There are a lot of important events around the world that affect market prices, policy decisions and national stability but do not make the headlines or get even a hint of attention. The fact that Saudi Arabian concerns about Yemeni rebels have not been addressed in the media is an extremely alarming occurrence. It is a well-known fact that the house of Saud has very close ties with the United States. Primarily, it is the US elite that is interested in keeping close ties to Saudi Arabia for it is key to the Middle East and the rich oil deposits and the industries that support oil production. Saudi Arabia, currently, is the representative state of the Arab world.
As an example, during the first Gulf War, it was Saudi Arabia that got most major Middle Eastern countries to assist the United States in its war effort. Although no Arab nation took direct part in the combat, the ability for the United States to base its military in surrounding countries was a major boost. Without the influence of Riyadh in the region, the United States would not be able to secure its position in the Middle East.
When the United States first took interest in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia was number one on the list of US aspirations in the region. Supporting the Wahhabi regime was what secured long-term ties and large oil profits for the American elite and Washington.
The Gulf War was not only about US and Iraq. It was about Britain and its former affairs in the Middle East. Most of all, it was about the fact that Iraq presented a potential competitor to the Saudi dominance of the oil market. Saddam Hussein was not on the pro-Western side like most oil producing nations in the Middle East in the post-Soviet world. Thus, Washington, Riyadh and London all wanted to get a go at the second largest oil deposits in the Middle East.
Today, Iraq is no more, and Saudi Arabia still enjoys a disproportionate advantage over oil resources in the Middle East. The United States has an interest in keeping it that way. However, Iran is becoming a viable competitor to the Saudi power in the region. That is not something that sits well with Riyadh, Washington, London or Brussels. Each is doing their part in keeping Iran at bay. The latter three are involved in Afghanistan and Iraq, and impose heavy sanctions on Iran via the United Nations. Iran is still not a state powerful enough to be dictating its own rules.
Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia sees increasing Iranian meddling in rebel and terrorist activities on its borders and inside as a rising threat to national security (officially), its status as a representative state of the Arab world, and Riyadh’s control of the oil market in the Middle East. There is no doubt in my mind that the Untied States and Britain all help the Saudis in this affair, for it benefits each greatly to keep the world as it is.
It will be interesting to see how else Brussels, Washington and London will try to ensure their dominance over the black gold. The House of Saud is more than happy to help out the Westerners because they give a sizable cut of the profits to the ruling elite. Now the battle has begun within the Arab world. The fight is for the right to be the leading state of the Arab people. The outcome of this, many years down the road, may cause a large shift in foreign policies set by future world leaders.
The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty brings about a new era in EU political affairs and in the international arena, as well.
The treaty consists of the following points – it creates the new post of an EU President (President of European Council), it creates the new post of high representative for foreign affairs, more decisions will be implemented by the majority, rather than by unanimous vote, and a row of other points. These, however, I feel are the most important. The road that the European Union is taking is not unique. It is unique in that it is occurring at a time when such shifts are occurring between civilized, developed nations. It is not unique in that the United States followed the same path when it was developing the revolutionary idea of a representative state.
When the United States was declared independent, it drafted the Articles of the Confederation. For those who do not remember their US History – the US was a confederation in the beginning. Each state was a sovereign. It could raise an army, print its own currency, and have a government that was quite autonomous and independent from the other states in the union. The EU had a similar beginning. It took a long time for a federation to emerge, but now it can be safely said that there is a certainty to the creation of a union.
The EU, up until recently, could freely be considered a confederation. For the most part, each EU member state is sovereign. They can raise their own army, as one major point. They have independent governments who have an autonomous governmental structure that is able to deal with its internal affairs independently from other member states. There are Europhiles and Eurocrats (as in the Republican and Democrat parties in the US). One side of the spectrum advocates more power to Brussels, the other side is for more decentralized power. The list of similarities keeps on going. You can most likely fill it in yourself if you remember the history of the US and follow the development of the EU governmental structure.
The Lisbon treaty creates a single EU President. No longer will there be a rotation between the member states for the position of the EU President. There will be implemented a majority voting system that will allow the states to choose the leader. This, in itself, is centralizing more power in Brussels. Europhiles, such as Vaclav Klaus, have reason to stand firm because this directly goes against their belief that EU member states need to be more sovereign. The creation of a single EU President will allow for more power to be gathered in Brussels and will decrease, in the long run, the sovereignty of EU member states’ internal governments.
The most interesting, and probably even more important point of the Lisbon Treaty is the creation of a single post for a representative for foreign affairs. The first purpose of this point is self evident – it gives the EU a single voice on the international level and will allow Europe to be represented as a single political body.
In the long run, there will no longer be deal making between France and China, for example. There will be deals between Europe and China. This does have benefits. All EU member states’ interests will be considered in international affairs. However, if there is a deal that benefits France alone and does not really concern the other countries in that it does not carry any externalities with it, the potential deal will be harmful to France and slow down the process of international bargaining. The foreign minister needs to answer to a higher authority – that authority is the newly created EU President post. In essence, the consolidation of the power to represent the EU on the international level in one post reaffirms and gives more power to Brussels.
The last point, about majority voting, allows EU member states to be proportionally represented. This makes sense, but there also needs a body created that will be an evenly representational legislative institution – a bicameral system. Currently, there is the European parliament. This Lisbon Treaty will decrease the number of representatives and provide proportional representation. As I mentioned in the beginning, the EU follows a path similar to the US.
The United States had some states that wanted to have a proportional representation, while others, the smaller ones, wanted equal representation in the legislative body. The end result was the creation of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the US. The EU, most likely, will have the same waiting for it in the future.
The purpose of this article is to show how the EU is becoming increasingly like the United States in terms of it government’s organization. The structure looks more and more alike and this process seems to be a rule when countries or sovereign states pool together to create a single body. It will be interesting to see the effects of the Lisbon Treaty.
From what can be seen right now, it looks like the EU will be represented as a single union in the international arena. Maybe not in the UN, but as a single entity when conducting foreign policies with Russia, Ukraine, United States, and others. The Lisbon Treaty aims to bring more power to the EU Council. What will come of it? We’ll just have to wait and see. To have a probable picture – open the US history book and refresh your memory on the development of the US government.
12 November, 2009, 07:51
The Lisbon Treaty seems to have overtones of Soviet influence where the government overlaid an iron blanket upon 15 so-called constituent republics. Those republics each had their own longstanding histories and cultures, but were forced into the Soviet Union. In this union, the republics could "voluntarily secede" if they so wished- but we all know what would happen if any one of them attempted this- the Soviet government would send in the tanks- even to places not within USSR borders, but within the "sphere of influence". Take the 1956 Hungarian uprising or the 1968 Prague Spring; when revolt was attempted, the tanks rolled in and the revolts were quelled by force.
I'm not saying that the EU would go to that extreme (at least I hope not), hopefully they have learned from history. However, I can see the point of view of the EU- after centuries of warfare, WWII being the most recent and most devastating, that they want to build a lasting continental peace between the nations and have been working on that since roughly 1945.
Some people have compared the EU to the US. We started out as 13 colonies, who, over a period of almost 170 years, grew into a self-sustaining "proto- country", capable of self governance tired of tyrannical rule. We declared independence and sought a new form of democratic, republican government. Yes we were a loose confederation under the Articles of Confederation, and no they didn't really work, but it was a first step in a new experiment in self government. The US Constitution came into effect in 1789, effectively uniting us as one country with a shared values and goals.
Europe, on the other hand, is a collection of sovereign nations, with a common goal of peace and economic partnership, but putting them under a "unified blanket" of federation may prove troublesome. The current confederation appears to work well, and offers regional security, but how will 50+ countries come together as one? Certainly the US example only goes so far- we were several colonies who came together to form one country.
08 November, 2009, 10:53
America was a dream before becoming USA. Besides South America never became USA. So it must have been some common human dream landing out there in Americas and kept growing. Why North part grew up so differently from the South? Both roots were Judeo-Christian and we used to cling up only to Christian predominant image. However it’s much fairer to observe what happened with Jewish independent political development. We remind ourselves that political means basically only share in the complex ownership.
We say “America” and the thing is vaguely-finished. But WW I entered only USA and far from her territory. The Americans couldn’t possibly be motivated from Christian spiritual reserves being North or South. So the profit from the victory went to USA in particular – we see now – to Jewish wing of Judeo-Christianity. USA did not join Judeo-Christian Russia in the war with Japan, but joined later in WW I being one-go Jewish policy aligned with induction of – lately nominated as - Russian revolution.
WW II was of the same spirit. Russia – absolutely unexpected – won making the turning point for USA to join. Again far, far away from her territory. It went all the way up to “Hiroshima declaration of nuclear human rights” where the Jewish warrior signed its mental pattern of dominance over Christian one.
We split forever.
Now, Alexey you make nice overview of Lisbon Treaty not forgetting any rationale. But the question is – how we now have to live in view of new coming war? It is so much justifiable worry among the people. They don’t frustrate because being neurotic, they are made as such.
The two world wars resulted in profit. My son studied in USA same as you Alexey now and there he learned to apply war as an input on the economic regulatory loop. Why not to make clear – this is the mental view of Jewish inheritance it was never Christian unless…unless the Jewish suffering within Judeo-Christianity joint venture became at some stage – unbearable!
It sounds human to me, though remains unknown. But the thing puzzling the world community is who on earth ever managed to solve own tragedy – by making profit? If you kill myself – would your money compensation cover the loss to my family? And what happened with Jewish families? How come they feel so well with so much nuclear stuff around? Healing their souls with making sustained nuclear war with Iran focused to new profits. Do they, the Jews – once being so atomically separated from Christians today – do they really need so much to heal their religious pursuit or – they don’t have any?
To end this comment – how will Lisbon Treaty align with the new war?
07 November, 2009, 20:04
The Lisbon changes are against the will of majority of European population. The last round of voting in Ireland was a joke. After hitting Irelend below the belt, and showing them exactly what can be done to their "prosperity", it scared the urban population our of their wits.
Comparison with US has one valid factor. The more united Europe is forged by US. The "Europe dillema", as discussed by Zbignew Brzezinski in "The Grand Chessboard" is ahead of US policy makers. The dillema consists of giving Europe more regional indpendence, or using the more centralized and unified Europe as a means of easier and more effective control.
History lessons cannot be learned by rigid application of analytical principles taken out of its context. Unified Europe, Lisbon style, would have only twenty years ago meant more US controlled Europe. Today, it is anybody's guess. Under new financial restructuring going on globally, it is very possible that Europe may become a regional power, the way Turkey is now emerging. Turkey may not have European economic and financial leverage, but has more then Europe in geopolitical leverage. It is very likely that Japan will emerge as a regional power, while the situation on Indian subcontinent has yet to play itself out.
Given the trends, it is more likely that Europe charts its own course. We may have seen the evidence just last week. The day Ms. Markel was leaving US, as an afterthough, GM --- in fact US government that is the majority owner --- decides not to sell Opel. The sound of the slap has been heard accross Atlantic. Within 48 hours, Europe strikes back. Finland and Sweden approve, on the same day, the environmental plan for Nord Stream. Or just a strange "coincidence".
It is inevitable for Europe, Turkey and Japan to assert more independent role. Not in opposition to US by any stretch of immagination. But to insure that their own regional interests are not just simply submerged and lost in the "global" management pursued by US. Turkey has been the first to seek economic and political connections with Asia and Middle East, and strenghten ties with Russia. Japan and Europe are just now evaluating their interests, balancing them with the needs of US partner. Japan has become especially vulnerable, as it became isolated from the Asian economic integrations. Now, it has some catching up to do, especially in regard to trade relations with China. Europe has some catching up to do as well with Russia. But in Europe, this will prove more difficult. Lisbon will minimize the damage that the "new Europe" created over time. But the unsettled Balkans will remain a problem.
Obama Administration is suffering from leaving many holdovers from previous administrations (both Clinton and Bush) in key positions all over the Government. This is why many projects are happening by inertia, by people who have been in charge of those projects. Every now and then, the virus kicks in, and there is a "renewed" spirit of Halbrooke in Bosnia, examining and reexamining, stirring things up, and forging loyalties. Same is true with stirring things up in Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Serbia, Macedonia and of course --- Kosovo.
Will Obama Administration finally come to the lower ranks of its Administration, and get some fresh air in --- nobody knows. Or it perhaps will not be possible for as long as Ms. Clinton is in charge.
All other comparisons with US history are not very applicable. America was shaped at first by a happy historical circumstance --- isolationism. British Empire did not grasp the significance of loosing colonies, and when it did, it was too late. The potential for development, that is, endless explansion to new lands and resources without serious military threat from natives, created an unusual set of circumstances. The civil war was mostly the war for the control of the West, and Westward expansion --- no matter what the other, more romantic stories tell us. The end of the civil war created the unity of INTERESTS, not ideals. Ideals came AFTER the interests issues have been ironed out among the elites. Other historic fortunes involved the relative distance from the European wars of self-destruction, WWI and WWII.
Europe thought they were about to control the entire world. it was within their grasp. This is the main reason why they fought --- to insure that the winner takes all. Well, they misjudged. After WWI, British Empire was not Empire any more, even though in their vocabulary and attitudes, they believed they were. WWII clarified that, for sure.
Cold war was, according to Condoleeza Rice, the largest economic blocade known to mankind. Soviet Union was under tight economic blocade by the most developed countries, and that isolated and suffocated its innovation, trade and standard of living.
These circumstances also benefited US, as war devastated Europe was in no position to bargain.
It is only in the post Cold War world, that US is acting on its own accord, and not taking advantage of favorable external circumstances. That not being the "political habit", brought to the top various "thinkers" with "global" view. From Zbignew Brzezinski's theory of the control of Eurasian landmass, to the neocon revolutionary spread of democracy world wide, to the "war on terrorism", the new pro-active actors are on stage. America is experiencing discomfort, determination to "stay the course", even when wrong, and increasingly relies on chaos to create opporunities for advancing interests. Behind the pro-active elite, stand global corporations, primarily energy. Their interests have become identified with the national inerests. But America has come to the point of having to rethink this. The whole concept has no economic nor political future.
Will the traditional American strength again come to the rescue? The ability to learn and self-correct, reinvent and prosper have been the mainstay of American history.
But were those only the result of favorable historic circumstances, or indeed the strenght of the system?
The times ahead will tell. In the meantime, more regional visibility to regional actors is going to shape our near future. Will Europe be part of that trend? I cannot see how can it stay out. Its economy depends on going global, and typical European navel-gazing exercise will have to be ditched. Leaving provincial, baroque, quaint Europe with some learning to do. Learning how to live with diversity, how to talk to "other" world without giving lectures, and treating them as equals? It may be exciting time for Europe, or it may prove to be too much. If that happens, the Appendix on the great Eurasian body, called Europe, may atrrofie and shrivel.
06 November, 2009, 23:05
This EU let us see and konws that ther is not any kind of democracy !
Now it is clear that democracy is just onother practical joke!
It is just the creation on unnatural way of the former Roman Imperium !
06 November, 2009, 09:58
EU has no future unless they get rid of american occupaton.
05 November, 2009, 23:18
@D. Larsen
"Though flattered that the EU is being mentored by the American historical experience, one can only hope they pick up on our virtues and not our vices."
They did help create that god awful state in Kosovo.
05 November, 2009, 15:25
This is absolutely ridiculous to compare USA and the EU. United States was a Confederation in the beginning coming from the Colonies. They became a nation United by the fact they all have in common ideals and common goal. Europe is full of nation states full of different cultures and history that span the ages. EU government is being placed on top of nation states government practically against their will. This treaty has been rejected multiple times and they can't take NO for an answer and kept pushing it. There isn't anything democratic about the EU what so ever. Most people refer to it as the EUSSR for a reason and its rise to power is definitely concerning.
04 November, 2009, 21:18
Though flattered that the EU is being mentored by the American historical experience, one can only hope they pick up on our virtues and not our vices.
04 November, 2009, 16:00
The people in Britain were not given the opportunity to decide when others peoples in Europe had their say. British Democracy? What British Democracy?
Regardless of who wins the elections in Afghanistan, the overall picture will not change. The United States simply cannot let the events unfold as they do, because that would make their war effort lose diplomatic legitimacy. After all, one of the main points for the invasion of Afghanistan in the first place was not only going after terrorists, but also “spreading democracy”. Thus, it is important to hold a show of fair political representation in Afghanistan so that, years down the road, it can be claimed that there was effort made in installing a legitimate and democratically elected government.
Hamid Karzai has been in power for almost the entirety of America’s official involvement in Afghanistan. His rule is viewed as illegitimate by many of the Afghans. In addition, representation in Afghan cultures is different from the Western idea of a representative voting system. The Afghans entrust their elders to cast the village’s votes. The EU and US officials tend to view this as infringement upon the newly created and enforced electoral system in Afghanistan - thus the claims of overwhelming fraud and other such violations.
The current election process was bound not to go the way that it was supposed to. The Taliban are not going to sit on their butts and see their former area of rule desecrated by the villainous Westerners. It was to be expected that they were going to step up their operations in Afghanistan. There was most likely a sense of false safety inside Kabul. Also, taking into account Pakistan’s efforts in South Waziristan, some top officials may have thought that the main efforts of the Taliban would be concentrated on repelling the Pakistani Army. And yet, the Taliban have managed to deal heavy blows to the NATO presence and UN operations in Afghanistan.
Regardless of the candidate that wins the next election in Afghanistan, what will happen is that they will be the façade of US power in Afghanistan. As most Afghans do not view the current leadership as a central theme to be rallied around, the purpose of the governing body is lost. If the people do not have faith in the government, the government is only legitimate on paper. Well, it is radical to say that all Afghans oppose the leadership. On the contrary, the Afghans mainly oppose the fact that the leadership is led and manipulated by external governments.
Reading the recent news about the elections and the bombing in Afghanistan, it becomes ever more clear that the current US strategy of “democratizing” the Afghans is failing. It is not to say that that endeavor was destined for failure from the beginning. The strategy needs to implement the local governing traditions and customs. It is impossible to change a culture in a short amount of time. It is a lot easier to work with the flow than trying to redirect it in a completely different direction.
01 November, 2009, 17:05
What I find quite amazing is the inability of the foreign forces in Afghanistan to undertake any serious reasoning of their actions. Eight years into a war you think this wouldhave happened. It has not apart from a few isolatedmutterings from Nato generals which are quickly buried or treated as unpatriotic.To be involved in a war of any kind is by definition "a failure". A failure of diplomatic abilities as well as a failure of moral high ground; even if you are forced into a war. We have not advanced very far at all from Victoria gun boat diplomacy days. Historians essentially ridicule the events leading up to the first world war as if the magnitude of such a diplomatic folly will never happen again. Well actually it is. The folly of the saving and democratization of Afghanistanand the holy war the west is waging on Islam. The CIA, Mosad, Nato etc have been impotent in their ability to capture osama Bin Laden.It has becomea joke. The most powerful and technologically advanced nations cannot find him. One could understand a year or so,possibly 2, but no capture in 8 years? The reason is staring them right in the face. The war is not about technology. It is not Desert Storm played on a flat desert. The reason is also the very reason the USSR pulled out. The Afghan terrain makes it impossible for foreignmilitary victory. What is inevitable is that many more Afghan civilians,nato trops and Taliban will die. I will bet you anything you like that in 10 years nato and everyone else will be gone and the historians will write their academic reports on another foreign intervention disaster in Afghanistan. I will also bet something else. Nowone from Nato command has made a call to The Russian military to get some expert first-hand advice on how to conduct military operations in Afghanistan. Someone might say well The Russians were there years ago under different circumstances. true but this underlines the exact reason why Nato is doomed to fail here. This is a holy war that is fought in terms of decades or centuries. The Soviet time-line is indeed very relevant in the eyes of Afghans.
12 November, 2009, 15:24
The whole Afghan 'threat' is a nice excuse for America to create a southern route for Central Asian gas, since the Caspian Sea is no longer a viable option and Nabucco may never be realised. Turkmenistan may escape their claws, since messing with Russia's children is no small matter, ask Saakashvilli... But definitely everything they are doing in the region is aimed at taking over Iranian gas and transporting it via Afghanistan. No more Gazprom dependency for the West. Yet they all under-estimate Iran so much it's shocking. The Saudis have no respect for Islam.
12 November, 2009, 08:35
I have always wondered myself if the fears and issues about Iran are really about a 3rd country becoming a power-broker in the region. Israel and Saudi Arabia appear to be the two power-brokers regionally and Iran would be a potential threat politically and economically, as I see it. The 'nuclear threat' allegedly posed by Iran sounds a lot like the 'weapons of mass destruction' never found in Iraq, but held the leverage of fear in the mind of Western media attention to justify the invasion of Iraq. I see the same game-plan currently underway for Iran. Additionally, I think the whole US/NATO incursion into the Middle-East and Central/South Asia is the strategy of Empire to gain and retain strategic monopoly of the region.
11 November, 2009, 11:01
Alexey, These are just fantasies. Riyadh power is the creation of your fantasies. The same can be said about Teheran power. The problem with this region is that there is plenty of oil. After invasion of Iraq US controls 68% of the oil currently produced. They are ganging now against Iran for additional 12% with Russia playing the role of the fool in this process. Allegedly it is about Iran’s nuclear ambitions but any excuse and any lie are good for large amounts of oil and gas. Yes Iran is also guilty of possessing gas, badly needed for Nabucko in order to enslave Europe with respect to energy supplies.
After Iran there will be turn on Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan for their gas. And then on Kazakhstan for its gas and oil. And after acquisition of Venezuela the evil will control 93% of global oil production. Russia with its 7% of oil production will not matter. It is astonishing to see Russia cooperating with the evil, helping their occupying forces in Afghanistan. In the end the evil will be able to strangle Russia.