The breeze of change

Now that my cable modem seems to have recovered again after several days of intermittent service, I can go back to blogging. There is something very peculiar about writing these blog entries. Writing for the blog is deeply associated with the Movable Type interface, the web browser, the colors and the font. Somehow it puts me in the right frame of mind for writing here. I tried to write up some entries in word processors for posting later, but the daunting white emptiness of the page did not give way to the almost automatic writing here on the blog. There's also the association with the style of writing. Whenever I fire up Word, it is for work-related documents. The style is formal, the content has meet much higher standards than my writing here on the blog. Apparently that association runs deeper than I thought. I'm sure with sufficient mental effort I can overcome it, but I did not feel like spending the energy. I took the easy way out and hoped that the routing problems would soon resolve themselves. I am distinctily unhappy with chello, which is my ISP.

This is of course just a minor thing. It does show how the context of one's activities is determined by more than just the functional interface, but various less tangible factors play a role too. There's no technical reason why I should not be able to write in the same way in Word as I do in Movable Type. It's a small example of habit, or indeed conservatism if you will. The familiar is more comforting, easier to use than even a simple change. Again, in this instance it would have been relatively trivial to put myself to writing in Word. The context for our daily lives, from the personal all the way to the level of international politics is also influenced by habit and familiarity. Over time you start to take things for granted. The reason for the existence of an institution becomes less relevant, and it the acceptance simply coasts on the inertia and innate conservatism that most people (irrespective of their political outlook) exhibit.

Living in a state of constant change, constant revolution is not a good way to be either. But when circumstances change, the outlook must change too. Supporting institutions simply because they've always been there, and "that's the way things are" is no longer good enough. It is now obvious in hindsight that the fall of communism and the liberation of eastern and central Europe has taken the world into an era in which the very foundations of the geopolitical order are being redrawn. The old foundations of the post-World War II era are being washed away in this tide. Spoken in a different time of upheaval, Lincoln put it thus: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present."

And despite the dangers that the world faced during the Cold War, the current present is much stormier than that era. The simple bipolar conflict with the threat of global armageddon is now replaced with the shifting sands of a more fluid conflict. The conflict itself and its outcome will shape the world that will come after this. But the first realization is that the Cold War structures have become obsolete. Much has been written about the demise of NATO in recent days, as the French and the Germans weasel out of the war against the Islamofascists. NATO is the quintessential Cold War institution, and it has served us well. Its role in post-communist Europe has always been a difficult one, but now we are very close to the point where we might as well have it close up shop altogether. I don't actually favor this, as there is residual value in maintaining the structures of NATO, but it would be better to transform it from its current form into a smaller organization where only those countries remain who are indeed true allies of the US, and not pusillanimous weasels of the Franco-German axis. Make NATO the alliance of the strong-willed, those who can and will defend themselves in the face of threat. Cut the others out.

Other institutions of the post-war era are also losing their significance. The Bretton Woods institutions have been grappling with their role since the collapse of fixed exchange rates in the early 1970's. Neither the IMF nor the World Bank are essential to the functioning of the world economy. More importantly, the biggest post-war contraption of them all, the United Nations is overdue for retirement. It has become a huge, unworkable, vastly expensive boondoggle. And that's the charitable reading of its role in the current world. I don't see why the US (or any other western country) should finance an organization where every tin-pot dictator of your average third world country should use our money to work against us. The UN needs to go too. The upcoming war in Iraq will add to the growing irrelevance of the UN, and the French and the Germans are doing us all a favor by accelerating the process. The sooner the UN collapses, the better. The new world that will emerge after the conflict against Islamofascism has been won will have some kind of successor organization to the UN, but it will be radically different. Even the European Union is faced with strong centrifugal forces as a result of the changing landscape. The accession of new countries to the EU will forever change the organization.

The obstructionism of the French and the Germans has the sole aim of undermining American power. There's nothing noble or high-minded about it. It's just a spoiler tactic, the kind of thing adopted by the weak and powerless who hope to ruin someone else's chances of doing good. They simply can't stand the fact that there's another kid on the block who has better toys, drives a nicer car and is smarter to boot too. So they try to trip him up, even if that means they'll be left unprotected against the bullies on the southern doorstep. Such the myopia of minds that have been perverted by envy. The French policy of hysterical anti-British and anti-American paranoia goes back a long, long way. Indeed, even during the second world war Charles de Gaulle was often virulently anti-British in his policies, even as the Brits were providing him with a base for his operations and help with his armed forces. At one point Churchill came close to stopping all cooperation with de Gaulle after he'd made some particularly absurd remarks. French policy has ever since been aimed at thwarting the Anglo-Saxons, irrespective of what the long-term effect would be on France itself. Spoiling is the goal, not the means. And since the French built the EU to suit their needs, it is not surprising to see this anti-Americanism carry over into that institution as well. It's become part of the chattering classes' Required Opinions.

The enmity is being ratcheted up by the Europeans in the current conflict. Judging the US to be a greater danger than the Islamofascists, they are ideologically oblivious to the real world. This will cost them dearly. The relationship between the US and Europe has benefited both enormously over the last half century, and it would be a tragedy if it were to become eviscerated. But it is happening, and the negative effects will be felt much more keenly in Europe than in the US. Simply put, the US is more important to Europe than vice versa. The American economy is healthier, the demographics are more favorable, the military is infinitely superior, the political system is more unified. In any conflict the US will win. And Europe will lose.

There's another aspect to this also, and that's the declining relative importance of Europe, and especially the Old Europe. The Eurosclerosis that has been gripping the economies of the Old Europe are wringing any long-term vitality from it. And the demographic tipping point is coming ever closer; by 2010 both Germany and France will be in deep demographic trouble unless they undertake painful reforms fast. Time is running out, and it does not look like they'll be able to pull off their reforms before then. With a stagnant prognosis for the European economy, the sources of growth must be found elsewhere. And the biggest one of all is China.

China's importance in world trade is growing dramatically. It's already the world's largest cell phone market, it's the world's fourth-largest car market and the fifth largest economy of the world. The per capita GDP is still very low, but with growth rates of 8-10% per annum, China will be by 2004 the world's fourth largest economy behind the US, Japan and Germany. And in relative importance to the US, it will be more significant than that. Already US exports to China are bigger than exports to Germany and France combined. The center of gravity of the world economy is shifting away from slow-growth Europe and moving to fast-growth Asia. (Japan being the obvious exception here). Few, if any of the policymakers in Berlin or Paris (or elsewhere in Europe) realize that they are steadily losing influence and clout. Perhaps they feel it subconsciously, which is why they are thrashing about so much, but fundamentally, they don't understand the reasons for the decreasing relevance to the United States. They think they're entitled to that influence and are hopping mad for losing it.

It's extremely sad to see this happening. Both the US and Europe have much to gain from continuing as allies rather than adversaries. But the Gaullist psychopathology that's driving Europe into conflict with the US is too deeply rooted at the moment for a different outcome. I can only hope that the Europeans come to their senses before it's too late altogether. The winds of change are not quite blowing at full force yet, but the breeze is definitely in the air. I'll close with more words by Abraham Lincoln:

The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disentrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.We cannot escape history. We will be remembered, in spite of ourselves. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor, to the last generation.

Indeed. (Do any European politicians even know what honor means?)