I find a lot to disagree with and a few things to agree with in Robert Kaplan’s Bloomberg op-ed on the conundrum facing Europe.
I agree with this: “For decades, the dream of the European Union was to become a post-national paradise of prosperity and the rule of law, and gradually, through various association agreements, extend the bounties of civil society to contiguous regions.”
I disagree with this: “…the social welfare state — the moral answer of European elites to the carnage of the 20th century…”. The contours of the German welfare state were established in the 1880s. IMO the welfare state as it exists in Northern and Western Europe today is merely a development and extension of that base. Since it predates the 20th century how can it be an “answer” to 20th century developments?
I think that this is at most half true: “For it was the survival of totalitarian states in the Middle East and North Africa into the 21st century that helped keep the Islamic masses locked up and safely away from Europe.” The “totalitarian states in the Middle East and North Africa” (were they totalitarian or authoritarian? I think the latter.) were certainly a factor but I don’t think they were the only factor. I think that other factors were poverty, the cost of transport, lack of knowledge about the outside world, and a much stronger Christianity in Europe.
This is flummery: “Either Russia will remain strong and dangerous, or weak and dangerous.” As long as Russia continues to exist in anything resembling its present form it will be powerful. Is powerful the same as dangerous? I believe that Mr. Kaplan is understating the role of lousy U. S. foreign policy over the last twenty years in making an enemy of Russia. It didn’t need to be this way. It still doesn’t need to be that way. But we and, even more importantly, the Europeans would need to start recognizing that Russia has interests, too.
I think there’s a conflict between theory and reality in this statement: “The EU, remember, is more than a balance sheet. It represents states rather than nations — that is, the rule of law and the protection of the individual against arbitrary fiat, regardless of ethnic or religious group.” I wonder where he gets that idea? It may be true in theory but in practice the European Union is a collection of bureaucrats making laws by fiat. He may have been hanging out with the bureaucrats for too long. I suggest he step into a pub in rural England or a working man’s boîte somewhere other than Paris in France. He might get a different impression.
“As Lee Kuan Yew demonstrated on the other side of the world in Singapore, building honest, impersonal institutions helps a small state survive in a region of bigger, hostile ones.” What is the fascination that newspaper columnists have with autocrats?
But this is absolutely correct: “Indeed, the EU’s creation and evolution represents the ultimate fruit of the U.S.-led victory in World War II.” We have, mistakenly I think, tried to infantilize our European allies. Be careful what you wish for.
