After watching the news tonight, I am coming around ever more to David Carr’s way of thinking. Perhaps sheer irritation by the Bush Administration about the obscurantist stance of the French and German governments regarding the use of force to depose Saddam Hussain may achieve something I have long wanted to see… the end of the fiction in American minds that either France or Germany are in fact US allies in any meaningful sense.
This is the first step needed to de-couple the Anglosphere Atlantic Alliance from the legacy of World War Two and the Cold War. The first clear step that this process is under way will be the permanent withdrawal of most US forces currently stationed in Germany, a situation which is a costly anachronism in the post Cold War world. Maybe the opportunity will be immediatly post-Gulf War II, with the US troops currently based in Germany which are going to be involved in Iraq going back to bases in the USA instead.
I just hope the pompous Chirac and the buffoonish Schroeder keep plucking on the eagle’s feathers… sooner of later Blair, or his successor, is going to have to decide if they want to be on the side of history’s winners or history’s losers.
Hell, changing the name of N.A.F.T.A. to North Atlantic Free Trade Area would not even require reprinting all that stationary with the acronym on it!
Steven Den Beste has been addressing this issue lately, and quite well I might add.
I agree there is much potential good in looking our “allies” straight in the eye and telling them to either start acting like allies or we’ll start treating them like any other country.
Having just returned from Germany working for the US Army, I can say I look forward with much Schadenfreude to the negative economic effects of mass base closure on the Land of Rheinland-Pfalz.
One can only hope; and then maybe the UK can loose itself from the Nanny-Nonsense of those imposed regulations from those €unichs.
Politics aside, as an American with an affinity for the Brits, I would wholeheartedly welcome them to NAFTA. That very idea was floated publicly in America when the Euro first appeared in the financial system, so it’s not new to us on this side of the pond. One can only hope…
What a great idea! As things currently stand, perhaps Canada should be trading places with the Brits. Canada is very Eunuch-like these days.
I think that there’s still something to be gained by having U.S. troops closer to the Middle East. I understand some of the Eastern European countries might be easy. A Czech Republic base might not be a bad thing at all.
There is no way that Britain is going to join NAFTA before Australia does. (Australia is in the early stages of negotiating a free trade agreement with the US as the moment). Therefore the acronym won’t work, however good an idea it might be. NAAFTA perhaps?
I can’t see US troops remaining in Germany much longer one way or another. They are an expensive anachronism at this point, and there are many other places where they could actually be useful.
How about NAASFTA: North American Anglo Saxon Free Trade Agreement. We could even add New Zealand too!
Let’s start with the Anglosphere Free Trade Area, but don’t stock up on stationary and cards. In your area, there are Turkey, Czech Rep., Poland, Norway, etal; then there is South America. The Oz & Kiwi’s may have a candidate or two plus there are true friends here and there about the world.
I’d love to see a tier system designed by Mises!
The latest at NATO (following Den Beste’s theory) would indicate the French are willing to put NATO as well as the UN on the line – what ARE they so afraid of?
As much as I’d like to see it, moving troops out of Germany is not so simple. US troops are there not so much for Germany’s protection, as for the rest of Europe’s protection from Germany. Although there’s little they could do about it, one can imagine that a Russian would not be all that comfortable with a Germany once again completely left to its own devices. The last two times that was tried, things didn’t work out so well. This is especially true as Germany vies to be the center of gravity for the EU.
“We taught them a lesson back in 1918, and they’ve hardly bothered us since then…”
– Tom Lehrer, referring to the Germans
Germany (and, in its previous edition, West Germany) is not, and has never been, an “ally” of the U.S. Since 1946, Germany has been a protectorate of the U.S. Allies fight alongside each other. A protectorate is simply that, a country you are protecting. And that is exactly what the relationship has been, and still is.
–This is especially true as Germany vies to be the center of gravity for the EU.–
And it’s going to drag the rest of the EU down with it.
Daniel –
Germany couldn’t fight its way out of a paper bag these days and is not likely to acquire either the capability or more importantly the will and courage to do so for some time to come, so its neighbors have nothing to fear, at least militarily.
Uhm, which company illegally helped North Korea with nuclear enrichment technology?
Germany.
When Uncle Sam was standing nose to nose with The Bear for 45+ years, where was his boot heel?
Germany.
I agree with Daniel, and the LAST thing the Poles, Czechs and many others (not to mention The French 🙂 want is ANOTHER resurgent militaristic Germany. It would take them no time at all to ‘go nuclear’, if they haven’t illegally and undeclared yet.
I wouldn’t put it past the Audu Kranzler for a New York minute.
They didn’t ask the German People the last 2 times, did they?
But I’m certain the Poles and Czechs will be MORE than happy to have the Army’s Corp V spend their paychecks there after the bulk of them are done with Iraq (and friends?)
The permanent members of the Security Council matter not because of their veto, but from Legal Nukes.
A new, post-UN world order centered around current Nuclear Powers makes more sense to me, with all new rules for membership. I’d make them like this:
If you’ve got a Nuke now, declare them, Inspectors verify, and you’re One of the Boys. Powers that voluntarily relenquished past nuclear weapons tech (South Africa, Brazil, others??) get in as full voting Protectorate members. All Nuclear and Protectorate states agree to strict Nuclear Non-Agression mutally between themselves. All other candidate Protectorate states must be democracies (as confirmed by a vote of current members by a system they determine) [Russia and China at least nominally qualify even on non-nuke grounds, see, we’re “consistent”!] and sufficiently Pro-Trade as to be WTO members.
Anyone nukes a member, the rest of the members retaliate against the offender.
Otherwise, most anything goes (except for LETHAL chem. and COMMUNICABLE bio).
Post-Cold War, Stable MAD.
Frank Herbert envisioned it as a stable future alternative in Dune…called the Great Convention of Man….that’s how I’d apply it in our current climate.
Heck, scifi invented the satellite, why not a post-Cold War political structure?
I agree with Daniel, and the LAST thing the Poles, Czechs and many others (not to mention The French 🙂 want is ANOTHER resurgent militaristic Germany. It would take them no time at all to ‘go nuclear’, if they haven’t illegally and undeclared yet.
You must be kidding! I am no fan of German political culture but the notion that Germany, circa 2002, would pose a military threat to any one is bizarre. If you have any knowlage at all about modern Germany, it should be clear that getting the German state to spend money on weapons is like getting blood from a stone… they prefer to put their appropriated tax money towards ‘social’ and corporate welfare expenditure.
As for going ‘nulcear’, oh pleeeeeaze… do you have any idea of the sheer size of the Green-Red Movement in Germany? The idea of Germany having nukes makes no sense at all as it would be internal political death for whoever was associated with it.
As for a ‘nuclear club’, don’t forget paragons of virtue like Pakistan and Israel. Nuclear proliferation is happening (it is only 1940’s technology after all) and whilst it can be discouraged, it cannot be stopped… however I expect one of the last places it will happen in Germany!
Well said Perry… this idea of warlike Germans hungering after the conquest of Europe’s straight out of a ’50s boys’ comic. Why not suggest that the Japanese people still harbour a secret desire for world domination?
Sure, you’ll be able to find some nuts in both countries who think that way, but the vast majority will be so far opposed you’ll fall over in surprise.
And the same goes for this much-vaunted anglosphere/NAFTA idea; you may claim it’s a ‘logical’ idea, but the vast majority of the British people, suspicious as they are of Europe, are certainly not any more trusting of the US. At least in the EU, we’re dealing with countries who have about the same kind of clout as we do, and so have (or could have) quite a say in what goes on. Do you really think anyone in NAFTA has a chance of pushing anything the US doesn’t like through?
Even if the Hermans wanted to, without the industrial might of Krupp, Thyssen, IG Farben, who kept the home fires burning all through the inter-war years there can’t be a Wermacht. Plus the German General Staff, which was the incubator for all the brilliant generals of WWII, is long gone.
A_t:
“At least in the EU, we’re dealing with countries who have about the same kind of clout as we do, and so have (or could have) quite a say in what goes on. Do you really think anyone in NAFTA has a chance of pushing anything the US doesn’t like through?”
I’m not really sold on the expanding NAFTA idea, but if you think Great Britain will ever have significant clout in the EU, you’re mistaken. France and Germany (but mostly France) run that show, and that is never going to change. The idea that France allows the UK to have equal say in the EU is about as likely as Saddam Hussein repenting and turning himself in to a war crimes tribunal.
I agree it is highly unlikely that Germany would become a military threat once again. Unfortunately, that’s not the issue. Instead, it’s the perception of others that counts. I’m not sure if there are any Russians, Poles, Ukranians who read this site, but I can imagine that, especially for the older generations, a Germany left to its own devices doesn’t make them particularly comfortable. However, as I wrote before, there isn’t really a whole lot the Eastern Europeans could do about it anyway. So if we choose to remove our troops, there won’t be much to stop us. All I was trying to say was that it could be a little more complicated than it might seem. I believe. the most likely scenario is that we would offer to move our troops from Germany into the Eastern European countries.
A similar situation is Japan and China. While they might make a little noise about it, I’d imagine that China is a lot more comfortable with US troops in Japan keeping an eye on things, rather than having Japan be left to its own devices. Indeed, threatening to “let Japan loose” is an idea that many have floated to get China to play ball regarding North Korea.
Hope this clarifies my point.
Daniel: […] Russians, Poles, Ukranians who read this site, but I can imagine that, especially for the older generations, a Germany left to its own devices doesn’t make them particularly comfortable […] All I was trying to say was that it could be a little more complicated than it might seem. I believe. the most likely scenario is that we would offer to move our troops from Germany into the Eastern European countries.
Somehow I do not think moving US troops out of Germany and into Eastern Europe, i.e. closer to the Russian & Ukranian borders, is the sort of thing that will make Russians and Ukranians feel more secure!
And by the way… I do not off hand recall hearing from any Ukranian readers but Samizdata.net has had e-mails and comments from readers in Poland and Russian in the past.
A_t: You’re right in stating that the Anglosphere would be treated with suspicion by many, especially in the other nations on these islands. “Anglo” is not a popular prefix but Britneyspheres just doesn’t work.
However, a free trade agreement with the US is not in the same order of magnitude as the EU, and does provide a viable economic alternative that widens our sphere of diplomatic freedom.
You don’t have to be an Anglospherist to see the advantages of such an arrangement.
Philip, There are no other “nations” in the British Isles. Great Britain and N Ireland is all one nation. The only other tribe with any numbers in the British Isles is the Celts, and I can’t see that, other than mock horror, they would object to being dubbed Anglo Saxons in order to accrue the financial benefits and freedoms that would obtain from joining NAFTA. I speak as one myself.
You’ll find the political climate to a Free Trade
Agreement in the U.S. will be very welcoming
to other English-speaking, law-based nations.
The base of opposition to Mexico during NAFTA
(and I would argue most opposition involved
Mexico) was that including the Mexicans would do
more to drag US down, rather than pulling them
up. Other Anglospherist countries simply don’t have
that problem.