In 1787, many politicians agreed that the Articles of Confederation of the former British colonies weren't working. In 2011 many politicians agree that the Euro area of the European Union is not working.
In 1787, many American politicians organized a convention to draft a constitution "form a more perfect union". In 2011 should European politicians organize a convention to draft a constitution to form a more perfect union?
Farfetched? True, the various European countries have varied histories and varied languages. On the other hand, who thought in the early 1950s that former enemies would meet to start the European Economic Community, aka Common Market. And how many thought in the 1960s that the European Economic Community would morph into the European Union, encompassing even more former enemies and even more widely varied histories and varied languages?
Are there any James Madisons or Alexander Hamiltons today? Are there any Jean Monnets, Konrad Adenaurers, or Robert Schumans today? That is, are there any visionaries today who can see beyond the machinations and maneuverings of today and can lead to the United States or Europe to better governance?
Showing posts with label European Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European Union. Show all posts
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Libya: Damned if you do and damned if you don't
There are many voices being raised in the U.S. that the U.S. should enforce a no-fly zone over Libya to reduce Gaddafi's advantage over the opposition.
One of these is Nicholas Kristof, "The Case for a No-Fly Zone Over Libya", New York Times, 2011-03-09.
On the other hand, they are those who give many arguments for the long-term consequences of unilateral action, "Kicking the Intervention Habit", Richard Falk, Al-Jazeera, 2010-03-10.
Count me as one of the sympathizers of a no-fly zone, yet I really hesitate because of the long-term damage to U.S. prestige and influence. What right does a country thousands of miles away have to determine military action that is not threatening its own shores? What arrogance to think that the U.S. military is the only one capable of acting?
Wouldn't the European Union be a more appropriate actor than the U.S.? Don't France, Germany, and the U.K. have sufficient capability to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya? Even then, it will be interpreted by many in the Arab world as another example of colonialism.
If any no-fly zone were to be enforced, it would have to come from an Arab country. Is it in the interest of the current governments of Tunisia and Egypt to do so? They are the ones who had to deal with the thousands of refugees fleeing Libya. Is not Egypt getting over $50 billion per year in military aid? Is that going into paper airplanes?
I think the only course of action for the U.S. is to have very private talks with the Egyptians as to what the latter can and should do.
Maybe there is one other thing the U.S. can do. If the embargo on Libya is rewritten to exempt the opposition government, then by all means ship arms, food, and other supplies into Benghazi and other safe ports. If the U.S. could supply Stinger missiles to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan with disastrous effects on Soviet forces, could and should it supply them to the opposition in Libya, either directly or through a surrogate?
One of these is Nicholas Kristof, "The Case for a No-Fly Zone Over Libya", New York Times, 2011-03-09.
On the other hand, they are those who give many arguments for the long-term consequences of unilateral action, "Kicking the Intervention Habit", Richard Falk, Al-Jazeera, 2010-03-10.
Count me as one of the sympathizers of a no-fly zone, yet I really hesitate because of the long-term damage to U.S. prestige and influence. What right does a country thousands of miles away have to determine military action that is not threatening its own shores? What arrogance to think that the U.S. military is the only one capable of acting?
Wouldn't the European Union be a more appropriate actor than the U.S.? Don't France, Germany, and the U.K. have sufficient capability to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya? Even then, it will be interpreted by many in the Arab world as another example of colonialism.
If any no-fly zone were to be enforced, it would have to come from an Arab country. Is it in the interest of the current governments of Tunisia and Egypt to do so? They are the ones who had to deal with the thousands of refugees fleeing Libya. Is not Egypt getting over $50 billion per year in military aid? Is that going into paper airplanes?
I think the only course of action for the U.S. is to have very private talks with the Egyptians as to what the latter can and should do.
Maybe there is one other thing the U.S. can do. If the embargo on Libya is rewritten to exempt the opposition government, then by all means ship arms, food, and other supplies into Benghazi and other safe ports. If the U.S. could supply Stinger missiles to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan with disastrous effects on Soviet forces, could and should it supply them to the opposition in Libya, either directly or through a surrogate?
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Freedom, democracy, security, and confusion
Most of us have seen the battle among those who think the internet should be one free playground, those who see it as a source of income, and those who see it as a tool to track criminals and terrorists. Many of us are just plain confused by what is really going on.
This little bit started with my intent to buy a couple of Swedish CDs as gifts. I have bought CDs from MegaStore.se before and tried to login to my account. I was told my username or password were wrong. I double checked my cheat sheet of passwords. I carefully watched my fingers. Still wrong. After several attempts I asked for my username and password to be sent to me.
Within minutes I received an email giving exactly what I had been typing. I tried again. Wrong. I cut and paste from the email. Wrong. I gave up and sent email (or is it emejl in Swedish) asking for help. Since it was after hours, I wouldn't get a reply until late Sunday, early morning in Sweden.
Meanwhile, I looked at all the help files and other interesting detours on the site. One was megablogg.se. It had a few interesting thoughts, but one that struck me was "2009 - året då internet dog?" or "2009 - the year when the internet died?"
It had a link to an article in Aftonbladet "138 - Mitt desperata fem-i-tre ragg, Lisa Magnusson om EU:s telekompakt och framtidens internet"
I'm already in linguistic trouble, I never heard of "fem-i-tre ragg". I looked it up yesterday, but didn't make much sense of it. Anyhow, 138 refers to a proposed European Union law about the internet, and Lisa Magnusson sees it as affecting the future's internet.
My rough translation gathers that she complains about the internet not being as free as it once was (that is, no cost access) and the internet being too regulated. I never knew the internet was free unless you were getting somebody else to pay for it, like at a university. Regulated? Yes and no. But hang on.
She writes that her MSN account was suspended because she used the words "Hitler" and "pedophile" in a chat room.
Now I'm getting in over my head in Swedish and look for some similar stuff in English. Even in English, it is very confusing. Yes, there are police and security authorities who want all data traffic to be retained for at least 30 days. But it is very hard to understand how much is actually being put into law or has even been put into law.
Even if it will not be put into law, think about how the more complicated laws become, the less the average person, or even legislature can understand the full implications of these laws. Just think about the original PATRIOT Act and how few legislators even read it.
And this is how freedom will be lost to security. When we become so afraid of something that we want the authorities to do anything to protect us, some authorities will do anything, even if it really winds up making us less secure.
This little bit started with my intent to buy a couple of Swedish CDs as gifts. I have bought CDs from MegaStore.se before and tried to login to my account. I was told my username or password were wrong. I double checked my cheat sheet of passwords. I carefully watched my fingers. Still wrong. After several attempts I asked for my username and password to be sent to me.
Within minutes I received an email giving exactly what I had been typing. I tried again. Wrong. I cut and paste from the email. Wrong. I gave up and sent email (or is it emejl in Swedish) asking for help. Since it was after hours, I wouldn't get a reply until late Sunday, early morning in Sweden.
Meanwhile, I looked at all the help files and other interesting detours on the site. One was megablogg.se. It had a few interesting thoughts, but one that struck me was "2009 - året då internet dog?" or "2009 - the year when the internet died?"
It had a link to an article in Aftonbladet "138 - Mitt desperata fem-i-tre ragg, Lisa Magnusson om EU:s telekompakt och framtidens internet"
I'm already in linguistic trouble, I never heard of "fem-i-tre ragg". I looked it up yesterday, but didn't make much sense of it. Anyhow, 138 refers to a proposed European Union law about the internet, and Lisa Magnusson sees it as affecting the future's internet.
My rough translation gathers that she complains about the internet not being as free as it once was (that is, no cost access) and the internet being too regulated. I never knew the internet was free unless you were getting somebody else to pay for it, like at a university. Regulated? Yes and no. But hang on.
She writes that her MSN account was suspended because she used the words "Hitler" and "pedophile" in a chat room.
Now I'm getting in over my head in Swedish and look for some similar stuff in English. Even in English, it is very confusing. Yes, there are police and security authorities who want all data traffic to be retained for at least 30 days. But it is very hard to understand how much is actually being put into law or has even been put into law.
Even if it will not be put into law, think about how the more complicated laws become, the less the average person, or even legislature can understand the full implications of these laws. Just think about the original PATRIOT Act and how few legislators even read it.
And this is how freedom will be lost to security. When we become so afraid of something that we want the authorities to do anything to protect us, some authorities will do anything, even if it really winds up making us less secure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)