Mar 10, 2003

What will the world be like in five years? No one can answer that question, interesting as it is. However, we can look back at the world as it was five years ago, and if we then compare that world with the world as it is now, a few trends appear. If those trends hold reasonably for another five years, we can get a hazy glimpse of the world yet to be.

The European Union

The European Union (EU) is now a reality, though a final and formal constitution is proving difficult in the actualisation. Its combined economy exceeds that of any other country, and its currency is valued higher than the United States (US) dollar. The EU seems destined to become a major center of political, military and economic activity.

US pressure on the EU to approve its invasion of Iraq causes dissension among the various EU countries. There have been heated exchanges, expressed in language not typical of diplomacy. The US has made threats, both economic and military, to coerce acquiescence. Though the US aggressively promotes its planned invasion, some countries of the EU are even more aggressively resisting the promotion. There are divisions within countries; a government giving the US access to its bases, while a majority of its citizens publicly demonstrate their strong opposition. It is an unusually unpopular invasion.

Will the EU survive this crisis? What will Europe be like, five years hence?

The United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

A clue comes from consideration of two world institutions in the limelight, the United Nations (UN) and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). They cause the United States much consternation, simply because they refuse to accede to its exclusive direction and dominion. It is likely the UN will survive, as will the EU, and that in future the EU countries will tend to use their combined UN voting power more effectively in directing its programs and activities. Because the US is a primary contributor to UN programs, its influence has always been great, its respect enhanced by a willingness to promote human rights issues and its open-handed generosity to worthy projects.

There are unfortunate offsets. The US has refused to cooperate with the UN on a number of important issues, such as the World Court and the Kyoto Accord (green house gases/earth warming). It refuses to agree to join the campaign to eliminate land mines, which many consider beyond rational understanding and unconscionable in the deleterious effects land mines caause to unwitting and innocent victims. The US turns away from the agreement to treat prisoners fairly, forbidding torture. This creates anger, as news agencies report the deaths of prisoners under interrogation, caused by what appear to be blows on the chest by rifle stocks. In addition, the US has engaged in what appear to be unethical and fraudulent acts in its effort to gain UN sanction for its war.

Forgeries, plagiarized reports, erroneous photos and other falsified evidence have been presented formally before the Security Council, to the revulsion of all observers. This behaviour has weakened the moral stature of the United States, and placed it in a position of dishonour vis-a-vis the UN and the European Union. It is rare to see a major impertinence of this magnitude, squandering in a matter of months the priceless legacy of fifteen generations. This profligacy of goodwill can only be regarded as the height of folly. The consequences of the international disgrace and total loss of credibility are certain to be unfortunate.

The stream of insults coming from members of the Bush cabinet, directed toward former European allies, expressing contempt and disrespect for their greater experience and judgment, have brought the countries of the EU together with a resolve that such behaviour will neither be tolerated indefinitely, nor accepted without redress. We may expect, then, to see the EU compete more aggressively for economic stature in the coming years. The US can expect the EU to more actively oppose US military activities world wide, insisting, in a more forthright fashion than before, that UN resolutions be more equitably enforced. That would be good news for Palestinian refugees, bad news for Israel's expansionist plans.

While the future of the UN is secure, it is possible NATO will not survive, in spite of the fact all the EU countries and the US have a large stake. Since the end of WWII, it has been the primary defence program for Europe, complimenting the military strength of the member countries. It was organised to act only with unanimity, though the US, through its support, has been allowed to act with wide latitude. It is now clear to all that its original reason for being no longer exists.

The proposed invasion of Iraq presents a crisis for all the countries of NATO, because the US attitude is that NATO must join with US military forces whenever and wherever the US decides, unilaterally, that a need exists for a preemptive strike. This notion goes far beyond the NATO charter, and there is general resistance on principle. Given the discord within the countries of the EU over the proposed invasion of Iraq, and the reluctantly approved use of NATO equipment in Turkey, it is realistic to expect that the entire arrangement for European defence will be a matter for discussion. NATO may be altered, or it may simply be displaced.

It is rational to expect that the countries of the EU will organise a defence system that is completely devoted to their own interests, free of any responsibility to assist or cooperate with other countries outside the EU. This suggests that NATO will be disassembled, and much of its assets transferred to a new EU defence establishment. Thus, there is impetus for a new EU military force to arise alongside the present EU economic and diplomatic system, one that is free to make decisions concerning continental defence without any need for a non-member conference with the US.

The existence of a unified Europe, complete with a nuclear-armed defence force, will act to balance the surprisingly aggressive stance of the US. Such a military force, supported by an EU budget, should offer a more restrained and responsible approach to fiscal and budgetary matters than the US alliance affords. The downside would be a loss of shared intelligence and technical capability, should relations further deteriorate.

The driving force for the separation of the EU from US domination is the perception that the US is purblind of any historical perspective, is irrationally intolerant of the slightest opposition, and suffers a dearth of basic diplomatic talent, a resource the EU has in excess. The inability of the US to recognise its limitations, in important areas of international affairs, cripples its ability to benefit from unpleasant and unsuccessful experience.

This inability to learn guarantees perpetual juvenile status, one that tempts the Bush administration to pursue and repeat foolish policies with an air of aloofness and self-righteousness approaching arrogance, with a supreme indifference to the view of others. It thus may be expected to plunge, like a mired draught horse, from disaster to disaster, exhausting itself in the sucking mud of increasing debt and military overextension.

When the question of motivation is asked, the reply comes, "For the good of mankind. It is for the everlasting defeat of evil; the world must be destroyed before it can be saved." A noble cause, indeed, expressed as only a madman is capable. One may be excused if there is lack of enthusiasm to participate.