plinyelder
Luxembourg Luxembourg
Posted: Jul 23, 2008, 1:54 PM CST
Speaking purely historically, all empires in the history of mankind have failed because they were all dominated by one cultural faction.; one nation. The Greeks did not have an empire and were admirably successful in keeping the cohesion of their city state nations. The Romans ballsed it up. So did the central and south american empires, the British, the Dutch, the Danes, the Swedes, the Russians, the French all went down in exactly the same way. America is excelling everybody in this dismal record.
The 'right' are always inward looking and outwardly aggressive. But every moment some child is being born who in 18 years will have this type of mindcast.
In Europe (Western Europe) there is no such fervent nationalism except on the lunatic fringes. In the East there is a lot of it. But mind...these peoples have not had much experience of freedom, democracy or affluence. Sarkosy's attempt to be 'exclusive' will ruin the heart of the idea of a big united Europe. But the man is short and flashy and will be shortlived politically. (Yes, he is a of a type that is ever so predictable).
To come back to your original question about fervent nationalism versus an united Europe get to the basics...how it came into being after two great wars in the last century and innumerable conflicts in the 19th century. Steel and coal are the engines of war and that is how CECA was formed and later developed into the EEC and yet later into the EU. When the soviet union imploded the americans thought they had a chance to bring Europe to its heels. But the EU which had been languishing for years immediately saw the danger and then there was the Maastrict Treaty followed by the monetary union and so many other things that have made Europe a changed place altogether. All in a space of some 15 years.
Fervent nationalism does not stand by itself much in the way the sacks cant stand by themselves. Sacks have to be filled with something - nationalism similarly has to be stoked with something. After WW2 Americans whisked away big time Nazi criminals to work on their own projects. Today, now that Radovan Karadic has been captured, it is a bad day for Americans. They would like Europe to be in a state of siege and hopelessness. The general public is simply not aware how Europe's biggest enemy is the USA rather that their petty squabbles on national priorities.
I'm aware that these are a lot of rather sweeping statements but the point you raised is crucial - the danger to Europe doesnt lie in Europe itself but in the fact that America diminishing rapidly in its influence will seek 'false friendhips' with Europe and with their beastliness try to stoke up trouble for the EU. Turkey is an example: have you followed the double-talk of America on the question of Turkey joining the EU. It seems they want it; ulteriorly they want want problems for the EU.
On the whole, I dont see a dark horizon for the EU. But there are miles to go before the EU can chuck the Americans out of their bedrooms. The EU spends billions on the palestinians and then comes Israel with its bulldozers and destroy everything. Now that pair is making a case for an attack on Iran. Of course that way way Europe will again be inder pressure, huge pressure to take sides. The EU will not take the side of Iran obviously. They are militarily not capable. Mr. Sarkosy, however, has jumped into bed with the American led NATO.
In Europe you can express an opinion (excpt pro-nazi ones) with impunity. In America after 9/11 there was no way for people to talk freely about their country's foreign policy with being branded as a traitor. Only now do Americans have a feeling that they can speak freely.
Your subject was Europe but I have been on and on with a tirade against America. In the final analysis, the danger to the EU does not lie here in Europe but what America will manage to insinuate between EU neighbours.
P