AnyBook4Less.com	Find the Best Price on the Web Order from a Major Online Bookstore
Home  |  Store List  |  FAQ  |  Contact Us  |
Ultimate Book Price Comparison Engine Save Your Time And Money Keyword AuthorISBN

Title: America and Europe : A Partnership for a New Era by David C. Gompert, F. Stephen Larrabee, Charles Jr. Wolf ISBN: 0-521-59107-4 Publisher: Cambridge University Press Pub. Date: 28 January, 1997 Format: Hardcover Volumes: 1 List Price(USD): $70.00

Your Country USA Canada United Kingdom Australia Austria Belgium France Germany Italy Netherlands Switzerland Currency AutoUSD CAD GBP EUR AUD CHF Delivery Only cheapest delivery All delivery options Include Used Books Are you a club member of: Barnes and Noble Books A Million Chapters.Indigo.ca

Average Customer Rating: 3.5 (2 reviews)

Rating: 2
Summary: A description of Triumph-but not of what comes after..
Comment: Historical imperative is mercyless:Federations do not survive.Anybody who asserts that a group of heterogenic nations in every respect-cultural,linguistic,religious,racial,ethnic.-could coexist within one virtual border and where like Brown's Movement will persist difusion of uniformitarian tendencies that serve to create common identity,is simply ignorant utopist,that fails true vision of history and "Us and They" factor as product of vigorius separatistic forces which promote diversity,quite unlike authors solipsistic "unity in diversity" social outlooks.Convergence is not the option and it could contribute towards escalation of particularistic sentiments,and it is absurd by the virtue of its own egalitarian sentiments because creolisation which will be created will exhaust itself in capability to promote generation of acceptable to all cultural modalities,unlike the model of clearly defined social coexistence,which has infinite potentials for progress within balanced preservation of complexities of group identitys.Interesting is that a new kind of identity has suplanted ancient ethno-cultural loyalities namely continental identity.Thus people speak of themselves as "Europians","Africans","Asians"-as if Irish,Greeks,Swedes or Japanese,Philipinos and Aphganistanians are something different from others,and this is clearly case of subconciouss emulation of Mondialistic identity model,nurtured by those Social Engineers like Marx,Popper,Russell and others who would assert that "global citizenship",presumably one that is born under Guiding Force-temporarily functioning enforcing center(role that U.S.S.R. tried to play once),will eliminate regionalisms and lead to Eternal Peace,where conflicting defence systems would be merged into "planetary police".It is precisely that unnatural policy that has lead to "Heider Phenomenon" in Austria.Xenophobia will ultimately show itself victorious over mediocretisationing of masses,streching their collective identity too far into wide areas of Cartesian deductionist aculturisations ,and it would be impossible to establish illusion of neutral relations in such collectives,without massive,faceless bureucratic machinery.It is living truth that majority of those people who were engaged furiously in ellimination of communism during 1989,had sympathy for the regime,that claimed virtualy the same ideals, without mental reservations.All those "dissidents" and "martyrs" who were persecuted,tortured,maligned,barefooted,derogated,maligned again,marginalised etc. are only product of their own conformism,and if some other "ism" were to be triumphant it is likely that many of them will join the mainstream,representing evilness of curent social reality.With regard to N.A.T.O., it was perhaps pragmatic nessecity of the time,but now idea of collective deffence,under the euphemism of partnership,is as absurd as Planet Earth's football team.It is clear who are Russians and who are Estonians or Armenians within the Alliance.History will witness massive resistence within the N.A.T.O member states to risk their citizens lifes and resources,for what are somebody else's problems,even when outcome may be benneficciary. Simply,Greeks and Americans are not 300.000.000.And they are partners-but only complementary up to the certain point,and rigid enforcement could provoke only ambivalent relations.Therefore,N.A.T.O. has reached its fifteen minutes of glory and speaking of its future is highly hipocritical euphemistic exposure of relation-Hungary was occupied,but now it's partner,U.S.S.R was ruthless Empire,but West is voluntary created Commonwealth.Hopefully, perhaps such globalistic ideology will transform itself peacefully,in accordance to some of its own ideals,and that there will be no need for illusions of "security guaranteed" within what seems to be a fast evolving Power Monopoly-evolving into advocate of everything that was against for.

Rating: 5
Summary: The contours of a redefined Atlantic partnership examined
Comment: Reviewed by NIGEL CLIVE in International Relations, Volume XIII, No 5, August 1997

The end of the Cold War was not foreseen on either side of the Atlantic. The consequential need to rethink and update strategic, political and economic relations between America and Europe in a global context has spurred a contingent of leading RAND thinkers to sketch out the contours of a redefined Atlantic partnership. This welcome project has already been praised by Henry Kissinger and George Schultz. No less welcome would be a similar academic initiative from the European side. The readiness of Europe to accept greater responsibility could encourage internationalism in the United States where the latest evidence shows public preference for shared world leadership. Indeed, both Atlantic partners need to raise their sights to the idea of a global endeavour. The Bosnian war has made the European Union (EU) begin to assume a leading role in the Atlantic partnership within Europe, and it is clearly in a better position than the United States to ensure the economic and political stability of East Central Europe, the Baltic States, Ukraine and the Balkans.
Ronald Asmus's examination of the new partnership after the end of the Cold War involves enlarging the EU and NATO eastward. The second enlargement means broadening the horizon beyond the European continent where the United States and Europe share vital interests. NATO should expand its responsibility from that of defending Western Europe to that of managing security in Europe as a whole, as when Alliance troops were used to implement a Balkan peace plan and prevent instability from spreading in Europe. Asmus argues that if one wants to have a strategy for fighting wars together, one should first develop a common strategy for preventing them. This underscores the need for a coordinated and political and economic strategy.
Gregory Treverton outlines an economic agenda for the new era. He puts forward ideas for a more ambitious Atlantic partnership in trade and other economic policies and examines how growing European interests in world trade might bring advantages to both parties as they exert global economic partnership. New military structures in NATO are advocated by James Thomson, who proposes a new NATO major command to deal with contingencies outside the NATO area, most importantly in the Persian Gulf. He acknowledges that there are serious problems on both sides and recalls that the Bosnian peace deployment debate was a close call. John van Oudenaren shows guarded optimism about the multiplicity of partnerships that span the Atlantic. The United States has every reason to encourage initiatives by the EU, but the fact that the US is still needed in Europe to contribute to European security introduces a major asymmetry in the American-European relationship. It means they can never be truly equal partners outside Europe.
According to David Gompert, the strength of the integrated world economy is to the new era what the containment of the Soviet Union was to the old. The more integrated the core of the world economy, West Europe East Asia and North America, the more indivisible is its security. In varying shades, the threat comes from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and North Korea. On most matters of global significance, the United States seeks the support of its European partners in the United Nations, G7 and NATO. But it will take US initiatives to persuade Europeans that the Atlantic relationship needs a new purpose, a broader scope and reformed institutions.
Stephen Larrabee describes the security challenges on Europe's eastern periphery where the main challenge in Russia is helping to stabilize the reform process and integrate Russia into the broader European structures. Restructuring NATO to focus more on crisis management (Article 4) rather than territorial defence (Article 5) would help to build a more cooperative relationship with Russia. In view of Russia's hard line on NATO expansion, Finland, Sweden and Denmark, not the United States, should take the lead in campaigning for the Baltic states to join the European Union, not NATO. Security cooperation with Ukraine would be part of the Partnership for Peace programme, This would be an indirect means of drawing Ukraine closer to NATO. Polish-Ukrainian defence cooperation could also become a useful way for NATO to enhance its ties to the Ukraine 'through the back door'. Finally, the United States and Europe need to develop a common strategy for dealing with the two issues left out of the Dayton agreement: Macedonia and Kosovo. Challenges in the Greater Middle East is the subject of Zalmay Khalizad's essay. The United States, Europe and Japan need the free flow of oil from the Middle East at reasonable prices. Regional instability in the Middle East poses the first threat to an American-European partnership. The second threat is terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Despite their common interests, there is no US-European common strategy, especially with regard to Iran.
This collection of American viewpoints calls for a European comment which is well provided by John Roper. He agrees that less attention is given in Europe than in the United States to the risks of proliferation of nuclear weapons. There have been differences in perception and approach in dealing with hard-core outlaw states, and Roper concedes that Americans are generally correct in criticizing European strategic myopia. Europeans will need a 'leap of imagination' to accept a full partnership role with the common European voice in world trade negotiations, but progress has been much slower in the politico-military field. The global partnership has to be to the mutual benefit of the United States and Europe. Greater European coherence can only make a working partnership easier to achieve.
David Gompert and Stephen Larrabee conclude that the new partnership must be both more global and more equal than the present European-American relationship. Unless NATO's strategic rationale includes the protection of common interests beyond Europe, its vitality within Europe will erode. Americans must accept that only a more cohesive Europe can be a more responsible and effective partner. If the European Union is perceived by Americans as not pulling its weight, the American world outlook and role could change in ways that could leave European economic and security exposed. As a final thought, the two editors claim: 'it is high time for European and American leaders to reflect on how a partnership would help them achieve their highest priorities. Prosperity and security, political and economic freedom on a global scale can only come through vision and leadership.'
NIGEL CLIVE