And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from president Barack Obama that private Ryan and his comrades should redeploy to Asia, where the action is going to be.
The strategy document Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense tells us that in keeping with this evolving strategic landscape, our (US) posture in Europe must also evolve (meaning far less men and weapons in Europe). This can hardly come as a surprise to even the most casual of news followers.
While both sides want to maintain the NATO alliance, this long expected move leaves European leaders naked with regard to the state of EU foreign, security and defence policy, especially their inability to even begin the construction of a common European defence.
Since a press statements on every mishap in the world seems to be the extent of EU foreign policy, perhaps the high representative Catherine Ashton could crank out a few lines to let the heads of state or government continue sleeping on the job(?)
Update 11 January 2012: Analysis from Reuters on the state of European thinking and action on common defence.
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Saturday, 7 January 2012
Thursday, 14 May 2009
EU Lisbon Treaty “threatens the transatlantic relationship”
Ahead of the European elections Sally McNamara’s views on the Lisbon Treaty and the transatlantic relationship are worth reading. From the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry: A Lisbon Treaty Retrospective? (Posted May 13th, 2009 at 11.41am)
After discussing legitimacy and support, we turn to the effects of the Treaty of Lisbon on the transatlantic relationship, according to McNamara:
“The Lisbon Treaty ... It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage.”
***
Transatlantic relationship
The transatlantic relationship includes Canada and the United States on the one shore of the Atlantic, and Europe on the eastern shore. Despite economic competition and occasional spats, they form a community of values with broadly similar interests in the world, including international organisations.
In terms of trade and investment, they are firmly linked. The European Union is central in developing transatlantic and global commercial relations.
The financial and economic crisis highlights the need for coordinated solutions, through international institutions and bilaterally. Challenges like energy security become increasingly important, and global warming threatens the whole planet.
The European Union and its North American partners have shared interests in hosts of other policy areas, ranging from global challenges and organisations to daily contacts between citizens.
Common responses to internal and external security challenges are of fundamental importance. The European Union needs to enhance its capability in the fields of foreign, security and defence policy in order to act more coherently in its neighbourhood and to act more decisively in world affairs alongside the USA.
Most of the European Union’s member states are NATO members and the transatlantic defence alliance continues to be important, for the defence of Europe as well as in the wider world.
In its later days, the previous American administration started to mend some of the fences it had broken. The new US administration under President Barack Obama has sought to find common ground and forge stronger ties with the European Union and its member states, including at the April EU─US summit in Prague.
If anything, I reckon that the US government would be relieved to be able to deal with one Europe. In this respect, the Treaty of Lisbon would bring about minor improvements.
McNamara, on the other hand, has learned nothing. She does not see the European Union as a valuable ally, but as a danger. The Lisbon Treaty threatens her exceedingly narrow view of the transatlantic relationship. Hence, a somewhat more coherent Europe would not be a boon for US interests, but the bane of its domination of the world stage, as she sees it.
Still adversarial to the hilt and exaggerating the importance of the Lisbon Treaty beyond belief, the Heritage Foundation seems set on its course to drive a wedge between the United States of America and the European Union.
***
There are, of course, opponents to the Lisbon Treaty on both sides of the Atlantic. Their motives are seldom expressed as openly as by the Heritage Foundation, but are they less misdirected for that?
Ralf Grahn
After discussing legitimacy and support, we turn to the effects of the Treaty of Lisbon on the transatlantic relationship, according to McNamara:
“The Lisbon Treaty ... It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage.”
***
Transatlantic relationship
The transatlantic relationship includes Canada and the United States on the one shore of the Atlantic, and Europe on the eastern shore. Despite economic competition and occasional spats, they form a community of values with broadly similar interests in the world, including international organisations.
In terms of trade and investment, they are firmly linked. The European Union is central in developing transatlantic and global commercial relations.
The financial and economic crisis highlights the need for coordinated solutions, through international institutions and bilaterally. Challenges like energy security become increasingly important, and global warming threatens the whole planet.
The European Union and its North American partners have shared interests in hosts of other policy areas, ranging from global challenges and organisations to daily contacts between citizens.
Common responses to internal and external security challenges are of fundamental importance. The European Union needs to enhance its capability in the fields of foreign, security and defence policy in order to act more coherently in its neighbourhood and to act more decisively in world affairs alongside the USA.
Most of the European Union’s member states are NATO members and the transatlantic defence alliance continues to be important, for the defence of Europe as well as in the wider world.
In its later days, the previous American administration started to mend some of the fences it had broken. The new US administration under President Barack Obama has sought to find common ground and forge stronger ties with the European Union and its member states, including at the April EU─US summit in Prague.
If anything, I reckon that the US government would be relieved to be able to deal with one Europe. In this respect, the Treaty of Lisbon would bring about minor improvements.
McNamara, on the other hand, has learned nothing. She does not see the European Union as a valuable ally, but as a danger. The Lisbon Treaty threatens her exceedingly narrow view of the transatlantic relationship. Hence, a somewhat more coherent Europe would not be a boon for US interests, but the bane of its domination of the world stage, as she sees it.
Still adversarial to the hilt and exaggerating the importance of the Lisbon Treaty beyond belief, the Heritage Foundation seems set on its course to drive a wedge between the United States of America and the European Union.
***
There are, of course, opponents to the Lisbon Treaty on both sides of the Atlantic. Their motives are seldom expressed as openly as by the Heritage Foundation, but are they less misdirected for that?
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
European Union worth living and dying for
David of Writing for (y)EU wrote a thoughtful post on the shifting media and campaign landscape: The Times They Are a-Changing (12 May 2009).
David’s references to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address and to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign made me think about what a European Union worth living and dying for would look like.
Lincoln said it in 1863 “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”.
Citizens elected Barack Obama President of the United States in 2008.
Abolition and emancipation.
Lincoln and Obama embody the essential difference between “We the People” of the US and the existing European Union 1.0 of heads of state or government.
“We the People” is the core of the future EU 2.0, a union worth living and dying for.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The current European Union does not offer us much voice; the more important to use our limited vote wisely in the European elections, for a better EU.
David’s references to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address and to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign made me think about what a European Union worth living and dying for would look like.
Lincoln said it in 1863 “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”.
Citizens elected Barack Obama President of the United States in 2008.
Abolition and emancipation.
Lincoln and Obama embody the essential difference between “We the People” of the US and the existing European Union 1.0 of heads of state or government.
“We the People” is the core of the future EU 2.0, a union worth living and dying for.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The current European Union does not offer us much voice; the more important to use our limited vote wisely in the European elections, for a better EU.
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Taliban or Vatican?
Taliban rule and Sharia law have been making headway in the most backward regions of our planet. Has the Vatican taken heart in its quest for medieval supremacy over temporal rulers?
The question has some relevance for the European Union, because the Vatican is an enclave within the EU’s territory.
See BBC News Vatican ‘vetoes’ US envoy names (14 April 2009).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7998688.stm
In firmly rebuffing three ambassadors chosen by the US administration, the Vatican has pushed its ideological agenda well beyond international custom, although the Vienna Convention does not require any statement of reasons for denial of ‘agrément’ and accreditation.
Should President Barack Obama give in to the headstrong and reactionary agenda of Pope Benedict XVI?
Not in my view. The United States appoints its ambassadors. The US can live without a head of mission at the Holy See. There is no pressing need for President Obama to visit a hostile Pope with a medieval view of the world.
Obama, after all, was elected on a ticket of hope.
Ralf Grahn
The question has some relevance for the European Union, because the Vatican is an enclave within the EU’s territory.
See BBC News Vatican ‘vetoes’ US envoy names (14 April 2009).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7998688.stm
In firmly rebuffing three ambassadors chosen by the US administration, the Vatican has pushed its ideological agenda well beyond international custom, although the Vienna Convention does not require any statement of reasons for denial of ‘agrément’ and accreditation.
Should President Barack Obama give in to the headstrong and reactionary agenda of Pope Benedict XVI?
Not in my view. The United States appoints its ambassadors. The US can live without a head of mission at the Holy See. There is no pressing need for President Obama to visit a hostile Pope with a medieval view of the world.
Obama, after all, was elected on a ticket of hope.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 13 April 2009
Europe’s road to oblivion
The BBC’s Mark Mardell wrote an interesting post on his Euroblog on 9 April 2009 A battle with Eurobabble.
During the USA – EU summit president Barack Obama represented the United States, but nobody represented Europe. Instead a number of national prime ministers or presidents addressed each issue.
How is the United States supposed to communicate with a cacophony of voices?
(An aside: Is strenuous American support for EU enlargement going to diminish the communication problems?)
***
Confusion can reign at national level, too. According to Helsingin Sanomat Halonen ja Vanhanen kehuivat Obama-henkeä (5 April 2009) both prime minister Matti Vanhanen and president Tarja Halonen denied that their competing claims to address the summit was the cause of both being denied the chance to speak.
***
Are there any lessons for the defenders of intergovernmentalism: freely cooperating sovereign nations (former great powers and all)?
They already have what they want: Bickering member states and leaders competing for two and a half minutes in the limelight are the political reality of the European Union’s supposedly common foreign policy.
Europe’s road to oblivion is paved with petty ambitions.
The real question is what the citizens of the European Union need for a better future.
Ralf Grahn
During the USA – EU summit president Barack Obama represented the United States, but nobody represented Europe. Instead a number of national prime ministers or presidents addressed each issue.
How is the United States supposed to communicate with a cacophony of voices?
(An aside: Is strenuous American support for EU enlargement going to diminish the communication problems?)
***
Confusion can reign at national level, too. According to Helsingin Sanomat Halonen ja Vanhanen kehuivat Obama-henkeä (5 April 2009) both prime minister Matti Vanhanen and president Tarja Halonen denied that their competing claims to address the summit was the cause of both being denied the chance to speak.
***
Are there any lessons for the defenders of intergovernmentalism: freely cooperating sovereign nations (former great powers and all)?
They already have what they want: Bickering member states and leaders competing for two and a half minutes in the limelight are the political reality of the European Union’s supposedly common foreign policy.
Europe’s road to oblivion is paved with petty ambitions.
The real question is what the citizens of the European Union need for a better future.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Kouchner drops support for Turkey
The French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner has dropped his support for Turkish membership in the European Union. He cites the Turkish government’s pressure tactics at the NATO summit and its move away from the secular reform path.
La Turquie dans l'UE? Kouchner n'y est plus favorable, reports Libération (7 April 2009).
Le Mexique 51e État des États-Unis d’Amérique ? was Jean Quatremer’s illustration of European quid pro quo on the Coulisses de Bruxelles blog (evening 6 April 2009), with Angela Merkel fictionally supporting Mexico’s membership as the 51st state of the USA.
***
We have been engaged with the same themes on this blog in previous posts.
Turkey ending its EU membership bid? (4 April 2009)
Turkey and Mexico: Join the Union! (morning 6 April 2009)
USA: Adopt Turkey and Mexico (7 April 2009)
***
President Obama endorsed Turkish EU membership, but did he promote it?
Ralf Grahn
La Turquie dans l'UE? Kouchner n'y est plus favorable, reports Libération (7 April 2009).
Le Mexique 51e État des États-Unis d’Amérique ? was Jean Quatremer’s illustration of European quid pro quo on the Coulisses de Bruxelles blog (evening 6 April 2009), with Angela Merkel fictionally supporting Mexico’s membership as the 51st state of the USA.
***
We have been engaged with the same themes on this blog in previous posts.
Turkey ending its EU membership bid? (4 April 2009)
Turkey and Mexico: Join the Union! (morning 6 April 2009)
USA: Adopt Turkey and Mexico (7 April 2009)
***
President Obama endorsed Turkish EU membership, but did he promote it?
Ralf Grahn
USA: Adopt Turkey and Mexico
Eurocentric of The European Citizen wrote a post called America, the 28th Member State? on President Obama’s support for Turkish membership in the European Union.
Eurocentric reacted to Turkish EU membership being spoken of as a US foreign policy tool and as a “feel good” gesture of reaching out to a country, without taking the obligations of membership into account. American media treatment of the question lacked comprehension of how the European Union works.
***
I have long ago given up hope with regard to US governments and public opinion.
The only new thing about Obama's invitation was that it was made by him, because all the American administrations I can remember have supported Turkey's entry into the European Union for reasons of US geostrategic interests.
It is hard to find even a flimsy pretext for Turkish entry being in the interest of the European Union.
Having been brought up to think that it is bad form to invite guests to your neighbour's party, I think the only way to make Americans realise the challenges is by reversing the situation:
This was the reason for yesterday’s post: Let the United States adopt Turkey and Mexico, with loud and clear endorsement from Europe.
To continue on this path, the US has clear advantages.
It is hard to enter the European Union. The accession treaty has to be concluded with all the member states (27), so each one has a veto. In addition, each one has to ratify the treaty allowing in a new member. Finally, constitutionally the European Union is not equipped even for its existing membership. It is neither effective enough nor democratic.
Compare this with the United States, which has a democratic Constitution of more than 200 years. Only two requirements regulate the acceptance of new states.
According to Article IV, Section 4, the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.
Article IV, Section 3, allows Congress to admit new States into the Union.
Piece of cake, compared to Europe.
***
In other words, if the United States of America wants to reach out and to serve its geopolitical interests, let it invite Turkey and Mexico as the 51st and 52nd states.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Outreach between religions should resonate well in the United States and Turkey. Both are formally secular countries, but imbued by religion, and as such culturally compatible way beyond the potential of the European Union.
***
My challenge to readers is to argue for or against the United States adopting Turkey and Mexico as new states.
Ralf Grahn
Eurocentric reacted to Turkish EU membership being spoken of as a US foreign policy tool and as a “feel good” gesture of reaching out to a country, without taking the obligations of membership into account. American media treatment of the question lacked comprehension of how the European Union works.
***
I have long ago given up hope with regard to US governments and public opinion.
The only new thing about Obama's invitation was that it was made by him, because all the American administrations I can remember have supported Turkey's entry into the European Union for reasons of US geostrategic interests.
It is hard to find even a flimsy pretext for Turkish entry being in the interest of the European Union.
Having been brought up to think that it is bad form to invite guests to your neighbour's party, I think the only way to make Americans realise the challenges is by reversing the situation:
This was the reason for yesterday’s post: Let the United States adopt Turkey and Mexico, with loud and clear endorsement from Europe.
To continue on this path, the US has clear advantages.
It is hard to enter the European Union. The accession treaty has to be concluded with all the member states (27), so each one has a veto. In addition, each one has to ratify the treaty allowing in a new member. Finally, constitutionally the European Union is not equipped even for its existing membership. It is neither effective enough nor democratic.
Compare this with the United States, which has a democratic Constitution of more than 200 years. Only two requirements regulate the acceptance of new states.
According to Article IV, Section 4, the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.
Article IV, Section 3, allows Congress to admit new States into the Union.
Piece of cake, compared to Europe.
***
In other words, if the United States of America wants to reach out and to serve its geopolitical interests, let it invite Turkey and Mexico as the 51st and 52nd states.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Outreach between religions should resonate well in the United States and Turkey. Both are formally secular countries, but imbued by religion, and as such culturally compatible way beyond the potential of the European Union.
***
My challenge to readers is to argue for or against the United States adopting Turkey and Mexico as new states.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
