American Choices from 'e.the people'

e.the People has a very nicely done quiz tool to help in seeing what (by their measure) your beliefs on foreign police are. Their goal is to get 100,000 people to take the survey and, hopefully, participate in other educational and activism related efforts to help Americans understand more about what issues are involved in setting foreign policy and where, perhaps, our country's efforts should be focused. You can find it at the e.thePeople : American Choices website.

Here are the results from my quiz, and, for the most part, I think they're reasonably accurate - at least as accurate as something like this can be. The "*" on the scales under each question show what my score is.

Your Foreign Policy Priorities:

Primary: Protections
Secondary: Military, Human Rights, Cooperation

1. Should we increase emphasis on diplomatic or military means to secure peace?

Diplomacy |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----||--*--|-----|-----|-----|-----| Military

As the world's only superpower, we can lead an effort to maintain peace and stability. This is best accomplished by building wide coalitions with allies, but we must reserve the right to act unilaterally when necessary.

2. Should we aggressively promote human rights in other countries or respect their sovereignty?

Sovereignty |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----||-----|--*--|-----|-----|-----| Human Rights

As 9/11 demonstrated, repression abroad can feed terrorism and threaten our freedom at home. Where possible, we should use our economic and military power as a "carrot" to encourage positive reforms in repressive regimes.

3. Should we push the development of free global markets or allow for protections of local industry, labor and the environment?

Protections |-----|-----*-----|-----|-----||-----|-----|-----|-----|-----| Global Markets

Globalization is running rampant over the rights and well being of people everywhere. We need stricter control of our borders, better protection of working standards and greater regulations on the conduct of multinational corporations.

4. Should we emphasize cooperation with other nations or the pursuit of national interest?

National Interest |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----||-----|--*--|-----|-----|-----| Cooperation

As the wealthiest nation, the US has an obligation to help others , and a large stake in seeing a strong and stable international order. So as not to waste money, we should make sure our priorities are focused and our oversight is diligent.

In taking the quiz, I went with my gut instincts. The next question for me, of course, is to determine if that's where my beliefs should be.

One thing I found a bit frustrating - which, as with any "forced choice" survey tool, is actually part of the point - was the way some of the questions looked like they were setting up polar opposites when they really were. Some of the questions were structured about like the following (I'm using a "pulled out of think air" example so as not to ruin the questions on the survey itself:

In your opinion, which of the following is more important?

Option 1: Eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, including, when necessary, those with mayonnaise.

Option 2: Avoiding mayonnaise at all costs, even on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

Where I got tripped up is that I like peanut butter and jelly a lot and I don't like mayo - but rather than just being able to choose having PB&Js without mayo, I had to choose whether I wanted PB&J so bad I'd be willing to have some with mayo occasionally OR if I hate mayo so much, I'd be willing to give up PB&Js all together.

Even though they were frustrating, though, they were good questions - I really had to think about what my answer would be for that....

Anyway, go take the quiz and see where you come up.

Score one for bin Laden

In 1990, when we placed troops in Saudi Arabia to help with ousting Saddam from Kuwait, we pissed off Osama bin Laden. That action led to bin Laden's fall-out with the Saudi Royal Family, his leaving Saudi Arabia and the formation of al Qaeda. Initially, one of bin Laden's primary goals was to get American troops out of Saudi Arabia. While the news has been very quite about this, it looks like bin Laden is getting his wish.

"For over seven years now the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorising its neighbours and turning its bases in the peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighbouring Muslim peoples."

By this time, al-Qa'eda had appropriated a host of other grievances in Palestine, Kashmir, Bosnia, Chechnya, the Philippines and beyond.

The US withdrawal from Saudi will not be enough to satisfy bin Laden or his followers. It may, however, make life easier for the Saudi regime, which has been struggling to quell growing dissent within the kingdom over the presence of "infidel" soldiers.

Now, if we don't need to have troops in Saudi Arabia, I'm not going to advocate leaving them there just to spite bin Laden. But whatever our motivations are, bin Laden undoubtedly will take it as a sign of weakness on our part, regardless of our victory in Iraq or our currently belligerant attitude towards the world in general. Sadly, this may make bin Laden bolder - pointing out to any who are interested in joining his cause that they struck at us and we capitulated by removing our troops.

Its just one of those situations where it's hard to say what the "right" move would be.

No gameplan, no victory

Yesterday, it was reported that not only are officials in the Bush administration losing faith in the intelligence they had indicating where WMDs could be found, but that their lack of pre-planning for the need to secure potential WMD sites may well make it easier for any biological or chemical weapons Iraq may have had to fall into the hands of terrorist organizations and others. Today we learn that they weren't prepared for the Iraqi Shi'ite majority to want to run their own government after Saddam was removed from power, and may be unable to prevent them from taking over and creating a fundamentalist Islamic government, such as is found in Iran.

As the administration plotted to overthrow Hussein's government, U.S. officials said this week, it failed to fully appreciate the force of Shiite aspirations and is now concerned that those sentiments could coalesce into a fundamentalist government. Some administration officials were dazzled by Ahmed Chalabi, the prominent Iraqi exile who is a Shiite and an advocate of a secular democracy. Others were more focused on the overriding goal of defeating Hussein and paid little attention to the dynamics of religion and politics in the region.

"It is a complex equation, and the U.S. government is ill-equipped to figure out how this is going to shake out," a State Department official said. "I don't think anyone took a step backward and asked, 'What are we looking for?' The focus was on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein."

It turns out that, while many in the administration believe Chalabi to be a Shi'ite leader, he's not nearly as popular in Iraq as they had thought he would be, and the main Iraqi Shi'ite organisation, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) not only has close ties to the fundamentalist regime in Iran, but also has shown little interest in working with the US, as demonstrated by their boycott of the first meeting of US officials and Iraqi political and religious leaders, held recently, to discuss the future of Iraq.

Who, exactly, runs a war with this little planning for the aftermath? We have seen that a great number of the assumptions about what would happen after the war would be wrong. While the reaction to our presence hasn't been as poor as some of us on the anti-war side had feared, it's certainly not nearly as warm as many on the pro-war side anticipated. We weren't prepared for the looting and chaos, and, as a result, have not only made it easier for our enemies to get a hold of any WMDs (if, in fact there are any, something we still do not know), but we've let their hospitals be cleaned out of all their equipment and medicines, were unable to stop people from stealing samples of highly dangerous, if not lethal, strains of cholera, black fever, HIV, polio, and hepatitis from Iraqi's disease control center, and managed to lose countless treasures and artifacts from the museums and libraries that were ravaged. We obviously didn't have any idea of who or what we would establish as an interim government during the messy transition, or how we were going to go about helping the Iraqis form their own government to run their newly freed nation. At times it seems like the only thing we were prepared to do was protect Iraq's oil reserves.

The level of incompetence in planning and executing this war is not, in the least, mitigated by the fact that we "won" it so quickly. That we would win at least the military engagement part of the war was never in question. It would have taken even greater incompetence than I think (or at least hope) Bush is capable of to lose it. But despite the military victory, its hard to find much else that could be considered "well done".

Sadly, the result of all this incompetence is what we're going to have to live with for quite some time to come.

Pointed "news" from the Onion

The following "News Brief" is NOT true. It is satire, from the Onion. As with many of their pieces, however, it makes an excellent (and sharply barbed) point.

Tortured Ugandan Political Prisoner Wishes Uganda Had Oil
KAMPALA, UGANDA—A day after having his hands amputated by soldiers backing President Yoweri Museveni's brutal regime, Ugandan political prisoner Otobo Ankole expressed regret Monday over Uganda's lack of oil reserves. "I dream of the U.S. one day fighting for the liberation of the oppressed Ugandan people," said Ankole as he nursed his bloody stumps. "But, alas, our number-one natural resource is sugar cane." Ankole, whose wife, parents, and five children were among the 4,000 slaughtered in Uganda's ethnic killings of 2002, then bowed his head and said a prayer for petroleum.

Freedom and options

This is something I wrote in a post earlier this morning:

In any situation like this, there has to be a balancing of the benefits to humanity in general and the potential drawbacks of taking action. We also have to look at what other options are available.  Are there ways we could help the people in a repressed country take control of their own fate and support them as they overthrow their own dictator rather than going in and doing it for them? That's a question we never really asked about Iraq, as far as I know. 

Generally when a liberal points out that we have to look at what other options are available, the question of "What other options are there" gets raised.  How to Save the World has an exellent overview of some of the various other measures that can be tried, and suggestions how different options and combinations of options might be effective in other countries. 

He has also posted a map, copied below, that points out why I think that - even though freeing repressed people is both important and good - it can be a two-edged sword as a justification for war.  Look at how much of the map is purple - those are nations that are not considered "free".  Now, granted, there are various levels of repression in those countries - just because they're all purple doesn't mean they're all equally as heinous to their citizens.  But it demonstrates the size and scope of the problem of trying to free everyone.

Yes, there are times when military intervention is warranted - but as Dave notes in his overview, it should be the absolute last resort.  There were still other options we hadn't tried in Iraq which could have accomplished the freedom of the Iraqi people without war. 

Smugness and being right

Jonathan Alter has an interestiing article on smugness in this week's Newsweek, pointing out how our smugness about the victory in Iraq may well prove to be our Achille's Heel.  One thing he notes is that apparently, there were suggestions made that we should fly in 3,000 MPs from Europe to help protect the supply lines and maintain order in Baghdad, but that Rumsfeld decided against doing so because the MPs would eventually have to be replaced by reservists, and if reservists had to be called up, it might be considered the same as admitting that we hadn't sent enough troops in the first place.  And Rummy wants us to believe that we didn't "allow" the looting to happen?  We did - and it looks like we did it to save his pride. 

He also talks about how difficult it is for either side in this war debate to admit when they're wrong.  He calls liberals to task for not being willing to admit that the pro-war side was right about the need to liberate the Iraqi people:

Let's be clear about the doves. They never said the United States wouldn’t win militarily; their objection was based on other factors (rejection of “preventive” war, botched diplomacy, etc.). And they may be proved right: history’s jury will be out a long time. Even so, I can’t get over how churlish the left has become. When did the liberals take the “lib” out of liberation? This was a totalitarian regime we’re talking about, with a boot on the face of the Iraqi people. The same folks who led the charge against fascism in Europe; who rightly spoke up against the U.S. government about “disappearances” in El Salvador and Guatemala; who carried high the banner of human rights—now they yawn at revelations of mass graves in Iraq and argue that the Iraqis will be no better off than before. Freedom’s just another word that liberals have figured out how to lose.

Now, so far, I haven't heard any on the anti-war side say that it's a bad thing that the Iraqi people are free - but I also don't recall gaining freedom for the Iraqis being very high on the pro-war side's long list of justifications for the war. Sure, they'd trot it out now and again to try and persuade those in the middle to support the administrations actions, but it was something they used more as a tool for persuasion and not as something they really believed was a significant goal of the war.

As for me, I do think that the Iraqis freedom is a good thing - a very good thing.  But as a justification for going to war, it's problematic.  There are many oppressive regimes around the world that we pay little or no attention to and do nothing about. If we were to start deploying our army to free every repressed people there is, we'd be stretching ourselves extremely thin.  I'm not indifferent to the suffering of people who live in such horrendous conditions, but I'm also a realist when it comes to just how much one country can do.

In any situation like this, there has to be a balancing of the benefits to humanity in general and the potential drawbacks of taking action. We also have to look at what other options are available.  Are there ways we could help the people in a repressed country take control of their own fate and support them as they overthrow their own dictator rather than going in and doing it for them? That's a question we never really asked about Iraq, as far as I know. 

I've never been much in favour of the US going in and overthrowing the governments of other countries.  Just as we can justify considering a government to be so heinous that they deserve to be kicked out, other countries can come with justifications to say that ours does, too.  I seriously doubt that there's any nation out there - or even a group of nations - that could really pose that big of a threat to us, but the principle is what's important.  We have to recognize that everything we say we can do to other countries, they can turn around and try to do to us - and if we keep making enemies at the pace we have been, they just might.

'Diplomatic' solutions, take two?

Stop me if you've heard any of this before....

The Bush administration said Monday it will consider diplomatic, economic and other steps against Syria, saying it was concerned that Damascus is harboring fleeing Iraqi leaders and developing its chemical weapons capabilities.

Oh, stop there?  Yeah, that does sound a bit familiar -- harbouring people we want to "get" and developing chemical weapons -- I wonder if they have any better proof this time?

"With respect to Syria, of course we will examine possible measures of a diplomatic, economic or other nature as we move forward," Powell said.

Oh.  Of course.  Tell me, will you be sincere in looking to diplomatic solutions this time?  Or will it just be another delaying tactic to get enough soldiers in place to start another war?

The secretary said he had no specifics on who the Iraqi leaders are who have allegedly fled to Syria. "I can't quantify how many might be slipping across the border," Powell said.

At the White House, presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer had a similar message. Fleischer rejected Syria's fresh denials of having a chemical weapons program. "It is well corroborated" that Syria has such a program, Fleischer said.

Ah. Well.  That's good enough for me.  Ari said it.  I believe it.  That ends it.  Right? 

Ugh.  Ok, sorry...  I can't keep that up for any length of time.  If Ari said it, it tends to make me want to question it even more.  Ari - along with President Bush, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and, oh, most of the rest of the administration - isn't very high on my "credibility scale".  The fact that, so far, there's still no evidence of chemical or biological weapons, or the presence of al-Qaeda, doesn't exactly help them any, either.  Sure, they could still find some, and I realize that is a very good possiblity - but as of now, they haven't - and yet they think I'm going to believe them when they start flinging the same basic accusations about another country.  Sorry.  Not gonna happen.

Syria's deputy ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, said the administration's flurry of charges was a "campaign of misinformation and disinformation" meant to divert attention from the "human catastrophes" taking place in wartime Iraq.

Hmmm...  Ya think?

I know this whole thing with Syria has been building for the last week or so, but I'm still flabbergasted by it.  It's bad enough when Hollywood takes a popular movie, decides to make a sequal, and takes almost exactly the same set up, but just plugs a few new characters into the forumla - but for our government to do it, and to be so blatantly obvious about it, is just sickening.  I just hope that maybe the way this has come up all of a sudden, with essentially the same charges and same rhetoric, maybe those who supported the Iraq War will at least take a moment to pause and wonder why we're rushing into a replay, but believe me, I'm not holding my breath.

Like he said....

The spread of pre-emptive justifications

This, of course, is exactly the kind of thing many of us who opposed the war with Iraq have been worried about.  India is now issuing warnings that Pakistan would be a "prime case for pre-emptive strikes", and a "fit case" for US action, since they have been known to support terrorists, as well as having 'weapons of mass destruction' (I'm still trying to figure out what a weapon of minimal destruction is, but that's a whole different entry). 

Given that there is also apparent evidence that Pakistan is currently giving shelter, and possibly even aid, to members of the Taliban, who are trying to retake control of Afghanistan, it would seem that by the standards of our attack on Iraq, Pakistan should be right up there on our list.  (But they're still nominally on our list of allies, last I heard.)

So, what justification do the Indians offer for a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan?

"There are enough reasons to launch such strikes against Pakistan, but I cannot make public statements on whatever action that may be taken," Fernandes told a meeting of ex-soldiers in this northern Indian desert city on Friday.

Fernandes said he endorsed Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha's recent comments that India had "a much better case to go for pre-emptive action against Pakistan than the United States has in Iraq (news - web sites)."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Bush administration tell us that they had evidence of why we were justified in attacking Iraq, but that they couldn't show all of it to us for reasons of national security? (This was before Colin Powell's presentation to the UN in February).

In any event, if we don't want to see all out war between Pakistan and India, we're going to have an awful hard time figuring out how to dissuade them - especially since they're obviously and carefully framing their justification in terms as close to the ones we used for attacking Iraq.  Given that the Bush administration seems to have 2 left feet when it comes to doing the diplomatic tango, somehow I have a feeling this is not going to go well, and any aversion of war between those two nations is going to be brought about by forces outside of the US. 

Precedents

Ever since the "War on Terror^TM" began, there have been concerns not only about how we would determine which "sponsors of terror" to go after, and what other countries might do with the precedent we're setting.  One area of particular worry has been the long-running conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, and it looks like that dispute may be heating up again.

On March 23rd, 24 Hindus were killed in a raid on Nandimarg, a village in Indian-administered Kashmir.  India is claiming that the raid was committed by Pakistanis, dressed in army uniforms, while Pakistan claims the raid was committed by India's own army.  No rebel groups have yet claimed credit for the attack. 

The dispute over Kashmir has been ongoing for the last 14 years, and it is often hard to tell who the good guys and bad guys are in the conflict.  Official estimates indicate that around 37,000 people have died in the fighting, though Muslim rebels claim the number is closer to 80,000.  One of the major sticking points has been that India refuses to enter into diplomatic talks with Pakistan until Pakistan stops supporting the terrorists India believes are behind the attacks.  Pakistan, of course, denies that they are supporting any terrorists.

In response to the attack, the US has once again called upon India and Pakistan to try and work out the problem diplomatically.  India is now complaining that the US is promoting a double-standard in how to deal with terrorism, with some conflicts - such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq - requiring military intervention, while others - such as that between India and Pakistan - being told to handle it diplomatically.

India on Wednesday strongly disapproved the "double standards" pursued by the US and some others in dealing with Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism, saying the fight against international terrorism was "ill-served" if threats in some cases were met with military means and in others with calls for restraint and dialogue.

New Delhi's sharp rebuff came following the renewed call by the US for resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue, disregarding India's growing concerns over cross-border terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir aided and abetted by Pakistan. "The global war against terrorism can only be won when it is pursued without double standards and terrorism is eradicated wherever it exists, without being influenced by short term political and other considerations," External Affairs Ministry spokesman told reporters. He said, "The combat against international terrorism is ill-served if threats in some cases are met with military means and in others with calls for restraint and dialogue."

One of the biggest concerns in the India-Pakistani conflict is that it may turn nuclear.  Both nations have nuclear capabilities, and tensions are obviously very high.  Today, both Pakistan and India have test fired nuclear-capable short-range missles in an apparent response to the recent killings.

The US has at least partially justified our attack on Iraq by claiming the Iraqi government sponsors terrorism.  We also claimed that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.  We've said that Saddam has had 12 years to show that he's willing to disarm and basically 'behave' himself.  India's claims about Pakistan are similar.  They believe that Pakistan is sponsoring the terrorist attacks on Kashmir, they know that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and the conflict has gone on for 14 years.  Granted, they appear to have little evidence to support their claim that Pakistan is behind the attacks in Kashmir, but we have little evidence to support the idea that Saddam is behind the 9/11 attacks.  How, then, do we justify telling India that they need to keep trying to use diplomacy, when we decided that our dispute with Iraq called for war?

I suspect that we will be seeing more problems like this in the future, as we make decisions that set dangerous precedents.  We may want to be the world leader, but if we keep taking controversial actions and then telling other countries they should take a different route, we're going to lose influence quickly - and we won't be able to have much input in what happens as a result.

The United States can't assume that we can do whatever we want, justified or not, and not have other nations follow suit.  We may be the largest and more powerful nation in the world, but that doesn't mean we get to have different rules than everyone else.  Insisting that we do only adds to our image as a global bully - which is an image we can ill afford to have.

Update on memo

This was posted today on The Obeserver's sight regarding the British spellings in the memo they posted regarding the US spying on delegations from other nations in order to be able to better influence their voting:

CLARIFICATION from MARTIN BRIGHT, The Observer

"There seems to be some confusion over the Anglicised (or Anglicized) spelling in our reproduction of the email online and on the front of the newspaper. This was done for editorial reasons to standardise (standardize) spelling throughout the newspaper. Following the many queries from the United States we would like to make it clear that the original document had American spelling and this will be corrected on the online version of the email".

After Turkey....

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo makes an interesting observation about the ramification of Turkey's rejection of our proposal to station troops in their country:

But if you want some evidence of this administration's diplomatic incompetence, consider this. We publicly sold out the Kurds to get this deal. We really should have made sure we had a deal before we tipped our hands to the Kurds about the price we were willing to pay for it.

Now we have no deal and no Kurds. I don't think we should have sold out the Kurds regardless. But if we were going to do so we should have been clearer with ourselves about who we were in bed with, the Turks or the Kurds.

Dirty tricks?

Atrios at Eschaton is reporting on a memo leaked to The Observer (a British newspaper) that indicates that the US is engaged in significant surveillance efforts to try and learn how to influence the votes of several countries in their quest to gain "approval" for the invasion of Iraq.

There is a copy of the memo here, and I have to admit that I'm not sure from reading the memo that I understand where the Oberver gets its conclusions from.  Also, as someone noted in the comments section at Electrolite on this same article, the memo - as published by The Observer - has many "British" spellings, as opposed to the "American" spellings one would expect from an American official.  Obviously, this is not conclusive proof of anything - the Observer has a good reputation for accuracy, and there are possible explainations for the spelling.  Another commenter at Electrolite noted that British papers routinely change the spellings of American documents to the way the Brits write the words, or the author of the memo may, for whatever reason, make use of British forms of various words, despite being American. (I bring this up because I, myself, have a very odd tendency to British spellings - especially words like honour, favour, colour, etc., and I was born and raised in the states, and I figure I can't be the only American who does that).

MetaFilter discussion here.

The Observer's response to some of the concerns that have been raised can be found here.

Turkey says no

Turkey rejection stuns US
01/03/2003 21:35  - (SA)  

US officials, who had been prepared to hail the parliament's approval of the deployment based on initial reports that the vote had succeeded, expressed consternation when told that it had in fact been defeated.

"They did what?" blurted one State Department official.

I have to admit, part of me finds this rather humorous. There's a certain amount of irony in the fact that just last week, well after our attempts to buy off the Turkish government in order to get them to allow us to station troops in their country, Ari Fleischer, President Bush's press secretary, was asked about what the US might be willing to do in order to get the support of another government - and after trying to dodge the question a few times, gave this as his answer:

Mr. Fleischer: I haven't seen the story. And you already have the answer, about what this will be decided on. But think about the implications of what you're saying. You're saying that the leaders of other nations are buyable. And that is not an acceptable proposition.

Looks like he might actually be right after all.  Despite the money, grants, loans and other benefits we offered, the Turkish government turned us down.  Good for the Turks!

The article also notes:

After hearing the first reports that the parliament had approved access for US troops, the United States was set to laud the move and praise the Turkish government for its courage, according to a reaction prepared by the State Department.

"We warmly welcome the decision of the Turkish parliament to permit US forces to enter Turkey for possible military operations towards Iraq," it said. "We applaud the courageous leadership of the Turkish government."

[...]

After it became clear the vote had failed, one US official said the earlier language was "no longer operative."

It was not immediately clear if a new reaction would be prepared.

Another article from the same source also notes:

In Ankara, the embassy said US ties with Turkey would not be threatened by the vote, calling it democratic and one that would be respected by Washington.

"We respect this as a democratic result," embassy spokesperson Joseph Pennington said. "We will live with that. US ties with Turkey are not threatened in any way."

I'm sure the French and Germans will be relieved to hear this....  (Why do I have this feeling that this year, Thanksgiving menus may end up being a bit different than most years?)

Just speechless....

US to punish German 'treachery'

Peter Beaumont, David Roseand Paul Beaver
Sunday February 16, 2003
The Observer

America is to punish Germany for leading international opposition to a war against Iraq. The US will withdraw all its troops and bases from there and end military and industrial co-operation between the two countries - moves that could cost the Germans billions of euros.

The plan - discussed by Pentagon officials and military chiefs last week on the orders of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - is designed 'to harm' the German economy to make an example of the country for what US hawks see as Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's 'treachery'.

The hawks believe that making an example of Germany will force other countries heavily dependent on US trade to think twice about standing up to America in future.

We're Number One

Draft Charter for Europe Points the Way to a Bigger World Role. A draft constitution for an enlarged European Union was unveiled on Monday, pointing the way toward creating a greater European presence on the world stage. By Paul Meller. [Headlines From The NY Times (10/29/2002)]

As the European Union plans its growth, the United States will need to re-evaluate our own position in the world as a whole.  As noted in the NY Times:

With about 445 million citizens, the European Union will have a much larger population than the United States, something the drafters of the constitution want reflected in its role in international affairs.

Given the policy contained in Bush's recently released "National Security Strategy of the United States," states that America, as the world's strongers nation, "will never again allow its military supremacy to be challenged as it was during the cold war" (NY Times, Oct 26, 2002), we're either going to have to have an excellent relationship with Europe and learn to "share", or we may be in for a very serious fight.

"Almost every part of the Bush doctrine can be defended except that assertion," said Kurt Campbell, a Pentagon official in the Clinton administration who is now senior vice president of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It not only says that we're Hertz," he said, "but that we're going to discourage strong market competition from Avis."

To much of the world, he argues, "the doctrine says: we know best." He continued, "At some point, even if you are democratic and wildly successful, we are going to discourage your growth."

I have to admit, I would not want to see the US be taken over by another country. While I may not like everything we do, and agree with even less of it, I do still realize that this is one of, if not the, best places to live in the world, an I enjoy the benefits of that.  But I also don't think it is necessarily our place to keep everyone else "small". 

If the European Union does grow to be significantly larger than we are, they, by rights, should be able to have the kind of an army that can defend themselves, should it be necessary.  Yes, that might mean that they could be a potential threat to us, but I believe that its a threat that could be neutralized by maintaining positive relations with them, not by trying to restrict their 'homeland security' options.

Right now, the European Union is working on putting together the documents that will help form and shape what that will become.  There is some talk of structuring it similar to how the US is, with the different nations being the counterpart for our states. It seems to me that during this time, while they're trying to figure out who and what they will become, rathering than issuing doctrines indicating that we will challenge anyone who dares to be as strong as we are, we should work with them to help ensure that whatever form they eventually take will be something we can work with, and not have to fight against.

EU Expansion?

Early Irish Vote Is 'Yes' to EU. In a dramatic aboutface, Irish voters gave the go-ahead to a vast expansion of the European Union expansion, endorsing a plan to push the union to the borders of Russia, first returns from a crucial referendum indicated Sunday. [AP World News]

Irrelevent humorous comment first: When I first heard about the treaty being voted upon, it was phrased as "The Nice Treaty".  I have to be honest, the city in France was not the first thing that came to mind, and I actually found myself wondering if they'd hired a PR firm to give it a name that would sound non-threatening.  What could be better than a "Nice" Treaty?(pronounded with a long 'i')  

That said, I'm glad to hear that it appears likely that the Irish will pass the treaty and that the EU will be able to expand.  Some Americans may think this unpatriotic of me, but I think it will be good for America to have a stronger, larger and more closely bound Europe to deal with.  The way that we're going these days, we need more friends who are willing to stand up to us and tell us when we're going that extra bit too far.

Living in a country that has had a reasonably stable government for over 200 years, its sometimes hard to comprehend the upheaval that the eastern European countries have undergone since the end of Communist rule there. For the citizens of those countries, however, being able to align themselves with the other European nations must offer a certain amount of comfort and, more importantly, hope. 

My personal hope is that the US will be able to maintain a good relationship with the EU, even as it expands, and that it will become a true partner - someone we can stand with, grow with, and work with, and one that will have the willingness to help us when the cause is just and the strength to caution us, when it is not.