Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Clinton says EU political integration is in US interests

  1. #1
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    17,119
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Clinton says EU political integration is in US interests

    In an interview with Denis Staunton of the IT today Hillary Clinton gives the US view on where the EU is going.

    Deeper European political integration, including the enhanced EU foreign policy role envisaged in the Lisbon Treaty, are in the United States national interest, according to secretary of state Hillary Clinton. In an interview with The Irish Times , Mrs Clinton said that, while treaty changes are strictly a matter for EU member-states to decide, the Obama administration would welcome a more coherent foreign policy role.

    “I think there would be advantages in having an interlocutor who represented decisions taken by the EU. It wouldn’t in any way eliminate the bilateral relations which the United States pursues with individual countries but on a number of matters, the EU being organised in that way could facilitate decisions,” she said.

    “I believe [political integration is] in Europe’s interest and I believe that is in the United States interest because we want a strong Europe . We want a strong transatlantic alliance. So again, we don’t have any vote or voice in these internal European matters but the Obama administration welcomes actions that strengthen Europe and relations among European nations, a commitment on the part of Europe to be a full participant and leader in a lot of these global challenges.”


    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking59.htm

    Those who portray some Irish opponents to EU political integration as being proxy US agents might have to decide whether Clinton is lying, or whether they have been wrong in their assumptions.
    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair.

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    8,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    The argument could be made that Bush was against EU integration while Obama is for it because of course they are two completely different people with two administrations.

    However I would disagree with that argument and with the notion that the US is opposed to EU integration or ever was and that Gangley is working for the CIA or anything like that.

    As Clinton outlines herself it is in the US's interest to have a strong EU.

    It would be better for the US economically, as it would lead to a more stable and therefore wealthier EU, which would help the US sell goods in the EU.

    Politically a strong EU would act as a counter-balance to Russia in Eastern Europe and on top of that the US and the EU could achieve more working together on issues that they agree on, which to be honest is most things i.e. stopping Iran getting nuclear weapons, an end to the Israeli-Arab conflict etc.
    "Give us the future, we've had enough of YOUR past, Give us back our country, to live in, to grow in and to love..."

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member Big Bobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    169
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    The argument could be made that Bush was against EU integration while Obama is for it because of course they are two completely different people with two administrations.

    However I would disagree with that argument and with the notion that the US is opposed to EU integration or ever was and that Gangley is working for the CIA or anything like that.

    As Clinton outlines herself it is in the US's interest to have a strong EU.

    It would be better for the US economically, as it would lead to a more stable and therefore wealthier EU, which would help the US sell goods in the EU.

    Politically a strong EU would act as a counter-balance to Russia in Eastern Europe and on top of that the US and the EU could achieve more working together on issues that they agree on, which to be honest is most things i.e. stopping Iran getting nuclear weapons, an end to the Israeli-Arab conflict etc.
    What a load of waffle. How would further integration lead to a wealthier EU? and why do want to start a new cold war?

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    8,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Bobo View Post
    What a load of waffle. How would further integration lead to a wealthier EU? and why do want to start a new cold war?
    I'm not, however Russia have been putting their weight around quite a lot in the last year year or so.
    "Give us the future, we've had enough of YOUR past, Give us back our country, to live in, to grow in and to love..."

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Royalty toxic avenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,031
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    No, this can't be true, I've read several thousand threads here saying that a no vote was a vote for American hegemony, that no voters were stooges of CIA agents. Shurely shome mishtake...

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    The US position on the EU in general and on the major EU issues has always been nuanced.

    Clinton and the entire Obama team are keen to put clear water between themselves and the nightmarish Bush experience, and these comments are part of that. No bad idea, given Bush’s deserved unpopularity in Europe. Even to change the tone of the discourse helps, whether or not the political substance changes.

    The Obama administrations will continue to push US interests, full stop; the question is whether there is a genuine rethink on the merits and the objectives of EU integration.

    Bush, a master of the disguised agenda, was relentlessly ambiguous on this. There was no overriding conception of EU integration as a good thing. Instead we had an a la carte approach. On trade, the EU is an awful headache where US and Europe are in competition, though useful when it comes to keeping the rest of the world in their place. The approach here has been to divide and conquer. Pick off the weak ones of the herd and work on them. Ireland plays a bit part here, as a willing Trojan horse for nonsense like GMO.

    On the great game, the cold war continuance, the priority was to get as many former Russian satellites into the EU as possible. This had the useful side effect of putting a bunch of grateful and pliant lightweights into the EU mix. Their job was to push the EU consensus closer to US positions. The payoff included the outflanking of “old Europe” in the matter of seizing control of Iraqi oil. This was one of very few instances where France and Germany found themselves together on the losing side in any serious issue.

    Rumsfeld’s contemptuous reference to old Europe, by the way, could be the signature phrase of the whole period. After that, no one ever needed reminding that Washington only listened to people that agreed with them in the first place.

    The push to rope in former Russian dominions, by the way, had its limits. Only the Tories, the original lunatic fringe, are on board with the idea of including Ukraine and Georgia in the EU.

    On economic affairs generally, the Bush project was from the beginning to orchestrate what may prove to be the most massive transfer of wealth from the many to the few in human history. The EU was a potential obstacle here, but it proved easy meat. One key move was to install the host of the Azores summit – a final transatlantic coordination before the Iraq invasion – as President of the Commission. More outflanking was well underway. Trusty and proven neoliberals outnumbered those tainted by French or German-style social market ideas. It was no accident that McCreevy got a central financial portfolio.

    The project has of course succeeded. The inside job has emptied the coffers, the conspirators have made off with the loot, and the job of cleaning up the mess has been left to the other lot.

    In this context, Clinton might as well steer a new course. The focus now has to be economic recovery, and the logic of coordination among the leading economies is currently stronger than a beggar thy neighbour logic. This may change (and if it does, we are in even deeper doodoo). On foreign policy, Clinton is smarter than Bush's with-us-or-against-us nonsense. She is probably comfortable with a hard cop-soft cop partnership, for instance on Iran, and she probably realises that cohesion within the EU strengthens the possibility of pushing “Western” interests in international fora.

    None of these has any particular bearing on Lisbon, but we can expect to hear that Obama/Clinton would really want us to vote yes. This might even influence some voters.
    Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.
    - J. Swift

  7. #7
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    17,119
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Very interesting observations in that post Gadfly. Thanks.
    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair.

  8. #8
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    17,119
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toxic avenger View Post
    No, this can't be true, I've read several thousand threads here saying that a no vote was a vote for American hegemony, that no voters were stooges of CIA agents. Shurely shome mishtake...
    Yes, Clinton clearly does not know the real story. Where are Gay Mitchell and Lucinda Creighton when you need them?
    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    13,423
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by He3 View Post
    In an interview with Denis Staunton of the IT today Hillary Clinton gives the US view on where the EU is going.

    ...

    Those who portray some Irish opponents to EU political integration as being proxy US agents might have to decide whether Clinton is lying, or whether they have been wrong in their assumptions.
    Generally speaking the US has supported EU economic integration. What it has not appreciated is challenges to its preeminent global role. Since it has now lost it's unique post-WW2 status, the more conciliatory (read less hawkish) among their number now realise that in a world with a billion Chinese, a billion Indians and a billion Muslims, maybe it's best to operate alongside a politically and economically strong Europe with which it shares at least some values. In a multipolar world, US and EU power-bases will reinforce each other, at least where they pursue similar goals using broadly peaceful means.

    There are still of course strong interests in the US who believe they alone should rule the world, but that neocon ship has sailed, with it's shortlived new-right Irish proxies on board.
    Last edited by McDave; 21st March 2009 at 12:02 PM. Reason: html edit

  10. #10

    Default

    she said it clear enough don't ******************** with our bilateral agreements designed to ******************** with you
    If I ask a question don't just 'like' the post, reply to it. - If I post a lot about a subject I may write a post about it at http://dublinstreams.blogspot.ie/

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •