The biggest opponents of Blair claim that he was a neo-imperialist in socialist clothing who helped Bush invade Iraq. But in some ways this is a proxy for a referendum on whether the EU should maintain a credible ability to use force, or if it still believes that the world is a Kantian lovefest that responds to genocide with a handful of barely armed Dutch peacekeepers. Leaders should remember that after Iraq, Europeans replaced Chirac (currently under indictment) and Schroeder (works for Gazprom) with rightist Atlanticists.
More importantly, it seems that national leaders of big states, namely Sarkozy and Merkel, don't want their influence abroad diminished by a more powerful EU President, so they oppose leaders with clout from other big states. Leaders of small nations are ignored anyway, so they would be delighted at the chance to have one of their own rise to power. Thus, by analyzing individual interests, it seems that the EU is bound to have a weak president. Perhaps this will all change in future-- someone strong is bound to rise to power eventually. But for the time being, please pick someone with a better resume than Herman van Rompuy.
Comments
Having recently met a number of Belgians (they aren't easy to find outside of their country), I learned that Belgium may dissolve. The Flemish want to become their own country, the French part will join Luxembourg and Brussels will become a city state.
But no one in Europe, let along the rest of the world, has heard any of this.
I learned this from a student from the French part of the country. At the same hostel there were 3 Flemish Belgians. The two groups got along alright but they could only communicate with each other in English.
Then the next day I met two Swiss cyclists, one from the German-speaking part, the other from the French-speaking part. They too communicated in English.
Rather sad.
Yep, there's been trouble up in post-conlfict camelot. Its something that I actually took an interest in when it was happening, because it seemed to show the absolutely impossibility of trying to keep different nations together in the long-term, which said something about the American adventure in Iraq.
Until von Rompuy came to power, Belgium went without a functioning central gov't for a while, and the local governments actually handled things fine. But it was a huge embarrassment.
The irony is that the predecessor to Belgium, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, was created by the powers at the Congress of Vienna to contain France to the north (Napolean had taken the Netherlands, and the British considered French control of the area intolerable).
France didn't want Britain to have the Netherlands, and Britain wanted isolation from the continent, so the Torys don't want Tony Blair as EU President, and the other powers don't want someone powerful getting it... wait am I confusing stories here? :)
Belgium seceded in 1830 (it was Catholic, Holland was Protestant) and the powers gave them a king a told them to keep quiet. That's all they really have in common though- is the King, heavy handed imperialism (the Congo) and good beer.
Flanders (Dutch speakers) is much wealthier than Wallonia (lazy French), and thats another stress. Then Brussels is in Flanders, is historically Dutch, but is now mostly Francophone, so both claim it- the Belgian Jerusalem of sorts.
This is part of a devolving power trend in Kantian societies. Scotland, despite getting its own parliament, a Scot as PM, and its own currency (cosmetically) still agitates for independence here in Britain, even though it makes no sense economically. The Baltics are back (even though in Hobbesian world, they would have no chance) and Balkans are turning into a bunch of microstates. Perhaps political centralization needs war to sustain itself?
