The war on terror and the one in Iraq have not, as Arthur submits, created deep fissures through the international political landscape. The fissures have always been there. They have always been deep. Now, they are simply more perceptible as they have grown wider.
Nor are they aligned in a strict left/right split, although the argument could be made that the rift is between nations of a socialist/fascist bent and those with more liberal persona–liberal in the classic sense.
The latter group includes the US, Britain, Australia, and former Eastern Bloc nations. The former are those working toward an EU in conflict with the US, Russia, and the despotic Middle East.
France has always viewed our alliance as one of convenience. When we refused to share nuclear secrets with De Gaulle, the French decided to link up with the Soviet Union in many military and commercial agreements. They removed themselves from the NATO military structure, retaining the political tie “just in case.” As one writer recently noted, France will always be there when they need us. German intransigence is more difficult to define, but not surprising. They have had American troops in-country for more than fifty years. Familiarity breeds contempt. Even in Britain, this is something of a problem. Many in that country still live the thought, “Over-paid, over-sexed, and over here.” But the ties between us are far greater than any split can overcome.
Australia is much the same, but for other reasons. Our ties are those of siblings. Both nations grew from British colonialism, peopled by those the mother country didn’t care for, and adventurers looking to build their fortunes in the new frontiers. Our heritage is such that our peoples are almost interchangeable, yet we have our own distinctions.
The former Eastern Bloc have “lived it.” Socialism doesn’t work, and they know it all too well. They yearn for the openness we take for granted. The events of recent weeks in Ukraine should make that apparent. Yet all those nations have struggled through similar times, though not all were as dramatic. Remember Solidarity in Poland? Many of you probably don’t. How about Czechoslovakia in 1968? Even fewer remember. Those who have survived don’t want to return.
Wow. Maybe I am talking about right vs. left, although not in the sense most of us have of those two terms. On the right we have government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” On the left we have the Marxist/Fascist philosophy of government “of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite.” Of course, it is never voiced in those terms. Throw a few crumbs and the lemmings will get in line, you know.
The fight in the Middle East is precisely that–a conflict between the two philosophies. Scratch the surface of any proponent on the left who is well-known and respected by others of his ilk in any way and you will find the “elite” watermark. The mullahs in Iran, Saddam, Arafat, Chirac, Annan, and even Kennedy all view their place on this earth as predestined by a God they don’t believe in. How heretical and hypocritical can you get?
Amen!
Comment by DagneyT — December 8, 2004 @ 7:09 am
Homespun Symposium IV
Paulie sends his regards: he’s really busy and doesn’t have the surfing time he used to. Paulie asked me to take the weekly Homespun Blogger question posed by our fave – my fave!! – Arthur Chrenkoff: The war on terror…
Trackback by The Commons at Paulie World — December 9, 2004 @ 5:23 pm
Good answer, Bunker. I had a bit of trouble defining the divide myself. I found that on each side, different groups had different motives, and it was thus hard to pin it down. But I like your definition of each side, and it’s as good as anything else I’ve seen.
The world was so much easier when we could divide it into first, second, and third worlds.
Comment by The Redhunter — December 11, 2004 @ 7:07 pm