Realignment?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

Y. pestis RE:Realignment? 2/14/2003 4:04:04 PM

Nice points BSL though I don't agree with all of them in toto. I believe the world has turned at least a bit more complicated post Cold War. What is a local event in a non-bipolar world where intricate alliences are made by countries in close proximity to each other and some times quite distant. Prior to the Cold War, wars between large countries were quite common as were proxy wars that were seen during the Cold War. The US was just a pawn for France in their greater dispute with England during the American revolution. The Cold War not only prevented conflicts between large states it also held 'The Crisis of Civilizations' in check for the most part. Many of our 'enemies' of the past are not now. India is a great example of this. It has had strong ties to the USSR and Russia but the US is now repositioning it self as an ally endangering its ties to Pakistan which now wouldn't be so important if not for 'The Crisis of Civilizations'. Some in Europe now seek to find a new identity. Eastern Europe seems to be more closely allied with the US than Russia or even Western Europe. France and Germany want to regain their status as world powers and seek to do so as major members within the EU. They may be isolating themselves now but I don't think this will be the last time it will happen. As you point out the French have been obstructionists for a while but now they may be gaining influence. Without the threat of the USSR, many in Western Europe seem to feel the need to sake themselves of their 'shackles' of the US and US 'imperialism'. The problem with France and Germany now is that they chose the wrong time and the wrong cause to try to counter US influence. Most of Africa is 'up for grabs' but no one seems to care. No, I think the world is definately more interesting now. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Realignment? 2/14/2003 5:52:41 PM

"(M)ore complicated"? Yes, I agree with that. Not totally terra incognita, but it is more complicated. I wouldn't quite call India a Cold War "enemy", but it was generally somewhat hostile. The "bi-polar" idiom turns out to be one of the more apt descriptions in international affairs. The polarization of the Cold War tended to channel otherwise local disputes. Countries tended to gravitate to one side or the other, and the movement of one country into one camp tended to stimulate the other camp to orient itself towards the other country in the local dispute. Some issues among nations were suppressed during the Cold War (Western European rivalries, for instance). Others were elevated to worldwide issues. (The Korean conflict, for instance.) The threat that a local dispute could escalate to general nuclear war tended, all else equal, to put a ceiling on most disputes, although it certainly did not stop real wars in many places. The point I think you're making about ties among nations leading to expanding conflicts was nothing new to the Cold War. It's a major part of the traditional explanation of WW1. I'm sure the French are reaching for increased power and influence, as well as trying to cripple America, but I don't quite know what Germany has in mind. I don't automatically attibute the same motives to Germany, as a whole, as I do to France, as a whole. French policy has been pretty consistent in this direction for generations. It's a true national policy, not the idea of one, particular leader. Germany may be different. I'm sure there is general support for a certain kind of pacificism in Germany which tends to quetion almost any use of military force. In this, to oppose American policy in Iraq is not a surprise. However, the specific direction present German policy is taking, the level of activity to actively sabotage American policy and the close collaboration with France strikes me as the specific policy of Schroeder and Fischer. The latter is on videotape, in his youth, assaulting a police officer. At that time, he was associated with groups which were associated with real terrorists. He was also on record supporting groups whose official program included the destruction of Israel. Schroeder, these days, is polling the lowest levels of support from the people in the history of German political polling. He's widely considered to have lied, outrageously, during his campaign, and it seems clear that he adopted a strongly antiAmerican stance as a campaign ploy. IOW, in Germany, the present policies may be far more associated with specific politicians than representing any real national consensus. bsl

Quote Reply

Topolino RE:Realignment? 2/14/2003 6:30:27 PM

bsl, I agree with you about the German attitude being a reflection more of Shroeder than a deep seated trend. See these comments by the leader of the CDU, the primary opposition party. link

Quote Reply

Y. pestis RE:Realignment? 2/14/2003 7:05:22 PM

Argh-I just deleted my post To sum it up--- Good points BSL but I think you misunderstood my point on expanding conflicts. I meant that I believe the Cold War kept this from happening due to the threat of the conflict going global then nuclear. Without the bipolar world and the threat of global nuclear war, will regional conflict increase and will the threat of such conflicts lead to the kind of entanglements that led to WWI be increased? It is the nature of these new alliences that will be of interest-if they occur. I take it you don't see any major shifts in alliences.

Quote Reply

Jeff from Michigan RE:Realignment? 2/15/2003 10:37:29 PM

As I have put in earlier posts the Cold War put every conflict into a bi-polar mode since the Soviets and the U.S. quickly picked sides. Then they were defused as soon as possible. Now a lot of these conflicts have resurfaced. Ethopia/Eritria, Tuti's/Hutu's, Croatia/Serbia, Kashmir and watch out for Malaysia/Singapore. So it will be a bloodier world. Now we are in the midst of a "clash of civilizations" where Arabic Islam is in a battle with itself. Will it modernize or continue to look backward? My guess is that it will look backwards until the West re-occupies it. As I also said "is it the White Man's burden all over again?" My answer is yes. And after this comes the next "clash" with China. That day will come and it will come in our lifetime. That clash will be over individual liberties vs the power of the state. That story is just starting. All in all a very interesting world with power shifting from Western Europe to the East.

Quote Reply

1 2