EU Reform Treaty: A Threat to the Transatlantic Alliance (!)

[Mythos]

Well, I found this study by the Heritage foundation. Given its documented closeness to the current US administration I find this study rather worrying. The article is quite long but I will quite its conclusions.

What the United States Should Do

In its policy toward Europe, the U.S. should:
* Avoid any tacit, public, or diplomatic en*dorsement of the European Reform Treaty. U.S. leaders and diplomats at all levels must not give EU members or EU elites the impression-- in public or in private--that the U.S. supports further European integration.
* Understand that the Lisbon Treaty is a politi*cal process intended to realize a United States of Europe. This treaty is not about the function*ing of the European Union, but rather an evolu*tion of political integration. The U.S. must abandon the long-held view that the European Union is a valuable global partner.
* Recognize that further European integration and the relentless and unstinting drive behind ever closer union threatens U.S. stra*tegic interests. Congress should hold hearings to analyze the Lisbon Treaty's implications for the transatlantic alliance.
* Explicitly state that building enduring bilateral alliances is a U.S. foreign policy priority. The Administration should build bridges between peoples by facilitating safe and secure travel by implementing legislation passed in 2007 to reform and expand the Visa Waiver Program. Congress and the Administration should encourage com*mercial and political interchange between Amer*ica and its friends and allies on a bilateral basis as an important foreign policy priority.
* Work with key European allies, especially the United Kingdom, to reaffirm NATO as the cornerstone of transatlantic security and to ensure that the Bucharest Summit in early April is successful in putting NATO once again at the forefront of the transatlantic alliance. At the Bucharest Summit, the United States should spe*cifically reaffirm the minimum benchmark for NATO members' defense spending (2 percent of GDP). It should also make the Allied Command Transformation Initiative the primary agent in determining members' military transformations. The Administration should make clear both that the U.S. will not back the ESDP as the price for French re-admittance into NATO's military com*mand structure and that re-admittance will impose certain obligations on France.
* Support calls for the United Kingdom and other European Union member states to hold referenda on the Lisbon Treaty as part of the ratification process. In line with the Labour Party's commitment and as part of a strategy to reinvigorate public trust in government, Prime Minister Gordon Brown should undertake a free and fair referendum in the United Kingdom.

Conclusion

The Reform Treaty contains major advances for the European Union's capacity to act. Indeed, in some areas we even went further than in the Constitutional Treaty.

--German Chancellor Angela Merkel[80]

If there was ever a time for the White House to become unnerved about further European integra*tion, this is it. The Lisbon Treaty is like no other. It spells out the central political goal of ever-closer union, which will ultimately distance London from Washington.

The European Commission's comment that "Europe has changed, the world has changed" is correct. The world faces both unprecedented threats and unprecedented opportunities that require greater flexibility for member states to act. The Reform Treaty denies sovereign states the ability to do that and further limits their right to build alli*ances with the United States.

The Reform Treaty calls for swift ratification with a view to coming into force on January 1, 2009. Britain is uniquely positioned to fashion a European Union that better serves British and American inter*ests, and its reluctant signature of the Reform Treaty in Lisbon can be reversed. America should send its special ally a clear message that the U.S. will sup*port Britain in reasserting its sovereignty.

Sally McNamara is Senior Policy Analyst in Euro*pean Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Free*dom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. Erica Munkwitz, an intern in the Davis Institute, assisted in preparing this paper.

Paranoid much? Or is it really in the US interests to prevent an USE? Will we see diplomatic and military manoeuvering to prevent this union compared to the manoeuvering against the formation of the German empire in the 19th century or the one used by Britain to prevent a dominant power rising in the continent?

[Dromikaites]

Yeah, the American government might try to prevent EU from becoming USE but that's an uphill battle which the USA cannot win.

All the European countries including the UK would benefit more from the creation of USE than from an alliance with USA. UK was dragged into the invasion of Iraq. USE might have decided itself to invade Iraq. Or not. UK cannot hope to exercise any control over the US foreign policy but would be able to decide the foreign policy of the USE.

And once USE exists it is very likely USA and USE would be allies. The only difference would be that USA would really have to take into account the European point of view before acting.

[Elrond]

I think a USE is a long way off - it will happen within our life times if it happens at all but its not going to happen in the next few years - theres not enough support for it outside the European elite.

I think that its a good idea for the EU countries to group together more to gain more weight but thats different to becoming one country.

I think that once the economic conditions are right (ie not atm) Britain should join the Euro and I think its a good idea to work together on defense matters but becoming one country is totally different.

Personally I think that Britain should switch between working with the US and EU depending on what is best in each situation - its a unique advantage to have.

[Tiwaz]

I think a USE is a long way off - it will happen within our life times if it happens at all but its not going to happen in the next few years - theres not enough support for it outside the European elite.

I think that its a good idea for the EU countries to group together more to gain more weight but thats different to becoming one country.

Of course it is good idea for EU countries. It gives them power to stand up for their OWN interests, instead of being used as pawns in US interest games.

Any benefit to it's "allies" from US activities is byproduct, no purpose. Purpose is benefit of USA first, second, third and fourth.

Personally I think that Britain should switch between working with the US and EU depending on what is best in each situation - its a unique advantage to have.

And you presume EU will look at that favourably? You have to realise, UK is not living in some vacuum or be invisible. Everyone sees when UK plays it's little fence sitting game. It WILL have bad impact in UK position in EU.

By doing that, you just end up annoying USA, because they want you to be their little poodle 100% of the time, not just when you think you might get some crumbs. And you will annoy EU, because your fence jumping will hurt EU which needs unity. Unified position against Iraq invasion would have given even imbecile Bush far more reason to reconsider his ill adviced adventure. But as it is... Some other imbeciles went along and now we have this fine mess.

[ShockBlast]

I think a USE is a long way off - it will happen within our life times if it happens at all but its not going to happen in the next few years - theres not enough support for it outside the European elite.

I think that its a good idea for the EU countries to group together more to gain more weight but thats different to becoming one country.

I think that once the economic conditions are right (ie not atm) Britain should join the Euro and I think its a good idea to work together on defense matters but becoming one country is totally different.

Personally I think that Britain should switch between working with the US and EU depending on what is best in each situation - its a unique advantage to have.

Hey buddy i have something new for you were,in EU,we don`t have elites.
GB is part of EU and they are not going to play the game of USA for long.
GB in EU is a improtant memeber and their voice is heard.
And one more thing EU it`s not US of E it`s an union of countries and there countries can enter and go out of EU when they want.
The EU army has started to take shape(EU FOR,EU Korps etc..) and if the next German chancellar will be like Gerhard Schroeder we might have a huge EU army about 2-4 milion ready to bite in the next 4 years.

And NATO is a dead organisation it`s purpuse was to oppose the Warsaw pact, no Warsaw pact no NATO.

[wilting]

in EU,we don`t have elites.

we might have a huge EU army about 2-4 milion ready to bite in the next 4 years.

Extremely unlikely.

[ShockBlast]

Extremely unlikely.

The national armies of the EU stats are above 6.6 mil.
But you are right it`s unlikely because we need a very determinated country to make the first big step in creating a true EU army and only Germany can do that i don`t see France or GB doing that.
antares24 we need a huge army,China are 7 mil army.But an Army between 1 - max 2 mil with uber euro war tech is ok.I`ve exagerated with the numbers.. a bit.

[roy34543]

I dont know. Some countries could not be more politically different from each other there. Eastern european ones could make..a mess if they were more entwined.
And yes its in its interests. Im surprised you dont already think that. America doesnt need anyone stabbing it or stopping its actions. , and that can be from any direction .

[Dromikaites]

I dont know. Some countries could not be more politically different from each other there. Eastern european ones could make..a mess if they were more entwined.
And yes its in its interests. Im surprised you dont already think that. America doesnt need anyone stabbing it or stopping its actions. , and that can be from any direction .

Actually it seems USE is more popular among the Eastern European members of the EU. I don't have a scientific explanation for why is that. I can only assume it's because the last time the East European members were great powers was in the Middle Ages (Poland, Hungary) so there is no recollection of "times when we could do it by by ourselves". Because of that the European citizens form the eastern part of the EU might be more ready to accept that "only united we're strong" than the ones in the western part of the EU.

Many of the Western members probably still remember the "times when we believed [incorrectly] we could do it by ourselves" and therefore every time there's some hiccup in the very complex and never-tried-before integration process some stupid politicians would try to win votes in the name of "Euroskepticism".

[wilting]

Firstly, the significance of the Lisbon Treaty is greatly exaggerated in the article. We're a long way from an 'United States of Europe.'

Secondly, European integrationsisn't a threat to the transatlantic alliance, American and European interests are too closely entwined. It's a threat to an American dominated transatlantic alliance, so you'll forgive me if I don't shed a tear. A change of form is not an end.

Thirdly, any noises from the US against integration are likely to encourage it.

[Exarch]

a threat to NATO?
NATO was a cold war tool; the cold war is over and now the europeans need o look after their own collective interests, not to the almighty American Empire.

[antares24]

Hey buddy i have something new for you were,in EU,we don`t have elites.
GB is part of EU and they are not going to play the game of USA for long.
GB in EU is a improtant memeber and their voice is heard.
And one more thing EU it`s not US of E it`s an union of countries and there countries can enter and go out of EU when they want.
The EU army has started to take shape(EU FOR,EU Korps etc..) and if the next German chancellar will be like Gerhard Schroeder we might have a huge EU army about 2-4 milion ready to bite in the next 4 years.

And NATO is a dead organisation it`s purpuse was to oppose the Warsaw pact, no Warsaw pact no NATO.

err i too doubt that it will happen 4 years, an Eu army will exist but not in 4 years and not 2-4 million strong, who needs cold war size armies?

Well, I found this study by the Heritage foundation. Given its documented closeness to the current US administration I find this study rather worrying. The article is quite long but I will quite its conclusions.



Paranoid much? Or is it really in the US interests to prevent an USE? Will we see diplomatic and military manoeuvering to prevent this union compared to the manoeuvering against the formation of the German empire in the 19th century or the one used by Britain to prevent a dominant power rising in the continent?

whoa that's a hugely paranoid article, it's not like we will have a united states of Europe tomorrow, we will just have a better integrated and more effective Eu, it's also interesting how clearly the article suggest to use the Uk as a lapdog to do the Us dirty work....let's hope that the british Gov. would't allow a referendum.

[Commander_Vimes]

If this USE thing were ever to come intact..would Russia be included??

[Dromikaites]

If this USE thing were ever to come intact..would Russia be included??

I think yes, but it would take a little bit longer. Russia is now stable but not democratic. The Russians are highly educated so as soon as they manage to develop a sizable middle class they would revert to a fully functional democracy. This is going to happen faster than in China because the population is much smaller while the natural resources are plenty and guarantee a constant flow of foreign of investment. So that's going to happen rather soon if the politicians there don't screw up everything by starting Cold War 2. Once Russia switches to a functional democracy a lot of mistrust towards the West would wash out. So if nothing bad happens we might see a new Russia not later than 20 years, which means well within our life span.

[Commander_Vimes]

Somehow, I don't think alot of Russians, suddenly, turning, Middle Class anytime soon... It's hard to think of a "new Russia", but certainly with them on our side, thee whole measure of things, changes quite a bit..

[NaptownKnight]

Please, it would be victory for us. If Europe formed the USE, your Americanization will have only just begun.

[ShockBlast]

Please, it would be victory for us. If Europe formed the USE, your Americanization will have only just begun.

Americans are former Europeans mate so europeans can`t europenize europeans and you don`t have any idea way the EU was formed so please don`t play smart.
And what americanization are you speacking about?Speaking English?Pizza?Hamburgers?
And what victory?So US beeing nr.2 in military is your victory?OK then it seems that you won.

Napoleon and Hitler couldn`t do it but their countries working together did it.

[NaptownKnight]

Americans are former Europeans mate so europeans can`t europenize europeans and you don`t have any idea way the EU was formed so please don`t play smart.
And what americanization are you speacking about?Speaking English?Pizza?Hamburgers?
And what victory?So US beeing nr.2 in military is your victory?OK then it seems that you won.

Napoleon and Hitler couldn`t do it but their countries working together did it.

First of all, Europeans and Americans are fast becoming very different, ethnically speaking. The amount of integration in America is far higher than that in Europe, many different cultures and people have been mixing with each other here for quite awhile. Secondly, your going to try and tell me America is just like Europe? We are pretty different politically, we are more conservative while Europe is fast becoming a big, fat blob of socialism.

Now, if Europe were to combine what would they be doing? The same thing we did. Integrate lots of different cultures to make one. That is the Americanizing I was speaking off.

[ShockBlast]

First of all, Europeans and Americans are fast becoming very different, ethnically speaking. The amount of integration in America is far higher than that in Europe, many different cultures and people have been mixing with each other here for quite awhile. Secondly, your going to try and tell me America is just like Europe? We are pretty different politically, we are more conservative while Europe is fast becoming a big, fat blob of socialism.

Now, if Europe were to combine what would they be doing? The same thing we did. Integrate lots of different cultures to make one. That is the Americanizing I was speaking off.

You contradicted urself Europe will never be united like USA and no you don`t get USA by a bigger integration because we will evolve differently and USA is made up by people from all over the globe not just europeans but they(i mean us)are the biggest part of USA.
I get you point but it`s not named americanization it`s called globalization.
An americanized society is a society that tries to copy USA that tries to be USA does EU (a social-democratic union of states - something like HRE) looks like USA(a capitalist without universal health care)?
The Europeans and Americans are too different in opinions and belief.
Yes there are alot of countries that are americanized but the EU it`s not one of then.
Could we stay on topic please.So what do you thing about the future EU army?

[Sebdeas]

And what americanization are you speacking about?Speaking English?Pizza?Hamburgers?

Psst, Pizza is Italian

It will certainly take a while before a European Federation will exist, but it is for the good of all Europeans. One Europe means a better economy, a strong currency and the World's leading superpower. Maybe in our lifetimes.