AMERICAN MARTIANS, EUROPEAN VENUTIANS?
There was an intriguing piece in a recent New York Review of Books entitled America and the World. It was a review of five interesting books dealing with that very topic.

It picked apart the now famous essay/book Americans are From Mars, Europeans are from Venus by Robert Kagan, a theory which has gained some weight in international affairs circles recently.

There are some cogent points made about American and European attitudes toward power. To say that Europeans prefer institution building while Americans prefer a more aggressive approach to international affairs would hardly be an original observation. Nevertheless, this piece addresses how neither of these attitudes should be mutually exclusive.

During the Cold War, Western Europeans essentially ceded their collective defense to the United States. This decision contributed to the divergence in opinions on either side of the pond. First, allowing the US to worry primarily about the continent's defense meant that Europeans were free to work on building continental institutions, who've most notably evolved into a continental governance structure: the EU regulates consumer goods and industries, has its own court of human rights and issues its own currency. Secondly, letting the US defend Western Europe meant that European countries had more money to spend on education, health care and other social programs. The triumph of European social democracy (a capitalist base tempered by modest social equalization measures) is quite extraordinary. Not even center-right conservative parties in Western Europe would propose, for example, the wholescale privitization of the health care system à la the US. That everyone deserves access to medical care is a given.

This has worked for them. Despite the depictions of American conservatives, of creaky, bankrupt "welfare states" on the verge of socio-economic collapse, Europe is surely the place with the world's highest continental standard of living. Unemployment is a bit higher than in the US, though much lower than in most other places. Social conditions are much better than in the US. Although it has different social mores than the US, Europe is as prosperous by its own values and priorities.

Furthermore, the integration of Europe that has occurred in the last 55 years is an accomplishment whose magnitude can not be overstated. This is a continent whose countries were in perpetual war for centuries. The concept of Germany again invading Holland and Poland is inconceivable in 2003. The concept of war period in Western Europe is inconceivable in 2003. It's not just that Western Europe happens to have peace, but that war is inconceivable at this time. THAT is one of the greatest accomplishments in a long time.

And the European Union evolved with values that would be familiar to Americans: democracy, rule of law, religious tolerance, open markets.

This occurred not with American indifference, contempt or but with American help being integral. Not just the invasion of Normandy so often invoked by "hyper-patriots" but even more so, the Marshall Plan. It didn't do this because America was nice. The Marshall Plan was done because a free, democratic and friendly Western Europe was in our national interest. The alternative was certainly not in our interest.

The great achievements of European institution building resulted from it becoming a de facto military protectorate of the US. The US realized that American security could not be ensured by isolationism or unilateralism. By helping the Europeans economically and politically, we won "their hearts and minds." Basically, we needed them as much as they needed us. Furthermore, the great international institutions were built, in large part, because of American engagement. The UN Declaration of Human Rights, most notably. Even the much-hated (in US foreign policy elite circles) International Criminal Court [ICC] was actually the original vision of those Americans (and others) who participated in the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis.

The US has benefited from the existence of these international institutions. The US is better off with Syria blowing off steam by venting its anti-Israeli, anti-US vitriol in the General Assembly that with Syria invading Israel or harboring al-Qaeda.

Europeans in 2003 tend prefer deferrence to international institutions to military conflict. Given European history of the 2nd millenium, this is probably a good thing overall. Nevertheless, they need to come up with a coherent answer to the question: what should be done when countries reject international institutions and international norms?

When the imperialists in Washington ask this question, the European response too often is, "Yeah, [x] is violating international norms but the US and Israel are doing it worse." Which, even if you accept this as true, is really a non-response. Changing the subject rather than answering the question. It allows the imperialists in Washington to dismiss Europeans out of hand as being un-serious.

Americans in 2003 tend to prefer diplomacy so long as we can get their own way. If we can't get our own way on merits, we use bullying tactics to achieve the end (ICC) or we simply take our ball and go home (Kyoto). We are a not as reticent to go to war to achieve those ends because there hasn't been a full-fledged war against another country on American soil in nearly 200 years. Europeans remember vividly Dresden and the Battle of Britain. While many American soldiers fought in the war in Europe or Asia, there is no societal COLLECTIVE memory of war in our towns and villages.

A few years ago, there was all this "* of the century talk." Person of the century. Event of the century. Invention of the century, etc. I argued that World War II was the most influential event of the 20th century. Not only for what it was, but for what it's implications were. Only a few of which were: the Cold War, the end of the Europe's African and Asian empires, the successes of the civil rights' and women's rights movements in the US, the founding of the international institutions and the enshrinement of the principles of basic human rights.

But it also had another consequence. To Americans, World War II continues to serve as an example of war sometimes being right and just. To Europeans, World War II continues to serve as an example of war always being wasteful and devastating.

Maybe. just maybe, all four of those things are correct.