(Untitled)

[randomways]

I've been watching the whole French EU constitution vote with some interest. Passions are definitely running high, and now that defeat appears imminent, I have some vague thoughts on what this means.

(I know I have a couple French citizens on my f-list, so y'all take what I say with a grain of "he's just an American" *g*)

Comments

[randomways]

I think that, on one level, the multinational corporate aspect, the EU's constituent states will be okay. English corporations alone own substantial interest in properties and revenues of other countries, including the U.S. (And, despite the vaguely Yellow-perilish reaction to Japan's boom, U.K. firms own more properties in the U.S. than Japanese ones.) But the era of the multinational has thus far proven to be incapable of escaping the older era of geographical chauvinism. Globalization has expanded the financial markets, diffused them to the point where currencies are so interdependent as to be virtually indistinguishable from a cause/effect perspective. But this seems to have led to an entrenchment of local self-interest, a reactionary (I don't necessarily mean the word in a pejorative sense) clinging to one's own nation-state or even vague cultural identity. This can be seen rather clearly in the burgeoning ineffectuality of the U.N. -- military alliances like NATO have proven far more decisive and effective in accomplishing necessary goals.

To some extent, this has less to do with economics than with military and cultural influence. The vulnerability of local populaces to enemies has been reinforced throughout history, and the 20th century alone demonstrated that a single, aggressively-unified cultural group can wreak devastation on its neighbors. North America (and Australia) may have remained relatively untouched, but Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa have all felt the effects of bloody war on their own soil in the past century. So people are understandably reluctant to let go of their geographic chauvanism so long as the danger exists that another country won't do so bilaterally -- it's basically a game of chicken.

Is multinationalism as a concept doomed to ineffectuality? It's too soon to say, I think. But it's certainly not having the effect many predicted it would.

The English point of view interests me more than any other, including the French. From my American perspective, the English have always existed in a sort of neutral zone with one foot in the European arena, one in their own indefinably "English" one. It may be an outdated attitude amongst the English -- having lost much of the Empire, England is no longer a multinational unto itself (granted, the U.K./Great Britain still exist, but they are only shadows of the height of the colonial era.) So I tend to see England as something of an anomaly in the EU -- European, but only fits and starts.

So I wouldn't necessarily consider Britain (for that, in essence, is what we're talking about) the ideal benchmark for the EU. Neither, I suspect, would Blair -- why in hell would he risk his already-doddering political future putting a moot issue up for referendum? Indeed, in the future, I think only a fool of a politician would put it up for a vote until the most-disputatious country (France in this case)has had its say.

[atpotch]

Yeah, I agree with an awful lot of what you're saying. Actually I can't think of anything I disagree with. Hmm.

Britain definitely does have a one foot in, one foot out, (the Hokey Cokey Position, as its known in diplomatic circles) approach to Europe. Partly because it wants to be independent, and partly because it still clings to the belief that it has a special relationship with the US which means the US will help it out when it needs help. Since the weird old days of Thatcher and Reagan though, it seems more like a US says jump, UK says How High position more often than not. We will go to Iraq with Bush, but can we persuade him to sign up to Kyoto? Can we hell. Common language may help, but I think overemphasising our links with the US and ignoring our links with Europe for linguistic reasons is a bit careless.

Very interesting what you say about the chicken of abandoning nationalism. I have been thinking to myself for a long time, what if the UK said, OK we're giving up all nuclear weapons. But the Chicken Factor comes in again. Someone would attack us, we cry. Well...

TCH

[randomways]

Speaking as an average American -- if there can be such a thing in a country of 280 million that is, in the purest sense, a nation of immigrants -- England is likewise considered a special partner of America. The cultural cross-pollination is undeniable -- the English were the dominant cultural influence for most of the U.S.'s history. The French and Spanish had a lesser influence, Italian and Irish influence grew during the early 20th century, and African influence (via African-Americans) has surged in recent years, but the shared language provided the foundation for American culture as it struggled to find its own voice. During the building process, the ready-made English culture provided instant gratification. Sparse literature? That's okay, there's a whole canon-load of stuff we can read coming from England. Manners and mores? Hey, the English made it work and did so in a language we can understand! This has continued to the present day -- literature classes in U.S. highschools and colleges still rely heavily on the English/Irish/Scottish canon. I could make an argument that Shakespeare has been a greater cultural ambassador between the countries than any politician or diplomat. Or, to put it another way, the Average American considers the alliance with England to be almost inviolate because the Average American considers England to be something of a sister-state, especially given that in the two World Wars, England was the primary remaining bastion of still-independent military power and thus America's default ally (France was overrun, Italy was on the side of the enemy in the 2nd, and so on.)

The American mindset still hearkens to the British one. Had England rejected going to war in Iraq, the administration still probably would have pushed it through, but the shockwaves of trepidation would have been palpable in both political and simple demotic circles. The reluctance of the French and Germans was of lesser consideration, especially since the Average American tends to be hyperaware of the negative attitudes toward the U.S. that exist in the popular discourse of those countries (especially France. Hostility breeds hostility, and I think both the U.S. and the French need to acknowledge their culpability if there is ever to be a reconciliation. If the French want to know why their opinions are seemingly dismissed, that's the reason. Germany is something of a mixed bag, but the Average American still can't understand Wagner....)

[randomways]

*Part 2, since the original was 200 characters too long and I'm too lazy to go find which 200 I don't mind eliminating...*

The relationship between England and America isn't exactly a meeting of equals. Or, rather, it's a morass of positives and negatives. The U.S. as a superpower has supplanted Britain as a superpower, and there's little to be done about that. Being a "superpower", as cultural memory in England should still remember, changes the mindset of the citizens. It's not a pretty change, but is perhaps inevitable. There is a sense of responsibility, yes, but also a sense of entitlement. The so-called "white man's burden" of colonialistic England is a prime but unsavory example. So while Americans consider England fondly, the thought that "we're the most powerful nation in the world" still lingers at the back -- or fore! -- of their thoughts. Thus the image of "Ugly American" survives despite the relative innocence of most Average Americans. It's not deliberate malice, for the most part, just cultural heedlessness and niggling jingoism...which can make it all the more frustrating to deal with. Decrying the attitude falls on deaf ears when the Average American doesn't quite realize what s/he is doing and why it upsets lots of non-Americans. Hell, it even frustrates those Americans amongst us who wish their fellow citizens would stop and think about how they're coming across.

Nuclear brinkmanship is definitely the most obvious symptom of nationalism. With the fall of the Soviet Union, it's become less marked, and one can almost see a day when nuclear weapons have been reduced to the point of serving simply as self-defense rather than massive deterrent. But that's been supplanted by economic brinkmanship, brought about in no small part by the economic miracles of Japan and Korea and Tawain and Vietnam, and will likely grow even more marked as China and India come unto their own. This could get ugly indeed as the latent xenophobia that comes with cultural and national identity starts to manifest. The Soviets were demonized for their political philosophy...what happens when the demonization starts to latch onto basic and inalterable ethnic and racial identities? It could get nastier than the Cold War ever was.