Economic integration--intertwining the economies of nations--was supposed to promote economic efficiency, prosperity and ultimately peace. The idea was that if nations need each other to keep their economies humming, they wouldn't start a shooting war. Continental Europeans, having suffered tens of millions of deaths in two world wars, were particularly impassioned with this idea. Who can blame them? Arms races and wars hadn't solved their problems. The League of Nations didn't solved their problems. Why not give mutual dependence on each other for cheese, wine, sardines, sausage, and pasta a chance?
At first the idea seemed to work. The EU prospered in its early years. We now know those salad days resulted to a large degree from inexpensive borrowing by poorer EU nations, who snarfed up too much easy money and now struggle to avoid the death of a thousand budget cuts. But optimism held sway in the early days of the EU, and economic kumbaya was extended to the nations of the former Soviet Union, including the big brown bear itself.
Economic integration provides leverage. The proponents of the EU thought that the leverage would be used to restrain aggression. But leverage by itself is morally neutral, and can be used for good or evil. Give leverage to a son of a ditch (sp), and he'll use it for evil. This is what we see in Ukraine today, where Vlad the Invader has seized Crimea, and is sponsoring a "rebellion" in eastern Ukraine against the Kiev government, a war that is increasingly being conducted by Russian soldiers and Russian operatives. As Russian personnel take over the fighting, the war is morphing into a clash between nations. This is exactly what economic integration was supposed to prevent.
Europe's response to Vlad's invasions has hardly gone beyond a tepid wrist slap, and talk of stronger sanctions is matched by behind the scenes maneuvering to prevent any economic consequences from the sanctions. The horror of the shoot down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 17 was quickly followed by France reaffirming its intention to deliver a Mistral class helicopter carrier to Russia, a substantial warship that Russia apparently could not itself build. Economic integration, it would appear, trumps moral rectitude.
Putin is using economic integration as a weapon, and in his insidious hands, it's devilishly effective. Europe is dependent on Russia for gas and oil, and can't easily substitute other suppliers for Russia. Putin has apparently increased his support for the rebels in Ukraine since the Flight MH 17 atrocity. He has much to gain by doubling down. His increased aggressiveness forces the U.S. and Europe to struggle to respond, and this struggle heightens the divisions between the New World and the Old. He renders NATO a hollow shell, something the Poles have publicly admitted. Putin doesn't have to conquer Ukraine, or even eastern Ukraine. All he has to do is keep stirring the pot, and in so doing highlights Europe's dependence on Russia and America's weakness.
Economic integration doesn't turn a monster into a nice kitty. When done with a dastard (sp), he remains dastardly, and will look for opportunities to slip the knife between the ribs of his trading partners. The Europeans have, through economic integration, delivered themselves unto evil, and they are now paying the price.
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Monday, July 28, 2014
Thursday, December 5, 2013
A World of Foreign Policy Gambles
It is almost axiomatic that when a political leader faces domestic problems, he or she will turn to foreign relations as a way to divert disgruntled constituents from their daily travails. Appeals to national pride easily tap into the often reflexive patriotism that many people have. Folks tend to rally 'round the flag whenever there's a dustup with some bunch of dang foreigners. Since foreign relations tend to be largely in the domain of Presidents, Prime Ministers and other national executives, legislative interference is less of a problem and credit for success can be hoarded.
With essentially all of the world's major economies unimpressive, sluggish or even tending toward torpid, it's hardly a surprise that some world leaders are indulging in cross-border shenani . . . , well, activities. China has a slowing economy, with a real estate bubble, a debt bubble, increased competition from lower wage nations around the world, growing unemployment, a lack of high-value innovation, and a demographic demon of too many elderly and way too few young workers that's far, far worse than America's social security issues. So what does China do? Make noise about territorial claims in the East China Sea and South China Sea. America responds by flying B-52s into an area claimed by the Chinese. The Japanese, with a sludgy economy and a recently elected Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, who appears to be of a nationalistic bent, contest the Chinese claims with their military aircraft, sabre-rattling as good as they've been rattled at. Japan and China are quietly drifting into an arms race, while the U.S. military is expanding its presence in Asia. And of course, there's North Korea, an economic dead zone, which engages in virtually nonstop sabre-rattling to legitimize its autocracy.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East, a newly elected Iranian leadership faced with a sanctions-hammered economy that's circling the drain, are suddenly open-minded about a deal to slow down their nuclear program. An American President, crippled by the virtual non-launch of his showcase domestic health insurance program, decides it's okay to let Iran continue to enrich uranium up to the 5% level, even though this isn't exactly a complete freeze of Iran's nuclear program. (Even though Iran says it wants to have 5% uranium to develop nuclear power, since when does a country with gobs of petroleum reserves need to develop nuclear power?) This deal could be seen as an effort by the U.S. to reduce its presence in the Middle East (so it can increase its presence in Asia). Does that make war in the Middle East less likely? Or will the increasingly nervous Israelis act on their own, as they have in the past? And if they do, will America be militarily dragged into the consequences?
Over the past century and a half, foreign policy adventurism has tended to end badly. Sometimes, very badly, with 20 million dead in World War I and 60 million dead in World War II. This isn't to suggest that America and other nations should become isolationist. The world is interconnected and some degree of international engagement is necessary. But citizens should be skeptical of their leaders, who often have much to gain by stepping up their rhetoric and actions. The recent popular outcries against American and British military action in Syria over its use of poisonous gas is an example of how the levelheadedness of the citizenry can cool the jets of a handful of very powerful people who may spend too much time talking to each other. If a nation's leader seems to have a gambling problem in the foreign policy arena, citizens should stage an intervention.
With essentially all of the world's major economies unimpressive, sluggish or even tending toward torpid, it's hardly a surprise that some world leaders are indulging in cross-border shenani . . . , well, activities. China has a slowing economy, with a real estate bubble, a debt bubble, increased competition from lower wage nations around the world, growing unemployment, a lack of high-value innovation, and a demographic demon of too many elderly and way too few young workers that's far, far worse than America's social security issues. So what does China do? Make noise about territorial claims in the East China Sea and South China Sea. America responds by flying B-52s into an area claimed by the Chinese. The Japanese, with a sludgy economy and a recently elected Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, who appears to be of a nationalistic bent, contest the Chinese claims with their military aircraft, sabre-rattling as good as they've been rattled at. Japan and China are quietly drifting into an arms race, while the U.S. military is expanding its presence in Asia. And of course, there's North Korea, an economic dead zone, which engages in virtually nonstop sabre-rattling to legitimize its autocracy.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East, a newly elected Iranian leadership faced with a sanctions-hammered economy that's circling the drain, are suddenly open-minded about a deal to slow down their nuclear program. An American President, crippled by the virtual non-launch of his showcase domestic health insurance program, decides it's okay to let Iran continue to enrich uranium up to the 5% level, even though this isn't exactly a complete freeze of Iran's nuclear program. (Even though Iran says it wants to have 5% uranium to develop nuclear power, since when does a country with gobs of petroleum reserves need to develop nuclear power?) This deal could be seen as an effort by the U.S. to reduce its presence in the Middle East (so it can increase its presence in Asia). Does that make war in the Middle East less likely? Or will the increasingly nervous Israelis act on their own, as they have in the past? And if they do, will America be militarily dragged into the consequences?
Over the past century and a half, foreign policy adventurism has tended to end badly. Sometimes, very badly, with 20 million dead in World War I and 60 million dead in World War II. This isn't to suggest that America and other nations should become isolationist. The world is interconnected and some degree of international engagement is necessary. But citizens should be skeptical of their leaders, who often have much to gain by stepping up their rhetoric and actions. The recent popular outcries against American and British military action in Syria over its use of poisonous gas is an example of how the levelheadedness of the citizenry can cool the jets of a handful of very powerful people who may spend too much time talking to each other. If a nation's leader seems to have a gambling problem in the foreign policy arena, citizens should stage an intervention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
