Europe caused the refugee crisis, because it did not prevent bad actors from launching bad wars in their own, very bad self-interest, inside Europe’s own security area. Now hell is not just to be paid, but it is blossoming. (Europe is just going to give three billion Euros to Turkey’s Sultan, PM Erdogan, so he be nicer!)
Europe is an empire, but it acts either like Uncle Sam’s poodle, or, more frequently, as a boiled vegetable. Europe claims to be wise, human, humanist, responsible, sustainable, just, balanced, historically minded, socially advanced. Nice talk. But talking the talk is not enough. One has also to walk the walk. And for that, one needs power.
Without the will, capacity, capability and historicity of effective power application, Europe is neither of the following:
“ wise, human, humanist, responsible, sustainable, just, balanced, historically minded, socially advanced…”
[Europe Is The Reigning Worldwide Empire, Be It Only Philosophically: consider the Charter of the United Nations. A question about Europe’s Exclusive Economic Zone: are the USA supposed to defend it, or are Mr. Putin and Xi supposed to serve themselves?]
Denmark is often produced as the paragon of European virtues, and what Europe ought to aspire to. However, Denmark fought, at most, six hours against the Nazis in World War Two. After that it was collaboration all the way through, until warriors from other countries extinguished Nazism. So Denmark is not an example to follow. Sweden is even worse: it was outright an ENABLER of Hitler, in more way than one. Norway, though, was heroic. And even countries which lost some battles early on (especially France and Yugoslavia, let alone the USSR’s occupied areas, caused huge losses to the Nazis later, even under occupation; in France alone, the resistance was evaluated by the Nazis as having mobilized more than 25 divisions).
Even while excluding Russia, Europe is the world’s economic superpower. You would think that those who preach the supremacy of the so-called “free market” would observe this, and call Europe a superpower. But no, they don’t.
Here is The Economist in its lead, cover article: “A CONTINENT separates the blood-soaked battlefields of Syria from the reefs and shoals that litter the South China Sea. In their different ways, however, both places are witnessing the most significant shift in great-power relations since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In Syria, for the first time since the cold war, Russia has deployed its forces far from home to quell a revolution and support a client regime. In the waters between Vietnam and the Philippines, America will soon signal that it does not recognise China’s territorial claims over a host of outcrops and reefs by exercising its right to sail within the 12-mile maritime limit that a sovereign state controls.
For the past 25 years America has utterly dominated great-power politics. Increasingly, it lives in a contested world. The new game with Russia and China that is unfolding in Syria and the South China Sea is a taste of the struggle ahead.”
Absent from this analysis is Europe, the richest continent both in GDP and human capital. And not far from being the richest in arable land. One of the countries in the European Union has the world’s largest Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) at sea (with more than 11 million square kilometers).
So why does The Economist, and its attitude is typical among all and any major media and opinion forming outlet, ignore Europe?
Simply because the so-called free market, or even the economy, is not the master organizing principle of the world. Instead, Will To Power is. “The Economist” ought to be called “THE SUPREMACIST”.
Proof? Contemplate the following section in the article:
“Facts on the ground
As ever, that struggle is being fought partly in terms of raw power. Vladimir Putin has intervened in Syria to tamp down jihadism and to bolster his own standing at home. But he also means to show that, unlike America, Russia can be trusted to get things done in the Middle East and win friends by, for example, offering Iraq an alternative to the United States (see article). Lest anyone presume with John McCain, an American senator, that Russia is just “a gas station masquerading as a country”, Mr Putin intends to prove that Russia possesses resolve, as well as crack troops and cruise missiles.”
The Middle East is the proximal neighborhood of Europe, not of America. It would be only natural that Europe take the lead to impose peace, prosperity, or, at least, order and a modicum of civilization and respect of the United Nation Charter in its immediate neighborhood.
There around around 300 millions citizens of the USA. However, the number of citizens of the French Republic is in excess of seventy million. It is high time that the Europeans start to project military might, instead of letting others, such as Russia and the USA, do so in their backyard.
But, for acquiring control of its own backyard, the mood in Europe will have to change.
One cannot expect just one UNSUPPORTED European country (France) to project military might in active combat over more than half a dozen countries, as is presently the case (Mali, Niger, Cameroun, Nigeria, CAR, Syria, Iraq).
Europe has to stop considering the USA as its off shore security service. American security comes with a price: submission and subjugation (to American values, ideals, obsession, let alone commercial advantage). Not only it’s unhealthy for Europe, it’s unhealthy for the USA.
How unhealthy? Why would the USA adopt European philosophical and social values, when Europe itself will not fight, or otherwise defend them?
Such is Obama’s message. The president of the USA is clearly inviting Europe, in particular France, to take the lead in North Africa and the Middle East. This is excellent.
Why France? Because the others, with the possible exception of Britain, have the consistency of wet noodles.
Media such as The Economist, should they wish to be independent of USA’s commercial interest (but they are not), have to observe what is going on, and encourage the devolution of imperial and military power from the USA (and Russia!) to Europe. Instead of just affecting to consider empire building as a form of entertainment one can only contemplate from afar, while reaping the profits.
Europe cannot just be an economic empire. One cannot “imperare”, order, if one does not have military muscle. In the symbolic of the Roman Republic, the fasces, representing the people, are bundled around the axe of justice (a picture the Franks made their own, except the Francisque is a double edged axe).
Wars on one door’s step is no good news: they are a harbinger of disaster. The eleven million refugees out there, on the borders of Europe are not just a worry, they are a warning. A warning that peace does not come from wishful thinking, but active enforcement of justice.