It's only "provocative" because it refuses to participate in the western media's massive denial of the obvious: we have capitulated. There will be no US attack, and Iran will get a nuclear bomb. The Iranians know this, the Bushies know this, the Little Big 3 of the EU know this.

The other obvious and (with one exception) unspoken implication here is that the Atlantic Alliance is finished. Richard Haass had a good piece in the FT acknowledging this the other day: www.ft.com/.../9444b5c2-ad87-11dc-9386-0000779fd2ac.html

What to make of this? We can gnash our teeth all we like, but the simple fact going forward is that the old coalitions don't matter anymore, that Haass is surely right that our future f-p must be based on the idea of "selective cooperation."

The US is on its own, and Israel is on its own.

Sauve qui peut

Long past time we stopped wasting so much bandwidth on European non-powers that can neither help nor harm us much and started getting creative, and ruthlessly realistic, about oru relations to the rising powers that truly can help or harm us in an Asian Century: China, Russia, Japan, India...

You must start right away with your Chinese classes, Tep.

PS: the book better be good. Because if he is making these affirmations somewhat unfoundedly, the reaction will be overwhelming and, in the end, nothing will be learned. On the contrary.

Luis - I'm not happy about it. It's pretty depressing, actually, but the reality's impossible to ignore any longer.

I know you're not. But you are telling a story too grim and somewhat flawed.

First, the Atlantic alliance is not dead. And if it were the responsibility would be to a great degree American. Because it was the Bush diplomacy fiasco and military disaster called Iraq that damaged things.

And when a new attitude appeared in Washington (less arrogant, more of aware of reality) Europeans immediately adopted an attitude of letting past things be past.

And on Iran, if there is a failure it is not of the Atlantic Alliance in intself. Europe has exactly the same position as the US on this (just listen to Sarkozy or Merkel). The problem is that western credibility in general was affected by the Iraq fiasco. But one should not yield and give in to China and it's sudanese policies

Come now, amigo meu, Afghanistan was the good war, remember? The war in self-defense, the one undertaken about a year and a half before Powell's UN presentation on Iraq.

NATO in Afghanistan is a joke. You don't seriously believe that Pres. Hillary or Pres. Obama will somehow magically persuade Germans and Frenchmen to move their aid-pushing troops from north to south Afghanistan and actually, um, fight?

Besides, what exactly is the relevance of the Atlantic Alliance to the #1-4 (after containing Iran) challenges facing the west, if that concpet means anything-- to wit, restraining and integrating a rising China into the international state system, ensuring the health of the international trade and fincnace regime (at the center of which is the US-CHina relationship), reducing gloal warming in-- you guessed it-- the US and China, creating an effective collective security regime in Asia....

Would you include the UK in that "realistic" trinity Teplukhin?

"Long past time we stopped wasting so much bandwidth on European non-powers that can neither help nor harm us much and started getting creative, and ruthlessly realistic, about oru relations to the rising powers that truly can help or harm us in an Asian Century: China, Russia, Japan, India..."

Excellent point, TEP.

What is interesting to me about these new developments is the fact that many Western intellectual have dismissed nationalism as a force in world politics when the reverse is true.

Those countries like Russia, China, etc which are rapidly becoming world powers (again in Russia's case) have substituted nationalism for their defunct Communist ideology.

Europe by contrast has disarmed both militarily and ideologically and is not a strong player in the world today except in the minds of the leftist journalists.

As for the UK, there is no UK. It is neither a real monarchy nor a Nation State. The UK is a hollow shell.

What would you be prepared to give in return for that new friendship and correspondent Asia security? Sudan, Zimbabwe, Israel... we'll close our eyes, dear friends, to whatever genocidal regimes you decide to endorse... Is this it?

And you're right on many things failling right now. The Atlantic Alliance was builted for a Cold war scenario in which America had no interest in the development of a military Europe outside it's strong supervision...

From 1989 this world died and nothing was thought about new threats emerging... And well, we all know what happened... and guess what, instead of thinking about building a new equilibrium able to face new conditions, America decides to invade Iraq (still trying to understand exactly why)....

A real homework, long overdue, must be made, instead of accepting the "fait accompli" of the lost of western influence with all inherent consequences... And a strong impulse must be American... Of course, wisely, prudently American and not childishly, stupidly American....

Since this childish President leaves the most absurd legacy one could think about. The West is dishorihented, Russia's Putin feels free to challenge everyone (even to sell nuclear material to Iran, not to mention the energy problems, Ukraine, etc.), China laughs while extending silently an area of influence that's already overwhelming (simultaneously sponsoring minor things as genocides), etc., etc.

You better choose right your next President... And please do not dream of having a peaceful future world in which you enjoy retirement under China's rules....

Yes, everyone's pretty much on his own in this century. There's no clear fault line around which alliances of the old NATO or Warsaw Pact variety can be formed.

Not that Americans don't desperately want to believe in angels and demons. Before 9/11, neocon worthies Kristol & Kagan (sounds like Frick & Frack, or Penn & Teller, don't it?) thought the fault line would be China, but we're obviously joined at the hip to China now, so that's ridiculous. As reported in the NYT story about China Inc's buying up 10% of Morgan Stanley-- Morgan Stanley!-- yesterday, the gallows joke now on Wall St trading floors is supposedly "Shanghai, Dubai, Mumbai, or bye-bye"....

Then after 9/11 the neocons thought the new global fault line would form around Global Jihad, but obviously the threat's a lot more amorphous than that-- which side, exactly, is Pakistan on?-- and in any case US and the European interests diverge too much on too many issues for us really to count on each other with any real assurance.

The US left for its part wants desperately to believe that there are Progressive Nations that will somehow band together to fight monsters such as global warming, genocide, global poverty etc. Plenty of truth to this re W Europe, but again, this is not a euro-centric world anymore. China already pollutes more, contributes more to GW than we do. China doesn't give a f*** about genocide. Neither do the Russians, and I don't see the Indian kleptocrats doing anything significant to redistribute some of their newfound wealth to their hundreds of millions of hungry, fourth-world citizens.

Face it, this world environment doesn't support Big Ideas and Grands Projets.

All we are saaaayyyyyying... is give REALISM a chance

"First, the Atlantic alliance is not dead." Luis

Not dead yet, but surely on life support.

"And if it were the responsibility would be to a great degree American. Because it was the Bush diplomacy fiasco and military disaster called Iraq that damaged things."

The Iraq war is merely a symptom of what ails the alliance.

In any case, I am not endorsing the Haas article in toto.

I concur with the sentiment Teplukhin. But I'm not sure I follow your argument.

The Chinese (like the rest of us) have to buy something with those Dollars. And trying to diversify some of the risk between US debt and equity is something the Europeans have been doing for decades. It's more a sign of that Chinese integration that you crave than of any realist"holy relic.

My question was genuine. Would the UK get under the MD umbrella? Would Canada? Would Australia (home to the world's largest deposits of uranium), and so on.

Is it a European continental thing?

Apart from pulling a few diplomats out of Berlin and Brussels, you haven't explained what your new Asian-Centric FP would look like. Pre-emptive war? You already do that. Ignore the UN?  You already do that. Ignore climate change? You already do that. Favourable trade deals with China? You can't (won't) even get them to stop subsidising their exports with their fake "people's currency".

Are you talking about "old Europe" or "new Europe"? How are you going to ringfence Russia with that "missile shield" without a European centric policy?

Less invective, more detail please.

Europe has been remarkably inconsistent on issues of defense. This has been true throughout the cold war period and it’s even truer today when it’s unclear if the continent has one or scores of different foreign policies.

Germany isn’t of much use in issues of defense for obvious reasons. The UK under Blair tried to play a substantial role in the war on terror, but he was subverted at every turn by his party and the left leaning media as well as pressures from Oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia that are increasingly interfering in the domestic affairs of certain European countries.  

France which has traditionally been hostile to the US has recently elected a pro-American administration. However, it’s unclear if Sarkozy will be able to implement a new foreign policy because of internal and external (EU) pressures.

All in all, Europe is not a major player in world affairs these days.   It’s possible that Europe prefers it this way. One of the most telling sentences in Kuntzel’s article on the NIE is the following:

“Subsequent efforts by newly elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy to establish a unified European sanctions regime were foiled by the determined resistance of Germany, Austria, Italy, and Spain.”

It seems that the European centralized political set up which gives individual countries the right to resist a common foreign policy is ideal for thwarting any unified approach to aggressive regimes.

Hence because of structural as well as political reasons, Europe is not longer a serious player on the world stage.

"It seems that the European centralized political set up which gives individual countries the right to resist a common foreign policy is ideal for thwarting any unified approach to aggressive regimes."

I don't get this. You attack Europe for lack of a unitary stand and simultaneously you provoked a major division crisis in EU with the Iraq diplomacy tactics... And you mock at every effort to overcome the problem by means of creating a new European single voice on the world stage. When you don't simply ignore it.

Anyway, you're right on saying that Europe has no wish of having an aggressive leadership role in world affairs. Everyone was counting on a wise US for that (since in these last 50 years the US has demanded that role). And the mechanisms Europe uses are only soft power ones (sometimes more effective, others less).

And one thing is for sure. Europe in no way is suffering from the huge trade and financial imbalances that are leaving the US so vulnerable. You hold on to economists dogma, to myths of free trade and free everything, simultaneously adopting an hedonist life-style that wasn't seen since the decadence of Rome, and when you notice, you don't have industry at all and Morgan Stanley is bought

And is this discussion really relevant? From my point of view, efforts should be putten on overcoming all these problems and on preserving a Western leadership (political and economical) in world stage. From my point of view, these are the last years in which that can be achieved. And it must, since the consequences of not doing it would be grim. For everyone. Americans and Europeans (and Israelis, and Darfurians, etc.)

And one thing should be taken into account. China is vulnerable at a most essential level. It's a tyrannic regime that subsists since everyone is counting on the opium allowed by hedonist free market. If you attack the correspondent myths (reading the most forgotten Galbraith would help...) , the regime get's unsustainable. But is America finally prepared to do some self-searching and some homework? Or will it simply crumble, victim of the vices it created?

The world has been in a state of flux since the fall of comminism, and it's not at all clear what the next status quo  will look like.  Fair to say, though, that currently not a single country or alliance controls the flow of events on the world stage - a potentially pretty dangerous condition given the many new/old forces driving in their own directions (Russia, China, Iran, Jihad International, North Korea).  Or anti-forces - the collapsing states and whole regions.  It may somehow blow over - or blow hard in our faces.

Re some specific points

- EU doesn't have a common foreign policy (never has, never will - just too many divergent national interests under common umbrella).  Examples abound - take the crisis in former Yugoslavia which was solved only when the US intervened, take its collective inaction in Rwanda and now in Darfur.  Consider also its lack of military power.  On Iran, Sarkozy's efforts for sanctions were presumably thwarted by Germany and others, but earlier it was France that tried hard to do business  with Saddam and protect him against the US and UK.

- I'm all for giving realism a chance (and who can be possibly against it?) - but what is realism today?  eg,  China, Russia and Germany realistically could make it very difficult for Iran to continue its nuclear program.  They could, but they currently won't - so,  what's a realist to do?  The first two could also do something about Darfur, but again, they won't - so?

Giving up on halting Iran's nuclear program and hoping for the best?  Examples, please.

Iggy - no desire to hurl "invective" here; sorry if it came across as such. I'm a euro-centric guy meself, grandparents were european, wife's european, determined to ensure my kids are immersed in their european cultural and intellectual heritage, hope they marry europeans etc.

But I'm also a hard-core realist. eppur si muovo etc

To your q's:

"Would the UK get under the MD umbrella?" Why do they need to? WWe share all sorts of info and weapons systems, protect them in plenty fo ways. Ditto for Canada. It would be stupid for either of these nations to go on point, as it were, int he nuclear field when we're willing to do so on their behalf.

"Would Australia (home to the world's largest deposits of uranium)?" Too much work. Aussies would rather drink and hang out at the beach.

"Apart from pulling a few diplomats out of Berlin and Brussels, you haven't explained what your new Asian-Centric FP would look like."

Read the Haass article in the FT. Shifting coalitions, subtle diplomacy, no country viewed as either totally a friend or totally a foe. Above all, new security arrangements in Asia that accomodate new realities-- China's destabilizing rise, Japan's huge rearmament (IIUC they're now s.t. like the 5th most powerful military on the planet), India's large and growing naval capabilities etc. All fo this will require a massive shift in not just resources incl diplomatic ones but also admin and congressional bandwidth, intellectual focus and press coverage, increased exchanges of students and artists/intellos etc etc. A sea change in orientation.

"Pre-emptive war?"

No. Pre-empting non-existent WMD was a grave error, not to be repeated. No pre-emption unless/until we develop credible, serious human intel on the ground inside the target nation. In other words, no more pre-emption in our lifetimes.

" Ignore the UN?"

Not ignore, but no more than the minimum necessary. The UNSC structure is an anachronism, esp given that 2 of the members ahve a foreign policy approach that is designed mainly to game the system for commercial advantage and thwart the US wherever possible. cf the sanctions-destroying sweetheart oil deals that France and Russia signed in late 2002 with Saddam-- again, in defiance of international law that they themselves signed! Another reason the UNSC is anachronistic: it includes 3 European members and only one Asian member. That ratio should be reversed.

"Ignore climate change? You already do that." not anymore. Bush is already changing his tune. We should ignore Kyoto, esp since its signatories themselves are not even in compliance. But you're right, we should propose a replacement, one that focuses on CHINA.

"Are you talking about "old Europe" or "new Europe"?" Both.

"How are you going to ringfence Russia with that "missile shield" without a European centric policy?"

I have no desire to "ringfence Russia." Their power consists entirely of 1) their aging WMD stocks and teh threat that the criminalized Russian state will trade in same with rogue states, and 2) oil. The solution to #1 is smart diplomacy and cooperation a la Nunn-Lugar. Solution to #2, alas, is to eliminate our dependence on imported oil ie mass transit, alternative fuels, drilling in ANWR, Alberta tar sands oil etc etc. We can learn a great deal from Europe re mass transit-- would that we had rail service like France's-- but there's not much we can do with the Europeans. The Germans are already in Putin's pocket-- look at Shroeder's whoring at Gazprom. Shamefu, yes, but not a damned thing we can do about it except make Russian oil irrelevant to us.

Hope that helps.

I think no one is saying that anyone should be treated as foe. What one is saying is that perhaps that realism is precisely the weird realism that has been behind US foreign policy in these last decades and that is ending up by placing the power of international rule making outside the West (which didn't happen at least since the Greeks beaten the Persians).

Quite frankly this scares the hell out of me. Not to think about the humiliation. For God sake, have we reached India and China to be ruled by them? Have we invented their economic system to be under their power?

Of course, China and India must have a role in the world stage. As long as they recognize that this role is within a frame that was created by the West.

If America was a little wiser (for instance on climate change) the speech wouldn't be: as long as China doesn't comply, we don't comply as well. This is a domestic cat speech, unworthy. You would say: if you want open markets you'll comply with our rules. If not, farewell. Of course, you are least and least in a position to do this since there is no real political speech in America. Politics is dominated by economics and by a hedonist population never before seen. As long as we eat at the fashion restaurant, review the "chefs", buy the latest european model, smoke some grass and think about absurdities such as gay marriage, we don't care...

I wonder what the world would look like now with Saddam still in power with his having effectively broken the UNSC?

Luis. It seems to me that there has been a convergence of factors which have contributed to Europes low opinion of the US. One: It is quite natural to resent the top dog. In the absence of the communist threat the US became  the arbitrary watchdog that might need a little slapping down. I submit that there has been more than a little pleasure in some quarters at watching the US founder and struggle in the ME for this simple primitive reason. Canada for all of it well intentioned neighborliness truly does have this very thing going for its collective psyche.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to give me your bird eye opinion about this perception I have.

Largely I agree with your morality conjectures and the global dissonance which manifest. Oscillations between confident strapper and Doubting Thomas allow other wanting players to move while dithering introspection is the order of the day.

Just a few thoughts.

"I submit that there has been more than a little pleasure in some quarters at watching the US founder and struggle in the ME for this simple primitive reason."

Yes, perhaps. But I don't think that's widely spread, not in Europe. People are actually scared about the idea of weakness of the giant. Europeans in general -- and discounting the far-left wing intellectuals -- genuinely like Americans and feel recognition for their role.

If there is some sort of triumphalism about the Iraq situation, it's much more circumstantial because people generally detest Bush... And his diplomacy tactics in 2003 (freedom fries, "old Europe" and "new Europe", etc, surely doesn't help)

On Canada, I don't know. Perhaps still the annoying British superiority complex over everyone around imported? Just joking

Another thing: It's strange (or not so strange) that an economically centered thought is facing this idea of rule-making China as a natural thing, something to be accepted. Another confirmation that there isn't as dangerous and as civilizational unframed thought as economic thought. And what's more scary is that they enjoy almost absolute power these days...

No one reads Galbraith anymore. It's such a piety. Since his Anatomy of Power is on my list as one of the best books from these last decades. Absolutely brilliant. And crucial to understand the kind of power that rules under western societies and it's astonishing ability to frame minds... And what's more scary is that this kind of power is also a betraying power in the classic sense...

Sabaka, on your last point, I believe we have already given up on stopping Iran from obtaining a nuke.  What happens thereafter is that we call on our old friend, deterrence, the mullahs not apparently having suicidal tendencies.

Only it should be deterrence plus.  We tell the mullahs that if they fire off a nuke, Iran disappears.  Further, if a nuke goes off and we can't figure out where it came from, Iran STILL disappears.  Presto, the mullahs have non-proliferation as a very important national interest.

BTW, this is a great thread that I wish happened more often on this new, Godforsaken format.

And Happy Holidays to all.

He who has the power makes the rules. "Covenants without swords are useless."

China's developing military/technological power that will be consonant with its enormous economic power. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Face it, the axis of history has shifted irrevocably from Europe to Asia. Any foreign policy that ignores this central, overwhelming fact of our era is guaranteed to fail. Again, I ** * am not happy about this situation ***, but preserving what we have in the West-- the moral-cultural-political achievements above all-- demands that we "face necessities like necessities," as King Henry IV put it.

"Covenants without swords are useless."

You don't lack the swords. You lack the will. You feel very confortable and confident...

Another thing: this "Asia turn" is still European made. Contemporary political and economic Chinese culture is European made. The problem is that it is the worst of the European made and not the best... as it is the worst in American culture (anomic, "scientific" economics + political apathy) and not the best... and what scares me is that the acceptance of an "Asian turn" within the American culture means that America is prepared to live, without reaction, with it's worst, letting definitively down it's best...

Snap out of it!

"As it is the worst in American culture (anomic, "scientific" economics + political apathy) and not the best... and what scares me is that the acceptance of an "Asian turn" within the American culture means that America is prepared to live, without reaction, with it's worst, letting definitively down it's best..."  Luis, I couldn't agree more.  China has barely come up in the democratic debates (confession: I haven't watched the Republicans because I can't bare to).  And the trouble is, unless your Kucinich, who's been dismissed as a freak, nobody talks about protecting U.S. jobs.  Regarding China, it's all "led paint" and "tainted dog food."  No mention that I can remember of enforcing fair labor practices.  The candidates either think we're too dumb to see the bigger picture or they themselves have already admitted defeat, like those dogs in shock experiments who just lie down, helpless.  Or, most likely, have sold out to giant corporations. And so they keep cramming it down our throats.   God forbid they should bother finding a middle ground.  

Even Marty, who earlier mentioned his love of globalization, writes, "Of course, many individuals will pay for this progress with lower pay and fewer respectable jobs so that others elsewhere will get higher pay and real jobs that they had not seen before."  (Nice, given that he's got millions in the bank.)  Why should we care about Indians and Chinese having better lives?  Morally, yes, but only after we've ensured we've taken care of Americans and, as you say Luis, by extension, kept the beast of China from getting even bigger.  

Perhaps I'm misreading all of you.   I'm so impressed by the opinions and thoughtfulness here that I almost didn't give my two cents.  

By the way, Luis, I don't think the debate about gay rights is absurd. It's an extension of our protecting peoples' freedoms.  It's a shame, though, that this dominates the debate in any way.  It's a distraction, yes, but also a pressing matter that should have been decided long ago.  But then, what else could the Republicans do to rile their base.  

Invective was the wrong word. It implied I was offended and I wasn't, I just wanted a bit more detail on one of your recurring themes. Rhetoric was probably more apt.

Look, I'm not a militant pro European. We mostly have to carry the non-German continentals who are a buch of lazy peasent communists mostly.

There's a lot wrong with your thesis. China is being succesfully boxed in, the rearming of Japan is part of that, as is India but I'm just in the door after braving inf*ckingsane Xmas traffic (people who do nothing but shop have no lives) so my breakthrough, breathtaking analysis will have to wait until I've got a cup of tea.

Invective was the wrong word. It implied I was offended and I wasn't, I just wanted a bit more detail on one of your recurring themes. Rhetoric was probably more apt.

Look, I'm not a militant pro European. We mostly have to carry the non-German continentals who are a buch of lazy peasent communists mostly.

There's a lot wrong with your thesis. China is being succesfully boxed in, the rearming of Japan is part of that, as is India but I'm just in the door after braving inf*ckingsane Xmas traffic (people who do nothing but shop have no lives) so my breakthrough, breathtaking analysis will have to wait until I've got a cup of tea.

OK, your turn(s), gentillhommes. How do you propose to revive / save / restore The West?

Luis, you criticize us yankee moneygrubbers, fair enough. We've always been crassly mercantile. Morgan Stanley traders' pinstripes can't disguise the blood of the original bandit, who himself was supposedly descended from a pirate.

My problem with a prospective euro-alliance is that Europe today represents EXACTLY the same thing, a globalizing capitalist's paradise. Your own workers are resentful of the EU precisely because they're on to the game, which is all about "competitiveness" ie enabling hyper-mobile capital flows across a level playing field-- level as in leveling wages across west, north, south and east Europe. I am the last person to dismiss EU competitiveness-- Europe has great companies, super-smart technologists, plenty of good investment opportunities, and a reasonably bright _economic _ future. But money + a nice life is all that Europe can really deliver. That's great for Europeans but it means little to any nation that does not seek to join the EU.  

"Your own workers are resentful of the EU precisely because they're on to the game, which is all about "competitiveness" ie enabling hyper-mobile capital flows across a level playing field"

Well... you're sort of right. But that's what the EU is becoming, mostly in these last two decades. At it's heart , it is not this. It is a civilizational project. And if that component is lost and it turns into a mere "competitiveness" haven, then, my friend, it is doomed. It will crash directly on the floor, just like a card castle. The political part is what, at heart, supports it. Not the economic.

And I didn't say that this "scientific" economics + political "apathy" + society anomy was only being felt in the US. It is being felt in Europe as well. And, if it it's not attacked, it is going to compromise Europe as much as it is compromising the US.

If there isn't a cultural reaction to this, at a certain point, we're all going to become little consummering verms, with nothing on their heads but the stock market ups and downs, and with no other wishes but the latest model or the latest restaurant sensation, while some autochratic moguls (probably Chinese, many of them) put down the rules we live by... As to poverty, genocides and hunger just ignore them... And, what's worst, considering we have wonderful, plentiful lifes... Living under a despotism that is as perverse, as it is gentile (Tocqueville described it perfectly...)

Long live conformity and uniformity of minds! Down the hopeful restlessness and seek for justice that always characterized the West, philosophicaly and practicaly!

"We mostly have to carry the non-German continentals who are a buch of lazy peasent communists mostly."

Do I have to listen to this from this distasteful child? NO! Sit down and learn, Johnny!

Sorry Louis but they're the ones with the Battle Groups. We might be thick, but we're not stupid.

They can use Shannon any time they want. We'll even do a jig to entertain the troops as they "rendition". And if they run out of heavy metal music, we can supply Brendan Carroll's greatest comedic moments. Believe me, that will prove, very quickly that torture does work.

"We've always been crassly mercantile"

That's not true. America's gene code is not "crassly mercantile". Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt and MLK -- the framers of the American mind -- were never crassly mercantile... On the contrary!

There has always been, I recognize, a conflict between two Americas, two projects. A confllict that, during the founding was represented by Jefferson and Hamilton. But you haven't builted memorials to Hamilton!

Imagine Jefferson waking up from the dead and watchin at a "crassly mercantile" America gladly placing itself under China's economic and political influence... Too hedonist and anomic to even tell the difference... Too uncultivated to even learn about itself. The man weeps. I can see the tears down his face.

Luis, if you don't think we're mercantile (or at least crassly capitalist) you need to visit Vegas.  We do things nobody else does, there and elsewhere.

I agree with tep that this will be an Asian century...but not quite yet.  The habits of mind and patterns of thought that obtained during the struggles of the 20th century will take a bit longer to fade.  It will probably take the death of the boomers for our Eurocentricity to fully die.

But die it will.  Luckily, America is an Asian nation as sure as it is a European one.  The relationship with China is the most important one in the world today, and for the future.  We must manage the rise of China, and China must decide if it wants to be a global power, or setle for regional status.

We also have strong alliances with friends Japan, Australia, and India (see management of China, supra).  Russia will act as Russia has historically acted - as a major pain in the tuchas, rarely if ever playing a constructive role, while insisting on being recognized as a "Great Power."

In Latin America, we must help Mexico find its way to a lesser corrupt future, for both our sakes, and pay a lot more attention to Brazil.

The West needs to get off oil - as soon and as painlessly as possible.  The US needs to get off of imported energy of all kinds, which means using our own oil (ANWR) while we develop politically popular, but insufficient (today) sources of energy (wind, solar, biomass).  This will take awhile, global warming or no.

None of the above is beyond the ken of US/Western diplomacy, but I am doubtful that we will summon the will and the wisdom to make it happen. Hope I'm wrong.

Well, luis, now we're coming to the nub of it, aren't we? (Obrigad' for your wise response, btw.)

The New (American) Republic has always had both an idealistic and a mercantile face-- Franklin the Enlightenment Intellectual + Poor Richard, the Healthy Wealthy Wise Entrepreneur. But for the Republic to project its influence far beyond its borders, ie influence not just other nations' intellectuals but actually alter the course of other nations' history, the US had to develop and deploy _real military power_. Aside from helping push Louis XVII's ancien regime deeper into debt, we did not influence any other nation in any major way prior to the development of a great fleet and the willingness to use it against Imperial Spain at the end of the 19c.

You are rightly proud of postwar Europe's phenomenal twin achievements in the political, or as you say, "civilisational" sphere: the permanent pacification and anchoring of Germany in a stable European regime, and the restoration of most of the eastern nations into their historical and spiritual European home.

But now the test for this shining-- and I mean that in all sincerity (I'm a europhile, remember)-- "civilisation" is, ironically, the same test that Thatcher set for NATO: either "go out of area, or go out of business." Here the contradictions start to mount. The main lever that the EU has is admission to its club. But the really important candidates for this club are those that reject core tenets of the new European "civilisation"-- brutal and increasingly islamist Turkey, and brutal and thoroughly criminalized Russia.

Alternatively, if Europe/EU can somehow manage to expand to include Turkey and Russia , then it  will truly be a great power with a capacity to influence Asia in this Asian Century. Remember Gorbachev's poignant vision way back when, of a community stretching from "Vancouver to Vladivostok"? --sigh...

I don't know how you square this circle, I only know that so long as these great nations on your periphery reject Europe in the spheres that really matter-- I call it "political", you can them "civilisational" if you prefer-- no amount of baby steps or Sarko-led Mediterranean Union projects will give Europe the real, hard _power_ needed to have any influence on Asia's course in this century.

Y'all are trying to contain/constrain/direct China et al through conferences and trade missions. Wrong strategy. Get some real force, and get Russia esp, Turkey also inside your house, and then the Chinese will listen to you. I mean, to us

0 :-)    <= better angel of my nature)

best,

T

Difficult? Damn straight. First, to develop real ie out-of-area military capabilities, you'll have to either tax your people (even) more or else divert social funds

Another example: Wilson's League of Nations was a bold and inspiring idea, but it meant nothing without military force behind it.

I've been to Vegas Butchie, so I know exactly what you mean. The whole place for be demolished and given back to the desert, which is much more interesting.

Always avoided Vegas, Butchie. But the places I visited (NY, Philadelphia, San Francisco, etc.) felt just like home (except for the lack of real cafes, which is a most uncivilized aspect..., but the bookshops compensate). LA was kind of strange, but still recognizable.

I still think you're focusing the wrong aspect Tep. Military might is a consequence of cultural might. It is not the other way around...

...and hopefully, I think we will have a surprise with China. Just explore their weak point. Just destroy intellectualy the basis of their economic and political system, adopt the correct propaganda stance and they're down. Crash!

It is cultural blindness in the West that feeds Asia...

Off topic folks but it's Friday.

I've been to Lisboa as well Louis. Interesting spot. What do you think of it?

P.S. Louis you can use me mail if you need to do so at any point: theignorantpopulist@hotmail.com

Just a side note: strangely these days, only the pope faces China.

What are you giving me your private e-mail for, Johnny? You don't think I'm going to give you private lessons, do you?

Well, on Lisboa, I don't know. I live here (since my daughter was born, not in the center but in an habitable and simultaneously afordable place in the suburbs). Sometimes hate it. Sometimes love it. Most of times like it, sort of. Finally the subway works are ending, at least at the city center, so it is more pleasant this way.

And what do you think of it? That's what matters.

And everyone (making some turism promotion and of home artists, as well), if you want to listen to a beautiful song and watch a beautiful video about the city, go here:

www.youtube.com/watch

I actually thought it looked a bit run down but in a really cool end of empire kinda way. The drivers are the most insane in the world. Period. The Italians have nothing on them.

But we got lost off the train and ended up wading though real Lisboa, before the beautiful squares.

Interesting place.

"a bit run down but in a really cool end of empire kinda way"

Well that's our condition in a way. You must read Fernando Pessoa to get the precise idea.

And to preserve a capital of empire when there isn't an empire anymore costs a fortune. But things are improving.

Never went to Dublin. It's on my list since my teenage years, but for this or that, never went.

Heard wonderful things about people being very warm and visitors being permanently drunk and things like that.

That's true Louis. And if you find my pot of gold, I have to grant you three wishes. (Seriously, it's part of the Republic's constitution.)

Dublin would surprise you Louis. You can't have a smoke outside, queue at an ATM, wait for a cab or generally stand in the street without hoards of well dressed chancers looking for money.

But amongst them are the lost, our modern famine ghosts. Dublin city centre has a very serious Heroin problem. And a really vibrant street culture, which allows for busking, painting, mime or just plain mad people pimping Jesus is in threat. And Dublin has also assimilated the homeless, everywhere beside every ATM or bus lines. Just another fact of life. The architecture is pretty grim, apart from some magical Georgian Squares and our suberbs are mini Milton Keyes.

Galway it ain't.

But it's got a great condensed (Dublin is small you can stumble thourgh it) culture scene.

We have great food here. Real butter, bacon, yogurt, bread and just the best chesse.  Have you seen the foam butter in the States Louis?

God forgive them.  

And what's with their interpretation of the pig? A fine animal - as intelligent as dogs. They do it an injustice with their streaky bacon, everywhere, at all prices. Rashers don't exist, just thin strips of fat. As a matter of fact that's more evidence of the Jewish plot. Jew's are rationing the bacon to supress the Anglo-Saxon will to freedom.

"Bringing home the bacon"! Members of Congress are hatching plots via a secret Hebrew code.

God damn it Marty. The bacon's the smoking gun.  

I'm on the Jewish side on this. Take the bacon out of their asses and they will probably get more tolerable.

You know what? Never eaten better in my entire life as in the US. Since my brother is a math university professor in the US and has all the established vices of the American alienated bourgeosie, including the restaurants thing (it's extraordinary, they talk about restaurants as one would talk about playwriters and novelists). And are willing to spend fortunes (meaning: FORTUNES) eating at restaurants. When I visit him, I pay as much for the restaurants (or more) as I pay for the plane ticket.

I had heard about the heroine problem. But not about the beggars. They probably avoid Portuguese tourists. They probably know that we are broke.

I eat out a lot with work Luis. I've been to nearly every restaurant in this town and I've done the low and high of Manhattan, Phenoix, Vegas and Baltimore. (A valid sample, surely?).

Let me tell you the medium in Manhattan, even taking into account the currency adjustment, would get you some serious chow at home. Maybe I'm wrong. Worst city to eat in Europe Louis? Amsterdam, hands down. Truly shocking, deep fried hell.

"I had heard about the heroine problem. But not about the beggars. They probably avoid Portuguese tourists. They probably know that we are broke." Social democracy in action Louis!

You're right about Amsterdam. But in Northern Europe it's the same thing all around. Bring your own food or you'll get poisoned, is what we say. One must get below Munich's parallel to eat properly. Discounting France, of course.

Don't know about that Louis. My olives were small and dry, in every place.

You have to come north for decent olives, of all shades. Ironic that.

Sweet Christ, I'm judging a city by the dryness of its olives. Anglo-Saxon standards of living haunt me Louis. Is this what Wolfe Tone died for?

And what if excess of love

Bewildered them till they died?

I write it in a verse --

Macdonagh and MacBride

And Connolly and Pearse

Now and in time to be,

Wherever green is worn,

Are changed, changed utterly:

A terrible beauty is born

For the people at the back.

Yeat's view of national(ism)/patriot(ism) as a "terrible beauty", is as seductive as our ubiquitous consumer(ism).

The only kind of nationalism I can find beauty in is the Jewish kind. The nationalism of a powerless tiny people that believed that their land was one of "milk" and "honey" when only metaphorically it could be considered so. Saying ythis way that this world is a good world and simultaneously that we are persons with a relation with that ultimate good. Thus revealing the truths that still shapen our very selves today.

It's incredible how a powerless tiny little people could ultimately shape what we call today Western Civilization. And one should think about the reasons of the incredible power of that people and of the Man that, for me, is their unacknowledged King...

How today a gigantic people that originally was so inspired by that people is feeling so lost and helpless. I hope that this lost doesn't mean the definitive lost of that idea that this world is a good world... I honestly hope that we have not all turned into helpless "realists"...

And on the other kind of nationalism, I'm glad it is dead. Just yesterday we had another proof of that. Can you believe it? Just yesterday the Polish-German border was abolished? The realistically unthinkable, just 20 years ago, is a reality for us all to admire...

And I'm idealist?

One other thing: I've just watched again Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette on DVD. The woman is a genius. There could be no better portrait of the contemporary alienated culture of a completely lost American bourgeoisie. Incredible how could she think of it, giving us the perfect idea through the story of Marie Antoinette.

She probably read Arendt. The part in which she describes the contemporary consumer societies as being increasingly inhabited by aristocratic wanabes that put their status on absurd society codes or define themselves as "fashion addicts" or "food snobs"...

Couldn't agree more with you Luis on Marie Antoinette. Just loved that film. Almost like a dream in parts.

Luis,

Very touching to me what you say about Jewish nationalism.  I couldn't agree about the fashion addict horror--so upsetting to see twentysomething girls, who earn next-to-nothing, spending $1,000 on the latest Balenciaga bag just because they've seen Lindsey Lohan sporting one on her way to rehab.

BUT:  Going after foodies?  Americans are finally getting gastronomy.  You guys in Europe have had centuries to develop/understand cuisine.  Plus, Europeans are always criticizing us for not taking the time to cook.  Not really sure what a food snob is.  Or anyone who defines themselves solely as such. I may qualify, in that I've traveled some, eaten around, and know what good food is supposed to taste like.  I still love McDonalds, will still cook my kids mac and cheese from a box, and don't hold it against people who use Hamburger Helper (only ask if you must know).  If you mean people who take the time to think about food, count me in as well.   Or the Italians.  Europeans are way more consumed by food than we are.  What are the French if not food snobs?  And wine snobs.  I'm not interested in living like a monk.

Meant to say "I couldn't agree more about the fashion addict horror."  

And speaking of Marie Antoinette:  Coppola, who happens to be a huge fashion addict, was talking about the decadence of the VERY rich.  Most  "consumerist" Americans don't fall into that category.  

Yes, she is portraying the very rich. But she is also portraying, conciously or unconciously, the alienated standards that start to take over the American society. She is portraying what people have started to admire without questioning.

Everyone is hedonist and, at the same time, everyone is "natural". This doesn't mark only the rich but the masses that watch Oprah and that share her "passion for Valentino" even if they would never aford a Valentino dress (they buy once in a while a Valentino perfume with their credit cards and feel fulfilled, and if they don't own a Maseratti, they buy car magazines in which Mr. X is portrayed with his Maseratti and dream that they are Mr. X). And everyone adores the contemporary versions of Count Fersen, dreaming to fall in his arms in their imaginary "petit trianons". And the contemporary "social imaginary" (as Taylor would call it) is filled with the exact same stupid reading of Rousseau that Marie Antoinette shared with her friends.

This imaginary subsists in different versions and in different wallets all over Western societies.

One of the manifestations is seen amongst "food snobs". This hasn't got to do with healthy food and some enjoyment of life. This has to do with social stratification taking over the American society. It is healthy and tasty to get tuna or codfish well cooked. But for many one must get the smartest sushi in town, pay 300 dollars for a meal plus your own wine. These guys aren't making a statement about healthy food and enjoyment for life. They are making a statement about their own social superiority. And Oprah like TV shows diffuse these message and every housewife in America dreams with this and tries to imitate...

Hey, one could even eat occasionaly at Macdonalds and at Pizza Hut without having one's relatives falling into the mud and one's ancestors falling from grace, is what I think...

And what's more amazing is that all the elites are taken over by this new forms of social stratification and alienation. Even the so-called cultivated elites. Which are not so cultivated as that. Mostly when the most prestigious disciplines in Universities these days are science and economics. So the scientists get together and discuss the stock market (they do not know how to talk about anything else really) or the lovely restaurants they attend. And the economists fix the amoral rules we all live by even if the theorethical foundation of their building is completely discredited (but who cares, they already assume amongst themselves that they live within an "as if" universe that simultaneously is highly effective in fulfilling the immense cultural void that persists). And everyone at a certain point feels authorized to discuss God without even understanding slightly what God is about.

And since we are talking about films that portray the amorality of the age (it's destruction of moral standards and it's simultaneous -- very perverse -- aesthetic atractiveness), Woody Allen's Match Point is an absolute masterpiece. In this case, it seems, it is consciously made, even considering the brilliant parallel with "Crime and Punishment".

The film in the end is immensely moral. The main character has achieved all his objectives, but is completely repulsive: his face is humanless. And the well-to-do and simultaneously classist family gets it's deserved punishment. The cancer lives inside them and they are completely unaware of it...

And have you noticed -- as a strange sign of the age -- the fact of Match Point's actor (the repulsive, humanless character that achieves all his objectives, becoming truly an amoral superman) is simultaneous a hero in advertising pages of widely read magazines? From Valentino sunglasses to exclusive tourist resorts 10000 miles away?

Yes, Match Point--now THAT was a movie.  And Scarlett Johanssen's performance way under-rated.   I don't think, though, that Allen was talking about the amorality of this age.  To me, this was a timeless story, albeit one set in upper-class England.  Which is far more fun to watch than people struggling in the north of England.  For Allen, this is certainly true.  And this would be the case in any age.  The character was repulsive, but you can find him in any film noir movie from the late 40s/early 50s.  An ordinary, if somewhat weak, man who engineers his own downfall.  In Allen's movie, as with the noirs, most audience members half-hope he'll get away with it.   If you haven't watched much or any noir, you must.  I could see you especially enjoying it.  Lots take place in post-war L.A., which can often be seen as one of the movie's characters.  

As for the Maserati-loving masses, guys have always loved cars (and train sets, for that matter).  My dad was born in 1929, well before mass consumerism, and if he sees a Rolls parked on the street (that happens in certain parts of L.A.), he stops to gawk.  Cars can be things of beauty, as are Hermes bags and Viking ranges.  But I do think a lot of this excess craving is not just mass consumerism but mass media.  Still, I just don't see American lives as being that empty of meaning.  The empty-faced models sporting sun-glasses; that's marketing.  

The poor have always envied the rich--they had society pages even in Victorian England.  As for our spending, crap is cheap, hence the shopping.  You take away the junk and you have my happy 70s childhood.  I don't think my kids' childhood is any less pure than mine was.   I just have more to throw out than my parents did, and that's the part that sickens me.  The waste.

By the way, re: MacEachern, I don't have the stomach or background for that fight.  But I will say I once googled his name for images, and the guy is beyond vain.  There are photos of him in Africa, very much like the great white hunter, surrounded by happy, smiling-faced natives.  

Not exactly the thoughts one should be having on Christmas eve, but happy Noel to you and your family, Luis.  I really appreciate your posts.    

Merry Christmas to you too as well Molly. I'm trying to make sense of this all amongst my 7 nephews and nices, their noisy new toys and my ill tempered mother. And on top of everything, I think I developped one of those awfull flues that affect the gastric part.