| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"martus" |
| Date: |
16 Apr 2005 12:54:10 AM |
| Object: |
***** and the beast! |
Goodbye Uncle Sam, Hello Team Europe
By John Feffer, AlterNet. Posted April 14, 2005.
Not only does the world hate us, a new poll shows that for the first
time most countries want us to get the hell out of the driver's seat.
Over a curry dinner in Geneva, a South Korean friend confessed to
being not entirely thrilled with her European experience. Sure, she
had a well-paying job for one of the many international organizations
that keep Geneva prosperous, bustling, and awash in dull conferences,
but it all lacked a certain something. Europeans no longer believe in
anything, she complained -- not like the Americans, who have the oomph
and the moral clarity to "get the job done."
What "job" was she talking about? We most definitely were not getting
the job done in Iraq, I pointed out. In recent years, it's Europe not
the United States that's been on the right side of the major foreign
policy issues of our time, be it Europe's objections to the Iraq War
or its diplomatic approach toward resolving the conflicts with Iran
and North Korea -- an approach that is far more likely to succeed than
American military oomph. As for taking care of their own people, the
social system in Europe -- the kind that ensured the job security,
high-quality education, crime-free streets, and comparative lack of
poverty that friend so clearly admired in Switzerland -- was clearly
superior to anything the average American could hope for.
The truth is that the world would likely be a better place if Team
Europe and not Team America were in charge. And more and more people
around the world are reaching that conclusion.
A new poll conducted by GlobeScan and the Program on International
Policy Attitudes (PIPA) reveals that citizens in twenty out of
twenty-three countries would like to see Europe become more
influential than the United States in world affairs. The survey tested
attitudes toward the five permanent members of Security Council and
Europe as a whole. The majority of citizens in only six countries
(including my friend's South Korea) view the U.S. role in the world as
mainly positive -- a dismal popularity rating comparable only to that
of Russia. Here's how bad it is: even China rated higher than the
United States in popular assessments of its global conduct. The United
States also took the top prize as the country most widely viewed as
having a negative influence on the world (in 15 countries), with
Russia coming a close second (14 countries). And this in a poll that
did not include countries in the Middle East, who would have likely
put us way ahead of Russia.
Okay, they hate us. So what's new?
At the press conference announcing the poll results, Brookings scholar
Philip Gordon offered an anecdote to sum up exactly why this latest
piece of data is far more worrisome than previous surveys tracking our
plummeting global image. For the past decade, Gordon has asked each
new batch of 150 international students who take his international
relations course at a French business institute the same two
questions. First, how do you feel about U.S. power? Perhaps
predictably, they always give the thumbs down to the United States and
the thumbs up to multilateralism. But when he follows up with the next
question -- what country other than the United States has more
responsibly wielded global power in the past, or could do so in the
future? -- they invariably come to the same conclusion: better America
than anyone else.
But not this year. While the resentment of U.S. power and domination
was the same as ever, according to Gordon, the students were no longer
willing to give the United States its usual pass for its excesses.
What's more, they were only too happy to contemplate the alternatives
that Gordon offered. "And they would say, yeah, we'd take China.
Germany? Yeah, Germany is fine. France? Yeah, that would be good," he
said. "They were looking at me like, well, of course, we'd rather have
those countries more powerful than the United States."
The most astonishing fact revealed by the new poll is that 34 percent
of Americans agree that Europe should be running the show. Let me
repeat this: one-third of Americans want Brussels, not Washington, to
be calling the shots on the global arena. This trend is a good bit
more significant than the six-fold increase in traffic to the Canadian
immigration website immediately after the November elections. It
buttresses the findings of previous polls that have shown clear
majorities of Americans dissatisfied with U.S. unilateralism (and a
much higher rate of disapproval of U.S. foreign policy in other
countries).
Taken together, such poll results challenge neo-con Robert Kagan's
self-congratulatory thesis that Americans are from Mars and Europeans
from Venus. While the current American leadership certainly has a
martial disposition, it seems that virtually everyone else -- the
majority of Americans included -- is weary of Washington playing
globo-cop and would be far happier as citizens of much-maligned Venus.
Never has it been so clear that the world prefers someone else to take
the driver's seat.
What's So Special About Europe?
PIPA's director Steven Kull attributes the poll results to different
perceptions around the world toward how the United States and Europe
go about their global business:
[Europe has] exerted a magnetic attraction on those around them, such
that countries are waiting in line to become part of the European
Union. It has put pressure on countries, such as Turkey, to improve
their human rights records, to raise their standards in terms of
corruption, transparency, and their capacity to integrate into the
world economy. The way that Europe has done this has been positively
viewed.
The secret of Europe's appeal becomes even cleared in a comparison
with the United States. As Tony Judt recently pointed out in the New
York Review of Books, Americans work more hours, live shorter lives,
and are much more likely to be poor than their European counterparts.
The American economy is considerably less worker-friendly, more in
debt, and increasingly owned by foreigners. The categories where the
United States is the undeniable leader military budget, government
debt, trade deficit, automobile size are dubious achievements. It's
not just Judt, but several popular new books by respected experts,
including Jeremy Rifkin and T. R. Reid, that hammer home these
unappetizing facts.
The U.S. media may not have noticed it but Europe is looking more and
more like the winning team. U.S. outlets barely covered one of the
most significant indicators of Europe's expanding power -- the
inclusion of ten new members in the EU in 2004. The price of this lack
of attention will become clear fifty years from now, when American
workers are paid in euros and sales from Doner Kebab Hut surpass that
of McDonalds. As Norwegian foreign minister Jan Peterson made clear in
a recent speech in Oslo, the future belongs to Europe:
One of eight UN countries is an EU member state. The EU generates
about 20 per cent of the world's total GNP. The internal market is the
world's largest multinational market. The euro has become the world's
strongest currency after gaining 50 per cent in relation to the dollar
during the three first years of its existence. There is even a
European space agency, which has 200 satellites orbiting the Earth and
which is planning to make a European the first human being to reach
Mars.
And this from the foreign minister of a non-EU country!
If the Bush administration's policies lead to the decline of U.S.
power, it will hardly be the first time in history that an empire
bankrupted itself through military overstretch -- even as its more
prosperous ally and future rival prospered on the sidelines. The
Netherlands profited grandly from the insatiable colonial appetites of
Spain and Portugal, and then stood by as the dreams of Iberian glory
went down the tubes. Hungary built goulash communism while the Soviet
Union found itself bogged down in Afghanistan and eventually laid the
seeds of its own demise with its out-of-control military spending.
Even upstart America's rise to global preeminence in the first half of
the 20th century was the result of Britain's imperial excess. Once
England expended so much life and lucre of its colonial fortunes in
two world wars, the global stage was clear for a new leader. Today,
having endured the post-World War years of financial dependence on
U.S. largesse and decades more of politically subservience to
Washington throughout the Cold War, Europe is finally coming into its
own.
The Mars Vs. Venus Smackdown
Where Samuel Huntington and his supporters are busy expounding on a
clash of civilizations between ethnic and religious rivals in hotspots
like the Balkans, South Asia, and the Horn of Africa, the more
profound battle over values is taking place right here, at the center
of Western civilization.
The Bush administration, after angering much of Europe (the "old"
parts) during its first term, has recently tried to play nice with its
traditional allies (mostly at the request of British prime minister
Tony Blair, who has gambled his political reputation on good
transatlantic relations). On their recent visits, both Condoleezza
Rice and President Bush tried to emphasize the future, not the past.
"New achievements," Rice recommended, not "old disagreements." Bush
tried to erase ugly memories of Iraq by endorsing Europe's
incentive-based approach to Iran (for the time being at least).
However, these conciliatory gestures do little to paper over serious
transatlantic disagreements over important issues.
Some of these disputes can be attributed to the normal friction
between two powerful international powers. For example, the European
Union's proposal -- now delayed -- to lift its arms embargo against
China is not about principle but market share. China promises to be
one of the largest arms purchasers over the next couple decades. While
the United States has traditionally had a lock on the post-Cold War
arms export market, the Russians (on the low end) and the Europeans
(on the high end) are now emerging as fierce competitors. It's no
surprise then that Europe wants in and the United States is squawking
in disapproval.
Other transatlantic disputes, however, represent fundamental
differences in core values. Take the case of food.
In 1989, the European Union banned imports of hormone-laden beef. Ten
years later, when it lost the case at the WTO, the EU chose to pay the
penalty of approximately $100 million to the United States and Canada
over lost revenue rather than reverse its ban. Last November, however,
the EU decided it was tired of paying through the teeth for its
policies. Armed with new scientific evidence of the risks that such
hormones pose for humans, its officials counter-challenged the North
Americans at the WTO.
They don't want our beef or any other type of U.S.-engineered
techno-food. The United States has now gone to the WTO to claim
compensation for five years of losses connected to the EU moratorium
on new varieties of genetically modified organisms (GMO). The U.S.
corporate food lobby is also pressing the Bush administration to
launch yet another WTO suit to challenge the EU's labeling and
traceability law, which is designed to give consumers more control
over what they eat. At issue here is a very different approach to the
application of technology to the food system. Where Europeans are
cautious and more concerned about its effects on human life, the
American philosophy is all about the corporate bottom line.
A potentially more divisive transatlantic conflict is shaping up over
military issues. Throughout the Cold War, European countries, for the
most part, subordinated their military ambitions to the needs of NATO.
Today, as part of its post-Sept. 11 reorientation of U.S. foreign
policy, the United States has virtually sidelined NATO, primarily
because it is wedded to old-fashioned collective decision-making. As
part of its shifting priorities, the administration has announced
significant troop cuts in the European theater, including 30,000 from
Germany. But it's not just Uncle Sam that's growing less enchanted
with NATO. With the Cold War rapidly turning into a relic of the past,
Europe is looking to become more self-sufficient.
What looks like streamlining and burden-sharing on one side of the
Atlantic is perceived as a spur to create an independent military
force on the other. Contrary to Kagan's Venusian allegations, Europe
is not exactly a wine-sipping pacifist -- at least, not all the time.
The sight of all that money from global weapons sales going into
American coffers has Europeans green with envy. It's why the European
Defence Agency, established in July 2004, now plans to acquire a range
of new hardware -- from unmanned drones to the latest communication
systems -- in the hope that the consequent boost in R & D will make
European exports more competitive in the global arms bazaar.
The move to expand military capability is not just about economics.
The failure to stop Yugoslavia from descending into a brutal series of
wars in the 1990s has become a cautionary tale for Europeans. In 2000,
the EU proposed the creation of a 60,000-member Rapid Reaction Force,
armed and manned by member states, and ready to intervene early and
decisively in any crisis. The EU has already conducted joint military
exercises in Macedonia, Bosnia, and Congo.
The difference between the Bush administration's military plans and
that of the EU: Europeans want to use military force to avert
catastrophe, rather than precipitate regime change. It's about
peacekeeping not imperial expansion. This isn't to say that European
governments are anywhere close to angelic. The French refusal to
intervene to prevent the Rwandan genocide, British arms deals with
repressive African states, and Italian prime minister Silvio
Berlusconi's chest-thumping remind us of that Europe has its own share
of warts. But on balance, the Europeans do offer a distinct
alternative to the United States' current slash-and-burn model of
foreign policy.
It is conceivable that, in another four years, Hillary Clinton or some
other vaguely palatable Democrat will paint the White House blue and
put the French back into French fries. But it will take a long time to
undo the damage the neo-cons have done to the United States' standing
in the world -- and the damage America has done to the world. By all
means hang in there for Hillary. As for me, I'm with the 34 percent of
Americans rooting for Team Europe.
John Feffer is working on a book about food and politics.
___________________________________________________________________________
Revelation 17:12-18 (NRSV)
12 And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet
received a kingdom, but they are to receive authority as kings for one
hour, together with the beast. 13 These are united in yielding their
power and authority to the beast; 14 they will make war on the Lamb,
and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of
kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful."
15 And he said to me, "The waters that you saw, where the ***** is
seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and languages. 16 And
the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the *****;
they will make her desolate and naked; they will devour her flesh and
burn her up with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to
carry out his purpose by agreeing to give their kingdom to the beast,
until the words of God will be fulfilled. 18 The woman you saw is the
great city that rules over the kings of the earth."
[1]
[1] The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1996, c1989.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
_______________________________________________________________________________
End
times:
http://www.geocities.com/mart1963
.
|
|
| User: "dwacon" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** and the beast! |
16 Apr 2005 01:46:32 AM |
|
|
"martus" <marttila69@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:511a49a.0504152154.28eb4482@posting.google.com...
Goodbye Uncle Sam, Hello Team Europe
By John Feffer, AlterNet. Posted April 14, 2005.
Not only does the world hate us, a new poll shows that for the first
time most countries want us to get the hell out of the driver's seat.
So this post isn't about Paris Hilton and Nicole Ricthie?
--
Spiritual Fruits or Religious Nuts?
http://www.cafepress.com/powerpress
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** and the beast! |
16 Apr 2005 02:29:09 AM |
|
|
Bush and Rove?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shark" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** and the beast! |
16 Apr 2005 09:12:26 AM |
|
|
martus wrote:
What "job" was she talking about? We most definitely were not getting
job job it's corn on the cob
job job it's for me you and billy bob
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
