DOCSLIB.ORG

Atlantic Crises: Britain, Europe, and Parting from the United States, Mr

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NAVAL WAR COLLEGE NEWPORT PAPERS 23 N A The Atlantic Crises V AL Britain, Europe, and Parting from the United States W AR COLLEGE NE WPOR T P AP ERS N ES AV T A A L T W S A D R E C T I O N L L U E E G H E T R I VI IBU OR A S CT MARI VI 23 William Hopkinson Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen Cover The Naval War College campus on Coasters Harbor Island—a view from the south. The buildings are, from left to right, Pringle Hall, Luce Hall, McCarty Little Hall, and Founders Hall (the origi- nal home of the College, now containing the Museum and offices of the Maritime History Department and of the Naval War College Press). Above Luce Hall, to the right of the cupola, is a portion of Conolly Hall. In the foreground is Dewey Field, site of June graduation exercises and summer Navy Band concerts. T:\Academic\Newport Papers\Newport Paper 23\Ventura\NP23.vp Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:18:01 AM Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen The Atlantic Crises Britain, Europe, and Parting from the United States William Hopkinson © 2005 by William Hopkinson NAVAL WAR COLLEGE PRESS Newport, Rhode Island T:\Academic\Newport Papers\Newport Paper 23\Ventura\NP23.vp Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:18:03 AM Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen Naval War College The Newport Papers are extended research projects that the Newport, Rhode Island editor, the dean of Naval Warfare Studies, and the President Center for Naval Warfare Studies of the Naval War College consider of particular interest to Newport Paper Twenty-three policy makers, scholars, and analysts. May 2005 The views expressed in the Newport Papers are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the President, Naval War College Naval War College or the Department of the Navy. Rear Admiral Jacob L. Shuford, U.S. Navy Correspondence concerning the Newport Papers may be Provost/Dean of Academics addressed to the editor of the Naval War College Press. To Professor James F. Giblin, Jr. request additional copies, back copies, or subscriptions to Dean of Naval Warfare Studies the series, please either write the President (Code 32S), Dr. Kenneth H. Watman Naval War College, 686 Cushing Road, Newport, RI Naval War College Press 02841-1207, or contact the Press staff at the telephone, fax, or e-mail addresses given. Editor: Dr. Peter Dombrowski Managing Editor: Pelham G. Boyer Telephone: 401.841.2236 Fax: 401.841.1071 DSN exchange: 948 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.nwc.navy.mil/press Printed in the United States of America ISSN 1544-6824 T:\Academic\Newport Papers\Newport Paper 23\Ventura\NP23.vp Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:18:03 AM Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen Contents Foreword, by Peter Dombrowski v Introduction: Why Another Book? 1 CHAPTER ONE The Beginning: The United States and Britain to 1940 9 CHAPTER TWO The Special Relationship Grows and Ends, 1940–1946 15 CHAPTER THREE The American Half Century, and European Contrasts 23 CHAPTER FOUR The United States and Europe in the Twenty-first Century 35 CHAPTER FIVE Whither Britain? 59 CHAPTER SIX New Relationships for Old 77 Notes 89 Abbreviations 93 Further Reading 95 About the Author 97 The Newport Papers 99 T:\Academic\Newport Papers\Newport Paper 23\Ventura\NP23.vp Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:18:03 AM Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen T:\Academic\Newport Papers\Newport Paper 23\Ventura\NP23.vp Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:18:03 AM Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen Foreword The transatlantic relationship has come under enormous stress from both sides of the ocean since the end of the Cold War and, especially, the election of President George W. Bush. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union threw American and European strategic thought into disarray as scholars and policy makers alike scrambled to formulate new rationales for Cold War institutions like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the much-ballyhooed “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, no one with the clear vision of the late George F. Kennan emerged to soften transatlantic squabbles over the Balkans, the post- Soviet space, and emerging security challenges in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Bush administration officials and like-minded pundits miffed many Europeans with their causal unilateralist rhetoric and apparent willingness to abandon long-standing multilateral initiatives like the Kyoto Treaty. After a brief warming of relations follow- ing the horrific attacks of 11 September, American-European interactions turned sour once again as France and Germany led the effort to prevent the UN Security Council from passing a resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion. Of the major European powers only Great Britain offered substantial assistance to the American-led coalition, an arti- fact of Prime Minister Blair’s personal commitments and perhaps of the special rela- tionship. Today, the gradual disengagement of other European coalition members from Iraq and the reluctance of NATO to play a more active role there further fuels discon- tent in Washington policy circles. The 2003 announcement by Javier Solana of the Eu- ropean Union of a European Security Strategy rekindled American fears that the EU would either emerge as a challenger to U.S. primacy or, paradoxically, remain too weak to support American global initiatives. Aside from the ebbs and flows of politics, the fate of the transatlantic alliance remains a major strategic question for both the United States and its various European partners. A serious, long-term breach of the close security cooperation that characterized most of the Cold and post–Cold War periods would force both sides to rethink their defense policies. From a naval perspective, the transatlantic relationship remains one of the strategic touchstones for the American navy, even as the geostrategic focus of the United States has shifted from Europe to the Middle East and Asia. European navies—not only those of Great Britain but of France and Germany, and others as well—support American- led operations across the globe. In the Indian Ocean, for example, Europe provided T:\Academic\Newport Papers\Newport Paper 23\Ventura\NP23.vp Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:18:03 AM Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen vi THE NEWPORT PAPERS ships and aircraft to enforce embargoes on material destined for Afghanistan and Iraq prior to the campaigns of 2002 and 2003. Across the globe, European allies have partic- ipated in exercises associated with the Proliferation Security Initiative. With The Atlantic Crises: Britain, Europe, and Parting from the United States, Mr. William Hopkinson weighs in with a commonsensical and timely overview of the origins and evolution of the transatlantic relationship since the Second World War. He pays partic- ular attention to the U.S. relationship with Great Britain and its impact upon intra- European debates. He reminds us that while the transatlantic relationship has never been as smooth as some would have us believe, common interests and values have al- lowed all parties to adjust, and readjust, to changes in the security environment and particular national goals. However, and perhaps most importantly, Hopkinson recog- nizes that the current breach may be far more serious than those of the past and thus that greater efforts may be required to reach accommodations in the future. Mr. Hopkinson is especially well placed to comment wisely on transatlantic relations. He served at senior levels in the British Ministry of Defence navigating the shoals between Great Britain, the United States, and the Continent. Since leaving government he has thought and written extensively at several of the finest think tanks in Europe, including Chatham House and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, publishing a series of well-thought-of analyses of contemporary security issues. We at the Naval War College Press are pleased to be able to publish this important look at the past, present, and future of one of the most important strategic issues facing the United States. PETER DOMBROWSKI Editor, Naval War College Press Newport, Rhode Island T:\Academic\Newport Papers\Newport Paper 23\Ventura\NP23.vp Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:18:04 AM Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen Introduction: Why Another Book? Europa, meantime, could see no end to this crazy sea crossing. But she guessed what would happen to her when they hit land again....The bull knelt down in front of her, offering her his back. And the moment she climbed up, he made a dash for the sea. It would in any case have been desirable to review the transatlantic relationship more than a decade after the end of the Cold War, taking account of the interlinked processes of globalization and a changing security agenda. The events of 11 September 2001 and the publication of the U.S. national security strategy in September 2002 reinforced the need. A review was made imperative by the fissures opened up within Western alliance and security structures, as well as globally, by the action of the United States and United Kingdom against Iraq, and arguably the requirement was further reinforced by the reelection of President George W. Bush in November 2004. Whatever the longer- term outcome of that reelection and of Iraq, transatlantic relations have changed, as have intra-European ones. It is time, especially for Britain, to think hard about what has happened and what the next steps should be. The British, and in large measure other (Western) Europeans, have acquiesced in a form of U.S. hegemony for at least the greater part of half a century.
Recommended publications
  • Introduction

    Introduction

    NOTES Introduction 1. Robert Kagan to George Packer. Cited in Packer’s The Assassin’s Gate: America In Iraq (Faber and Faber, London, 2006): 38. 2. Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004): 9. 3. Critiques of the war on terror and its origins include Gary Dorrien, Imperial Designs: Neoconservatism and the New Pax Americana (Routledge, New York and London, 2004); Francis Fukuyama, After the Neocons: America At the Crossroads (Profile Books, London, 2006); Ira Chernus, Monsters to Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin (Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, CO and London, 2006); and Jacob Heilbrunn, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (Doubleday, New York, 2008). 4. A report of the PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, September 2000: 76. URL: http:// www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (15 January 2009). 5. On the first generation on Cold War neoconservatives, which has been covered far more extensively than the second, see Gary Dorrien, The Neoconservative Mind: Politics, Culture and the War of Ideology (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1993); Peter Steinfels, The Neoconservatives: The Men Who Are Changing America’s Politics (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1979); Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005); Murray Friedman ed. Commentary in American Life (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 2005); Mark Gerson, The Neoconservative Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars (Madison Books, Lanham MD; New York; Oxford, 1997); and Maria Ryan, “Neoconservative Intellectuals and the Limitations of Governing: The Reagan Administration and the Demise of the Cold War,” Comparative American Studies, Vol.
  • Introduction

    Introduction

    INTRODUCTION By December 1942, when these Bulletins begin, the tide of World War II was beginning to turn against the Axis powers. The United States had been a combatant for a year, and the USSR for a year and a half. In Europe, the British and the Americans were beginning to assert mastery of the skies over the Nazi-occupied continent. In North Africa, General Montgomery had just defeated Field Marshall Rommell in the great desert battle of El Alamein; within a few months the Allies would be landing in Sicily to begin a thrust at Hitler's 'soft underbelly' in Italy. In the Soviet Union, the Nazi advance had been halted, and the catasü-ophic German defeat at Stalingrad was about to unfold. In the Pacific, the ultimately decisive naval battle of Midway had halted the Japanese advance westward in the spring, and the Americans were driving the Japanese from Guadalcanal through December and January. For Canadians, the dark days of early 1940 when Canada stood at Britain's side against a triumphant Hitler straining at the English Channel were history, replaced by a confidence that in the now globalized struggle the Allies held the ultimately winning hand. Confidence in final victory abroad did not of course obscure the terrible costs, material and human, which were still to be exacted. World War 11 was a total war, in a way in which no earlier conflict could match. The 1914-1918 war took a worse toll of Canada's soldiers, but what was most chilling about the 1939-45 struggle was to the degree to which civilian non-combatants were targeted by the awesomely lethal technology of death.
  • The Real 007 Used Fake News to Get the U.S. Into World War II About:Reader?Url=

    The Real 007 Used Fake News to Get the U.S. Into World War II About:Reader?Url=

    The Real 007 Used Fake News to Get the U.S. into World War II about:reader?url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/29/the-r... thedailybeast.com Marc Wortman01.28.17 10:00 PM ET Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast CLOAK & DAGGER The British ran a massive and illegal propaganda operation on American soil during World War II—and the White House helped. In the spring of 1940, British Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill was certain of one thing for his nation caught up in a fight to the death with Nazi Germany: Without American support his 1 of 11 3/20/2017 4:45 PM The Real 007 Used Fake News to Get the U.S. into World War II about:reader?url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/29/the-r... nation might not survive. But the vast majority of Americans—better than 80 percent by some polls—opposed joining the fight to stop Hitler. Many were even against sending any munitions, ships or weapons to the United Kingdom at all. To save his country, Churchill had not only to battle the Nazis in Europe, he had to win the war for public opinion among Americans. He knew just the man for the job. In May 1940, as defeated British forces were being pushed off the European continent at Dunkirk, Churchill dispatched a soft-spoken, forty-three-year-old Canadian multimillionaire entrepreneur to the United States. William Stephenson traveled under false diplomatic passport. MI6—the British secret intelligence service—directed Stephenson to establish himself as a liaison to American intelligence.
  • The Emergence of Poland As a Regional Leader

    The Emergence of Poland As a Regional Leader

    America’s protégé in the east? The emergence of Poland as a regional leader MARCIN ZABOROWSKI AND KERRY LONGHURST* The evolution of the United States over the past decade into a hyperpower means that it now shoulders a far greater degree of responsibility for maintaining international order than in former years. In this context, the US has sought to manage its international relations through a mixture of multilateralism and unilateralism. At the core of this emerging strategy is the concept of ‘regional leadership’ for those states with which Washington seeks to work or to which it may occasionally delegate some security-related tasks. Clearly, this has not been possible in all parts of the world, given that any such partner needs to share and uphold, to some degree, the same view of the world as the US, including a proclivity to use military force. The US has managed to establish close relation- ships with a number of states that may be viewed as regional leaders. In western Europe the special relationship with the UK, underpinned by the sharing of common intelligence, has endured, which means that Britain is set to remain the US’s key partner in the region. Australia, too, enjoys a close relationship with the US, also based, to a large extent, upon intelligence-sharing. Thus, after September 11, with a very similar threat perception to that of the United States, Australia became a significant regional leader and one of the closest allies of the US following its involvement in the early stages of the US-led operation in Afghanistan.
  • The Strongmen Strike Back Robert Kagan

    The Strongmen Strike Back Robert Kagan

    POLICY BRIEF The strongmen strike back Robert Kagan Authoritarianism has returned as an ideological and strategic force. And it returns at just the moment when the liberal world is suffering a major crisis of confidence. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Today, authoritarianism has emerged as the Of all the geopolitical transformations confronting greatest challenge facing the liberal democratic the liberal democratic world these days, the one world—a profound ideological, as well as strategic, for which we are least prepared is the ideological challenge. Or, more accurately, it has reemerged, and strategic resurgence of authoritarianism. We for authoritarianism has always posed the most are not used to thinking of authoritarianism as a potent and enduring challenge to liberalism, since distinct worldview that offers a real alternative the birth of the liberal idea itself. Authoritarianism to liberalism. Communism was an ideology—and has now returned as a geopolitical force, with strong some thought fascism was, as well—that offered a nations such as China and Russia championing comprehensive understanding of human nature, anti-liberalism as an alternative to a teetering politics, economics and governance to shape the liberal hegemony. It has returned as an ideological behavior and thought of all members of a society in force, offering the age-old critique of liberalism, every aspect of their lives. and just at the moment when the liberal world is suffering its greatest crisis of confidence since We believed that “traditional” autocratic the 1930s. It has returned armed with new and governments were devoid of grand theories about hitherto unimaginable tools of social control and society and, for the most part, left their people disruption that are shoring up authoritarian rule at alone.
  • Vicious Cycles HOW DISRUPTIVE STATES and EXTREMIST MOVEMENTS FILL POWER VACUUMS and FUEL EACH OTHER

    Vicious Cycles HOW DISRUPTIVE STATES and EXTREMIST MOVEMENTS FILL POWER VACUUMS and FUEL EACH OTHER

    Vicious Cycles HOW DISRUPTIVE STATES AND EXTREMIST MOVEMENTS FILL POWER VACUUMS AND FUEL EACH OTHER EMILY ESTELLE AUGUST 2020 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE Executive Summary strategy oriented on great-power competition and long as their support base faces an existential threat, A managing terrorist threats must focus on Africa which protracted conflicts create.4 and the Middle East rather than pull away from them. This expansion and protraction of conflict are These regions are home to one of the world’s largest most advanced in the Syrian and Libyan civil wars. and densest concentrations of Salafi-jihadi groups, What began as domestic conflicts have become including al Qaeda and the Islamic State. They have regional proxy wars with global implications, includ- also become the epicenter of proxy and sometimes ing humanitarian disasters, mass displacement, and direct competition among great powers, including emerging threats to NATO’s security. The Syrian and Russia and China, and important regional states such Libyan conflicts are now merging, moreover, making as Egypt, Iran, and Turkey. The interactions of these them even more difficult to resolve and raising the states and non-state actors create a number of vicious stakes even higher. cycles that perpetuate and expand conflict while feed- The growth of extremist movements is a cat- ing the Salafi-jihadi movement and giving it room to alyst, not just a result, of multisided proxy wars. expand. Embracing the need to engage in great-power Extremist movements and disruptive states form a competition makes sense. Pulling away from Africa mutually reinforcing vicious cycle. The presence of and the Middle East to do so does not.
  • Bridging the Foreign Policy Divide

    Bridging the Foreign Policy Divide

    Bridging the Foreign Policy Divide The America and the Use of Force: Stanley Sources of Legitimacy Foundation By Ivo Daalder and Robert Kagan June 2007 Ivo H. Daalder is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. From 1995 to 1996 he was director for European affairs on President Clinton’s national security council staff. Daalder has authored eleven books, including the award-winning America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy (with James M. Lindsay). His forthcoming books include (with James M. Lindsay) Restoring Trust: How to Reverse the Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy (John Wiley, 2008) and (with I. M. Destler) In the Shadow of the Oval Office: The President’s National Security Adviser and the Making of American Foreign Policy (Simon & Schuster, 2008). Robert Kagan is senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund. His most recent book is Dangerous Nation: America’s Place in the World from its Earliest Days to the Dawn of the Twentieth Century (Knopf, 2006). His previous book was Of Paradise and Power (Knopf, 2003), an international bestseller that has been translated into more than 25 languages. Dr. Kagan writes a monthly column on world affairs for The Washington Post and is a contributing editor at both The New Republic and The Weekly Standard. Many American and foreign observers believe that These three factors have already produced a 15-year the painful and so far unsuccessful intervention in post-Cold War period in which the United States has Iraq will make the United States more reluctant to taken military action with greater frequency than go to war in the future.
  • Historic Barriers to Anglo-American Nuclear Cooperation

    Historic Barriers to Anglo-American Nuclear Cooperation

    3 HISTORIC BARRIERS TO ANGLO- AMERICAN NUCLEAR COOPERATION ANDREW BROWN Despite being the closest of allies, with shared values and language, at- tempts by the United Kingdom and the United States to reach accords on nuclear matters generated distrust and resentment but no durable arrangements until the Mutual Defense Agreement of 1958. There were times when the perceived national interests of the two countries were unsynchronized or at odds; periods when political leaders did not see eye to eye or made secret agreements that remained just that; and when espionage, propaganda, and public opinion caused addi- tional tensions. STATUS IMBALANCE The Magna Carta of the nuclear age is the two-part Frisch-Peierls mem- orandum. It was produced by two European émigrés, Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls, at Birmingham University in the spring of 1940. Un- like Einstein’s famous letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, with its vague warning that a powerful new bomb might be constructed from uranium, the Frisch-Peierls memorandum set out detailed technical arguments leading to the conclusion that “a moderate amount of U-235 [highly enriched uranium] would indeed constitute an extremely effi- cient explosive.” Like Einstein, Frisch and Peierls were worried that the Germans might already be working toward an atomic bomb against which there would be no defense. By suggesting “a counter-threat with a similar bomb,” they first enunciated the concept of mutual deterrence and recommended “start[ing] production as soon as possible, even if 36 Historic Barriers to Anglo-American Nuclear Cooperation 37 it is not intended to use the bomb as a means of attack.”1 Professor Mark Oliphant from Birmingham convinced the UK authorities that “the whole thing must be taken rather seriously,”2 and a small group of senior scientists came together as the Maud Committee.
  • The 2000 Npt Review Conference

    The 2000 Npt Review Conference

    THE 2000 NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS TARIQ RAUF Center for Nonproliferation Studies Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………...…..4 NPT BARGAIN………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 Nuclear Nonproliferation Concerns…………………………………………………………………………………..5 Nuclear Disarmament Concerns….………………………………………………………………………………… 5 Impediments to Sharing of Civilian Nuclear Technology…………………………………………………………….5 NPT REVIEW………………………………………………………………………………………………………..6 THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY…………………………………………………………….6 Decision 1: Strengthening the Review Process for the Treaty……………………….…………………………….….7 Decision 2: Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament…………………………. 10 Decision 3: Extension of the NPT…………………………………………………………………………………….11 The Resolution on the Middle East…………………………………………………………………………………...12 SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES AT THE 2000 NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE……………………………………...13 Non-proliferation (Articles I / II)……………………………………………………………………………………..13 Strengthened IAEA Safeguards (NPT Article III) and Export Controls……………………………………………...15 Cooperation in Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy (NPT Article IV)………………………………………………….17 Peaceful Nuclear Explosions (Article V)……………………………………………………………………………..17 Nuclear Disarmament (Article VI)…………………………………………………………………………………...18 Update on the 1995 Programme of Action…………………………………………………………………………...19 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty…………………………………………………………………………….19 Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty……………………………………………………………………………………….20 Nuclear Disarmament………………………………………………………………………………………………...21
  • Hiroshima-Nagasaki, Teachings of Peace for Humanity

    Hiroshima-Nagasaki, Teachings of Peace for Humanity

    INSTITUTO DIOCESANO DEL PROFESORADO M. RASPANTI HIROSHIMA-NAGASAKI, TEACHINGS OF PEACE FOR HUMANITY 1. Members of the chair1 Lecturer E-mail Cecilia Onaha [email protected] Nélida Shinzato [email protected], [email protected] Matías Iglesias [email protected] Vicente Haya [email protected] Osvaldo Napoli [email protected] Tomoko Aikawa [email protected] 2. Targets The course is part of the curriculum of the Special Education Teacher Training, Religious Education and Psychopedagogy programs. For our students it will be a compulsory course. It will form the content of the subjects "Field of Practice" and "Tools of the Field of Professional Teaching Practice". It will also be open to professionals and agents of the field of education, social work and social health, as well as students and teachers of related careers, to whom an institutional certificate of the course will be given. 3. Area in which the course is located within the programs The course is in the Culture of Peace course of studies, within the area of Education for Global Citizenship, within the framework of the UNESCO Chair Education for Diversity based in our Institute. 4. Justification of the course In virtue of our UNESCO Chair, we have taken as our own the axis of global citizenship that emerges from the Sustainable Development Goals of the UNESCO 2030 Agenda, in particular, Goal 4.7, which aims to ensure that all students acquire the 1 See last page for a brief resume of the lecturers. 1 theoretical and practical knowledge to promote, among other things, sustainable development, human rights, the promotion of the culture of peace and non-violence, world citizenship and the appreciation of cultural diversity.
  • OF PARADISE and Power ROBERT KAGAN

    OF PARADISE and Power ROBERT KAGAN

    OF PARADISE AND PowER America and Europe in the New World Order ROBERT KAGAN Alfred A. Knopf NEW YORK 2003 IT Is TIME to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power-the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power-American and Euro­ pean perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Immanuel Kant's "perpetual peace." Meanwhile, the United States remains mired in history, exercising power in an anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable, and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might. That is why on major strategic and inter­ national questions today, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus: They agree on little and understand one another less and less. And this state of affairs is not transitory-the product of one Anierican OF PARADISE AND POWER 5 election or one catastrophic event. The reasons for the such as the United Nations, less likely to work coopera­ transatlantic divide are deep, long in development, and tively with other nations to pursue common goals, more likely to endure. When it comes to setting national priori­ skeptical about international law, and more willing to ties, determining threats, defining challenges, and fash­ operate outside its strictures when they deem it necessary, ioning and implementing foreign and defense policies, the or even merely useful.1 United States and Europe have parted ways.
  • Madame Chancellor: I Have the Honour to Present Sir William

    Madame Chancellor: I Have the Honour to Present Sir William

    Madame Chancellor: I have the honour to present Sir William Stephenson, eminent native son turned world citizen; a man whose endeavours, successes and acumen have contributed so much to our well-being. Sir William's accomplishments could fill the lives of other men many times over. Decorated war veteran, championship boxer, inventor, entrepreneur, advocate of public broadcasting - these have been some of his vocations. But to the public, he is perhaps best known as Intrepid - an aide to national leaders and a central figure in Allied intelligence operations during the Second World War. Sir William was born at Point Douglas in 1896. Upon graduation from Argyle High School in 1914, he enlisted as a private in the Royal Canadian Engineers, achieving field commissions in France as second lieutenant and then captain. Disabled during a gas attack in late 1915, he was sent back to England, but he refused to remain there. He transferred to the Royal Flying Corps and soon was back in France. He shot down 26 planes before being taken prisoner in July, 1918. He escaped just a few weeks prior to the armistice. His courage and determination were rewarded with the Military Cross, Distinguished Flying Cross, French Legion d'Honneur and the Croix de Guerre avec Palmes. Enter Sir William's exploits as an athlete. In early 1918, he won the world amateur lightweight boxing championship and remained undefeated until retirement from the ring in 1928. Also following the war, he attended Oxford University and the forerunner of the Cranwell Aeronautical College where he specialized in radio communications.