Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order [Paperback]

The success of European integration and solving the "German problem" has led Europeans to believe that they live in a Kantian paradise where multilateral supranational institutions can effectively banish war. Americans, given different historical realities, view the world as a Hobbesian jungle were hard power rules. The difference really comes down to how the two view the proximity of threats. Outside of the Middle East, where the Europeans have a stake in maintaining order, the European sphere of influence is small. The US's sphere includes practically the whole globe now with the expansion into Central Asia since 2001. The only continent outside the US sphere of influence is Africa.

The European Kantian paradise, could only have come into being with a Hobbesian American military presence to calm the fears about a Germany that might re-arm. Without the American nuclear shield protecting Europe from Soviet expansion, which in turn obviated the need to actually rebuild a German military, European integration may never have been possible, and we would still have Anglo, French, and German arms races today.

Kagan offers no real solutions to the fracturing of the Atlantic Alliance. Instead, he basically says that both parties need to get used to double-standards as it applies to the non-Western world, ex-Japan. That Europe needs to understand without the American "sheriff" in town, their Kantian paradise of laws and compromise, is not secure. And that the US needs to get used to criticism from the weaker nations.

Thankfully, the book is not a partisan political screed that is full of apocalyptic prognostications about what will happen after the 2004 elections. This is all too common in books on this subject. The partisanship is limited two a couple of minor attacks on the Bush diplomatic team (although praise is given to them for averting a Pakistan-India war), and a revisionist history of Madeleleine Albright's term as Secretary of State.

Kagan's conception of "America" and "Europe" is the same nonsensical view displayed in mainstream media. That is, a body of people completely united in thought and action regardless of race, sex, or especially class, behind their aristocratic leaders. This is a blunderous generalization by Kagan. The only group to which Kagan's diagnoses may be applicable is the elite technocrats of the USA and Europe.

To even suggest that Kagan's thesis is interesting is foolish. How can the claim that lack of military power causes an agent or nation to achieve ends by non-militaristic means, be anything short of elementary and non-original? The concept that there may be other rational for the political elite of European nations to express preference for non-militaristic methods is given little thought in Kagan's book. Reasons such as an electorate that would vote them out of office should they attempt such a course, or an enlightened view of self-interest that understands the self-destructive principles of an imperialist policy.

Essentially Kagan's book is the tossing out there of an unsubstantiated thesis without any anticipatory self-critique and rebuttal.

I saw a graph the other day on CNN that showed a whole host of books of this type on a large 2D screen. It made connections between books that people polled read in common. Liberals were in blue, Conservatives in red. It looked like 2 spider webs. Liberals read one set of books (Bushwacked, etc.) and Conservatives (Deliver us from Evil, etc.). A sad paradigm considering the need for national and international unity.

I found no clear bias in this book. Kagan doesn't set up Europeans as useless gun-dropping appeasement junkies, or Americans as dangerous gun-loving cowboys; rather, he uses history and philosophical conditioning (Hobbesian vs. Kantian) to assist the reader in - if not empathising with both sides - at least understanding the unique circumstances of each side, and the consequential positions they've taken on important world events of late (mostly related to security).

This essay taught me more than most books do, and I didn't feel like I had to keep my "partisan bull**** filter" running on high (makes reading much more enjoyable).

I recommend this highly.

Christian Hunter