The EU: Made in America
economist.com
economist.com
This is a one-sentence forward to some future history of the 21st century yet to be written.
Can we please get this engraved on the headstone of the millennial generation?
I can't figure out how to deep link my Data Cube, but you can see from the Office of Personnel Management that the Federal workforce is old: https://www.fedscope.opm.gov/
Screenshot for those who don't want to wrangle the Data Cube UI: https://i.imgur.com/0XQ1LEj.png
The order started breaking down in the 90s when the oldest Millennials were in elementary school, accelerated in the 00s when the youngest Millennials were in preschool, and was formalized in 2016 mostly by older generations. The big problem that I see is that while bits and pieces get taught the artificial trade security brought on by the Bretton Woods order were never taught! I only just started learning about it recently and I'm a bit pissed off that this wasn't in 20th Century History 101.
The living memory of the post-WW2 order is fading and most people basically don't understand that we're living in that house, that it's very real, and that it takes maintenance.
Peace isn't the absence of war, it's the balance of power, and the recognition that not all powers are the same.
Without US relationship with Egypt, it would fall and with it the Suez, and they'd be at war with Israel very quickly. 'Real War'. Without US support of House of Saud and 5th fleet, Saudi Arabia and Iran would be probably at war. And that's just one region.
It's complicated and there is no way 'not to play the game' as in a power vacuum it will definitely be total chaos - so we have to figure out how to balance the power in some reasonable way.
Your neighbours with the biggest houses, that they built themselves, have a lot of tools and even a few weapons. They have a pretty good peace between them, and sometimes intervene in domestic disputes elsewhere.
If they didn't patrol the roads then it would be way too dangerous to go out on them, and many of your neighbours would be in vendetta wars.
The best thing you can do is act responsibly, and join the group of responsible acting neighbours. They frankly don't really have a lot of interest in patrolling the streets in general. It makes them feel good but it's really, really costly.
The 'new players' can only emerge with baseline security and they do not 'take' a 'piece of the pie' - they make it for themselves.
Europe is not rich because it has 'natural resources' - it's rich because it has stability and it's organized: NATO/US Nuclear Umbrella + social and moral order, and institutions from liberal democracies, to education, to industry etc..
Poor nations are mostly that way because they are completely corrupt and have a hard time building standards, institutions and regular order - and / or - they can't have those because they have security problems, often which go hand in hand.
Without that, money and equipment invested is squandered.
Korea and Japan made very efficient use of post-war re-investment, because they knew what to do with the electricity grid, and how to put it to good use, and to maintain it.
Rwanda - not so much.
The only people trying to challenge the Post WW2 order are 1) toxic and corrupt states and 2) naive people among the proles, on reddit.
There is definitely a 3rd grouping, with some degree of legitimacy, but they are more rare. The biggest group among them would be isolationist types. But usually they are not in good faith, usually they are just in group #1.
American hegemony drastically reduces the power of local warlords, the sovereignty argument is exactly that. That's also how you have the peace.
The problem is, you don't have a say on it. This will upset the people who disagree with the American way of doing things and everything will crumble when US falters.
Not having a say on it, also makes you susceptible to internal US politics. You can find yourself in a war or under an ambargo due to the election campaign of an US president. Iran, for example, had their deal for normalisation of the relationship however they become a part if the internal US politics and election campaign(Trump v.s. Obama) and everything changed for 83 million people of that country.
There’s also the risk of a corrupt US president actually trading with the aspiring local warlords, enabling them for personal gains. in that case you are both out of peace and control over your fate.
S. Korea, Japan and Germany are not vassal states.
Neither is Egypt, Israel or Saudi Arabia.
It's different in every case, and there's a lot of factors, but mostly it's for mutual benefit.
The Japanese and German elite are very happy to have the Americans there because it serves as a buffer.
It's probably more complicated in Egypt, but the military is one of the only civic institutions with integrity, the citizens actually know that, and that it's because they are backed/supported by the US. Even on the 'Arab Street' they have an instinct for what that balance means even if it's obviously more difficult for some.
But if Egypt really wanted the US to leave they could make them leave. Same in most places.
e: "ME" just means "collectively remembering something one way despite it being another", not an attempt to speculate why. Relevant: https://www.vintag.es/2016/08/walter-botts-man-who-modeled-u... :)
But it's British.
Sure, the Marshall Plan was probably the best idea the US had after WW2. But drawing a direct line between that an the current EU? Really?
Edit: Thanks to archive, I read the article. No idea where it wants to go. American security against the USSR? Culture? Economy? Finance? Choose one! Never mind that during the Cold War the current EU didn't exist in its current form. Nor did the Euro. And were is the explanation just how American history of running a continent can be applied to Europe?
Choose all of them.