I thought I would take this my final opportunity to use this blog by constructing three short stories concerning the historic, political and cultural relationship (Western) Europe had and has with the United States.

Part 1 - The US Needs Europe
Part 2 - Europe Needs the US

This is Part 3

Europe and the US - Do We Still Need Each Other?
In parts 1 and 2 we highlighted the historic direction of travel that the relationship between the US and Europe has taken.Like most personal affairs who leads and who holds sway over one another often switches depending on time, place and space. Some would argue this condition is evidence of a healthy and therefore, successful relationship. However, this notion of developmental dependency and the adjusting priorities that emanate from this can be a contentious and sensitive issue since it pushes into the areas of independence, individualism, rights and responsibilities let alone petty jealousies and national egos. Moreover, it opens up that other tricky concept that as relationships age does their understanding also mature? In other words, does someone who has done a job for 30 years have 30 years of experience or one years experience 30 times? Is Europe and US any closer in understanding their differences as well as their similarities? Or is it time for a true reassessment of where and whether this friendship has run its historic course? 

1989 Berlin - the Wall came down - and with it the Soviet Union but the West also lost something - the sureties and certainties that paradoxically the Cold War had created, and then protected. Washington's translation of this conflict had made it - superficially at least - not only easy to understand but simplistic enough for many to align themselves with this 'understanding'. In a binary if not dualistic manner that suited and still suits many of US primary characteristics - The US represents the Free World, while the Soviet Union and other communist communities represents a repressed World. The West believes in peace whilst the Soviets see revolution as its ideal condition. The West has God on their side whilst Moscow and its satellites personify Anti-Christ. A straight forward and unambiguous message from a West that represents a Free, peaceful Christian World.  As one of its political disciples George Bush junior would subsequently declare, 'your either for us or against us' as this crusade is about to begin! However, the black and white World of American political protestant rhetoric might make complex issues sound relatively straight forward but do they actually reflect the more complicated reality of the World in which we live in? 

After the implosion of the Soviet Union - like many empires Moscow just ran out of money - the US declared victory and hubristically, the 'End of History'. In other words, - back to our dualistic and simplistic responses - Capitalism won, Communism lost, and therefore, as all other systems are equally inefficient and ineffective history - the political, cultural and social developmental narrative - has come to the conclusion that (neo) liberalism is the one and only successful game in town. However, there was one HUGE discrepancy in this analysis since it was based on the premise that rationally most right thinking communities would now philosophically, practically and peacefully buy into this American articulation of society. Moreover, they would be more than willing to dilute their own sense of their self - their own identity and influence - as a price worth paying to enjoy the 'richness' obtained from this Americanised World. After all just as Thomas Paine suggested in 1776, as it was just plain 'Common Sense' to rid society of authoritarian monarchies and absolutist churches then it is now also 'common sense' that most would want to now enjoy the 'American experience' without any further dissent.

Our nearly thirty years of post Cold War experiences - the War on Terror - suggests otherwise. Moreover, although the financial convenience of unfettered consumerism that Washington and Wall Street has led, has indeed flattered and attracted many the belief that this form of socio-political and economic harmonisation would be acceptable and desirable to all seems errant nonsense. What many in the US forgot or did not even cross their minds is that just because the American system provides them with their sense of identity, wouldn't you expect other communities with different priorities and purposes to pursue theirs?

Western Europe is an interesting case in point since the differences between Old World and New World values let alone identity are substantive but nuanced. On the surface the link between European understanding and Washington's are almost symbiotic. And largely that is how the political elite like to portray this condition because they do not would wish too many challenges to this simple and obvious assertion. Why? Because underpinning those unchallenging thoughts sits the automatic acceptance of Uncle Sam's footprint continuing to impress on European statehood via the 'essential' nature of NATO and the consequential attachment - the 'need' of the EU to follow and support US foreign policy. However, even if you were to accept that European values are synonymous with the United States, which of course they are not, what does seem clear is that the opportunity for a real European impression on the key regional security matters remains wishful thinking. In other words, the EU's almost invisible and somewhat slavish devotion to the American led European security organisation hides not only the nuanced differences over our values but how those different perspectives could or would be played out when enacting a European approach to international relations. The Middle East provides some evidence.          

At present two of the most influential nations within the Middle East are Iran and Turkey. Both in their own very different styles have recently become once again major regional influencers. Due to recent European involvement in the US - Iran talks over sanctions and nuclear power during Obama's watch  - an accommodation was found to stabilise a relationship that had been dangerously fractious since 1979. However, as the new Secretary of State Tillerson now suggests this agreement is back on the table because of 'changed national interests'. Was Europe consulted over this potentially dangerous change! I think not. As Turkey voted recently to turn their nation back into a 'managed democracy' with an increased Islamic hew pushing their parliamentary practises into history Trump phoned Erdogan to congratulate him while almost simultaneously Brussels placed firmly in the waste bin any thought of Turkish entry into the EU. Trump phones because of American realities towards NATO's role while Western Europe groans as the values that they have actually stood and fought for have now been largely dismissed by this new 'Turkish Sultan'. Once again, American strategy 'trumps' European understanding!

Moreover, these differences over values and priorities are further underlined by the geopolitical disconnect that now exists between Washington and Brussels. In spite of their growing differences Brussels continues to talk to Ankara because of its geographical position in relation to the on going and growing refugee crisis within the Middle East and Northern Africa. This crisis been caused in varying degrees by the implementation and/or failure of US foreign policy within this region passively supported by Brussels. Confused! Let me try and unpick this - the EU and its security is undertaken in large part by NATO that is headed, led and largely financed by the US (Turkey is outside of the EU but is a member of NATO). Washington for all its faux protestations about the unfairness and burden of NATO enjoy huge benefits from this arrangement since it successfully fulfils their understanding that the best way of defending your own nation is on someone else's real estate - Western Europe is effectively the US's eastern border, (while Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and a multiplicity of (US) Pacific Islands are their western border).  Moreover, it also allows Washington to apply huge influence on European foreign policy. So much so that the European understanding is often talked out and therefore, largely ignored. However, many continue to argue that for Western Europe this type of on going political reciprocity provides a relatively cheap, effective and efficient way of providing regional (European) security. However, what strikes me most are the subsequent questions surrounding the real cost of this on going alliance.

 Is Western Europe more secure or more insecure because of US involvement? Is it actually cheaper and more effective to have a American led organisation than a European one? Would the EU benefit from having a greater and more effective say in European security? When 'push comes to shove' doesn't the US put 'America First' even if that approach has unexpected consequences for Western Europe? Why doesn't the EU look after its own security if the overall cost involves losing our understanding and reasoning to the US? Aren't the attacks in Paris, Brussels etc etc a high price for something that 'we' do not actually have a real say in? 

All relationships from time to time need to be reassessed - it is a healthy exercise - the Western Europe/US relationship should not be limply and automatically excluded from this understanding however you reply to the questions posed above. For the EU has not only framed and collated a post modern Western European view it has shown in glimpses how valuable that alternative view can be. Until now only in glimpses because of the continuing presence and power of American pre-eminence. How would life change in Europe if the Old World acknowledging its historic links with New World stepped away from this form of dependency and began once again to draw its own 'lines of desire'? Since most of the ideas that seem to have bound both World's together in the first place emanated from the 'Enlightened' times of Europe not from the subsequent power plays that Washington continues to write. Moreover, isn't that where the true differences between the developmental condition of the US and Europe are now to be found - in the articulation as well as the application of power?

Thank you all for reading this blog - clearly the pleasure has been all mine...

Kindest KK 

              
                              



                   

I thought I would take this my final opportunity to use this particular blog by constructing THREE SHORT STORIES concerning the historic, political and philosophical relationship Europe had and has with the United States.

To understand the long-standing 'friendship' between Western Europe and the US  you might wish to consider two notions. Firstly, that some associations endure because of their obvious attractions whilst others continue in spite of their obvious differences. Simply put, one is born from the heart, the other is born from the head. Secondly, whilst Europe has spent an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to reconcile the disconnect between what they believe in - their values - and how they have acted, the United States largely has not. In other words, whilst Europe continues to engage in self analysis and increasing self doubt, the US engages in tomorrow. That just might be because the narrative of European nationhood is long, deep,confused and complex. Whilst the US has yet to recognise its past fearful that it might get in the way. As you will now read they might have a point.         

Let me try and explain...

Part 2

Europe Needs the US
As we turned to face the twentieth century the European imperial certainties and consistencies that had sat there for hundreds of years were now not only being challenged by the arrival of the US onto the international stage but by Europe itself; increased economic competition within nation-states driven by the socio-political distortions that  the industrial revolution was producing meant that the understood balances of power within the Old World were shifting. The increasingly assertive nature of Germany, the growing civil unrest in Russia and the rise in imperial economic tensions felt by both Great Britain and France were just symptoms of these changing dynamics that American expansion, increasing industrialisation and growing nationalism had already signposted.

The arrival of the first 'imperial' US President into the White House - Theodore Roosevelt(TR) -  also increased concerns in Europe as Paris, Berlin and Moscow saw TR as he saw himself, as a personification of all that the Anglo Saxon World would offer. As he 'spoke softly (but) carrying a hard stick' he foresaw that the international order would now be reset by the US and its 'junior partner' Great Britain since these two nation-states were the most superior and mature of all. They were born leaders. Needless to say, the French and the Germans in particular would dispute this characterisation and just saw it predictably as political and cultural arrogance. However, in reality the US had now become the leading industrial nation-state in the World - it still is - while Great Britain retained control of the high seas and her 'impressive' imperial reach. Consequently, this status of the Anglo Saxon nations alongside their restated declared pre-eminence did illustrate much; the old world order was breaking apart as the competitive atmosphere of global power politics became tighter. Tensions grew in Europe as most nations of note started to look at how secure they really were. For some such as France the order of the day now seemed to protect and defend whilst in Germany the answer sat in its ability to be project and ascend... Finally, Berlin pronounced its intentions loudest, as London duly and dutifully responded, 'cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war'...

1914 suggested, signalled and signposted much that is worst about us. The German military advancement into the Low Countries and the subsequent 'rape of Belgium' with the raising of Leuven to the ground illustrated that not only had our ability and facility to wage war been upgraded by the industrial revolution and increased technology but morality and humanity had been downgraded by this barbarous and inhumane action. Great Britain reflected and then reacted, they believed they had little choice but to respond in defence of the embattled and beleaguered Belgians. Initially, over 2 million British personnel would be called to arms and sent to Flanders and France. Subsequently, over 5 million British Army personnel would visit this theatre of operations.  In all around 956,000 British troops would subsequently lose their lives and staggeringly, over 2 million would be injured, disabled and scared. Washington watched this ensuing nightmare unfold, their well stated instincts were to stay clear of Europe so they remained neutral, Why would they intervene? Or as some Americans would more pointedly and crudely ask, 'do we (actually) have a dog in this fight'? Overall this 'Great War' would cost the lives of around 17 million with over 20 million wounded, disabled and disfigured. As London and Paris continued with this myopic madness Wilson considered his political options - had the time come to stop this catastrophe ?

Having been re-elected in 1916 on a mandate that the US would not join the fighting in Europe Woodrow Wilson shortly afterwards 'changed his mind' and therefore, the nation's due to issues concerning 'national security' and preceded as Commander in Chief to order American troops onto European battlegrounds. The idea of defending your own nation's borders on other nation's real estate was born. Around 4 million troops were mobilized. Significantly, although the American troops cooperated with the Allies on the battlefield they saw themselves as clearly independent from the already established chain of command. As Wilson and his top General John Pershing made clear the US were intervening under their terms not Europe's. The long established European - American relationship was about to change direction. 

American military intervention with fresh troops and fresh ideas into this military morass was telling. On Uncle Sam's arrival Berlin soon realised their chances of 'winning' this war were gone. Within a year the Kaiser's troops were were also, ordered home as an armistice was agreed. The bloodiest most futile fighting ever witnessed by (wo)man  was finally over but the battle over the post war World was about to begin. The date: January 1919;  the venue Paris; the contestants - Clemenceau,  Lloyd George, Orlando and Woodrow Wilson - the prize; Perpetual Peace.

These "Peacemakers of Paris' as they have became known struggled over a six month period to reconcile Wilson's post war plan - Wilson's Fourteen points - with Clemenceau's need to obtain retribution from the Germans for this war and the 'humiliating' Franco - Prussian (German) War of 1870, and Lloyd George's desire to defend the 'future' of the British Empire. Add to that Orlando's remit to extend Italian influence around the Mediterranean and the Gordian knot seemed an easier proposition. What did become clear was Wilson's ideas of a new world order that would eventually find traction in a different format represented in 1941 was far too radical for the old guard of Europe. The European leadership were still concerned about history while Wilson was more interested in the future.  His ideas concerning free trade, freedom of the seas, arms control and national self determination for more nation - states reflected a world that paradoxically was becoming more interdependent not independent but these initiatives would also spell the end of European imperial control. London and Paris were not quite ready for that. But the key idea surrounding a new international 'peace' organisation - the League of Nations - seemed 'reasonable' to the peacemakers as long as it did not directly challenge the overriding sovereignty of the powerful nation-states. What is key to the intransigence shown by the old European leadership in Paris was that the fighting had stopped. In other words, the motivation to put a halt to this indescribable butchery was now absent. When FDR some 20 odd years later, successfully repackaged Wilson's plan as the Atlantic Charter (1941) the fighting was gaining momentum not losing it, no wonder Churchill - the arch British imperialist - and De Gaulle - the arch French nationalist - finally agreed to it.

Wilson's sombre return to Washington and his subsequent failure to get his own Congress to buy into the League of Nations idea did not disguise the fact that the United States was now strong enough to lead the World.  The question remained whether they really understood what that meant!

1941 was the year if there was just one that announced American pre-eminence. The last twenty odd years internationally had been underpinned by a global malaise. Any cohesive European leadership had been left on the battlefields of Northern France and Belgium in 1918. The League of Nations that was meant to offer an alternative international structure had become diluted and eventually delinquent as the members squabbled and skirmished their way along a bureaucratic and legalistic pathway that would eventually lead them back to where they began. In the meantime Washington had initially used and then abused this 'period of peace' as the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression that followed illustrated. But out of the insular nature of the American character appeared an internationalist that understood leadership and the responsibilities that came with it - FDR.

His subsequent stewardship (1933-1945) of his own nation - state and then of global affairs was hardly faultless or straightforward but at least he recognised that the US had to offer a strong direction of travel that needed to be underpinned by international organisations - very Wilsonian - but the difference between 1919 and 1941 was the time, place and space was now ready for a New World Order. The immediacy and reality of war has a habit of focusing minds. As the Japanese - wittingly or not fired the starting gun at Pearl Harbour - Roosevelt not only introduced the US into the Second World War he also promoted his post war plan that included the effective dismantlement of the old imperial systems, a new defence plan,  a new financial structure  and of course, the United Nations. This outline structure with many additions, a few deletions and some amendments has enabled the World to traverse the period from 1945 to 1989 with a degree of order if the overall goal of global peace has gone missing. Due to American leadership Europe enjoyed the initial financial benefits of the Marshal Plan and the on going security that emanated from NATO. The very nation-states that assisted in the birth and growth of the US was now on the receiving end of this enduring relationship.

We will discuss in the final short story - part 3 Europe and the US, Do We Still Need Each Other? What has happened to US/European relations post Cold War? What are our options now as we consider a very unpredictable outlook and a insecure future? 
                                  

   KK                  

 I thought I would take this my final opportunity to use this particular blog by constructing THREE SHORT STORIES concerning the historic, political and philosophical relationship Europe had and has with the United States.

To understand the long-standing 'friendship' between Western Europe and the US  you might wish to consider two notions. Firstly, that some associations endure because of their obvious attractions whilst others continue in spite of their obvious differences. Simply put, one is born from the heart, the other is born from the head. Secondly, whilst Europe has spent an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to reconcile the disconnect between what they believe in - their values - and how they have acted, the United States largely has not. In other words, whilst Europe continues engage in self analysis and increasing self doubt, the US engages in tomorrow. That just might be because the narrative of European nationhood is long, deep,confused and complex. Whilst the US has yet to recognise its past fearful that it might get in the way. As you will now read they might have a point.         

Let me try and explain...

 Part 1 

The US Needs Europe
Like any personal relationship the evocative notions of attraction, need, desire even love - whatever that is - are often underwritten or overwritten by the equally powerful senses of pragmatism, security and safety. In other words, international relations is often just a collective expression of feelings, thoughts and actions that can describe and drive our every day 'rational' relationships. Why wouldn't they be! Since nation-states are at their simplest just a recognised, defined, and framed socio-political construct of us. Consequently, these nation-states' foreign policies are also at their most basic just a linguistic, diplomatic re-articulation of our own 'affairs of the heart' built on a often confused collection of promises, aspirations, and dreams that are then often tempered by the necessities of survival, sanity and the cold light of day. Therefore, when 'boys in the band' - Jefferson, Madison, Washington et al decided to divorce themselves from English paternalism so that they could construct their own 'new' understanding of society in 1776 they may have declared, desired or even dreamed of doing this in isolation of external influences but these 'political musicians' had already acquired a symphony of ideas that had emanated from British and European thought, for they were taking their political and cultural antecedences from their former relationships with the 'Old World' and re-framing them within a vast environment that would need some control of or at least order within their new understanding of freedom. Of course, the Founders often talked and wrote about this sense of separation, independence, and self reliance from Europe as their driving abiding attraction but the pragmatic issues of security, safety and power meant otherwise; to pull away from London's influences they had to sign a trade, property and political treaty with Paris and Madrid. In other words, this new Republic that wanted nothing to do with kingly states that were instructed and supported by Rome, from the get go needed assistance from the old Catholic Monarchies of Europe to survive. The often trumpeted beliefs of the New World would actually play second fiddle in determining their immediate future, for their degree of self determination would be contingent on Europe's own domestic competence and competition - ironically, paradoxically this condition has never really changed.

By 1783 with the British beaten thanks largely to this injection of French and Spanish military might and British political incompetence - nothing new there then -  the governance and future of the US seemed hopeful but due to their continuing need for European assistance they swiftly found that their nation's future was once again in dispute. Primarily, because of a lack rigour in the political and economic structure that bound together the originating thirteen states - The Articles of Confederation, secondly, because of the growing interference from the French and Spanish domestically and the British externally as the Royal Navy continued to rule the waves. Simply put, as Paris and Madrid looked to expand and strengthen their own imperial designs in Louisiana and Florida thanks to their interpretation of the war time treaty with the Americans, London looked to react to their loss of the colonies by strengthening their control of the crucial Atlantic trade routes. The result, this New World socio-political project was being slowly strangled at birth.

For the Founders their solution to these dual existential crisis was twofold. Madison, Adams, Hamilton et al met secretly in Philadelphia to replace the weak and ineffective Articles of Confederation with the US Constitution(1787). In spite of its 'missing details' this iconic document provided the strong legal and political framework for the new states to cling onto survival. Moreover, the US government looked to break their entreated and destructive ties with Paris and Madrid and turn back to London or more precisely the British Royal Navy who would hopefully provide badly needed security. As the British could no longer rule these colonies it would make sure its European competitors could not either by parking their powerful navy off the eastern seaboard of the US. Also, in secret Washington and London agreed by 1794 to a new commercial deal that gave security of the trade routes to both nations. So, once again the US used the on going political and economic rivalry between European nations to help assist in the development of their own nationhood. For the notions of isolationism or independence of the New World from the Old just like love was actually just a imagined, seductive condition not a realistic or realisable proposition.

Subsequently, As the United States looked to expand from East coast to West over the next fifty odd years the British Navy largely fulfilled their role of keeping other interfering Europeans away. There was the little hiatus of the War 1812 when the US in the person President Madison got a little over confident and thought he could do without the continuing help from London. After nearly losing his nation and his neck thanks to this hubris by 1814 -having signed a peace treaty with the British in the Flemish heartlands of Ghent during Christmas Eve - the nation went back to focusing on inward expansion and their practical securitised relationship with the British. The US Civil War(1861-1865) - The United States 'Real Revolution' - duly arrived after their focus on domestic expansion had lost its immediacy and  the enlarged nation could look back to try and reconcile the 'missing details' that had gone in the 'too hard file' when considering the Constitution some seventy years earlier  - slavery, citizenship, federal governance, the economy and states rights'. London and Paris looked on at this development without direct interference as this bloodiest of conflicts ensued. Economically, the British and the French had interests in the cotton that the Southern States provided, since it kept the mills in Paris and Northern England busy. Politically, both were attracted to the Northern States and their potential influence. But both wisely stayed neutral during this domestic conflict. It is a good principle - stay well clear of communities and countries that are fighting over their own identity -  which,unfortunately, has largely been ignored by the super powers as we have witnessed subsequently in Korea, Vietnam, Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan and more recently in Syria.

After fighting out their own notion of national identity post war America heralded Reconstruction and the Gilded Age of the 1870's, and until the turn of the new century they witness the US evolving somewhat erratically but effectively from a regional power into a intercontinental industrial powerhouse as Alexander Hamilton had predicted some century ago. The American Eagle had at last spread its vast commercial and financial wings across the Pacific to the 'Far West'. The wash back from Uncle Sam's arrival and the resultant impact would be to upset European imperial control in this region but also to destablise the  Eurocentric nature of World order.  Moreover, by 1898 and the Spanish American War when Washington removed militarily the last vestiges of Spanish imperial control from the islands of Cuba and the Philippines many within the chancelleries of Europe recognised that the American Empire had not only arrived but was here to stay. Consequently, as the twentieth century said hello many in Berlin, Paris, London and Moscow realised the 'American Century' was also about to begin.

Resultantly, the relationship between Europe and Uncle Sam - the direction of travel - began to gather speed and spin dramatically and decisively as Europe descended into 'Total War' that would sound the death knell for numerous empires and the end of European pre-eminence. Moreover, as Europe battered, gassed and bombed itself to a barbaric and futile standstill on the bloodied battlefields of Belgium and Northern France, London and Paris in the guise of Lloyd George and Clemenceau started to look across the Atlantic to Washington. The presiding president Woodrow Wilson returned their gaze. The time was coming when the very nations that had helped the US grow from a collection of ideas and ideals which had originated from the Enlightenment, into a imperial nation was about to ask for help from the New World. For the strength - the longevity - of all relationships whether individual or international is in recognising and realising where the power now sits. Since many in the US are charmed and enamoured by the cultural diversity and history of Europe whilst many in Europe are attracted by American directness, energy and focus yet this mutual attraction is only enjoyed to its fullest if both really need each other.    


Part Two to follow: Europe Needs the US                                                

KK

Mummy is it morning yet? A young girl asks as she looks to the blackened skies, its midday in Aleppo. The scream of the jets and plumes of phosphorus from the self serving rockets adds to this particular version of Armageddon. As one 'Save the Children' official noted, 'even the underground bunkers have now just become another place to die'. The facts of this endless conflict are chillingly straightforward, since this battle began in July 2012 the population of the eastern part of Syria's largest city have either been displaced or are dead. That is around a million people. As a historian Syria's Stalingrad comes to mind. As a philosopher Darwin and the primordial fight for survival seems apt but as a human being my head is turned by my heart as surely this is 'hell on earth' as around 100,000 children are trapped, unable to sleep, to play, to pray, to go to school and unable just to see the sun. This is the worst of us.

For me, as a political observer Aleppo has become a post modern illustration of the very darkest that we can picture and paint. We have watched on for four years as this city has been used and abused as a trial of strength by the numerous warring factions that support the Assad's government or oppose it. But it has also become a geo-political arena where Washington, Brussels, and Moscow displays, disputes and then despatches their military might without any genuine thought as to the inhumanity they are really proffering. The United Nations also looks on as their weak words of STOP IT fall on the ears of politicians that can hear but will not listen. This lack of courage and commonality that our leaders possess, their unwillingness and inability to stop this carnage strikes at the very centre of what civilization truly means. The brutalisation of us all is the result as we accept this to be our new normal. For this  is the worst of all conflicts as it is not only a civil war with the internecine horrors of family fighting family and brother killing brother, but it also has the added poisonous and pernicious ingredients offered by outsiders from Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the West. 

During Obama's presidency there were opportunities to stop this human catastrophe - July 2013 when red lines where drawn on the Syrian canvass  by the US President as he warned Assad and Russia to go no further or else. But there was no or else as Moscow and Damascus ignored the warnings and expanded their range. Obama had blinked and the opportunity was lost. Assad during the first 2 years of this war when besieged on all sides would have accepted 'a deal' brokered by the West. Yet Washington, London and Brussels refused to deal with this particular dictator. Other dictators in this region were fine to work with but not this one. This political arrogance and intransigence would go on to provide the blackened backdrop for this modern day nightmare.

As Christmas is welcomed with wine and good cheer in the capitals of Washington, Brussels and London what does the New Year bring for the children of Aleppo as they queue in freezing conditions hoping and waiting for modern transport to take them away from this ancient hell? This is a seasonal picture that you will not see drawn on your Christmas cards because its too real for our liberal and partial sensitivities. So, maybe this coming year we should stop pretending to see the World as we would like it and deal with the World as it really is. We owe it to the children of Aleppo to face the reality of now so that they have a chance to dream, to pretend and to see the sun.

Happy Christmas and Real New Year to you all

KK
                      

Ever since France and Spain's timely and effective intervention during the War of Independence (1776 -1783) the United States future has been intrinsically linked to Europe's. Initially, the Old World led and largely dominated this relationship as international affairs were predominately Eurocentric. But after the United States real revolution - the US Civil War(1861-65) - the economic balance of power began to swing towards the New World and by the late 1890's Uncle Sam had become the biggest commercial power in the World. Subsequently, the crucial and decisive intervention by American troops on the battlefields of Northern Europe in 1917 signalled that their economic power had now been extended to their military prowess. By 1945 and the end of another global conflagration this economic and military pre-eminence had also reached into the political. In other words, the United States had become the completest pre-eminent nation the World had ever known, while Europe had been relegated to being a group of nations that now acted within a post imperial prism supported by Marshal Plan money.

Subsequently, for all the French claims concerning the creation of a new unified Europe it was Washington who behind the scenes drove the critical rapprochement between Bonn and Paris. The establishment of this historic relationship laid down the stabilising conditions vital for the subsequent Treaty of Rome(1957) and the slow evolution of what is known today as the European Union. But since 1945 the management and maintenance of Western European security has largely been in the hands of NATO and therefore, Washington. The 'obviousness' of this situation remained throughout the Cold War as the US used its money and men to protect Europe from the apparent wander lust of Soviet Russia. But do not be under any allusion ever since Alfred Mahan's seminal book on Sea Power(1890) the US understood that the most effective way of defending its own nation's borders was to defend them on someone's else's real estate. Germany might have become the bulwark against Russian advancement into Western Europe but it had also become the first line of defence for the American homeland. Hence, the subsequent creation of NATO had become a structural as well as a military extension of American power.

After the Berlin Wall was dismantled(1989) and the Soviet Union imploded the role and purpose of NATO suddenly became contested. Yet, by the now the institution had built its own form of protection; its reason for being - whatever that was - and for all their critical and sometimes threatening rhetoric Washington did not want to lose their key foothold in Europe since NATO had not just become a military entity but by now a highly political one. Its very existence reinforced the idea that Western ideals underpinned by American reasoning was the only game in town and therefore, any other form of political/security relationship was and is just poppycock. But that reasoning alone was not seen as strong enough now that 'obviousness' of NATO that the Cold War had guaranteed was no longer in play. Therefore, NATO, went in search of a new 'unchallengeable' role. So, although NATO is not linked directly to the European Union it started to expand its operations and reach as its Brussels neighbour expanded its. This development was again being driven by Washington and tacitly agreed by Brussels. Since it looked to put pressure on the Russians due to Putin's more assertive style that was being witnessed via his increased Middle Eastern interventions.

Moreover, along side this development NATO strengthened its raison d'etre by starting to operate outside of the understood 'European Defence Area' - Afghanistan. Who agreed to this role change? Was this development ever discussed publicly? Not really, since this deployment of NATO troops was done under the US constructed umbrella of the UN. But do not be confused by these 'smoke and mirrors' the desire to go to Afghanistan was so that NATO continued to hold its institutional and structural place in Europe and was therefore, non 'replaceable'. Hence, almost imperceptibly NATO became not just a defender of Western Europe it was now effectively an extension of US/EU foreign policy that was publicly but superficially managed in Brussels but still clearly led by the paymaster - Washington. The strength and the considerable weakness of this situation from a European perspective has been unfolding recently with disastrous consequences. Yes, the Americans continue to pick up 70% of the cost of NATO but as an increasingly disjointed and ineffective US foreign policy in the Middle East took hold it drove millions of refugees across European borders and brought with it the facility and ability of terrorists to do their worst as witnessed in Paris and Brussels. Moreover, the parallel extension of NATO and the EU has understandably made Moscow nervous as it now sees this military organisation not just as a defensive force but an offensive one with 'expansionist tenancies'. These changes and somewhat confusing perspectives have generated increased tensions as highlighted in the Ukraine recently as Putin looked to develop his own 'fire break' between an an expanding EU/NATO and Russia.

Trump's impending arrival into the White House has undoubtedly placed the spotlight firmly on the changing and fractured nature of US society that includes as one of its remedies a more protectionist agenda. (Remember that Brexit was just that, a call for more protection ). Hence many are now wondering how these populist reflections will effect the up and coming Italian referendum, and the crucial French and German elections. So is it time for Europe to take charge of its own security? Is it time for the EU to have a recognised and legitimate independent foreign policy? Since it seems that the confusion and confluence of European security and American foreign policy that has developed post Cold War has helped create a condition that might ultimately lead to the dismantling of the EU. Although this scenario seems a little far fetched, what would we have said if someone had pronounced a year ago that the UK would leave Europe and Trump would become 'leader of the free World! Is is so unreasonable that Le Pen will not win the French Presidency after the calamity that has been Hollande? Is the right wing in Germany that far from mounting a authentic challenge to Merkel thanks largely to the increasing strain due to the influx of  refugees? 

We are entering or have entered a new norm in International Relations because the space between Equity and Liberty has grown too far apart and large sections of society in the US and Europe have had enough. In other words, our post Cold War understanding of freedom has not become redefined and determined by democracy but by a 'no holds barred'  brand of neo liberal economics that was initiated in the US and supported with gusto in the UK. This narrowly defined 'its the economy stupid' approach to all social matters (globalisation) is just too unfair, too indiscriminate and too unjust. It has effectively destabilised mature as well as developing democracies and brought the long standing and historic relationship between Europe and the US into question.

It is clear that next moves that both the EU and the US make should be made very carefully and with great consideration since if a more protectionist and insulationist approach prevails then the notions of collective responsibility for economic as well as physical and ecological security between nation-states will become scarce indeed. However, the audiences that are pushing for change will not just be quietened by sober and reasoned thought since their selected representatives are individuals specifically chosen to make decisions and get 'things done' that are not just for established interests. We can only hope that these representatives make the right calls for both Europe and the United States future!

KK                              

As the US Presidential election results State by State rolled in on Tuesday night the eyes of a large number of students that I was in the company of were focused on the bar size TV screens, as their faces gradually turned from one of assumed expectation, to growing tension, shock and then total disbelief, Donald ducked under the polls and stole the presidential prize. Yet why were these students let alone most of the World really surprised that a man such as Donald Trump should gain access to the Oval Office? After all one of the cliché driven notions of the United States is that ANYONE can become President, as Trump's success surely proved!

As someone who had already suggested caution over an assumed Clinton victory in my lectures and discussions leading up to this election even I decided to sit back for a couple of days after 'Trump's Triumph' before reaching for my keyboard as the reasons and ramifications of this amazing result needed careful and cool consideration. So,  firstly, why did a man best known for his real estate and reality show antics, his 'locker room' talk, his distant relationship with the truth, who was treated as a political and cultural joke by most of the American media become 'leader of the free world'?

The answer is relatively simple although  a complex of societal components including inequality, ignorance and inhumanity are involved. But lets start with 'the economy stupid'. Since the late 1980's as dear old 'Ronnie Reagan' receded into the dispiriting and disabling disease that is Alzheimer's so did the American economy. Since then the working classes in the US have seen no real term increase in their wage earning. Moreover, during this 25 year period many have seen at best continuing reductions in living standards and at worst long term unemployment, an increasing use of food banks, and ultimately homelessness. As the 'rulers of the universe' watched their salaries sky-rocket from their Wall Street 'launch' pads many in Main Street felt the increasing economic pain of a financial system that recognised few laws of fairness and equity and a globalized market place where the strongest just got stronger as the weaker just got weaker. The politicians from both main parties funded by Wall Street and Big Oil largely paid lip service to this damaging societal dynamic that allowed a 'free movement' of goods, services and money that failed to recognise national boundaries or borders let alone the traditional industries of steel and coal that had harnessed the Rust Belt States of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin for generations. All these states would be won by Trump.

These economic stresses that brought about deepening societal cracks weren't really acknowledged until it was too late as ironically, the very banks and financial institutions that had helped create this condition crashed. Since the subsequent 2008 economic meltdown was just the precursor to a continuing erosion of traditional working class employment and deployment; skilled and semi skilled industrial jobs, and manual labour disappeared or dispersed as this part of the US  felt the triple whammy of increased automation via robotics, computer advancement and increased competition from overseas. In other words, the adoption of neo-liberal free trade economics in the 1980's and the subsequent arrival of the third industrial revolution during the last ten years had helped develop the growing iniquities of a hollowed out society as the inflated egos of over paid executives flew in their private jets over large areas of low paid, few benefits, insecure work America.

The black vote held up for Obama during the next eight years due to the tribal nature of the political and racial divide in the US hence with the exception of the Tea Party there was little real opportunity for the largely white working classes to revolt at their treatment that came seemingly from a disconnected 'uncaring established elite' that sat in Washington and Wall Street - For many Hilary was already seen as a fully paid up member of this particular tribe. Then arrived a self financed alternative, who spoke in way that the working classes recognised. This man spoke to the disaffected under the banner of the Republican Party but he was/is no traditional established Republican. He believes in government intervention at most levels of society. 

His audience felt and saw themselves as victims of a unfair system propped up by the insidious influences of globalization,  free market liberal economics and rank awful governance and they had a point. But Trump not only agreed with their sentiments he identified and articulated who the perpetrators of these crimes were - poor free trade deals, unfair overseas competition and illegal immigration, in other words, outsiders, non Americans, the protected elite.The irony here is startling since Trump is himself an outsider and a multi billionaire but his description of the 'enemy' was anti establishment, racial and fiercely nationalistic. The return of protectionism had come as Trump extolled the virtues of 'Making America Great Again'. Although  Clinton's softer, reasoned and more experienced approach appealed to the the die-hard Democrat States of East and West coast life this approach sounded too much of the same and less about radical change, it sounded as it was to protect the lives of the well heeled and acceptable middle classes. But in the key swing states numbering about ten where all elections are normally decided Clinton was increasingly seen as part of the problem not part of the solution.                                        

Why didn't the black and Latino community vote for Clinton? Why didn't more women vote for Clinton? Why didn't many of the young supporters of Bernie Saunders vote for Clinton? Many did, but too many either stayed at home, voted independent or in desperation, Trump. Why? Because Clinton the technocrat, was also seen as a flawed candidate that could not be trusted especially as her policies suggested little real change from the continuing economic status quo. No wonder the working classes and younger voters said no, moreover many black Americans who witnessed zero improvement in their own lives during Obama's reign also turned their backs. Whilst many 'mature' women in the US did not find Trump's misogynistic crudities as off putting as some of the more 'sensitive younger sisters'.

Finally, because of the electoral college system in the US Trump's team understood better than most the notion of marginal gain. In other words, they understood that in the key states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania etc all they needed was to collect a extra but relatively small number of Latino, black, women and young people votes and the balance of power would move. Meanwhile Hilary and her Beltway buddies forgot that she just could not rely on the Latino or Black vote for she had to work just as hard for their support. These small differences and deficiencies in strategy that polls assiduously ignored could bring seismic changes to the domestic America as well as international relations. The United States approach to immigration and free trade will now be under the spotlight as well as abortion and the Affordable Health Care Bill. For Europe NATO and who pays for it will be heavily scrutinised but far outweighing all these issues is the desire by Trump to tear up the Paris climate change accord. This single act of lunacy will spell disaster for the long term viability of our race...

More later on the effects that a Trump Presidency might bring to the rest of the World.        
   
Kindest

KK
   

Public Lecture this Tuesday 18th October at 7pm, the Blandijn in Auditorium C, Ugent
TRUMP v CLINTON - All welcome

It is difficult to put a clear figure on all the money raised and spent to date on the 2016 US Presidential Election because of the complex, opaque and bureaucratic nature of election funding but $1.1 billion would seem a 'conservative' estimate.(That is not taking into account all the 'dark money' that is being illegally spent - don't ask) Considering that around 43 million people in the US rely on food banks, that over half a million citizens are homeless and that around 30 million still do not have any health care cover it is easy to wonder about the wisdom and value of this huge outlay considering it is pouring into the pockets of already wealthy ad and media firms, TV companies, lawyers etc etc Why not use it to feed the hungry, help heal the sick and give shelter as winter approaches? Don't be so simplistic I hear you cry, society just doesn't work like that!

No clearly it does not, but may I ask another simple question, Why are funding records being broken in this Presidential race while the overall federal budget on social welfare is declining? Now I hear you say not only are you being simplistic but ignorant because the funding of welfare programs is public money(tax dollars) and the funding of the presidential race is largely private money. As the federal deficit stands at around $587 billion and the US debt over $19 trillion then clearly there is no money to help support these 'disadvantaged' citizens. Yet I reply, as the top 10% in the US earns over 39 times more than the other 90% couldn't this issue over welfare funding be solved by a relatively small raise in income tax? What! not only are you being simple and ignorant you are now just being plain stupid. The US is a low tax economy in keeping with its understandings of freedom. That means that it is the responsibility of the individual to look after their own welfare and largely not the role of the federal government. But isn't that unfair because if you do belong to these 'disadvantaged' groups how can you improve your overall welfare as well as your families, if you cannot afford to eat, sleep and be healthy? Since, in large part the US is not only low tax its is a low wage economy and that is why the majority of those 'disadvantaged' are actually in paid employment.

Well, the money being spent on the Presidential race is indirectly looking to solve this problem by getting elected a President that can provide for a fairer society. But isn't Trump looking to cut taxes and federal spending while Clinton is suggesting very modest tax raises but also federal spending cuts, so how does that help? OK, in truth what matters is not the Presidential race but the Congressional one since the House and the Senate have most impact on domestic affairs. But don't we already know thanks to the bizarre nature of the US electoral system that after this election the House will continue to be controlled by the Republicans and therefore, the purse strings, and the Senate will most likely go to the Democrats but without the two thirds majority needed to be able for them to do anything meaningful. Therefore, if electing the President doesn't really have any real effect on American society and Congress will stay largely unchanged I go back to my first simple question; why are Americans spending the $1.1 billion on a process that ultimately will provide nothing for large numbers of its citizens? I know, you have already told me, I'm just being stupid!      

Matthew Arnold, English essayist (1822-1888) once observed, Our inequality materializes our upper class, vulgarizes our middle class, brutalizes our lower class.” All very true but of course today it also drives a narrative in the US that demands the 'rightness of the status quo' over the 'simple and ridiculous notion' that the nation's priorities are just plain wrong and need urgent attention. Why? because regardless of which candidate finally limps to the White House this one sided conversation will continue to be delivered by a powerful elite who enjoy the materialisation of inequality, they benefit from this growing space between them and us and in-spite of all their rhetoric, will not change it. Since they have been branded 'wealthy and wise' and therefore,we are considered poor and stupid.

Trump professes to be on the side of the 'victims' of an unfair society as long as your white, male and a 'genuine' American. Clinton professes to be on her side; the middle classes that also been disadvantaged by inequality. Both are part of the powerful elite that have benefited from this unfair economic system. Are we really stupid enough to believe either of them will effect the change necessary to make the welfare of the poor and disenfranchised a priority since most cannot even vote let alone live in the world where both candidates reside?  

KK
 
Public Lecture this Tuesday 18th October at 7pm, the Blandijn in Auditorium C, Ugent
TRUMP v CLINTON - All welcome
 


                

Having watched recently the second live (scrap) debate between Trump and Clinton what stuck me even at 3am is how damaged and therefore, dangerous these two candidates actually are. Moreover, how damaged and destructive US politics has become as this prime time TV non reality show revealed.

In the world we now inhabit image dominates, this provides opportunities for a narcissistic and base view of society. Both candidates in their own style 'successfully' projected just that. Clinton, who seems to becoming more like Angela Merkel every time she appears in public adopted the school mistress approach to her audience. Knowing all, seeing all but how much does she really understand? Apparently, as she observed - trying to illustrate her superiority of thought, not too difficult I might add - 'as the opposition go lower, I go higher' an interesting comment in light of her and Bill's antecedence - Whitewater finances, her impracticable and unreadable health bill, the defence of her husband's abusive behaviour to women, voting for the Iraqi War, her involvement in the (Benghazi) Libyan debacle and the breaking of federal law by deliberately wiping chemically 39k emails from a private server whilst Secretary of State. Where is the high ethical behaviour to be found amongst that 'barrel of cookies'? As Trump triumphantly retorted as he strutted the stage (I paraphrase) 'when I become President I will ask the Attorney General to employ a Special Prosecutor to look into Clinton's affairs... and she will go to Jail'. As Trump announced his 'new-found keenness' for the law it just crossed my mind somewhat playfully that we might all be better off if both candidates spent the next four years in 'the slammer' as opposed to the Oval Office!

The revelations that Trump is a crude, sexist, misogynist was hardly surprising but his taped eleven year old 'locker room' talk did provide some low grade entertainment for many who did not enjoy being lectured to by Mistress Clinton. The fact that Trump's relationship with the truth is a very distant one - I'm being unnaturally generous - just adds to the overall sense that the citizen's of the US are being asked to vote on the basis of who is less disgraceful than the other - the 'say it as you see it' Trump who only cares about Trump or the more prissy Clinton who fears revealing her true self since she clearly does not like what she sees.

As this is supposed to be an academic based blog let me try and rephrase what the choice really amounts too. Does the US vote for a man whose understanding of foreign affairs has more to do with the fairer sex than international diplomacy? Or do they put their 'trust' in a woman whose instinct is to cover up and deflect, moreover, not sharing much at all really because paradoxically she is sure that she knows best? Hence, the conceit, ego and consistent lack of judgement that underpins both Presidential hopefuls makes me wonder why I would want either to be in charge of the most powerful military in the World!  As a European - I know I'm a Brit but please put up with my delusion - my worries also concern our on going reliance on an economic and military security relationship with a nation that is either to be 'overseen' by a real estate agent that does not understand one end of a tax form from another - allegedly - or a 'teacher' that hides her grades just in case someone will discover how inept she actually is?

Who will win this unedifying race to the bottom? Who will march down the Mall in January to the general chorus of 'what have we done? Who will do battle with Congress to see which branch of US governance is less likely to do something/anything as opposed to not? Well, please come to my Public Lecture next Tuesday at 7pm, the Blandijn in Auditorium C, Ugent and all will be revealed! Whoops, sorry for that burst of openness, I nearly forgot that in my lecture I need to closely align myself with the two personalities involved. So shall I pretend I know what I'm talking about when clearly I do not or shall I just cover up and preach to you all with that certain brand of certainty that gets up all our respective noses! No, that is not meant as a description of many academics! Please come, listen and ask any questions you may have since in the 'Reality World of Trump verses Clinton' nothing seems right, nothing seems wrong, its just different!

KK