Update: the debate continues on this article here.
George Monbiot is back in the Guardian this week. In this piece he argues that Britain should adopt the Euro, and so should the global community, in order to combat the growth of US unilateralism and new taste for militarism.
What strikes me about Monbiot this week is that he seems to be supporting some sort of economic war/embargo against the United States in order to silence its foreign adventures. This amounts to a subtle act of war.
Moreover, any strengthening of the Euro against the dollar would likely lead to greater conflict between the US and the EU economically and perhaps militarily. Perhaps the greatest threat is a US-EU war in the future - something I seriously think may happen in the future.
Am I one of the only people that can see a conflict arising? Is current US hatred of France a symptom of things to come?
Chris Gulker notes (in comment):
Stirring the pot, I see... which side would Ireland likely come down on? Not the British, I presume...:-)
Couple of things occurred to me after I read your post:
Euro vs. Dollar - we Americans actually like a strong Euro (except when we're travelling in Europe, when we love a weak one) because it makes our export stuff - cars, tools, DVDs, Madonna posters - cheaper, both in your markets and in places where we compete like the Pacific Rim. I think an artificially weak Euro might be a more likely excuse for a bit of Bush/Rumsfeld-style 'economic policy' (and, of course, the UK possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction).
The main vector for war, it would seem, at this, the beginning of the 21st Century, are right wing and reactionary politcal and/or religious groups.
Cases in point: the Sharon administration, the Bush administration (and dare I recall another conservative, well-right-of-center administration of the late 20th, the Thatcher administration) on the one hand, and Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Quaeda, certain IRA and Protestant factions, right-winf Christian Groups in the U.S... well the list goes on.
So you have this weird deal where centrists (usually a majority) suffer fromthe actions of administrations they don't necessarily support - moderate Israelis and Palestinians probably being the most visible examples of that. Violence, once stared by the extreme groups, nevertheless tends to spiral, and the moderates become caught up in fear and anger and tend to migrate to the right (witness US and UK polls after the war started).
So, it might be that your US vs. UK scenario would be most likely if right-wing or strongly religious regimes were in place in both countries
Anyway, my 2 cents... the Brits burned down the White House in the War of 1812, and there are probably some aging peaceniks stateside who'd invite them to come back and do it again in the near future...
Gavin Sheridan notes:
I definately would not come down on the side of Ireland - that corrupt little corner of Europe.
But my thinking is that it won't really matter in 20 years time anyway. A greater EU is in the process of being built, as Monbiot points out it will soon have a population of over 500 million. Centralised government from Brussels, a European president, a strengthened European parliament, one currency for all European nations, one army, a federal tax system and crucially a European constitution - currently being drafted.
So whether you are in Ireland, France or Luxembourg it won't really matter, it will for all intents and purposes be a United States of Europe, or under current plans, United Europe (UE).
Chris was interests me about the euro vs Dollar debate is that increasingly there are moves by many nations to the euro, and the euro is now accepted currency in many non-euro nations such as Russia and other former Soviet nations.
For decades the US has pursued a strong dollar policy - as Monbiot says it has been a benefit to the US
In order to earn dollars, other nations must provide goods and services to the US. When commodities are valued in dollars, the US needs do no more than print pieces of green paper to obtain them: it acquires them, in effect, for free. Once earned, other nations' dollar reserves must be invested back into the American economy. This inflow of money helps the US to finance its massive deficit.
So what happens if or when the euro replaces the dollar as currency of choice? And believe me there are powerful people in the EU who want that to happen.
And hey, at the moment, I love weak dollars - 10% off these days for buying from US websites.
"The main vectors for are right wing and reactionary political and/or religious groups"
I believe this has a certian bearing, but I think the future will bring greater religious and resource wars, especially the latter. War for water will likely be a major issue, as it will be for other valuable commodities. But I think the main point is that any situation where a country like the US, currently the superpower and indeed imperial power of the world, will come across a competitor - a strong and united Europe - will lead to inevitable conflict.
Essentially if we were to take Philip Bobbitts line, the Americas and Europe will be too large market-states - and their ambitions and interests could collide, resulting in large scale wars.
I believe the trade wars over the last few years are symptoms of something deeper - and the differences with France and Germany - "old Europe", are the intitial stages in the beginnings of a broader conflict.
Some might say that there is too much history, how could people of common heritage, Europeans and Americans ever go to war?....My answer is that it does not take much to motivate humans to kill, nor does it take much to incense entire nations to hatred - take French fries, or jingoism pre-Great War as typical examples. And like any species, if resources are in short supply, conflict will arise.
What strikes me is whether the UK will be part of the EU, or stay with the English speaking peoples. Monbiot seems to be encouraging the former - we shall have to wait and see.
Trish notes:
That's a scary idea, a Europe-America conflict. Could all of Europe unite politically like that? It's one thing to have the same tax structure, currency, and local government, it's another to be able to follow the same narrow political viewpoint. Only in America is there so little discussion of government policies, only in America is it un-patriotic to question. I can't imagine an entire Europe falling into this one-view mode.
And as for North American politics and economy, I think Mexico (and Canada to a lesser extent) are currently very underlooked. While the American economy is large, it's not necessarily robust, and it depends in a large way on trade with it's two neighbours. Two grumpy, frustrated neighbours. Canada's attitude is increasinly one of "they're already screwing us over, why should we make any more concessions" and I believe Mexico is feeling the same way. America's economy seems fragile, and perhaps the best thing for Europe to do is to let them screw up on their own for a little while, and then move in once the dust has settled.
Michael Stevens (no blog given):
This so far is the only place where I have seen this very likely scenario discussed. The US, I maintain,is becoming an inadvertent Empire like all others before it. Lately ourselves (UK). If Blair now goes strongly for our single currency with the EU I will begin to believe he may be a statesman after all.
Gavin Sheridan notes:
Trish, Europe is already uniting like that. In fact the Convention on the Future of Europe is hoping to have an EU foreign minister by 2008. And that is another significant step on the road to United Europe. And it will be a one-Europe view, that is the plan.
Michael, I never came across the idea myself - but myself and my uncle have often discussed the possibility over the last few years. I recently came across an article in the Atlantic on the issue, by an emminent professor, I will have to dig it up.
Thank you to Trish, Michael, and Chris for your thoughts. I felt this issue significant enough to post fairly lengthy posts and comments. I mailed several other bloggers, notably the busier ones, in an attempt to maximise the contributions - Chris and Horst felt it significant enough, but no others did. Perhaps another time.
There will be more on this subject in the future, I have no doubt.
8:40:44 PM 
|
