My Comments: It is much easier to imagine a future as an extension of the past as seen in our minds than to visualize a future with totally new and different dynamics. This is where I have a problem with leaders like Israel’s Netanyahu, with the likes of Rand Paul and others on the right.
They seem unwilling to recognize that the coming years will be dramatically different from those in the past and simply want to turn back the clock. You only need to look at the life of my grandparents as they grew up, married and had children in the late 1800’s and the lives their children lived in the 1920’s and ‘30s. Never mind my life in the 40’s and 50’s. The shifts in what they experienced as “normal” are almost like night and day as I look back.
The issues faced by my children and grandchildren to advance themselves in society will demand different skill sets, different rule sets, and a different mind set if they are going to be happy and productive citizens. The sooner we elect leaders who are sufficiently imaginative and willing to articulate this perspective, the more comfort I will have as my life ends.
( Some of you will note that I’ve been absent for a week or so. I’ve been trying to find a way to legitimately use this site to help promote my business activities without infringing on my ability to simply express ideas that I want to share. If any of you have any ideas about this, I’d like to hear from you. – TK )
Robert D Kaplan April 7, 2015
Why should Washington defend a continent that will not defend itself, writes Robert Kaplan
Appeasement is an age-old tactic of diplomacy. It can be a defensible one, but not as a frame of mind for an entire continent. Yet no word captures the general mood of Europe better than appeasement.
Europeans, it has been said, cherish freedom but do not want to sacrifice anything for it. Only about half a dozen of Nato’s 28 members spend 2 per cent of output on defence, the alliance’s guideline level. When Vladimir Putin’s Russia undermined the strategic state of Ukraine, they stood and watched.
This is of a piece with the EU’s inability to deal with its own economic difficulties. Whatever they may claim, each member follows its own national interest without asking what is best for Europe. Decades into the project, there is still no chill-up-your-spine loyalty to Europe. There is simply no larger purpose and nothing to fight for, other than providing for the good life under welfare state conditions.
Europe has been reduced over the decades to a regulatory regime. Yet a rules-based order, however much it protects the rights of the individual, is not a replacement for conviction: rather, it must evolve out of a healthy and determined national purpose. A supranational purpose might exists in Brussels but not on the European street.
Because of their anaemic sense of national purpose, European elites have in several countries ceded measurable ground to the far right or the far left, resulting in a lumpen and populist form of nationalism. Elites are often stranded in the middle, seeking ways to appease both Mr Putin and their own, homegrown extremists. Lumpen nationalism, defeatism and a latent anti-Semitism all flow together.
Europe’s elites are post-historical. Living in history means living in a world of constant threat where there is no nightwatchman to keep the peace among nations, so nations must keep the peace themselves by maintaining a balance of power. But for 70 years Europe has relied on the US to do exactly that: guarantee its security, so that Europe can spend relatively little on defence and relatively much on providing for the good life. Seventy years is much longer than the distance between the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war; or between the end of that conflict and the outbreak of the first world war.
For 70 years Europe has relied on the US to guarantee its security, so it can spend less on defence and more on the good life.
This American security umbrella will not stay up for ever. Barack Obama’s alleged lack of resolve in dealing with Mr Putin may say less about the US president’s own foreign policy than about a gradual shift in US opinion. Why should America defend a continent that will not defend itself?
The last of America’s second world war veterans will soon be dead. The European-oriented elites that have influenced foreign and defence policy in Washington are gradually being replaced by bright young men and women — many of them the offspring of immigrants from Asia and Latin America — who bring with them different family histories and emotional priorities. This coincides with the security challenges and opportunities that America encounters outside Europe, particularly in Asia, where American allies are willing to maintain robust, deployable militaries.
Or take Israel, a country with which the American public has for more than half a century been stubbornly sympathetic, whatever its often-misguided politicians do to inconvenience US policy. This is (among other things) the result of Israel’s stiff national resolve and gutsy, demonstrated willingness to defend itself.
Gutsy is not a word one would use to describe Europe’s political class. And unless that changes, no US president will be as committed to Europe as his predecessors were during the cold war.
The writer is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security