’ve heard conflicting reports about Muslim antipathy to democratic pluralism & liberty and French society’s anti-immigrant (I’ve also heard racist) attitude and tendency to marginalize north African immigrants. If France needs immigration to support the status quo, how come (according to the reports I’ve heard) there is higher unemployment among Muslim immigrants? The way the French blather on about American intolerance & arrogance, you’d think they would be far more welcoming towards immigrants, especially those hailing from the countries whose friendship they court.
Comment by Laura — 2/25/2005 @ 9:22 pm
[…] , it’s vibrant. Review this week’s debate (Steyn and Bay and lots of others) via this link. The Daily Telegraph reports today: “In recent times we have witnessed landmark ev […]
Pingback by Austin Bay Blog » New Europe — 2/26/2005 @ 11:53 pm
bertignac: I do hope that lawrence is doing a parody…it would just be to perfect if it were real. “Some of the Jews have problems, but that has always been so, non?” Ahhhh so French….I’m sure this was the rationalization going through Petain’s head as he did everything he could to accommodate the Gestapo.
Comment by Jason — 2/27/2005 @ 9:21 pm
Berend: As I’m sure you know, the Dutch have a rather conflicted history in regards to WWII. The Dutch Resistence was far more extensive and successful than its French counterpart and there were of course the tremendously brave popular protests to the activities of the Gestapo. However, there were also entire divisions of Dutch volunteers that served for the Germans on the Eastern front and the Dutch Nazi party was quite popular.
Comment by Jason — 2/27/2005 @ 9:26 pm
Frankly, Chirac thinks that France’s job is to organize a bandwagon against whoever the biggest and most powerful international player is (now the USA), just as Europe bandwaggoned against France in Napoleon’s day–do unto them as was done unto us. The only catch is that if there’s someone coming along who ir ready and willing to do some real damage (such as the unlamented Soviet Union), France will fold. Also, since I live in Taiwan, I think Chirac leading the charge to lift the arms embargo on Mainland China is despicable. When I go down the street, I won’t spit betel juice on people who speak French only because they might be Canadian or from some African country.
Comment by Cephas — 2/28/2005 @ 7:39 am
Why do we obsess so about a dying continent teetering on the brink of irrelevance? Europe is entirely in the rear-view mirror. Asia and the Middle East are where our attentions need to be.
Comment by Tom Huyck — 2/28/2005 @ 7:55 am
Europe is wrong; America is right. The reverse domino effect continues tonight. Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt… Tomorrow Syria, the next day Iran. The American Revolution rolls on!
Comment by Sally Morem — 2/28/2005 @ 9:18 pm
Thank you! Chinese Apes.
Comment by Yellow Monkey — 3/1/2005 @ 3:40 am
Paxil
Comment by Paxil — 4/19/2005 @ 9:32 pm
Hello. Its a great Site. Well done.
Comment by תורת האותיות — 5/3/2005 @ 10:18 am
Hello. Its a great Site. Well done.
Comment by תורת האותיות — 5/3/2005 @ 10:18 am
Man, what a well set-up website!
Comment by Anonymous — 5/24/2007 @ 1:51 pm
FUNGUS YEAST Heal Essential Oil Blend…
Beachtowels for every occasion No matter what your interests are with bathtowels we can accommodate them we have resources that can custom monogram them we have discounted beachtowels childs beachtowels kids beachtowels oversized beachtowels for kickin…
Trackback by FUNGUS YEAST Heal Essential Oil Blend — 11/17/2008 @ 4:48 pm
ugg boots
Air Max
Comment by air max — 10/21/2009 @ 2:47 am
ugg boots often have a synthetic sole, although this is not universal. ugg boots have been identified as a fashion trend for men and women since the early 2000s. In late 2008, ugg boots grew again in popularity with men as male celebrities were seen in them.also the prada shoes
Comment by sale ugg boots — 10/30/2009 @ 2:50 am