Monday
19Nov2007
The Suicidal Logic of EU ‘Soft Power'
Monday, November 19, 2007 at 03:13PM
“ Foreign Secretary David Miliband has suggested the European Union should work towards including Russia, Middle Eastern and North
African countries. He said enlargement was "our most powerful tool" for extending stability.”
Despite guns and ammo, the Soviet Union was not able to expand into Western Europe; the Communist union didn’t survive into the 1990’s. But, Putin is increasingly starting to resemble an ‘old-school’ communist dictator. So, according to Miliband, it’s time to surrender and include Russia in the EU. Anything to avoid a fight!
In 1683, conquering Islamic hordes were turned back from the Gates of Vienna; Western Europe remained predominately Christian. But Western Europe’s current demographics and the contemporary threat of Islamofascism point to difficult struggles ahead. So, according to Miliband, it’s time to expand open borders to the Middle East and surrender to expansive Islam, as well. Surrender is so much easier than fighting.
in EU
EU 
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (19)
With all their power and cash it makes sense but it wont happen. They'll remain and grow as seperate blocs of power and petro/energy cash. When the US forms its own bloc with Latin America then things will get interesting and maybe things will change. Long way off as to who forms which alliances however.
Alliances are formed based on mutual benefits. Even Hillary Clinton has said that NAFTA was a mistaken so I don't think that we will be seeing a "bloc" with Latin America over here in the US.
You already have one. Including a labor cooperation with that same bloc. Brazil has oil and new technology and the US is investing heavily. 9/11 stalled things but fater the security sign offs and cooperation in the region and in light of the distinct lack of immigration control Nafta-Plus or FTAA aren't such distant possibilities.
Putin has effectively blocked EU monitors from reporting on the forthcoming Russian elections. Prediction: The Putin party will win 105% of the vote in a totally fair election.
Had you not noticed that Milliband is an idiot?
Rod: Yes.
Miliband appeared to come from the bowels of Nulab and then, suddenly, he's spoken of as a future Prime Minister? Who in the UK would want him as PM, but he's there: how come? I'm completely bemused by this.
Had a look at Milibands speech.
What he suggested was the accession of neighbouring countries - especially Russia and the Ukraine - to the WTO (see my comment on other thread) and a multi-lateral free-trade zone - a version of the European Free Trade Association that could gradually bring the countries of the Mahgreb into alignment.
The latter is a bit of a pipe dream given the issues that he outlined needed to be overcome first.
So taken as a whole why are you interested in this but dismissive of the situation back home?
And no im not a Ron Paul fan.
Josh: I'm interested in countering the notion of "soft power." Soft power is a poisonous notion promoted by the EU/UN/ Internationalist leftists that, in the absence of military strength, would have us believe that trade & talk = peace & power.
Why? Because it's killing Western Europe and I happen to like Western Europe. And, a strong Europe is good for America; a weak Europe is not.
Also, this obsession with diplomacy in the absence of military strength is a poisoned notion which has spread to the States and I think it should be called out, analyzed, and shown up for the surrender that it is.
You say I'm dismissive of something back home...what?
Patty, right now your southern border is being policed with soft power.
RC: I don't think the Southern border is applicable in a discussion of "soft power." Negligence is a little different than "soft power." Afterall, it's "policed" with an invisible wall. And don't forget the nonexistent enforcement of existing laws.
If you want to get me going about America's idiotic use of "soft power" better to address Condi in the Middle East -"negotiating" yet another "peace" -- between Israel and Palestine.
Patty,
the point I'm making is US sovereignty is disappearing the same as British sovereignty has done, by stealth and through treaties that the public won't read. All you need to do is study what the Council on Foreign Relations has been proposing for years, and see how far down that road you have already gone, and then remember how many of your top politicians (Cheney, Clinton ad infinitum) are members of the CFR. It's all hidden in plain view.
As far as the border goes, my point is that the hard power in that business is with the millions of illegals now in America, which your globalist politicians of both parties keep trying to amnesty.
Still there's hope. The Texans may show some of their old spirit and put a stop to the land-grab for the Trans-Texas Corridor, and the true conservative constitutionalist Ron Paul may win the nomination for the GOP. Ask the bookies in Vegas - he's the only one who can beat Hillary. Let's hope people stop watching Fox TV (owned by Clinton-supporting Rupert Murdoch) and look at the real issues. Then Paul will definitely win.
Patty - Condi and State are making me want to tear my hair out! What are they DOING?
Daphne: I think it's interesting that a couple years ago a very popular COnaleeza Rice was asked several times on TV whether or not she might consider to run for President. She repeatedly and finally convincingly said "no" -- citing the fact that at heart she is an academic - not a politician - and that she hoped to return to academia some day.
And I think she's right about her gifts and her failings. She's an academic - she thinks too much and too abstractly to be in politics. And she is the wrong person for her job -- she has drunk the State Department koolaid and "gone native."
This is Bush's fault. He makes appointments based on personal loyalties and freindship. A huge mistake.
That's why I like Romney. Romney - the business man - would replace her as soon as he saw how ineffective she was. Despite personal friendship etc.
I think the State Dept. is stuck in the past - stability at all costs. That's why they hate Bush -- he shook the branches and changed the rules.
Patty - I agree with you on everything you've said except why the Staties hate Bush. I think State is chock full of liberals and democrats, they dislike Bush for the same reasons all of their brethren outside of State hate him; elite condescension.
I don't think Bush shook up or changed the State department at all. I'm of the opinion that he should have put Bolton in charge of State and had him fully clean house. I just don't believe he would be pandering to Palestinian terrorists the way Condi has. She's following the same old tired, unsuccessful route that's been played before - Israel gives and the Palestinians kill more Israelis.
Cut off their money and tell them no one is coming to the table until there has been a successful year of cease fire. Tell them the vast amount of victim payoff money they've been given better start finding it's way to the people so that it directly betters their lives. Tell them to go to hell over the wall - once they start behaving like decent human beings then the wall may come down. Tell the Jordanians to start taking care of their own people - that's who the "Palestinians" were before they changed designations. Tell them no talks until they publicly avow Israel's right to exist.
I am so sick of the Palestinians BS. I'm even more disgusted with the West's stupid behaviour in dealing with these duplicitous thugs they call leaders.
What has Romney said about Palestine?
Daphne, as long as Israel continues to occupy their land and treat them as second-class citizens in their own homeland, they have a right to resist.
I knew you would turn up if I went all Texan on the Palestinians Noel. :-)
Please take a look at this and give me your critique
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/
Hit chapter 1 at the bottom to get it going.
Allan@Oslo -
Who in the UK would want him as PM, but he's there: how come? I'm completely bemused by this.
The Labour Party was taken over in the 60s and 70s by Stalinist urban intellectuals and trade unionists who defected from the Communist Party of Great Britain. They ousted the old, patriotic, socialists (Denis Healey was the last one to hold any position of influence) and have installed every Labour leader since Foot.
Miliband, coming from solid Marxist stock and as sly as any Stalinist in the party, is very much being groomed for the party leadership.