Definitely not what you would call a good sign of things to come. <_<
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/egypts-islamist-dominated-parliament-votes-in-support-of-expelling-israels-ambassador/2012/03/12/gIQA9Qfh7R_story.html
QuoteEgypt's Islamist-dominated parliament votes in support of expelling Israel's ambassador
By Associated Press, Updated: Tuesday, March 13, 4:21 AM
CAIRO — Egypt's Islamist-dominated parliament unanimously voted on Monday in support of expelling Israel's ambassador in Cairo and halting gas exports to the Jewish state.
The motion is largely symbolic, because only the ruling military council can make such decisions, and it is not likely to impact Egypt's relations with Israel. But it signals the seismic change in Egypt after the ouster of longtime leader and Israel ally Hosni Mubarak a year ago in a popular uprising that ended his 29 years in power.
The vote was taken by a show of hands on a report by the chamber's Arab affairs committee that declared Egypt will "never" be a friend, partner or ally of Israel. The report described Israel as the nation's "number one enemy" and endorsed what it called Palestinian resistance "in all its kinds and forms" against Israel's "aggressive policies."
There was no immediate comment from Israel on the vote by the People's Assembly, the Egyptian parliament's lower house.
Egypt became the first Arab nation to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. The treaty came six years after the two Middle East neighbors fought the last of their four wars. However, the accord produced a "cold" peace, and most Egyptians still view Israel as their nation's enemy.
There have been bouts of tension in relations between the two neighbors, mostly over Israel's perceived reluctance to proceed in good faith with peace talks with the Palestinians, but leaders of the two nations have consistently kept open channels of communication.
The parliamentary report also called for the recall of Egypt's ambassador in Israel and a revision of Egypt's nuclear power policy in view of the widespread suspicion that Israel has a nuclear arsenal of its own.
"Revolutionary Egypt will never be a friend, partner or ally of the Zionist entity (Israel), which we consider to be the number one enemy of Egypt and the Arab nation," said the report. "It will deal with that entity as an enemy, and the Egyptian government is hereby called upon to review all its relations and accords with that enemy."
Monday's vote by parliament could serve as an indication of what may lie ahead.
The Islamists who dominate the 508-seat chamber, as well as the largely powerless upper house, would like to see the president's wide executive powers curtailed in the country's next constitution, while boosting those of the legislature.
If they have their way, statements like Monday's could impact on relations with Israel.
The parliament's vote could also give the generals who succeeded Mubarak an added incentive to keep the office of the president as the nation's most powerful institution and ensure that Egypt's next leader is beholden to the military.
The ruling military council is led by Mubarak's defense minister for 20 years, Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi. Many of its members are veterans of Egypt's last war with Israel in 1973, but they also have worked to maintain the peace since 1979.
The Muslim Brotherhood, which controls just under half of the seats in the powerful People's Assembly, wants a president with an Islamist background.
Good thing Arab democrats are so dumb that they see the junta as a guarantor of freedom. Israel would be so screwed otherwise. It's also a good thing that Arab militaries are so weak that they need to fight their own civilians in order to win at something.
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2012, 01:45:44 AM
Good thing Arab democrats are so dumb that they see the junta as a guarantor of freedom. Israel would be so screwed otherwise. It's also a good thing that Arab militaries are so weak that they need to fight their own civilians in order to win at something.
I think the little Satan would mop the floor with them. Even with all their new American tanks and planes.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2012, 01:51:35 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2012, 01:45:44 AM
Good thing Arab democrats are so dumb that they see the junta as a guarantor of freedom. Israel would be so screwed otherwise. It's also a good thing that Arab militaries are so weak that they need to fight their own civilians in order to win at something.
I think the little Satan would mop the floor with them. Even with all their new American tanks and planes.
Yeah, Israel would probably crush Egypt yet again if it came to that. But that would be a disaster anyway, because it's not like Israel would be able to get something out of that victory. They would lose thousands of troops for the feeling of satisfaction and nothing more. Taking spoils of war is against international law.
They could let the Egyptians die en masse in the desert this time. USSR ain't around anymore to pressure the US into reigning them in.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 13, 2012, 01:55:51 AM
They could let the Egyptians die en masse in the desert this time. USSR ain't around anymore to pressure the US into reigning them in.
That will make the Wiki table for the fifth war a little more impressive, but then what?
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2012, 01:59:56 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 13, 2012, 01:55:51 AM
They could let the Egyptians die en masse in the desert this time. USSR ain't around anymore to pressure the US into reigning them in.
That will make the Wiki table for the fifth war a little more impressive, but then what?
Deterrence. A whole dead army does wonders for that.
Well, first of all, I guess none of the leading media will acknowledge that their hype of the Arab Spring as some kind of arab hipster revolution was seriously wrong, and they shouldn't have pretended that a desperate revolution by desperate, uneducated, and dirt poor people can lead into anything else than a system preferred by desperate uneducated dirt pool people, ie radicalism.
And I do not share the optimism regarding an Egyp-Israel war. Sure, one on one, the Jews would dominate, after initial setbacks due to them probably being too comfortable from several decades of relative peace. But there is way too many instability in the region, for which an anti-jewish jihad would be a very welcome remedy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 13, 2012, 02:07:28 AM
Deterrence. A whole dead army does wonders for that.
Nope. A dead army wouldn't stop the Egyptian parliament from symbolically voting to expel the Israeli ambassador.
Quote from: Tamas on March 13, 2012, 02:30:36 AM
Well, first of all, I guess none of the leading media will acknowledge that their hype of the Arab Spring as some kind of arab hipster revolution was seriously wrong, and they shouldn't have pretended that a desperate revolution by desperate, uneducated, and dirt poor people can lead into anything else than a system preferred by desperate uneducated dirt pool people, ie radicalism.
Your major media suck. :( Did they really think there was such a think as an "Arab hipster" in Tahrir Square? Do Magyar media actually still use the term "hipster?"
You should read something not written on beet leaves. If you had, you would have seen that the development of an authoritarian regime tinged with Islamic fundamentalist was widely seen as the likeliest outcome of the revolution.
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2012, 01:54:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2012, 01:51:35 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2012, 01:45:44 AM
Good thing Arab democrats are so dumb that they see the junta as a guarantor of freedom. Israel would be so screwed otherwise. It's also a good thing that Arab militaries are so weak that they need to fight their own civilians in order to win at something.
I think the little Satan would mop the floor with them. Even with all their new American tanks and planes.
Yeah, Israel would probably crush Egypt yet again if it came to that. But that would be a disaster anyway, because it's not like Israel would be able to get something out of that victory. They would lose thousands of troops for the feeling of satisfaction and nothing more. Taking spoils of war is against international law.
Fortunately, international law doesn't apply to war.
Quote from: grumbler on March 13, 2012, 06:26:36 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 13, 2012, 02:30:36 AM
Well, first of all, I guess none of the leading media will acknowledge that their hype of the Arab Spring as some kind of arab hipster revolution was seriously wrong, and they shouldn't have pretended that a desperate revolution by desperate, uneducated, and dirt poor people can lead into anything else than a system preferred by desperate uneducated dirt pool people, ie radicalism.
Your major media suck. :( Did they really think there was such a think as an "Arab hipster" in Tahrir Square? Do Magyar media actually still use the term "hipster?"
You should read something not written on beet leaves. If you had, you would have seen that the development of an authoritarian regime tinged with Islamic fundamentalist was widely seen as the likeliest outcome of the revolution.
*sigh*
I of course refered to the wide-spread enthusiasm regarding these revolts, which were there in the developed world, do not deny it.
FFS, I read an editorial in the International Herald Tribune explaining why the Arab Spring finally proves that Huntington's clash of civlizations model is wrong. Now that was a :bleeding: article.
Quote from: Tamas on March 13, 2012, 07:30:04 AM
*sigh*
I of course refered to the wide-spread enthusiasm regarding these revolts, which were there in the developed world, do not deny it.
FFS, I read an editorial in the International Herald Tribune explaining why the Arab Spring finally proves that Huntington's clash of civlizations model is wrong. Now that was a :bleeding: article.
I don't understand this impulse of yours to lie and exaggerate when you think you could achieve your argument using the truth.
Must be your gypsy genes.
And Grumbler thinks he's punishing me by ignoring me! :lol:
Is there anyone on this forum trying so hard to be funny yet failing so completely as Grumbler? I mean seriously hes not a stupid guy but his remarks.... they just seems to lack a certain something. Even Hansie is more talented at writing humour.
Get a good sleep grumbs and come back. Seriously, WTF
Quote from: Cecil on March 13, 2012, 11:40:32 AM
Is there anyone on this forum trying so hard to be funny yet failing so completely as Grumbler? I mean seriously hes not a stupid guy but his remarks.... they just seems to lack a certain something. Even Hansie is more talented at writing humour.
You think grumbler's posts in this thread show
effort? :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 13, 2012, 03:40:38 PM
Quote from: Cecil on March 13, 2012, 11:40:32 AM
Is there anyone on this forum trying so hard to be funny yet failing so completely as Grumbler? I mean seriously hes not a stupid guy but his remarks.... they just seems to lack a certain something. Even Hansie is more talented at writing humour.
You think grumbler's posts in this thread show effort? :huh:
More of a generalized statement. He tries so often yet fails so completely. If I cared I would call it sad.
Quote from: Cecil on March 13, 2012, 06:04:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 13, 2012, 03:40:38 PM
Quote from: Cecil on March 13, 2012, 11:40:32 AM
Is there anyone on this forum trying so hard to be funny yet failing so completely as Grumbler? I mean seriously hes not a stupid guy but his remarks.... they just seems to lack a certain something. Even Hansie is more talented at writing humour.
You think grumbler's posts in this thread show effort? :huh:
More of a generelized statement. He tries so often yet fails so completely. If I cared I would call it sad.
But since you don't care about it, you just post about it repeatedly. :)
I care. I care about all of you. Except for LaCroix, who I set to ignore because I couldn't be assed to memorize the habits of another one of you bastards.
Quote from: Tamas on March 13, 2012, 11:52:58 AM
Get a good sleep grumbs and come back. Seriously, WTF
You do the same. Going all emo about a total strawman argument that "none of the leading media will acknowledge that their hype of the Arab Spring as some kind of arab hipster revolution was seriously wrong" sn't your strong suit. Leave the bluster like that to Hans.
Sorry to be the bearer of such bad tidings. After a night's sleep you'll see that I am right.
:lol: Oh my.
Quote from: Tamas on March 13, 2012, 07:30:04 AM
FFS, I read an editorial in the International Herald Tribune explaining why the Arab Spring finally proves that Huntington's clash of civlizations model is wrong. Now that was a :bleeding: article.
I agree with the :bleeding:
Anyone who thought that Huntington's "model" had any legs as recently as 2011 must be really out of it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2012, 08:54:09 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 13, 2012, 07:30:04 AM
FFS, I read an editorial in the International Herald Tribune explaining why the Arab Spring finally proves that Huntington's clash of civlizations model is wrong. Now that was a :bleeding: article.
I agree with the :bleeding:
Anyone who thought that Huntington's "model" had any legs as recently as 2011 must be really out of it.
elaborate
Quote from: Tamas on March 14, 2012, 08:56:53 AM
elaborate
The CoC thesis was dead on arrival and events since then have only confirmed the results of the autopsy.
Cause of death?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2012, 09:01:59 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 14, 2012, 08:56:53 AM
elaborate
The CoC thesis was dead on arrival and events since then have only confirmed the results of the autopsy.
I will not argue because I got bored with the book around halfway through, but the general premise holds ground, I would think. :hmm:
It's a good thing you won't argue. That's the least convincing argument I've ever seen.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2012, 09:12:34 AM
It's a good thing you won't argue. That's the least convincing argument I've ever seen.
Come on, it is simple, easy to remember.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2012, 09:01:59 AM
The CoC thesis was dead on arrival and events since then have only confirmed the results of the autopsy.
Depending on what you consider Huntington's central thesis, I don't think that this is true at all. In fact, I would argue that history has validated his thesis that cultural fault lines would define the areas of conflict in the post-ideological world.
I don't think his definitions of civilizations stood up very well, but I don't think those definitions were central to his thesis (I thought they were filler for the book).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 14, 2012, 09:10:05 AM
Cause of death?
The fact that ours is the only true civilization.
Quote from: grumbler on March 14, 2012, 10:01:04 AM
In fact, I would argue that history has validated his thesis that cultural fault lines would define the areas of conflict in the post-ideological world.
I can't agree. Since 92/93, areas of conflict have revolved around traditional geopolitical tensions and conflicts over resources and civil wars/wars of national liberation. The Congolese Civil Wars, the Eritrean-Ethopian conflict, the condflicts in Sierra Leone, Buruni and Uganda, the wars arising from the break-up of Yugolslavia, both Gulf War conflicts; the various Lebanese civil wars, the Russia- Georgia conflict -- none of these were defined by cultural fault lines unless one defines cultural fault line in such a loose way as to be meaningless. To take a simple example, under Huntington's thesis, "Sinic" neo-Confucian reformist post-Communist China should be most closely alined with "Sinic" neo-Confucian reformist post-Communist Vietnam. In fact, they are and have been in a position of hostility, to the point where Vietnam has reached out politically to its former arch-enemy the US and raised the specter of military ties with China as the object. The reason is that the geopolitical fault line of conflicting interests vis-a-via the South China Sea and its resorces trump cultutral differences, every time.
I also think in discussing a post-ideological world he missed the ideological content of 'civilisational' identity. So for example al-Qaeda and their supporters don't represent some general aspect of the 'Islamic world' (which apparently can be generalised about from Dakar to Dhaka) it represents a very specific, radical, global Islamist ideology. It's no more an expression of Islamic civilisation than Trotskyism is of Western civilisation, it's an ideological movement emerging from a civilisation. Similarly there are huge disagreements between Islamists who are activists in their country and ones who want a global perspective. One striking feature of the Arab uprising has, so far, had lots of chants about watan (which means nation in a secular sense, ie. Syria or Egypt) but very few about ummah (the Muslim nation). I think the clashes going on within Islamism and between Islamism secularism aren't civilisational but ideological conflicts.
Another example of the failure of culture or civilisation would be the EU which is basically a big chunk of his 'Western world'. Again you see a similar movement to ideological and national identity over some general cultural based one. In the original article Huntington suggested that there wouldn't be problems with a good, Catholic Polish immigrant moving into Western Europe in contrast with a non-Western migrant. They may be more welcome but I think the last 10 years of slowly moving free movement for the EU-10 suggests that they're not benefiting from a massive amount of shared cultural identity. I know Greece is in the Orthodox sphere but I think the situation of the bailout countries and the limits of fiscal transfers also reflect that. In France, his example, the left candidate is running against the Fiscal Pact and the right candidate is running against the Schengen agreement. So at a time of stress the national identity wins out.
What does running against Schengen agreement mean. Can France nullify it? What happens then?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2012, 11:25:04 AM
What does running against Schengen agreement mean. Can France nullify it? What happens then?
I don't know. I think Sarko said that if Schengen wasn't sorted then he'd pull out France. Which I suppose he could. I think it would just mean that France was no longer part of Schengen which a core part of the EU but an extra level of integration - like the Euro.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2012, 11:01:14 AM
I can't agree. Since 92/93, areas of conflict have revolved around traditional geopolitical tensions and conflicts over resources and civil wars/wars of national liberation. The Congolese Civil Wars, the Eritrean-Ethopian conflict, the condflicts in Sierra Leone, Buruni and Uganda, the wars arising from the break-up of Yugolslavia, both Gulf War conflicts; the various Lebanese civil wars, the Russia- Georgia conflict -- none of these were defined by cultural fault lines unless one defines cultural fault line in such a loose way as to be meaningless. To take a simple example, under Huntington's thesis, "Sinic" neo-Confucian reformist post-Communist China should be most closely alined with "Sinic" neo-Confucian reformist post-Communist Vietnam. In fact, they are and have been in a position of hostility, to the point where Vietnam has reached out politically to its former arch-enemy the US and raised the specter of military ties with China as the object. The reason is that the geopolitical fault line of conflicting interests vis-a-via the South China Sea and its resorces trump cultutral differences, every time.
I can't agree. The wars you mention were not, IMO, fought over resources. The Congolese, Burundan, and Sierra-Leonean wars were fought over tribal competitions for power/avoidance of domination by other tribes; Eritria/Ethipia and Uganda were cultural conflicts (though not between the cultures defined by Huntington). Lebanon is much more complex; it combines a bit of cultural conflict, a fair amount of tribalism, and some ideology.
All of these conflicts existed before the end of the ideological era, of course, and no one argues that every conflict of the ideological era instantly ended in 1990 and was replaced by cultural conflicts.
The thesis is more along the lines that new conflicts that arise will be likelier to occur along the cultural fault lines that ideological or economic ones. Unless one wants to argue that the US invasion of Iran and Afghanistan was done for economic reasons, I think Huntington's idea has some merit.
One can almost always make a case for the economic causes of conflict, of course; Marx proved that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 14, 2012, 11:58:17 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2012, 11:25:04 AM
What does running against Schengen agreement mean. Can France nullify it? What happens then?
I don't know. I think Sarko said that if Schengen wasn't sorted then he'd pull out France. Which I suppose he could. I think it would just mean that France was no longer part of Schengen which a core part of the EU but an extra level of integration - like the Euro.
If they leave, can they vote to rejoin? Or does that require a new treaty? Could a country just sort of flit in and out various EU treaties at will? That would be very weird.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2012, 12:17:49 PM
If they leave, can they vote to rejoin? Or does that require a new treaty? Could a country just sort of flit in and out various EU treaties at will? That would be very weird.
Well Schengen isn't an EU treaty. It includes non-EU states like Switzerland and Norway, but doesn't include EU member states like the UK and Ireland. It was initially outside the EU framework, I think it's now mainly regulated within EU law and all future EU members will eventually join (Romania and the rest have to one day join) like the Euro.
But obviously the meetings on Schengen policies aren't EU based because they've got different membership and, unlike non-EU states adopting the Euro, the Norwegians and Swiss do get a say.
I don't know what provisions there are for withdrawing or being removed from Schengen. I imagine the French could withdraw but if they wanted to re-join the rest of the Schengen Area would make it very, very difficult.
Really it's an electoral threat with little chance of being acted on. It's more an attempt by Sarko to steal the votes of the far-right. I don't think at this point that it's plausible that France, a founding member of the Schengen area, would withdraw.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 14, 2012, 12:27:50 PM
But obviously the meetings on Schengen policies aren't EU based because they've got different membership and, unlike non-EU states adopting the Euro, the Norwegians and Swiss do get a say.
No. Schengen is amended via the normal EU legislation mechanisms. Switzerland and Norway are basically just told the result. They can take it or leave.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 14, 2012, 11:58:17 AM
I don't know. I think Sarko said that if Schengen wasn't sorted then he'd pull out France. Which I suppose he could. I think it would just mean that France was no longer part of Schengen which a core part of the EU but an extra level of integration - like the Euro.
Schengen is part of the acquis communitaire. France can't unilaterally withdraw in a legal way except by leaving the EU.
Quote from: grumbler on March 14, 2012, 12:03:46 PM
Unless one wants to argue that the US invasion of Iran and Afghanistan was done for economic reasons, I think Huntington's idea has some merit.
Iranian nukes could be pretty bad for GNP. I think invasion's unnecessary though.
Quote from: Zanza on March 14, 2012, 12:33:57 PMNo. Schengen is amended via the normal EU legislation mechanisms. Switzerland and Norway are basically just told the result. They can take it or leave.
Interesting. I didn't know that. I read recently that the Romanians were calling for a meeting of the Schengen area to discuss that they've been turned down by the Netherlands again. Is that basically the Home Minister version of Euro-Fin?
Quote from: Zanza on March 14, 2012, 12:35:46 PM
Schengen is part of the acquis communitaire. France can't unilaterally withdraw in a legal way except by leaving the EU.
I thought you disagreed when I made this argument about EMU. But I imagine Sarko would negotiate an opt-out over the year and, being France, I wouldn't put it past them to do something unilaterally and then require the rest of Europe to catch up. Which Europe would because no-one would really want to lose France.
Quote from: grumbler on March 14, 2012, 12:03:46 PM
The Congolese, Burundan, and Sierra-Leonean wars were fought over tribal competitions for power/avoidance of domination by other tribes
I don't agree as "tribal competition for power/avoidance of domination" is just a traditional political power struggle. Conflicts between self-identified tribes in these areas do not have any cognizable cultural basis I can discern, much less a conflict stemming from a "cultural fault line"
QuoteEritria/Ethipia and Uganda were cultural conflicts (though not between the cultures defined by Huntington). Lebanon is much more complex; it combines a bit of cultural conflict, a fair amount of tribalism, and some ideology.
Under what definition of "cutlure" are these cultural conflicts? I can't think of one that has any useful limiting content to it that would encompass these conflicts. The Eritrean-Ethiopian war was about as classic as a national boundary dispute as can be found. Both are multi-ethnic and multi-confessional societies; the main cultural difference is the residual of Italian influence in Eritrea, which I doubt was a significant causal factor. In Uganda, I really don't think the LRA's fight is based on some critical cultural cleavage. In Lebanon, there is little if any cultural cleavage between the adversaries.
QuoteThe thesis is more along the lines that new conflicts that arise will be likelier to occur along the cultural fault lines that ideological or economic ones. Unless one wants to argue that the US invasion of Iran and Afghanistan was done for economic reasons, I think Huntington's idea has some merit.
The US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were done primarily for geopolitical and security reasons, although economics did play a role in Iraq. They can very easily be fit within traditional frameworks of traditional national interest power politics along the lines of the kinds of similar interventions conducted throughout the 19th and 20th centurie, without having to postulate a "conflict of civilizations." Note that culturally speaking, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan and Baathist Iraq could scarely be more dissimilar. I don't see how cultural differences are an explanation why the US invaded those countries, but at the same time, did not invade Iran or Syria, and allied to Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
I think if one is going to make the counter case that conflicts are likely to occur along "cultural fault lines," one has to define with some reasonable specificity what the concept of a cultural fault line is; otherwise there is no way to evaluate the argument.
"geopolitical and security reasons"
What if I say: the UK or Germany is not needed to be invaded for those reasons because you can work together with them without direct steering of their government - due to being in the same culture group in a world which is largely defined by those grand cultural borders.
Quote from: Tamas on March 14, 2012, 12:56:25 PM
What if I say: the UK or Germany is not needed to be invaded for those reasons because you can work together with them without direct steering of their government - due to being in the same culture group in a world which is largely defined by those grand cultural borders.
The problem is that being in the same "cultural group" for than 1000 years didn't prevent those nations and others in that group from bloodletting each other on a horrific scale for almost that entire period. That they do not anymore is testament only to the fact that the experience of the two world wars, plus the experience in Germany of the benefits to a peaceful, open democractic regime after one was forced upon them, led all relevant participants to conclude that the gains from peaceful cooperation far exceed any benefits to defection. Cultural affinities may help reach that position, but they are neither a pre-requisite nor an assurance - just one of many potentially applicable factors. The cultural affinities between English/Scots and Irish are and were at least as great as between say English and Bavarians, yet violence in Northern Ireland continued long after conflict between the latter seemed unimaginable.
From the POV of America invasion of the UK or Germany at present is inconceivable; the same would be true of invasion of Poland, Finland, India, Japan, or the Phillipines, to take a few random examples. Cultural borders have little to with it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 14, 2012, 12:43:37 PM
Quote from: Zanza on March 14, 2012, 12:35:46 PM
Schengen is part of the acquis communitaire. France can't unilaterally withdraw in a legal way except by leaving the EU.
I thought you disagreed when I made this argument about EMU. But I imagine Sarko would negotiate an opt-out over the year and, being France, I wouldn't put it past them to do something unilaterally and then require the rest of Europe to catch up. Which Europe would because no-one would really want to lose France.
I disagreed on the de facto, not the de jure argument. De facto, if France wants to end Schengen, that would be done without them leaving the EU because the rest of the EU has major benefits to everybody regardless of Schengen or not. But legally, there is currently no such provision, so it would need something new.
You guys have a real weird thing going with the EU. So much ambiguity.
Could be that I am completely wrong, but the situation in the EU is a bit like what your "states rights" Americans want for your country too.
Quote from: Zanza on March 15, 2012, 02:22:17 AM
Could be that I am completely wrong, but the situation in the EU is a bit like what your "states rights" Americans want for your country too.
I don't think many go that far. Your EU is somewhat similar to the Articles of Confederation, the government structure we had before our current one. Turned out not work, and was scrapped. The current system had it's flaws and a certain amount of ambiguity that led to a Civil War.
Quote from: Zanza on March 15, 2012, 02:22:17 AM
Could be that I am completely wrong, but the situation in the EU is a bit like what your "states rights" Americans want for your country too.
Slavery? :unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on March 15, 2012, 08:39:32 AM
Quote from: Zanza on March 15, 2012, 02:22:17 AM
Could be that I am completely wrong, but the situation in the EU is a bit like what your "states rights" Americans want for your country too.
Slavery? :unsure:
Well, mass enslavement *would* be a possible answer to the Greek financial problems. :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2012, 04:05:37 AM
I don't think many go that far. Your EU is somewhat similar to the Articles of Confederation, the government structure we had before our current one. Turned out not work, and was scrapped. The current system had it's flaws and a certain amount of ambiguity that led to a Civil War.
I know very little about Schengen, the UK's not in it so it doesn't bother us.
The basic principle is that EU law is supreme and even if a national constitution is in breach of EU law then the constitution gives way. But EU law only involves certain areas, mainly to do with the four fundamental freedoms (goods, people, capital and services) but not much outside of those and I think all EU states have reaffirmed that the state is sovereign. So in UK terms EU law is supreme and has effect because the British Parliament has said so, I think the French Conseil d'Etat and German Constitutional Court have said similar things.
So I suppose there is some ambiguity in that the EU isn't sovereign. It's got an autonomous legal order that is observed by EU states, but ultimately it derives its power from the membership and acquiescence of sovereign member states.
But I think part of that is part of the inevitable tension of different visions of Europe. The French like inter-governmental deals, the Germans like independent institutions and a legal system, the British want to tear the whole thing down :lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2012, 12:51:58 PM
I don't agree as "tribal competition for power/avoidance of domination" is just a traditional political power struggle. Conflicts between self-identified tribes in these areas do not have any cognizable cultural basis I can discern, much less a conflict stemming from a "cultural fault line"
You cannot have my point. These conflicts are of long-standing duration, and Huntington does not propose that, at the moment of the collapse of the USSR and the ideologically-based-conflict-regime, all conflicts came to a halt and everyone sang Kumbaya together.
Huntington argues, IMO, that cultural differences have replaced ideological differences as the source of new conflicts in the world. Unless you are arguing that the tribal competitions for power in Africa were ideological, then they are not related to Huntington's thesis.
QuoteUnder what definition of "cutlure" are these cultural conflicts? I can't think of one that has any useful limiting content to it that would encompass these conflicts.
Culture is the prism through which one views the world, as established by one's upbringing. The whole "Army of the Lord" thing is cultural, not economic.
QuoteThe US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were done primarily for geopolitical and security reasons, although economics did play a role in Iraq. They can very easily be fit within traditional frameworks of traditional national interest power politics along the lines of the kinds of similar interventions conducted throughout the 19th and 20th centurie, without having to postulate a "conflict of civilizations."
I am not sure what your point is, here. All international conflicts are engaged in "primarily for geopolitical and security reasons." Governments deal with international economic issues "primarily for geopolitical and security reasons."
Huntington argues that the conflicts that will shape the future will occur for cultural reasons, not ideological ones. He is essentially arguing that, with the end of the Cold War (which was neither cold, nor a war), ideology has passed as the source of new conflicts, and has been replaced.
You are not addressing Huntington's thesis, as I understand it. I don't think he is arguing that existing conflicts have been transmuted.
QuoteNote that culturally speaking, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan and Baathist Iraq could scarely be more dissimilar. I don't see how cultural differences are an explanation why the US invaded those countries, but at the same time, did not invade Iran or Syria, and allied to Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
I don't see how this applies to Huntington's thesis.
I don't think you and I have anything like the same takeaway from Huntington's book. I have stated what i think his thesis is. What do you think his thesis is?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 15, 2012, 08:55:50 AMThe basic principle is that EU law is supreme and even if a national constitution is in breach of EU law then the constitution gives way.
But EU law only involves certain areas, mainly to do with the four fundamental freedoms (goods, people, capital and services) but not much outside of those and I think all EU states have reaffirmed that the state is sovereign. So in UK terms EU law is supreme and has effect because the British Parliament has said so, I think the French Conseil d'Etat and German Constitutional Court have said similar things.
EU law can not infringe on the basic human rights of our constitution. And as most EU law is only implemented via a normal law, not via international treaty, it has a lower rank than the constitution anyway.
Quote from: grumbler on March 15, 2012, 09:16:19 AM
These conflicts are of long-standing duration, and Huntington does not propose that, at the moment of the collapse of the USSR and the ideologically-based-conflict-regime, all conflicts came to a halt and everyone sang Kumbaya together.
Huntington argues, IMO, that cultural differences have replaced ideological differences as the source of new conflicts in the world. Unless you are arguing that the tribal competitions for power in Africa were ideological, then they are not related to Huntington's thesis.
Huntington's argument is that "civilizational" cleavages are to be the critical source of new conflicts in the world. That is a pretty silly argument, especially when civilizations are defined the way that he does in his Foreign Affairs article. Your variant argument has the benefit of being more sophisticated, albeit at the cost of being even more vague (culture can be a pretty broad grab bag).
The fact that neither neither can explain most of the conflicts on the African continent is a problem because Africa has been the most single most conflict prone area of the world since Huntington first set forth his thesis in 1992. To the extent that Huntington purported to be setting forth a theory about clashes of civlizations replacing other causes as a source of conflict, the fact that most conflicts in the 20 years since don't fit the theory is not a ringing endorsement for its viability.
QuoteCulture is the prism through which one views the world, as established by one's upbringing. The whole "Army of the Lord" thing is cultural, not economic.
As I suspected, this is hopelessly broad and vague. An individual's view of the world, even if limited to viewpoints that arise in the course of one's upgbringing, is shaped by many factors, including nationality, ideology, confession, class identification and material interest, among other. Just about anything can be fit into that concept, including just about any conflict in history. Both the American and French Revolutions, for example, could easily qualify as cultural under this definition.
It's also not clear to me in what sense the LRA is asserted to be a "cultural" phenomenon. It appears at first glance to be constructed out of a varied pastiche of different ideas and influences. If one defines "culture" in terms of being an organic set of outlooks, beliefs and behaviors ascribed to a identifiable sub-group of people, I don't see how the LRA can be qualified as a cultural phenomenon other than tautologically - ie by asserting that the LRA is "cultural" because those who make it up have defined a separate culture by virtue of adhering to it and identifying with the movement.
QuoteAll international conflicts are engaged in "primarily for geopolitical and security reasons." Governments deal with international economic issues "primarily for geopolitical and security reasons."
Huntington argues that the conflicts that will shape the future will occur for cultural reasons, not ideological ones. He is essentially arguing that, with the end of the Cold War (which was neither cold, nor a war), ideology has passed as the source of new conflicts, and has been replaced.
You are not addressing Huntington's thesis, as I understand it. I don't think he is arguing that existing conflicts have been transmuted.
I don't think you and I have anything like the same takeaway from Huntington's book. I have stated what i think his thesis is. What do you think his thesis is?
All this gets to the same point.
My understanding of Huntington's thesis come from his 1993 Foreign Affairs article. I never read the book and it is possible the thesis was altered significantly.
However, in the FA article he sets out clearly in the very first paragraph that he is rejecting, among other notions, "the return of traditional rivalries between nation states," and "the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism." He then goes on to argue that although he believes the nation state will remain the principal actor in world affairs, that in the future "intra-civilizational" conflicts between nation states will be replaced by "inter-civilizational" conflicts between nation states or groups of states belong to different civilizations.
As a theoretically matter, the thesis is fatally flawed because Huntington's very concept of a "civilization" is hopelessly confused and reduces to a massive exercise in question begging. Empirically, it has been devastated by the fact that no matter how one defines "civilization," most of the conflicts in the last 20 years don't appear to be civilizational in nature, but the same kinds of traditional conflicts that have been going on between nation states since they were invented, with the same kinds of motivations. Most have been intra-civilizational, and those that have not been, have been cross-civilizational in Huntington's terms.
So the theory makes little sense and the facts don't bear it out. What else need be said.
Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2012, 08:47:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 15, 2012, 08:39:32 AM
Quote from: Zanza on March 15, 2012, 02:22:17 AM
Could be that I am completely wrong, but the situation in the EU is a bit like what your "states rights" Americans want for your country too.
Slavery? :unsure:
Well, mass enslavement *would* be a possible answer to the Greek financial problems. :hmm:
I doubt many Europeans would pay to have a Greek come and live with them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 15, 2012, 01:43:10 PM
To the extent that Huntington purported to be setting forth a theory about clashes of civlizations replacing other causes as a source of conflict, the fact that most conflicts in the 20 years since don't fit the theory is not a ringing endorsement for its viability.
I think this is where we differ. I don't think Huntington is claiming that clashes of civilizations replace all other causes of conflict, just that it replaces the clashes of ideology we saw fueling so many Cold War crises.
If, indeed, Huntington is claiming that his clash of civilizations is replacing all other sources of conflict, then I agree with your assessment. In fact, i would go further and say that, if that is what Huntington is claiming, then his theory is a silly theory that should never have made it into print.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2012, 02:10:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2012, 08:47:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 15, 2012, 08:39:32 AM
Quote from: Zanza on March 15, 2012, 02:22:17 AM
Could be that I am completely wrong, but the situation in the EU is a bit like what your "states rights" Americans want for your country too.
Slavery? :unsure:
Well, mass enslavement *would* be a possible answer to the Greek financial problems. :hmm:
I doubt many Europeans would pay to have a Greek come and live with them.
I guess "rent-a-Greek" isn't going to be as popular as: http://www.rentageekinc.com/
Quote from: Zanza on March 15, 2012, 10:34:57 AM
EU law can not infringe on the basic human rights of our constitution. And as most EU law is only implemented via a normal law, not via international treaty, it has a lower rank than the constitution anyway.
It was a German case in the 70s that established the principle that you can't use a national constitution against EU law. The court basically said that if there's a conflict between EU law and a national constitution then the EU law stands because it's a totally separate legal order. It can't be challenged or nullified by national law of any kind including constitutions. I think this is even more important now. Imagine if Hungary's new constitution made EU law different or inapplicable in Hungary, or if you could, in effect, opt out of or vary EU law by a constitutional amendment. It'd be chaos and make a mockery of the entire point of the EU.
But they've also said that if you have to change a constitutional rule to give effect to EU law then the courts have that right and must do it. Since then national courts have followed that, though I think the German Constitutional Court's followed it but has had some reservations - for example to do with human rights.
I'm sure you're right on human rights. But that could change actually. The EU's planning to accede to the Convention on Human Rights, once they've done that I imagine the way for a German or any other citizen to challenge an EU act on human rights grounds would be via Strasbourg rather than through a national court.