Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (23145)	5/25/2003 12:18:25 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27734

United States of Europe? By Helle Dale BRUSSELS. With all the reports of anti-Americanism in Europe, it may surprise people here to be told that the United States of America is the envy of European politicians. Looked at from Washington, the European Union is not often considered a major factor in U.S.-European relations, and most Americans have a vague notion at best of what the EU actually is. Some European politicians even want a United States of Europe. Where these political ambitions will lead is still uncertain, although they are not in and of themselves likely to solve the economic problems besetting the European economies. On a global scale, they may lead to greater confrontation with the United States, depending on who calls the shots and sets the political agenda in Europe. The European Union, which started out in the 1950s as a largely economic grouping of six continental European countries (the European Common Market), has today evolved into a semistate-like organization that is expanding to include 25 members, including countries in Eastern and Central Europe. The EU already has a GDP the size of that of the United States and a population that exceeds it. The EU already has a set of treaties that cover everything from trade to social policy, and even supposedly common foreign and security policy. It has a common currency for 12 European countries (the euro), and the EU now wants a constitution of its own, just like the Americans, to give it a "legal personality" and the other aspects of statehood. In a little over a month, the European Constitutional Convention will present the results of its yearlong work to a conference of the governments of the EU. If adopted, it will be submitted for ratification in each country. It is difficult, however, to see how this project can work. A single market is one thing. Giving up national political sovereignty is quite another. In almost every case, even in France, European politicians have been far ahead of their electorates. European constitutional negotiations have sometimes been compared to Philadelphia 1787 in that compromises have to be reached to balance the interests of smaller and bigger states. That comparison is true, but only up to a point. The entrenched political and national cultures of the old nation states of Europe are much harder to weld into a whole than the 13 former British colonies of the New World. And the bigger countries, primarily Germany and France, are deeply reluctant to accept equal representation from smaller neighbors. What is more, the survival of the U.S. Constitution was precarious enough in itself. As John Adams observed, "The legislators of antiquity ... legislated for single cities, but who can legislate for 20 or 30 states, each of which is greater than Greece or Rome at those times." Before long, there were numerous threats of secession from the Union, including from the states of New England, before the issue burst into full flame with the American Civil War. All of this is frequently overlooked by those who argue if the Americans can do it, so can the Europeans. The French quickly grasped the lead in the Constitutional Convention, arranging for former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing to act as its head. Unfortunately, Mr. d'Estaing is no Jefferson or Madison. Representatives of other countries at the convention have complained that he has a way of arriving with a set of finished proposals, sidelining other participants and preempting objections. And after a while, smaller and medium-sized countries started coordinating their efforts to be heard. Specifically, they did not want the trimmings of empire to get out of hand. As a Finnish representative has quipped, "we do not want to import the American presidency, the standing committee of the Soviet politburo and the Chinese People's Congress." This referred to the proposal for an elected European president and a standing convention to deal with constitutional issues. Finally, it is doubtful that the new European constitution will fix what most ails the continent — economic stagnation, rigid labor markets and declining birthrates. The introduction of the euro has not produced economic growth. The German economy, the euro zone's largest, contracted by 0.2 percent in the first quarter of this year, dragging other economies with it toward recession. The prestigious French Institute of Internal Relations, in a new report titled "World Trade in the 21st Century," predicts that "The enlargement of the European Union will not be sufficient to guarantee parity with the United States," and that the EU's share of world economic output will shrink from 22 percent today to 12 percent in 50 years. This is not what you hear in Brussels, of course. But surrounded by the architectural glories of old Europe, it is hard not to get the impression that the busy framers of the European Constitution are whistling past the graveyard, as splendid as it it is. URL:http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030520-102303-4620r.htm

To: calgal who wrote (23145)	5/29/2003 12:05:05 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 27734

Terrorism pays Cal Thomas (archive) URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20030528.shtml May 28, 2003 \| Print \| Send In accepting for the first time a timetable for the creation of an independent Palestinian state, the Israeli cabinet may have sealed the fate of modern Israel. If Israel dismantles so-called "settlements" while Yasser Arafat and his crony, Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, add to their long list of broken promises the promise to end terrorism, the establishment of a Palestinian state will serve as a launching pad for the final assault on Israel and the elimination of that nation as a Jewish homeland and a beacon of democracy in the region. Some cabinet members who voted for the plan, including Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, explained that while they had serious reservations about the "road map," they did not want to anger the United States. The "road map" contains what should be unacceptable concessions by Israel in exchange for meaningless assurances by the Palestinian side. These concessions include Israeli withdrawal from land it captured for its own security in the 1967 war, which was started by Israel's neighbors with the express intention of wiping Israel off any road map (a goal that remains unchanged). These concessions would put Israel in grave peril from her enemies, which now possess more sophisticated and lethal weapons than they used in each of the previous wars. In the past, Israel has said it would start implementing the "road map" only after Palestinians crack down on the militias. Terror got the Palestinians to the brink of their objective, so why would they give it up now when total victory seems so close? Hamas has said it intends to continue killing Israeli civilians, regardless of any agreements. Many on the right in Israel and the United States hope the acceptance of the "road map" is merely a feint by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who should know better, given his experience in war and in politics. He has seen and heard the sermons, editorials from the Arab press, television programs, Palestinian textbooks and classroom videos, all of which express hatred of all things Jewish, Christian, Israeli and Western and uphold "martyrdom" as the highest "calling" of any and all Palestinians. Given such a history, why would any reasonable person not believe them? A dangerous game is being played by the U.S. State Department, extending over several administrations. Ignoring, or downplaying, Palestinians terrorist acts and choosing to pressure Israel into making dangerous concessions (while accepting empty and unfulfilled promises from Israel's mortal enemies), American officials have laid the groundwork for Israel's destruction on the installment plan. In his memoir, The White House Years, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger reveals how Washington ignores or minimizes evidence of Arab violations of peace agreements: "Israel, with her survival at stake, cannot afford to take chances . The nature of the Israelis' situation is bound to influence their interpretation of ambiguous events. We, on the other hand, have an incentive to minimize such evidence, since the consequences of finding violations are so unpleasant (emphasis mine).Violations force us to choose between doing something about them and thus risk the blowup of our initiative; or doing nothing and thus renege on our promises to Israel, posing the threat of her taking military action. Accordingly, we tend to lean over backwards to avoid the conclusion that the Arabs are violating the cease-fire unless the evidence is unambiguous." (p. 587) That philosophy continues to be practiced and believed in this State Department. In his autobiography Warrior, Ariel Sharon writes about peace: "A widely acceptable formula must somehow be found so that Israel can take the initiative in the peace process rather than be relegated to responding to the demands of others. Then, after we had the most nearly bipartisan approach that we could come up with, we should if possible attempt to get American support on substance. At that point, when our house is in order and our allies are with us, then we can approach the Arab nations" (p. 547-48) Sharon adds that two prerequisites must be in place before progress can be made: "The first is that peace must be equally important to both sides, to Arabs as well as Jews .. The second prerequisite is that the peace process cannot be rushed." Sharon wrote that in 1989. Nothing has changed, except the "peace process" is being rushed and the "road map" has not been widely accepted. Other than that .. ©2003 Tribune Media Services