Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by GMoromisato 7 days ago
The EU's problem isn't that it's too small--its population is larger than the US already. Its problem is that it's not unified. It can't act as one country the way the US and China can.

The EU works by consensus of its member states. It does not have a strong executive that can, hypothetically, drop bombs on Iran without a vote in parliament. But it also can't defend Ukraine as fully as it needs to.

Russia is economically tiny. If the EU wanted, they could flood Ukraine with enough firepower to reverse Putin's invasion, even without intervening directly. They don't do that because not all member states agree, and without consensus, the EU cannot act.

In some ways, America is the opposite: it acts before it has consensus. One administration invades Afghanistan; the next one pulls out. One administration signs a treaty with Iran; the next one bombs it. It's the move-fast-and-break-things of foreign policy.

China and Russia are dictatorships. They pursue their interests and they act consistently. Despite their economic disadvantages, they get their way internationally because they are not afraid to act.

As an American, I would rather have a strong EU that sometimes disagrees with us, than a weak EU that cedes the field to China and Russia. But a bigger EU isn't the solution. The EU needs to act as one, or it will become irrelevant.

3 comments

Actually, the EU has lots of (probably) intractible problems. For example the closest thing it has to a constitution is the TREATY OF LISBON (the constitution project having fallen apart), which begins HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...). Compare that with the US constitution that begins "We the People of the United States" and you start to understand how bad the situation for the EU is.
And yet, the US seems much closer to absolute monarchy than Belgium with their actual king.
But that’s my point. The US can act as a unified state whereas the EU often cannot.

The difference between “We the people” and “The King of the Belgians + 20 other leaders” is stark: one is united, the other is not.

No one wants Europe to be authoritarian, but it could stand to act more united.

"America is the opposite: it acts before it has consensus. One administration invades Afghanistan; the next one pulls out."

From my perspective, the US has a remarkably consistent foreign policy despite some occasional initial wobbles when a new president comes in (which usually ends up being all or mostly talk). Obama talked about closing Guantanamo Bay and pulling out of Iraq, but he didn't do that, did he? And it was obvious for a long time that Afghanistan was a quagmire. Ultimately, the US only pulled out of Afghanistan two presidents later... conveniently freeing up resources for the big war in Ukraine that had been threatening to start for years, but only somehow really got going once Afghanistan was no longer a major drain on resources.

No, it seems to me that even a president as volatile as Trump is unable to just do what he wishes. I remember how often in his first term he announced and even ordered that the US would leave Iraq, but ultimately that didn't happen, and everyone who buys Iraqi oil still has to pay the US Treasury for it, which then sends some percentage of the money to Iraq, higher or lower depending on how happy they are with the Iraqi government.

The people who run US foreign policy long term seem pretty good at persuading the temporary occupants of the US White House not to do anything "too rash". As for what the methods of persuasion are, who knows? Perhaps they're just very good at making the political case, or maybe there's more to it.

At least in the case of the recent Iran War, there might be "more to it".

There's a lot of ways the EU is more strongly federated than the US.

Also the US rarely ratifies treaties. There have been six since the year 2000.

Economically, the Soviet Union and China were historically dictatorships, with command economies, but their modern operations are fascist, with the state exercising ownership or control over organizations operating in competitive markets.

If by “federated” you mean that power is distributed, then I agree with you. That’s part of the problem.