Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(39)
4 star:		(34)
3 star:		(21)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(18)

 

 

In this short book, an elaboration of an article written for Policy Review, Robert Kagan puts forward the following thesis: Europe has entered a Kantian world of perpetual peace where tension is resolved via diplomacy and institutions, while Americans occupy a Hobbesian world where force is the only path to conflict resolution and stability.

The book builds on this idea and discusses the familiar arguments about military spending and the differing views on multilateralism and international law that separate American from Europe. At the same time, Mr. Kagan suggests an original idea to explain the split in the West: the European Union, he argues, is predicated on the notion that institutions can resolve deep historical conflicts; if European were to accept the Hobbesian view, Mr. Kagan argues, they would deny the revolutionary nature of their project, as well as its implications for other regions of the world.

Still, this book is selective: there is little mention of Somalia, where Americans withdrew to avoid casualties, or Rwanda, where French forces moved in before UN peacekeepers. The British intervention in Sierra Leone and the French one in Cote d'Ivoire are similar examples of the European attitude to force, which hardly coincide with Mr. Kagan's view.

Mr. Kagan has argued, in essence, that the Europeans lack the collective capacity to act; but their attitude to power might not be as scornful as Mr. Kagan suggests. Still, it is impossible to study the relationship between Europe and America, and their respective roles in the world today, without reading this book.

As an American citizen who writes about European affairs and is based in Europe, I have always felt able to understand the cultures that dominate either side of the Atlantic better than most, which is one reason why I was so eager to read Of Paradise and Power. It's a thin volume and presented in a straightforward way that is easy to read (i.e., it's not just for policy wonks and Ph.D. candidates) and which packs a powerful punch. For anyone looking to understand the increasingly obvious differences between the two parts of the world, this book is obligatory.

Kagan's basic premise is that the two power bases have long been more different than either was willing to admit (mostly in terms of the relative reliance on force vs. diplomacy), and that the differences were masked by the Cold War rather than a product of the conclusion of it, and that is a point he backs up well. In fact, if one remembers that these words were based on a Policy Review essay written in the middle of last year -- before the current crisis between the U.S. and Germany/France -- the author's insight seems even greater.

My criticisms of the book come from part of the conclusion Kagan makes. He says, for example, that the difficulties between the U.S. and Europe would have shown themselves no matter who was in charge and no matter what else happened in the world, yet I cannot believe that is true. Would a more cosmopolitan and diplomatic team in the White House have so easily galvanized European anti-Americanism? If Sept. 11 not happened, would the situation have boiled over so quickly? Would Schroeder have been so vocally anti-American if he had not faced re-election as the Iraq problems started to develop? Would Chirac have taken such a strong stance if he did not feel France's power slipping in other areas? At times, the conclusion Kagan draws seems to show some of the eagerness for simple explanations to complex problems that he criticizes elsewhere.

Also, I find the price for such a slim volume more than a bit high, and the opportune release of the book at a moment when the Atlantic divide dominates the world's editorial pages is a testament to Alfred A. Knopf's business acumen.

But none of that is a reason to skip this important book. The tome is full of meaty ideas to chew on, and in speaking with friends involved in politics on both sides of the Atlantic, I can attest to the powerful impact that Kagan's ideas are having. It is a must read for anyone looking to understand the events shaping the western world ... or even those simply looking to participate in cocktail party conversation with those who are.

It doesn't matter what political stripe you wear, Kagan's book is a fascinating look at current-day international politics. Kagan presents a wonderfully logical argument about the relationship between Europe and America. And while he doesn't necessarily present any information that is new or surprising, he does help connect the dots in a manner that makes most readers go, "Aha!" Kagan's writing style is very user-friendly, unusual in a field known for its clunky style and obscure historical references (Thomas Friedman notwithstanding). He uses wonderful anecdotes and analogies to help paint his picture of the differences in the ways that America and Europe view world-wide threats (A bear roaming in the woods is viewed differently by a man with a rifle as opposed to a man with a knife). And given these acknowledged differences, is it any wonder that America and Europe increasingly find conflict over the way we resolve these problems? America wants to quickly solve the problems with arms (we have lots of over-powering weapons and a strong distaste for any American deaths); Europe would much rather discuss the problems over time and come to a non-conflict resolution (they don't have the weapons and have come to appreciate the power of discussion). As a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, one who attended the numerous spring anti-war demonstrations throughout my hometown, I now look at the world in a different way after reading this fine book -- and what could be a better compliment to any author? And while I continue to feel America's heavy-handed approach is ultimately wrong, this book has given me a more balanced perception of the way things work.

This book forces you to rethink the common world view and the relationship between Europe and America. Kagan's prose is very clear, well-written and easy to follow and he argues quite convincingly. He has a good point that Western Europe has lived under America's protecting umbrella since WW2 and made the Europeans to believe that machtpolitik, that is the necessity to use military force, no longer is needed and that laws and international cooperation is the only way to build a better world. It worked fine for civilized and well-behaving European states in the EU, but it obviously doesn't work that well with more badly brought-up leaders as Kim Jong-Il. Or Hitler for that matter.

Clearly the rift between Europeans and Americans is deeper than many think, and clearly both sides have some serious issues to discuss. But I don't agree with Kagan's implicit conclusions - that the rift is almost impossible to heal and that Europe and USA have different roadmaps that are bound to clash an increasing number of times in the future.

Kagan is exaggerating the differences. Europe lacks the Americans' military power and is occupied with the European integration most of the time, but it does not mean that they will disagree in all important matters in the future. They still share the same visions. But I think that Europe, and especially France, feels a strong threat to be sidelined and ignored by America. Europe is not as important for America as it was during the Cold War. Instead, it is directing its interest towards Southeast Asia where the next superpower, China, is. Kagan's opening phrase - "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" - more or less feels like an excuse to cut the old traditional ropes with Europe and start building new alliances that are better suited for the coming world order. If this is true both Europeans and Americans have a reason to be worried about the future, espacially as Kagan will start working for vice president Cheney this summer.

Good for anyone wondering why Europeans disagree with Americans over the Iraq war as well as many other areas. The book covers both sides pretty well. I read it in one sitting. Fits the times perfectly.

Being a latecomer to this book and having read the other reviews, I agree with almost all of them -- both positive and negative. Still the book is well-written and avoids the pitfall of recounting already known facts. The author's main objective is to put forward a simple thesis -- thereby ignoring or brushing aside a lot of the complexities of the "real" world events.

But the question is not whether everyone agrees or disagrees with Dr. Kagan's thesis. The book succeeds, in my opinion, in making the reader think about a number of issues: the role of military power, the role of US in the world, the meaning of "the West", and what might happen in the future. It provides a framework with which one can both agree and disagree, but a framework nevertheless. For that, Dr. Kagan needs to be commended.

Yes, Dr. Kagan can be reproached -- as he is in some of the reviews -- the simplicity of his broadbrush approach.
But the book still manages to shed an interesting light -- albeit in a single wavelength -- on this complex subject. No one book can account for the complexity and many facets (trade, culture, politics, military power, relations with other 3rd parties, etc.) of the issue of US-European relations. The informed reader can fill in a lot of the other wavelengths.

The main shortcoming of the book, in my opinion, is that it paint Europe as One, when in fact reaction to the US invasion of Iraq (or liberation as your point of view might be) has been far from united there -- unveiling major divergences between UK and Spain on the one side and France and Germany on the other, as well as between the "old" europe and the "new".

And Europe's recent diplomatic success in bringing Iran to open its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection is something to be noticed. [Can "the West" now succeed with a new good cop -- bad cop routine?]

In that respect, I would agree that Dr. Kagan's conclusion falls short. He misses the rift between European nations -- which may well become large than the divergence between the US and Europe as portrayed in this book. The future will tell.

Still, I encourage you to read this short and easy to read book. I, for one, feel smarter for having done so.

In this relatively small book, Kagan lucidly explains the reasons why America and Europe seem so at odds today. This was evidently clear during the run-up to the war in Iraq. He explains how Europe has built for itself (with immense help from America) a post-historical paradise where laws, diplomacy, and institutions become the primary means of settling disputes and facilitating cooperation among nations. As Europe has moved into this state, its military prowess has declined significantly at the same time that America's military capabilities have soared. America doesn't flinch to use force to subdue rogue nations and confront despots around the world while Europe favors bargaining with the same, in the hope that they will adopt reasonable, sensible policies.

These two perspectives are worlds apart, and Kagan explains how this came about. Ironically, Europe's post-historical paradise was large built with American money, support, and direct contribution. It was America that created the United Nations, delivered the Marshall plan, and encouraged EU integration. Nations with economic and political ties are less likely to war with one another, dragging American resources in with them. These things are largely the result of the exporting of the American ideal. That ideal which values freedom, democracy, the rule of law, peaceful relations, pluralism, and the pursuit of economic growth are decidedly American in nature. America was borne of Europeans and the Enlightenment, and the spread of these goals around the world and to Europe represent a re-export of enlightenment ideas.

But, in order to preserve stability and order in the world, someone needs to carry a big stick. Despots like Kim Jong Il (sp?), Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Kameini, Robert Mugabe, et al. do not value these ideals and occasionally need to be confronted with force. Europe flinches at the notion, America exercises when necessary. Europe lacks even the capability to do so, and is apprehensive about such things. This, according to the author, is the root of the misunderstanding. America's lack of appreciation for the history and recent modernization of Europe, and Europe's lack of appreciation for the necessary might of America to protect the free world. Indeed, without the protection of America's nuclear umbrella, Western Europe would not have remained free during the Cold War. Beyond these differences, however, Europe and America have a tremendous amount in common. Both value liberty, freedom, democracy, and seek peace and prosperity. They differ on how to protect these values and ensure the attainment of these common goals.

This book doesn't go into much depth, which is its primary weakness but also one of its strengths: it can be read in one sitting. For those looking for a brief and sensible explanation why the Atlantic divide seems so wide these days, this book is excellent. For what it sets out to do, it deserves five stars.

The evolution and maturation of Europe after the European-led slaughters of the 20th century is amazing, and both the US and the Europeans should take credit. However, Kagan shows that the utopian post-modernist views of most Europeans work primarily inside Europe- a cocoon of like-minded, modern, democratic countries allowed to pupate under the protection of US power. If the US were able to pretend that the entire world consisted of the US, Canada and Mexico then things would be dandy, indeed. Unfortunately, the kind of international cooperation and good behavior found within Europe or within N. America or amongst modern, democratic nations generally does not seem to apply to states such as Iran, N. Korea, Iraq, etc. These nations don't follow the example of good European behavior and yet the Europeans are loath to discipline them- the utopian European view is "set a good example and hope for the best" and if this doesn't work, then try bribery and appeasement rather than punishment. Many of us would not want to spend much time around children raised this way, nor would I want to live in a society which treated its criminal element in such an undisciplined matter. If criminals get away with murder then citizens begin to question why any law should apply to them and vigilantism prevails. If N. Korea or Iran or Iraq can violate non-proliferation agreements with impunity, why should the US care to sign such an agreement? Are laws only for the law-abiding? The French chastise the US for not signing on to the International Criminal Court while extending a warm invitation to Robert Mugabe to visit Paris.

While Kagan highlights the issues, and shows that the diverging European and US attitudes are closely tied to their contrasting ability/desire to project military power, he doesn't really come up with any solutions. However, the current situation at the UN security council highlights the choices- vigilantism (i.e. the US acts alone) or an international enforcement mechanism with real backbone (the Security Council actually attempting to enforce some of its resolutions). While most people in society (and most countries) are naturally law abiding, we still need police forces and jails, and for the small percentage of truly hard-core offenders the purpose of a jail sentence really isn't punishment for the criminal but rather protection for the rest of us. Until we figure out how to internationalize a truly robust system of international criminal laws and enforcement we will be left in a Hobbesian world run by a somewhat erratic US sheriff.

All in all, this is good book for anyone interested in the relationship between Europe and the USA, and how each views the world and their role in it. Kagan shows how, to no surprise, both Europe and the USA use the tools available to them to their own advantage. Because those tools differ, their approaches to the world differ - and as the difference in their tools increases, so do their approaches.
One thing it would have been nice for Kagan to discuss is how Britain appears to differ significantly from the other large European countries. Britian sides with the USA much more often than Germany or France, and isn't shy about it. This will put Britian in a position where it will have to choose between the two at some point. Discussing how this impacts Britian, the overall EU, and Britian's role in the EU, would be an interesting topic.

I've lived in Europe fifteen years; all my children were born there. I love Europe, despite the overwhelming anti-Americanism I've encountered. I've felt guilty for being an American; I've felt angry at Europeans for their anti-Americanism. But I have never understood exactly why I felt guilt, or why Europeans felt angry. This book explains it. It is, without doubt, one of the most persceptive and depressing books I have ever read. No wonder Europeans hate this book. It is terrifyingly accurate and damning. Worse, it bodes no good future. If you have any questions about American foreign policy (and believe me, this is NOT a Republican, pro-Bush tract) and any wonder why Europeans oppose us (and this is NOT an anti-European treatise), then read this book. It is unforgiveably insightful. Our relations with Europe are doomed; the future is not at all like the past. After reading this book (it took only a few hours) I was profoundly depressed. This is a good and helpful sign. It's long past time we stopped deceiving ourselves. We need to face reality. This book is the ultimate reality. But beware, you're not going to like what the future foretells. For heaven's sake, spend a few dollars, invest a few hours, and get a good grasp of reality. It sure as hell beats the Fox Network.