Skip to content

John McCain on Europe

Senator McCain has spoken out in favor of a free trade deal with the European Union, building on the North American Free Trade Agreement, writes DW World:  "I think to head a free trade agreement with the European Union would be a great thing to happen."

The presidential candidate also declared in a major foreign policy speech at the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles:

The United States did not single-handedly win the Cold War; the transatlantic alliance did, in concert with partners around the world. The bonds we share with Europe in terms of history, values, and interests are unique. Americans should welcome the rise of a strong, confident European Union as we continue to support a strong NATO. The future of the transatlantic relationship lies in confronting the challenges of the twenty-first century worldwide: developing a common energy policy, creating a transatlantic common market tying our economies more closely together, addressing the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia, and institutionalizing our cooperation on issues such as climate change, foreign assistance, and democracy promotion.

Anatol Lieven, however, warns in the Financial Times that Europe should fear a McCain presidency. (Hat tip: Detlef).

Related posts in the Atlantic Review:

John McCain's League of Democracies

Republican Candidates on Europe

Standing up for moral values in the war on terrorism


No Trackbacks


Display comments as Linear | Threaded

Merkel-2 on :

Welcome ! The warrior of Cold war finally comes back with his sheer bravado. I guess MacCain's Europe presence in such an exaggerated manner will absolutely facinate Hilary Clinton. The former first lady always humiliated Obama for inexperience,ignorance in foreign affairs. MacCain is perfect in its experiences ,his moral ,character definitely outshone her husband who stands under the shadow of Lewensky's skirt. Mccain ,the shrewd-brained politician can beat any competitors because he possess all the evil spirits and condemned tactics. Mccain ! Go! Go! You are comparable with President Bush in every aspect. After perusing the whole story,I just wonder Why senator MacCain need to worry about "dangers posed by a revanchist Russia", US and NATO almost choke the RUSSIA into death. Shouldn't the Russian people disgust NATO's evil plots and despicable measures against Russia and its alliances. Shouldn't the Russian people do something to protect its lawful interests there ? I don't know how to handle revanchist Russia case? I doubt MacCain have the guts to dismember Russia by supporting Caucasia's independence. Russia is not Serb after all.

Álvaro Degives-Más on :

Actually, I think McCain's suggestion is more of a tactical domestic nature (i.e., making a timely and pertinently pitched proposition in an election campaign where he already admitted little affinity with pesky macroeconomics) than a truly thought-out and viable strategic proposal. A hypothetical trans-Atlantic free trade zone is not necessarily a bad idea; in fact, I see it coming somewhere down the pike myself as well, but we're still at least a few generations away from such a luxurious position, which presupposes a bit more equally balanced set of [i]shared[/i] interests in play, than brawny big US corporate interests clearing a path through Brussels' regulations that they fear, loath or both. Cute idea, ain't gonna happen. To wit: the case of the Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45 fallout, and the tell-tale response; there's more than an ocean of difference in the interpretation of the role of international law in play here. McCain's idea is an instance where caution is warranted about the consequences of actually getting what you're asking for; it's a blimp like the Goodyear one, more useful for its appearance than its artificially added purpose of schlepping cameras around suggests.

Pat Patterson on :

I might agree with the idea that Sen. McCain was addressing domestic concerns except then why appear at the World Affairs Council which is essentially a very nice, I was invited and did attend a few times, luncheon. If I didn't have to wear a tie then it would have been perfect. But there simply weren't very many foreign affairs heavyweights in the audience or or enough coverage in the news media locally or nationally. Now if the goals was to appear presidential in front of potential and actual California donors and put forward some ideas that are generally already being discussed and some consensus emerging then the Senator's speech was quite successful. I seem als to remember that the actual creation of an European trade zone was accomplished, well almost accomplished except for yoghurt production, well within one generation. And that European capital and producers have more to gain by being able to invest in or even to put it harshly, to flee to one of the newest low cost producers in the world, the US, rather than allowing themselves to be shut out because Brussels doesn't like Bill Gates.

Álvaro Degives-Más on :

Actually, Brussels likes Bill Gates a whole lot better (mainly on account of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their governing principles) than that they like Paul Allen. I'm not sure what the suggested idea is based on that the EU's market consolidation took a generation. In fact, it only took a mere few years, after WWII and subsequent trans-Atlantic meetings suggested a far more profitable marriage of economics and security as an alternative to nation-state centric transnational policy coordination. The Benelux was an embryonic example, but a very real case of three very real and very sovereign nations sharing borders on [i]tax revenue[/i] basis. Small wonder that the so-called founding fathers of the EU saw fit to roll out an initially bilateral deal to encompass a much larger scope, precisely as the long-term success of that marriage I referred to depends on economy of scale. So, as the borders of (what now is) the EU grew, it rolled open markets out. And over time, the classic second development (the "deepening" of the EU) took care of more (further) far-reaching agreements. It's a process where markets were added over time to an increasing group of nations, rather than a gradual collective convergence of a collective market. It's diagonal deregulation, in it's barest essence.

Pat Patterson on :

I think I didn't express myself very well in regards to the length of time a possible Atlantic free trade area might be created. When the main obstacles are mostly political I think a mostly economic zone can be created much sooner than a couple of generations, which was what I intended to say all along. What I misinterpreted was that you said, correct me if I'm wrong, that its implmentataion might not happen for a few generations not that it might take that long to get such a zone working. But I am not to sure that the recent rulings against Microsoft and more to come are because of a dislike of Paul Allen but rather like the US the EU sees monopolies that they need to regulate but only after that company has already lost its dominant market share. But at least no one in Europe, that I was aware of, simply deleted an icon in court as proof that Microsoft could indeed remove various software packages from its basic language.

Álvaro Degives-Más on :

That's a correct summary: I predict that it will take a long time to create a trans-Atlantic free trade zone, not because it necessarily takes that long (in a material sense, it could be done much, much faster - in a decade even) but because there's much, much more to making such an agreement politically viable than arguments tied to trade alone. For better or worse (and I am of the opinion that it's the latter: both regrettable and factually unnecessary) there's a tremendous difference in political perception, and that's a first roadblock to eliminate. Which certainly won't happen within a generation. The rest, well, add up to the remainder of years until the climate is ripe. I won't live in that world. Sadly, as I'd dearly love to see "my" two halves converge.

Merkel-2 on :

Highly biased and totally one-sided BBC and Reuters reports spark great fire in China.I visit Reuters 's website, find Reuters continues its lying on Palestine , Iran,Iraq, Tibet...,The only change is: It use Reuters using the following words to escape its irresponsibility charge on most of its articles concerning Tibet riots. ********************************************** Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone. **********************************************

Merkel-2 on :

Reuters and AlertNet 's announcements can make itself publish or quote any irresponsible articles execpt something challeging Reuters' objectiveness or Britain's colonization crime.

Merkel-2 on :

CIA not play its disgraceful role(sabotaging,murdering) in Tibet. Its crimes in cold war is defintely beyond Paterson 's expectation. In the early 1980s, the right-wing Reagan US Government was determined to undermine or overthrow the leftist government of Nicaragua , Guess who is the pioneer? WHo implement cold-blood murdering.

Joe Noory on :

Every one of those movements nearly collapsed when the KGB withdrew their funding. What's plain is their having done so much to FOUND them. Isn't THAT manipulation, or are the stale double-standards of the "revolutionary marxist" college student on a stipend still a reason to supercede the obvious? The KGB concidered central America the back-door to the US and Canada. They poured resources and committed decades to creating the likes of the Sandanistas, and it showed: they imprisoned 10 times as many people than anyone before them, generally innocent civilians who didn't drink form their cup, and initiated the killing whose retaliation the pathetic "peace camp" of the left called THE Death Squads. Where does this singularity of reasoning about WHO is at fault in any well promoted conflict come from, do you think? The one where Hiroshima is seen as better than the millions who would have perished in a land invasion, or the outright ignoring of the notion that anyone the US takes up against has any flaws of their own? Where?

John in Michigan, USA on :

Judith Klinghoffer of The American Thinker responds [url=]here[/url] to Anatol Lieven's article. McCain seems far more likely to be "like Ike" (Eisenhower) than like Bush on steroids.

Merkel-3 on :

Joe Noory Where does this singularity of reasoning about WHO is at fault in any well promoted conflict come from, do you think? The one where Hiroshima is seen as better than the millions who would have perished in a land invasion, or the outright ignoring of the notion that anyone the US takes up against has any flaws of their own? comment: I agree with you there is no coutry is perfect. From my point of view nuclear bomb on Hiroshima is not unacceptable ,considering possible casualty to US troops. I don't wanna golrify China , Russia's practices. My indignation towards US and western media owing to their hypocrisy. US play double standards game and western media drum up,without considering of journalists principle for truth and justice. WWW.ANTI-CNN.COM 's snapshots of western media's such highly biased coverages, make the whole things like a farce. How can these media like BBC, CNN prove China government's "crack down" in Lhasa with the pictures of Nepal and India police action. How can media like BBC, CNN convince the public with its cooked data and cropped pictures. So when Paterson excuse these media's faults with Chinese state-own media's faults in return. I get disappointed. Paterson should confirm the so-called Chinese media's faults then condemn it. I got no will and no position to defend Chinese media's reputation.

Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.

Form options