Posted by
mgraves on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:31:58 PM
Italian PM Prodi resigned after losing a vote on foreign policy.
The coalition which placed Prodi in the office of Prime Minister is a combination of center-left and far left, with elements who consider even the battle in Afghanistan as an American war that Italy should not be a part of.
Berlusconi hasn't signaled whether or not he would join the race should an early election be called.
Germany, which currently has a grand coalitional government, is largely hamstrung by the nature of its government makeup. Italy's fragile coalition is hindering its foreign policy formation. Granted, Italy has not had a history of stable governments, so this isn't a surprise. France is headed for an interesting election this spring, with Sarkozy facing Royal. Blair, in England, has drawn fire for years, with Gordon Brown waiting in the wings to replace Blair.
It's interesting how one of the major fault lines in all these countries is the United States, either pro- or con-. It's not, however, so much the U.S., but rather what the U.S. represents as an assertive, responsible, nation-state willing to act in its own interests.
Would the U.S. behave the same way if the U.S. were not the sole super-power? Rather, would the U.S. be willing to act on its own to defend its interests in a multi-polar world?
We may find out sooner than we'd like, with the PRC continuing to grow and modernize its economy, while doing the same for its military. Chavez seeks to build a coalition of third world dictatorships to counter the U.S. Such a coalition could not challenge the U.S. conventionally, but ties to terrorism would serve as a force multiplier.
The EU, led by France and Germany (and likely any England not led by Blair), also moves to act as a counterbalance to U.S. power. The EU, however, lacks the necessary military might to act as a counter-balance in a meaningful sense. Add to this the notion that democracies tend to not go to war, but rather settle differences diplomatically, and it seems unlikely the EU would actually act as a counter-balance, but the EU could serve as another pole in a multi-polar world.
What is hastening this multi-polar world is the fact that the appearance of the U.S. does not match reality. The EU sees the U.S. as a war-mongering threat to the world. The PRC views the U.S. as a nation that can be bullied and scammed, as evidenced by the PRC's actions concerning the U.S. observation plane in 2001, and the PRC's playing both ends against the middle on the Korean peninsula. Chavez sees the U.S. as a nation intent on forcing its will on the rest of the world. Ahmadinejad and his ilk see the U.S. as a paper tiger/weak horse, who speaks loudly and carries a toothpick, and can be ignored with impunity.
The UN...the UN General Assembly is a haven of dictators, tramps, and thieves which couldn't agree on the color of shite. The only things the UN Gen'l Assy can agree on is that Israel is a pox on the world and the U.S. is a warmongering disease that should give money to everyone and apologize for existing. These are not helpful resolutions. The Security Council is made up of members who cannot get along, thereby guaranteeing that real action cannot be taken.
So, would the U.S. be willing to act in its interests if the U.S. were not the sole superpower? I'd imagine so. The U.S. does not appear to believe that it is the world's sole superpower. Witness the U.S.'s deference to the EU on Iran, the U.S.'s deference to the PRC on North Korea, or the U.S.'s deference to the UN and the African Union on Darfur and East Africa. Is this the behavior of a nation which believes itself to be the sole superpower?
The U.S. is a bogeyman to some, an ideal (tarnished or not) to others, and the birthplace of Constitutional democracy. So long as the U.S. is committed to remaining a nation-state, the U.S. will be disliked by some, and feared by others. The key is to make sure that we are disliked by the right people: Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, Kim, Nasrallah, Chavez, Castro, et cetera.