> Behalf Of Dan Minette > To first order, the United States was to shoulder the > burden of maintaining the military counter to the Soviet Union. > Europe was > to develop social democracies, spending its money on a social welfare > system. It would show that the poor working people of Europe (and Europe > was fairly well devastated and poor in the late 40s) would do better with > the West than with the East.
Yes, definitely. And I'm afraid I still believe it was the success of Germany in particular that brought about the fall of Soviet Russia rather than Reagan's defence spending. 40 odd years of German TV commercials and shows bouncing around the Eastern Bloc must have been a powerful stimulant to dissatisfaction with the Soviet system. Oh, and Dynasty, of course! ;-) And for all the madness of the cold War, it was a brave move, putting American cities on the line for Europe. Dan: > I'm > writing it to differ with one key point of yours: that having the go it > virtually alone is a recent (since 1990) phenomenon. I'm arguing the fact > that the US practically having sole responsibility for defending the West > against Communism for 45 or so years (until 1990) has now carried over to > the present post Cold War era. Yes, true. However I think that it now has become an entrenched US mindset at senior political/military levels anyway and has perhaps outlived its purpose. BTW, you can change the date to 1942. I've already mentioned MacArthur a few times recently, but he was a case in point about US control. The Australian government actually GAVE him the control. Dan: > I think Australia > and Great Britain are the two sorta exceptions to the rule I'm giving. I > think both countries have a history of working to pull their weight of the > defense load of the West.) > Thanks. I believe we have too. I'd add Canada and New Zealand too. At least up until NZ started asking (quite rightly, too) what exactly was in those ships going into their ports. Dan: > The critical event that defined this worldview for me was the war in the > Balkans. Yugoslavia is not a major military power. It is in the > back yard > of Western Europe. The NATO allies of the US politely asked the > US to back > off and let them handle it. snip > > Unfortunately, it was a spectacular failure. Yes, I agree. They couldn't end up resolving their problems of command as a European entity instead of as a group of nations. Dan: > What treaties are ignored? My comment didn't refer only to the Geneva Convention. It was also to do with the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty and the changes Bush has proposed to the verification process of START. >From "Only American national interest counts now", by Hugo Young in the Guardian Thursday January 31, 2002 The killing of the ABM treaty is a done deal. Nuclear testing is blithely listed for resumption. Nuclear warhead reductions agreed with Moscow may be scuppered by a Bush decision to store his own dismantled warheads anyway, just in case. end quote You can also add other American negations, from Kyoto to Land Mines, to Law of the Sea, to Chemical and Biological Weapons. So often nowadays there seems only ever to be one abstention from major treaties, and it's the same one. Spelt USA. As for the Geneva Convention, sorting out who is and who is not a POW, I take it from the preamble: "On the other hand it could not be intended by the High Contracting Parties that the cases not provided for should, for want of a written provision, be left to the arbitrary judgement of the military commanders. Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law..." I take that by inference that some sort of international panel, of jurists perhaps, should sort it out, not the US alone. Dan: > > But, given the fact that it appears that the world on the whole > expects the > US to fix things that have gone horribly wrong, such as the Balkans, > indicates that US view that if it doesn't do it, it probably > won't get done > is not invalid. snip > Are you suggesting that the US stand down? That we should have told the > Europeans...handle the Balkans yourself? 1. Yes, I think Europe should be gently persuaded to look after its own back yard. In Kosovo, they should have been kicked into action. To some extent, had the US promised logistical support, something you are definitely world leader in, and full diplomatic support (basically including kicking France and Britain into agreement) then maybe it would have worked. Maybe also a statement, nice and clear, that German involvement would be very welcome and a sign that they are truly an equal partner. Certainly the Europeans should be told that is going to happen from now on. 2. I don't know that it would necessarily need much greater defence expenditure. The NATO forces are well and truly capable of any main force threats possible. Remember, nowadays you'd have Poland, the Czech/Slovakian republics and Hungary willing to help against Russia, should Putin have a serious brain fade. Not to mention the Ukraine and Belarus and the Baltics. Should any of the ex-Soviet states start fighting one another, Europe should be able to handle that, too. There's too much trade and investment at stake. Maybe I'm just idealistic, but I see that as a justification for what Europe has been doing for itself these last few decades. Dan: > I understand why other countries are nervous in a monopole world. But, I > would suggest that the way to handle this is to not tell the US to stand > down immediately. Its for the rest of the industrialized democracies to > bring their % spending in line with the US, and then offload > responsibilities. That would be a real multinational world. IMHO, its > unreasonable for the US to do all the heavy lifting and be expected to > follow the advise of others on how to do the lifting. I agree. I've veered a bit away from what I originally complained about: that to me the budget is just wildly unfocussed. It certainly has very little to do with a war on terrorism. But it is also another sign of the increasing (as I see it) unilateralism of the US. And I particularly feel that with Bush, it is likely to vastly increase. What I'd like to see is for the US to join with the rest of the nations, through the UN, in handling these types of problems, not being the selective enforcer it has become. This means mucking in with the rest of us and particularly biting the bullet and letting American forces come under external control from time to time. Just like everyone else has to do. Maybe I'm contaminated from how Australia has always seen its alliance with the US. 1. We know we will never be supported if we don't do our part. 2. We know we won't be supported if we don't also show our willingness to support the US when practicable (Apart from Vietnam etc, we also made ourselves a nuclear target with Joint facilities like Pine Gap and Nurrungar and North West Cape) 3. We know we won't get supported if our interests conflict with those of the US. (Indonesia invading West Irian taught us that one) These seem pretty rational points. It obviously pays to point out to the US how much in its interest any problems we run into are. You've got big brother backing you up. The way I see it of course everyone wants the US to support them. Having the US onside means that the opposition has to think really hard about what they are doing and why. And if something blows up that is in one's interest to involve one's military, getting US commitment also covers any deficiencies in one's force capability. I doubt, however, that anyone wants to give over control to the US. Again, this should be UN territory, not US alone. Collective responsibility. If the US was to come out and really push the idea of collective responsibility then you wouldn't be involved in all of these actions. You also wouldn't have to develop your forces around them. You're still going to be the biggest kid on the block, but you'll definitely be seen as a better world citizen. What I'm trying to argue against is the self proclaimed role the US has of putting itself in OPPOSITION to what should be a UN role. And if anyone is still reading this, check out http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,647554,00.html for comments by Chris Patten, a top British Conservative about US unilateralism. Cheers, Brett
