Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
I just wrote a paper on this very topic. What the Europeans have decided to do is take a different approach to Diplomacy and relations. The US is still operating on a multi-lateral, Diplomacy Ale-Carte while Europeans are for a system like the EU which, for one, makes it easier for terrorists to be caught because there is a unified front against terrorist activities rather than a hodgepodge of resistance. The US is also still using Militarism as its power, which is understandable since it still have the most powerful military in the world; if you have it why not use seems to be the common ideology in the administration. The EU has a greater population yet can only muster about 60k troops, which is I believe 25% of their total forces, while the US can mobilize hundreds of thousands which is 60% of the total force. I don't remember the exact numbers but in any case it shows a clear cleavage between Euro and American military power. Therefore the Europeans have decided to also go with a "No Development without Security, No Security without Development" which basically goes at the root and tries to support unions like the African Union to developed in many ways such as aide for food, better training for security forces, and many more forms of aide. What it comes down to is many in the US believe either that the Cold War system is still valid, or that it is fading and the US must do whatever it can to affect change and grasp power. The EU among others believes that the Cold War system is over, it has been for 15 years, and are ready for a new system of relations which does not start with militarism and military deterrence which was the hallmark of the Cold War.


So what you're saying is that the EU is resorting to 1930s style peace-making? By 'Cold War system' do you mean military might? A system of militarism and military deterrence isn't just the hallmark of the Cold War, it's a hallmark of civilization. You tell me of a time when suits solved serious international disputes and I'll tell you you're reading the wrong history books. The Europeans are incredibly naive if they think what you described is going to be a successful brand of international relations.