Many Americans wonder why we have bases in Europe when there is no threat there, or when a perceived threat (such as a nuclear Iran or a resurgent-but-greatly reduced Russia) should be handled by Europeans themselves. My own opinion at this point is that we should have Air Force and Navy agreements with European countries for bases to use as trans-shipment points, and to serve as a tripwire for US involvement should a really big attack happen, but that all major Army bases and most of the AF and Navy bases should be vacated. It's time Europeans were responsible for their own defense.
Now NATO has initiated a war of choice with Libya. I support the effort, but it certainly is not a war that NATO was ever intended to fight. This is even more a war of choice than Iraq was. NATO is officially participating, but one of its main members, Germany, is not participating. The US, after bearing the brunt of the early work has backed off to a support role, and it is now mainly a British, French, and Italian effort. What exactly the point is, is not entirely clear, as has been pointed out in a previous RTP&GG post.
Clearly, the original rationale for NATO, to protect European democracies from external threat, has all but disappeared and NATO is looking for a reason for being. Even strong pro-military, pro-western democracy guys like me are wondering why it's still there.
A new development that has occurred under the media radar is showing that some NATO member nations still take NATO's original (and only) reason for being seriously, but that they don't trust NATO to serve that role. Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia have formed a cooperative military group, focused on repelling a Russian invasion...the very thing NATO is intended for. I'm pretty sure all these countries are recent joiners of NATO. Doubtlessly, they read the tea leaves after Russia's bullying adventure in NATO-wannabee country, Georgia, saw NATO's ineffectual response, and are acting accordingly. These countries, long-suffering under the Soviet boot in the Cold War, now worry very much about the Russians, and don't believe they can count on NATO to do the job it was expressly created to do. As the article points out, they are worried that Germany is now focused economically on Russia and may not be greatly motivated to help out the smaller Eastern European countries,
The Germans obviously are struggling to shore up the European Union and questioning precisely how far they are prepared to go in doing so. There are strong political forces in Germany questioning the value of the EU to Germany, and with every new wave of financial crises requiring German money, that sentiment becomes stronger. In the meantime, German relations with Russia have become more important to Germany. Apart from German dependence on Russian energy, Germany has investment opportunities in Russia. The relationship with Russia is becoming more attractive to Germany at the same time that the relationship to NATO and the EU has become more problematic.The formation of the Visegrad group is, in a way, heartening, as it shows individual countries forming alliances to meet specific threats, and not having to depend on the US to save them. For this old Cold Warrior, it's sad to see NATO coming to an end, but it's now an alliance without an enemy. Hard to justify. The US needs to approach things more like the Visegrad group, forming alliances with good friends for good reasons.
This also is one more step in the collapse of the vast transnational groups, and is heartening in that way too. The UN, long past its useful life, NATO past its useful life, the European Union in slow-motion collapse, etc. I don't know if the IMF is close to collapse or not, but the recent scandal involving its leader revealed to us that the head of the IMF was a Socialist. WTF?! I see approaching irrelevency there too.
I usually don't keep up with stuff like this so I am not very informed on the subject. It is interesting that Germany seems to be aligning with Russia. I also heard that one of the candidates running for the French presidency said that they if they won they would create a closer relationship with Russia. It is about the oil.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I have read and know about the subject, Russia is not an ally of America or the West and they are still run by communist. Political opponents are persecuted and I remember reading that during one of their elecitons they burned a bunch of churches. I read they are/were involved in Iran's nuclear program. And immeditly before the begining of the war in Iraq, Russia sold a bunch of night vision equiptment to Iraq. I read in the "Stars and Strips" a while ago that Russia flew a bomber over an American naval exercise. I have read that Putin, the former KGB agent, is considering running for President again. Russia does not appear to be a friend of America. I am willing to bet that Russia will come against America given the opprounity. And it is interesting that President Obama wants to include them in the WTO and cozy up to them at the expense of our traditional allies as they did with the missile defense issue a while back.
I don't know why America is in Libya. The humantiaran rational could be used for Syria or any other nation. Why Libya?
NATO seems to be unwilling to live up to its purpose. It does seem like there needs to be some alliance between the Western nations including the Eastern European nations that are close to Russia so that they can defend against the rising threats against them posed by Russia, China, and the Middle Eastern countries that have vowed the destruction of America and Israel.
I agree that these transnational groups are loosing revelance, but does that mean that they are going away? International organizations might be loosing relevance from the perspective of them fulfilling their intended purposes, but I don't think that they will be done away with. It is like welfare programs here in America that are still around and that have long ago lost their revelance in terms of fulfilling their intended roles or original purposes but are still around: the "War On Poverty" is a failure. I see all of these socialist international organizations creating a global economic crisis, as socialism does, that will push a bunch of nations into a single international organization for awhile until it breaks apart. Look at the EU: it has lead to an economic crisis that is forcing nations into staying in the EU at the cost of their national soverignity. The EU crisis has not lead to the EU loosing its influence. The fact is that the world is getting more interconnected and will only continue down this path. There needs to be revelant international organizations.
Globalization has occured and has been occuring exponentially since the beginning of civilization. It is only now beginning to really hit its vertical slope. This is why I tend to agree with Jeff. Even if these old international organizations dissolve, new ones will be created. For every one dissolved, there seems to be two that replace it.
ReplyDeleteWithout any frontiers, global organizations are bound to arise because of our inter dependency. I think that a one world government is inevitable. Isn't there a biblical prophecy that foretells this?
Unless the world wants to disengage from globalization, which would cause an economic collapse, there will always be the need for revelant international organizations. I support globalization and a more united world as long as it is under capitalism and freedom. Globalization is taking the form of socialism.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that one needs a prophecy, the Bible was not the only one to forsee this, to see that the world is becoming more inter connected and united. The world has been heading in that direction ever since the dawn of human civilization, and technology has now increased the speed at which it happening. A united one world is still a wet dream for the socialist and communist that would like to see this happen. (It is unfortunate that socialist are the ones that seem to be at the forefront and taking the lead of the globalization trend and are taking advantage of it. Where are the capitalist or those that support freedom?) There are a lot of cultural issues that will prevent a truly united world from happening.
A global economic crisis will happen in the next couple of decades that will be far greater than the past one, check out the debates in America on reforming entitlements and debt and look at the EU. If this past eco downturn is any indication or a template for how this will affect the international orders and our relationship to government, then it will lead to nations giving up their national soverignity to international governing bodies in exchange for receiving a "bailout" and preventing economic pain that will result from the failure of socialist economic policies and a more prominent role for government in the economy. Look at the EU.
The Bible does state that a one world order will happen in the book of Revelation: or a political beast that rises out of the peoples of the world, waters. I believe the Bible and read it, but I look at reality and facts to come to my own conclusions on current events: I read secular books and look at news.
Military action in Libya is still questionable: the rebel leaders have connections to Al Qaeda. The G-8 is giving 20billion to the "Arab Spring"--which is an uprising against the West and Israel and will not result in democracies being created. Check out my previous post where the Muslim Brotherhood has taken the lead in Egypt. And Christian churches are being burned in Egypt. And gays are fearing for their lives.http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/05/27/gay.rights.arab.spring/index.html
Very interesting since gays and the dispossed are the 1st ones to support such uprisings and are the 1st ones slaughtered by it. Read "United In Hate". President Obama threw Israel under the bus by wanting it to go back to its 1967 borders. So basically the West is funding and supporting its enemies in the Middle East.
More interconnected for sure. But, the 'We are the world' organizations, joined together for do-gooder missions, such as the UN and IMF, are falling. Organizations of like-minded nations is what I foresee. For example, EU splitting into north and south groups, the Visegrad group, the Anglosphere (which has done virtually all the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan). These are the groups of the future. I don't see anything driving Germans to support Greeks, or Americans to support Brazil. what we are seeing is that, when push comes to shove, the phony international groups collapse. What we are seeing, admittedly after an overlong period, is nations re-asserting their borders.
ReplyDeleteAmericans may not support Brazil, but its government gave it a 2 billion dollar loan to drill for oil in the Gulf--exactly where the very same government banned American companies from drilling. The Germans certaintly don't support the Greeks, but are they not sending money to Greece to avoid financial contagion from affecting them? After all of the posturing, Germany is still supporting a new bailout for Greece. http://www.cnbc.com/id/43233282
ReplyDeleteThe UN is a joke and a failure, but does not mean that it is going away? A lot of government programs are a joke and a failure from the perspective of them fulfilling their stated goals. Aren't they still around? Isn't the closest thing to eternal life on Earth a government bureaucracy. The IMF is still functioning by bailing out nations. But by doing this, they are helping to create a bigger global economic collapse. Unintended, maybe.
I see, understand and agree with most of your points. I agree that a truly united world is a dream of socialist and uptopians. Cultural differences will prevent a truly united globe from being a reality for a long period of time. But with current economic events in mind, that doesn't mean that nations won't be pushed into a global system out of economic necessity. Just look at the EU crisis to see my point. Instead of dissolving the EU and allowing failed nations to leave, they are being pressured into staying the the EU at the expense of their national soverignity. Look at Ireland where the EU would not allow them to hold elections until they voted to receive a EU bailout.