Re: Europe's 3D vision (fwd)

In a message dated 6/14/2003 12:43:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
gktbg1@tiscali.de writes:

> IMHO, Europe has a conflict of interest in this matter. If one views the
> world as a system of global apartheid, then Western Europe's aspirations to
> be nicer and more democratic than USA and a beacon of justice for the world
> conflict with its material interests as a block of rich white countries. The
> recently decided restructuring and re-focusing of NATO (rapid deployment
> force to strike anywhere in the world with a mandate to fight poor-country
> terrorism anywhere in the world) and its anti-South-of-the-world economic
> protectionism suggest that Europe is playing the role of a vassal of
> USA in the rich white core of global apartheid rather than supporting the
> interests of the non-white majority of the world. Europe will likely apply
> its democratic ideals within the enlarged European Union for the benefit of
> Central and Eastern European countries, but not much further. Of course, I
> wish that this skepticism will be falsified by reality. Fat 
> chance, though,
> if you look at the material interests.
> 
> Gert

I agree that Europe is part of the core of what can be accurately described as 
'global apartheid.' Nevertheless, it has important conflicts with the US that 
are unlikely to make it a 'vassal' of the latter.  First, because it is nearly 
as large as the US, it has an interest in shaping world economic institutions 
to its advantage and not simply riding along with the US as junior partner. 
Secondly, it appears that there is a consensus in Europe that the efforts of 
the US to maintain order in the system are creating more chaos, and it 
therefore becomes critical for the EU to propose alternatives.  Positioning 
itself as a kinder, more democratic superpower is not necessarilly antagonist 
to its interests so much as a way to pursue them.

In a sense, the imperialist competition of the nineteenth century--struggles 
for territory in the periphery--are recast as hegemonic struggles, in which the 
EU tries to find allies around the world.  This creates some room for maneuver 
among periphery and semi-peripheral agents.  It is fairly well known that a 
divided ruling class is helpful on the national level for subaltern struggle; 
probably the same is true on the global level.

I find the role of Derrida/Habermas in this fascinating.  First, note that they 
appropriate a day of global protest against the US (called by its organizers 
"the WORLD says no to War" (my emphasis)) for Europe.  I think the NY Times was 
actually more accurate when it called the protests the emergence of the second 
global superpower--world opinion.  Secondly, it is worth noting that they 
oppose the war on the most limited terms imaginable, in terms of the unilateral 
behavior of the US, rather than in terms of opposing a north/south war.

Nevertheless, I think these tensions between the US and EU, even narrowly cast, 
could easily expand in the context of economic tensions.  In this scenario, a 
divided core would be poorly prepared to fend off a challenge for a more 
genuinely egalitarian world order.

Has anyone seen an English translation of Habermas/Derrida's piece?  

Steven Sherman