 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Yes, the hyperpower has clearly demonstrated its hype against North Korea. 
As for the EU, yes it needs military power, but not to stand up to the US. How and what for? Containment of the nuttier strains in US foreign policy has to rely on political means, military power plays a role in that but only in the background.
As for the current standing:
The Common Foreign Policy is not an exclusive Union competence. This simply means that if a common position is not agreed, member states make their own policy. The failure on Iraq is not a deathnail to it; there are loads of common positions and common actions going on.
But the way the thing operates at the moment, the logical way would have been to take the agreed "disarm Iraq with war as a last resort", but accept that the member states disagreed on how to achieve this and should hence take their own actions.
As for the military aspect:
The Common Reaction Force means that about 200k troops are in the EU military structure. The framework for this is based on the (informal) Council of Defense Ministers, the Political and Security Policy Committee (PSC) and the European Union Military Committee (EUMC).
The first test for this is Common Action 2003/92/CFSP, the EU taking over in Macedonia. I can further explain the technicalities if someone really, really, really wants to know.
The current strength of member states militaries is still something above 2 million. In the future we will see the two numbers (2 million/200k) approaching as troop nrs are reduced and the EU role expanded. Will take some time, and probably require some flexibility (we already have that with Denmark, for example).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
That's mostly the political structure, and that is not so different from nation states. The tasks for the Macedonia operation are quite clear.
Of course there's no simple commander-in-chief, but I'm not sure this makes so much difference in practice for limited conflicts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sloth
|
|
I tnink we need a common foreign policy....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
I second Spiffors opinion that Europe needs a common Foreign Policy and a common european Army.
And yes, one of the reasons for me is also to have a counterpole to the USA. As your current Administration shows it is possible for America to have a President who doesnŽt care about international treaties and UN-Resolutions but instead makes decisions which alienate most of his Allies.
I donŽt like to think about what would happen if someday a President gets elected who is still a lot worse than George W. Bush.
IŽd feel much safer if there would be a significant european Army so we donŽt have to be too dependent on the US-Military or to protect Europe from the USA (if it really would be an Administration this worse)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
What will probably change all this is the next jump in military technology. At present we are using developed versions of what has been around for the best part of a century - tanks, aircraft, submarines, even rifles. What we have now may be a lot better than 50 years ago but it isn't that different in principle.
Whatever the next technology is, particle weapons, orbital missile platforms, cybernetics or whatever doesn't really matter. What matters is that it will happen, it will be expensive and the EU countries will probably have to pool their resources to muster a credible force with a new technology and that means joint military control.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
I'd be building Nuclear ICBMs and plenty of them, after
yesterday.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
The last time we had two poles it turned into a long and costly Cold War complete with an economically draining arms race. MAD forced the Cold War to be fought by proxies: tinpot dictatorships propped up for the sole reason that they supported one side over the other.
If power corrupts as is claimed, I don't hold much hope that the next two-pole world would turn out much differently than the last.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
More poles=more spheres of influence=more tinpots.
An EU power axis may be good for Europeans but don't fool yourself into believing that you'd be doing it to make the world a better place. Multipolar worlds force nations to choose up sides. Dictators do exceptionally well under these conditions because they gain protection from their sponsor. Refuse to accept the tinpot and he can threaten to switch to the other side.
And of course there is the other more sinister side of multiple superpowers: the heightened chance of nuclear war.
The world survived one Cold War. I'm not so sure about the next one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
More poles=more spheres of influence=more tinpots.
An EU power axis may be good for Europeans but don't fool yourself into believing that you'd be doing it to make the world a better place. Multipolar worlds force nations to choose up sides. Dictators do exceptionally well under these conditions because they gain protection from their sponsor. Refuse to accept the tinpot and he can threaten to switch to the other side.
And of course there is the other more sinister side of multiple superpowers: the heightened chance of nuclear war.
The world survived one Cold War. I'm not so sure about the next one. |
Thats what such a multinational Organization like the UN is for.
With a multipolar world we would have a UN where not one single Nation dominates the Security council and can choose to act on his own even if it opposes the Will of the UN/Securityx council.
Of course one thing we would have to get rid of (in a new, reformed UN) would be the Veto-Rights of the permanent members, because it makes the Council a less democratic structure than it should be.
And one other thing is:
Even a multipolar world where there are multiple Powers with equivalent economic/military strength doesnŽt inevitably have to lead to a new cold war. Of course there would be differences sometimes, but if none of the other nations would have to start a world revolution (as the communists wanted to do) there would be no reason for a cold war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
With a multipolar world we would have a UN where not one single Nation dominates the Security council and can choose to act on his own even if it opposes the Will of the UN/Securityx council. |
This was just as true during the Cold War as it is today. The only time the UN has prevented conflict was when no major power had any serious interest in the outcome. For that reason alone, the UN is worthwhile. The big guys will always ignore it.
quote:
Even a multipolar world where there are multiple Powers with equivalent economic/military strength doesnŽt inevitably have to lead to a new cold war. |
World history proves otherwise. A multipolar world will be divided until all have chosen sides. In the past, this was accomplished via outright conquest and colonialism. During the Cold War, subversion was popular. Tomorrow's multipolar world may use economic might to crush the third world into choosing up sides.
However you care to put a spin on it, powerful nations will use power to dominate weaker ones. In a competitve multipolar war, the need to do so before the other guys does will only make things worse.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
quote:
With a multipolar world we would have a UN where not one single Nation dominates the Security council and can choose to act on his own even if it opposes the Will of the UN/Securityx council. |
This was just as true during the Cold War as it is today. The only time the UN has prevented conflict was when no major power had any serious interest in the outcome. For that reason alone, the UN is worthwhile. The big guys will always ignore it.
World history proves otherwise. A multipolar world will be divided until all have chosen sides. In the past, this was accomplished via outright conquest and colonialism. During the Cold War, subversion was popular. Tomorrow's multipolar world may use economic might to crush the third world into choosing up sides.
However you care to put a spin on it, powerful nations will use power to dominate weaker ones. In a competitve multipolar war, the need to do so before the other guys does will only make things worse. |
On the other hand the truely bad thing with unilateral Power is:
If in this most powerful state a president is elected who misuses those powers against the other states in the world to gather more influence, power or wealth for his own state, there is no other state capable to stop him.
In a mulipolar world if this same president would be kept at bay by the other powers.
So it seems also very risky to me to have only one state and (as a citizens of those states which are not so powerful) IŽd rather take the risk of a divided world, than the risk to be some day oppressed by a single powerful state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
Prime Minister Howard of Australia suggested a couple of days ago that mid-century 21st century the US will have left Europe in the dust economically. Since military power follows from economic power...
"The American economy will be much stronger than the aggregate of the European economies by the middle of this century."
|
Howard is just a little biased. He (rightly) sees Australia in the context of a US/Japanese dominated economic bloc. If the EU is a dominant economic power then the Pacific Rim and Australia's position will be less than otherwise. Whilst the reality is that economic failure in the EU would only be caused by a global crisis that took everyone else down, it is not in Howard's interest to admit this.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-03-2003 13:13
|