Europeans Mostly Rally to Kerry, but With Few Illusions (NYT)

[VolcanoJen]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/international/europe/01euro.html|

Excerpt:

The front-page cartoon in Le Monde on Saturday represented the general European preference in the wake of the Democratic National Convention: It showed John Kerry brandishing a Stars-and-Stripes broom and sweeping George W. Bush, along with the detritus of missiles around him, out of office.

Europeans seemed to feel that, with a Thursday night speech that included searing criticism of President Bush's administration, Mr. Kerry emerged from the convention a strengthened candidate, modestly bolstering their hopes that he could win the White House. Mr. Bush is not just widely disliked in Europe; he is viewed as the essential cause of divisions in the trans-Atlantic alliance.

The belief across Europe seemed to be that a Kerry administration would be more multilateral than the Bush administration has been, more willing to listen to the views of allies and take them into account.

"The speech was music to European ears because of the attacks on Bush," said Justin Vaïsse, a French historian. "It put the blame where many Europeans see the blame, at the door of the Bush administration."

But there was a strong countercurrent among some commentators, who expressed the view that while Europeans might like Senator Kerry more than President Bush, the speech contained little concrete indication of how his policies would be different from those followed in the past four years.

More...

[greatauntoftriplets]

1. That's generally what my cousins in Luxembourg tell me.

They are skeptical about the populace being willing to sacrifice manpower to a NATO force. Too much opposition from the people to go off to the Middle East to become cannon fodder for a mistake.

[BayCityProgressive]

2. I agree

that kerry needs to develop his policy on Iraq. These countries arent magically going to give us solider just because the president is different.

[aneerkoinos]

3. Bingo!

Bigger issues are at play than the personality of US President - national interests, remember them?

US want's to keep dollar as reserve currency, and that means oil currency. EU, at least Eurozone, want's to be able to buy oil with Euro's. Fundamental conflict of interests.

Both EU and US want strong influence in Middle East and Gulf. EU strategy is to build strong, mutually beneficial economic ties to it's neighbours and use influence through rather carrot than stick, main goal being stability which EU understands cannot emerge without justice. US strategy is use of the stick of military might to support friendly oligarchies servile to US interests, because it has no comparable economic carrot to what EU can offer being geografically far away from the area. So the EU model is cooperation, US model is Master and Squire. The US model has the additional benefit besides guaranteeing supply of oil, also the potential threat of stopping flow of oil to powers that US perceives as potential enemy, including EU. This, needles to say, is essential for US to keep up the appearance of the sole Superpower, leader of the world. Again, fundamental conflict of interests.

Iraq is the grinding stone. EU very much want's truly independent Iraq to be it's future neighbour, after Turkey joins EU, US needs to maintain strong military precense in Iraq.

These conflicts are not going away unless US radically re-evaluates it's interests and gives up the fantasy about New American Century, and the US consumers accept the reality of need to give their standard of living build on oil addiction much more severe than EU.

Alas, Kerry promises nothing of the sort, and I'm doubtfull if any American President could promise that, and the fundamental conflicts of interests is not going away. Given the current fundamental imbalances of world economy, escalating (economic) conflict would be the ruin of US, on the other hand ruin of US would hurt world economy and thus EU also very badly, so what Kerry will try to do is navigate in international relations trying to keep some sort of status quo, and EU will be reluctant to challenge the status quo, because we are spineless wankers. What I'm pretty certain of is that no matter what Kerry tries, the whole global house of cards will fall on his watch and the status quo will be history by 2008.

Of course, what this will mean for America is that the left will take the blame for the fall of Empire and hence destruction of US middle class, which means that there is high propability that US goes openly fascist and even more militaristic and paranoid, after the moral self-destruction of the left. I would feel much safer if Bush won and took the blame for what is to come during his second lame-duck presicency (more likely to end Nixon way than not), and the left would be forced to come up with truly radical alternative to the bankrupt policies of the former US empire (after Democratic Oligarchs of the DLC took the blame for their failure).

But hey, it's your country and your world to screw up, I just live here. :)

[juajen]

4. You made some very good points

If we win, the road is treacherous. The US needs to develop alternate energy sources and go full speed ahead. I do not know if Kerry will have the courage to railroad alternate energy legislation through the Congress, or if, indeed, he will be able to do anything if the Congress stays in Republican hands. Millions of us feel it is mandatory to get him and his cohorts out of office; but only a few have faced the realities of the hardships ahead if we succeed. But, hey, we gotta put one step in front of the other and do the best we can. Thanks for your input.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Bush take the blame?

Well, that would be a first - if Congress stayed in Republican hands, and with the next presidency bound to select at least 2 new Supreme Court justices, I think a second term Bush would be more 'with the muzzle off' than 'lame duck'.

Your vision is pretty apocalyptic - "there's going to be a revolution, so I'd rather the right wing were in charge so they are the ones to get crushed". I think the situation is serious, but a catastrophe is far from inevitable - and I'd rather have a typical American politician in charge of the USA than a borderline sociopath with relgiious delusions.

[Capt_Nemo]

6. Absolutely right, aneerkoinos!

There is a part of me that wants Kerry to win, so that Bush apologists
here in Europe are humilliated, but in the back of my mind there is
a wish for a bush win, for it would speed up the demise the US empire
with the added bennefit that the blame for the crumbling of US supremacy
would fall squarely on the shoulders of those (involuntarily) responsible for it:
the neo-cons!