Odd comments across the Pond
"[British Foreign Secretary David]Miliband argued that the EU could never rival the economic or military clout of the U.S., China or India in the decades ahead because the club "is never going to have the fleetness of foot or the fiscal base to dominate."
"In fact economically and demographically Europe will be less important in the world of 2050 than it was in the world of 1950," Miliband said.
*****
These quotes from the recently minted British Foreign Secretary reminded me of a dinner I attended with David Miliband in about 2003. I was then in despair over his leader, Blair, and found myself the odd man out in a discussion about the Britain's relationship with the United States and with Europe. I couldn't see the merit of London's ties to Washington, nor did it make sense to me that Brussels was any better as a senior partner.
Miliband kept his mouth shut about Iraq, and I suppose is Foreign Minister now for just that reason. His new leader Brown has been,however, timid enough on Iraq and Iran to put his own position at risk, but Labor at least can say it's stayed in power.
On the continental question, however, Miliband may have followed my counsel, not that he would think of it that way. London has definitely maintained a distance from Brussels, and the more perplexed the EU becomes on regulation as well as expansion, the wiser that course is likely to look.
However, the basic proposition Miliband asserts is flat wrong. The EU as an economic community and also as the organizer of a cultural entity called Europe has every chance to become the leading such large community in the world in terms of innovation, wealth per capita, and even diplomacy, since more than any other region it has a chance to bridge the gap between Islam and the West in a benign and effective way. The world between now and 2050 will give the chance of leadership to the United States, the EU, China, and more remotely India or Brazil. It is very likely that one such community will emerge as the wealthiest, most influential, most dynamic, most copied of all the others. For Britain to maintain distance from the EU would make sense only if its way is superior, but like the United States, increasing income inequality and a loss of national purpose are eroding people's confidence in the future. Regions within the UK seek more local authority, as they have less and less in common with London. The EU by contrast is beseiged by nations clamoring for admission.
The historical comparison Miliband makes between 1950 and 2050 is also wildly wrong. Europe in 1950 was destroyed, impoverished, despairing, and possessed of a history that it needed generations to overcome. It was in no way in a stronger position than it is likely to be in 2050. The United States, through Truman's Marshall Plan, helped save Europe.The EU, in its proto-forms, was conceived in the ashes of World War II and led to the successes of today and the bright future of tomorrow. But in 1950 none of these accomplishments was even remotely certain to come about; by contrast, it is hard to imagine Europe in 2050 not being vastly more important relative to other regions than it was in 1950.
Lastly, Europe in demographic terms was in 1950 the continent of ethnic cleansing. Today it is becoming multiethnic and cosmopolitan. Miliband need only look around London for evidence. I can't make out the meaning of "demographic importance" but whatever Miliband intended by this obscure reference surely he doesn't mean that the post-Holocaust, depopulated, evicted, dispossessed, and partitioned populaces of Europe in 1950 represented a demographic arrangement superior to the admixtures of the world's races and religions that now characterize every major European capital.
. . . surely he doesn't mean . . . .
Why not? Given its birthrates by 2050 Europe will be a shadow of its former self, a land populated by the elderly who don't buy much, don't produce children, and generally, don't shout for war -- which, as we know from our own experience, is the only proof a country has of its "importance."
December 4, 2007 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The United States, through Truman's Marshall Plan, helped save Europe.
Being very cynical I think the influentials of America thought, “and if the Marshal Plan helped one human being in Europe, "so be it", but it was intended to help the influencials’ purposes!
I'm sure the Marshal Plan was derived from the thought about all these means of production, sorry “PROFITS”, coming to an end.
I am not saying that the Marshal plan did not save Europe, what I am saying is that it was incidental that it "saved Europe" for Europe.
I think it mostly was to save Europe for American self-interested purposes. This "saving" was to supplement the American Economy for friends' profits and to add to our means of having more bodies (armies) to oppose Russia.
The lies that support our myths did not just start with the Bush Administration; they have been passed on from the beginning of the country.
I am not picking on our country; this is the way of all nation states. Is was the way of the kings, the cities, clans, and families before all of them were “rolled up” (nothing is new) into Nations as we them know them today.
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
December 4, 2007 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thinking, I for one am well on board with the mythology that the US feeds itself on, but enlightened selfinterest would be just as good a way to explain the US' generosity to mainland Europe, which did not extend in the same way to her indebted ally, Great Britain.
I don't see that the extreme cynicism this present administration engenders can necessarily be applied in the same way to every prior or future administration.
The US is not that tainted.
December 4, 2007 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you (and Reed) say "Europe", do you in fact mean to say "Western Europe"? Because I really fail to see how the Marshall plan saved Poland or Hungary or Ukraine in any meaningful sense of the word.
December 5, 2007 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Europe of 2050 will still be more populous, by a large margin, than the Europe that set out on the voyages of discovery, the Europe of the Enlightenment, or the Europe of the Industrial Revolution that took over Africa and much of Asia.
December 5, 2007 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
One needs to understand that the English (not necessarily all Britons) are totally schizo about Europe and especially EU. For many people in the UK, "Brussels" is public enemy number one, worse than the Nazis and Communists combined. For them, continental Europe is 'overseas' just as much as the US or Australia, but much worse because the continentals speak all those funny languages.
It seems to me - and I could be wrong - that Miliband is essentially pro-EU but won't admit to that very publicly. The Brown government is in an extremely difficult position because it is largely pro-EU, but saying that too loud is suicidal in the current British political climate.
This could be seen rather clearly during the wrangling about the new EU Treaty, nee Constitution. Brown (and Blair before him) fought hard not to have a referendum on it, because he expected to lose it. He made a lot of noise about so-called 'red lines', which in the end are damaging to Britons and the rest of the EU doesn't care too much, but it's red meat for the British Euroskeptics, especially the kind who would happily cut off their arm in the name of sovereignty if there was an EU law against it.
Don't listen to what anyone in the UK government says about the EU or Europe, watch what they actually do.
I agree with Reed that in 2050, Europe is likely to be stronger than it was in 1950. The EU is essentially uninterested in military clout - for some odd reason, after a few millennia of near-constant warfare people just get fed up. But I would not underestimate the economic power of EU. Several of its member states have experience with running trade empires, and EU's GDP is now on par with the US (slightly larger maybe, and the new EU member states' economies are growing much faster than the 'old' EU or the US).
December 5, 2007 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, searching the horizon for the new Prince Henry the Navigator? Hope you brought lots of munchies, JPF311, 'cause you've got a long wait ahead of you. Not only won't history repeat itself this time around; it won't even rhyme.
December 5, 2007 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
History never repeats itself.
But I do think some basic realism is in order on demographic matters. Can you refute my claim that in 50 years, even in 100 years, the population of Europe, even excluding immigrants, will still be much larger than it was when European power was at its height?
December 5, 2007 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truman offered it to Eastern Europe, but under pressure from Moscow they turned it down. And as to the definition of Europe now, I'm using the EU as the definition, and they are on the road to doubling the population of Europe by expanding the EU.
December 5, 2007 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your intuition is very astute. I believe Miliband is a Europhile, but is trapped in an English skin and working for a Scot.
December 5, 2007 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Completely irrelevant to my argument/comment or to any argument whatsoever. As Einstein said (if he didn't, he should have), "It's all relative."
Without noting technological and nation-state organizational differences of centuries past and limiting discussion to demographics, it is the case that population ratios themselves have and will continue to change. Two hundred and fifty years ago the population of a poor Asia was three times that of Europe. In fifty years a wealthy Asia will have almost nine times the population of Europe -- and with the exception of Japan and probably, China that population will be younger and more dynamic than Europe's aging folks. By itself a still young India will be nearly three times larger than Europe.
December 5, 2007 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see that the extreme cynicism this present administration engenders can necessarily be applied in the same way to every prior or future administration
I agree that there is a difference to the "visibility" of the self-interest, but there was self-interest in the past.
America has always had a ruling class of elites that need to be considered as primeval forces in actions of the past. They may not have been as ham handed as this period of "actors" are, but they are there. Maybe even worse, but today’s technology brings activities to light more immediately where as in the past when the information became available the country had moved on and the facts were obsolete as material for the publics consideration.
The reason I bring this up is to connect the "relative" continuance of the same activity to the extremes of today.
The present administration thought it could control "reality" by its' relationship with the elements that control the profits of the media. That was both the regulatory and the advertisers that "buy" and produce the profits of the media.
This abuse of the present administration should help us to go back in time to understand the motivations then.
We were not as cynical as a public, but the politicians’ actions were as controlling as at present. The only difference is that those in the past did not try to reach beyond the envelope of the controlling myths enveloping the citizens.
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
December 5, 2007 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the explanation.
Today, equating EU and "Europe" is probably not too far off the mark, as the EU-27 really does cover the significant part of the continent. There are of course some exceptions like Switzerland or Norway, which are certainly European though not EU members, and there are countries that are not EU members now but are likely to be in the near future (eg. Croatia).
The real question, and one which no one knows the definitive answer to now, is where does "Europe" end? Is Russia part of Europe? Is Turkey? We probably won't find out for a few more decades.
December 6, 2007 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
But what about the effect of the eastern European countries? Wouldn't Poland, Hungary, and Ukraine would be at the peak of their own resurgence before going down the path of "old" Europe?
December 6, 2007 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are only so many broken plumbing pipes in the world, eh?
December 6, 2007 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect...
....what?
December 6, 2007 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm.
I think you meant to say, "Ellen, I clicked on the link, and I don't understand what that hunky Polish plumber has to do with a discussion of whether the entrepreneurial, highly inventive, technologically sophisticated hard-charging economies of Europe's old marches (for example, Poland) will buffer or save Old Europe from its self-imposed demographic demise. In fact, and with all due respect, I don't see how plumbers, no matter how hunky, are going to make Europe competitive with a rising Asia, now or in the future."
That is about what you intended to say, right?
December 6, 2007 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really.
Because of the settings on my screen, the link color looks very much like the regular text color and so to me all you wrote was a sentence and so I had no idea what you were alluding to.
Thanks for clarifying.
I went out a Latvian girl once upon a time. Very entrepreneurial as matter of fact.
December 6, 2007 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
He offered it to the USSR as well if I recall correctly. Although I believe it was because he knew it would be turned down.
Of course he want to revive Europe (all Europe) because of its benefits to America, and I see nothing wrong with that.
December 6, 2007 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Site Snafu: With all other posts, I see "Read More" followed by the total number of comments and the total new. With this post only, I am seeing the total new twice, the first time right after "Read More." Anyone know why?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 6, 2007 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink