Europe

Europe Notices Snub at Presidential Foreign Policy Debate; "Mistake"

Europe got mentioned once and it's a teachable moment on humility.

|

you forgot Europe

The Frankfurter Rundschau writes about our word count of the Obama-Romney foreign policy debate last night and what it means that Europe got nary a mention.  The paper points to the fact as a teachable moment for Europe:

Omitting Europe is also the result of the current peacefulness in Europe. And wars at other parts of the world demand the public attention. We Europeans are not so many and we are also not so important as we (sometimes) like to think. A TV-debate of this kind is good for teaching us modesty.

Nevertheless it shouldn't be so the Rundschau argues:

Despite this, both candidates err when they ignore Europe. For two reasons: On the one side, there is still the Euro-crisis, a threat for the whole world like the conflicts in the Middle East. On the other side, the USA will need Europe's support more urgently when the US wants to be successful in foreign- and security policy.

Still, the connection between the Americans and the Europeans are by far closer than to all the other regions in the world – historically, economical and regarding the "Weltanschauung" (philosophically, world outlook). The rise of China means, that the USA could really need like-minded allies in the international arena, the United Nations and elsewhere.

The only reference to the European Union last night, by the way, came from Mitt Romney, who said he assumed the EU would go along with tightening sanctions on Iran as he proposed.

The Rundschau also acknowledges the reality of America's limited financial resources, something Obama and Romney paid lip service to but did not treat as a reality. The paper even notes the next president, as I but neither candidate did last night, should shift some of the perceived burden of interventionism onto Europe:

And then there is the scarcity of money, which will brutally limit the room for maneuver of the next US president. Sure, Europe – as a result of the Euro crisis – found itself also in the mire of debt. Nevertheless, the next US president has to try to convince Europeans to take up more international responsibility. It is really sad, that Obama and Romney did not loose a word about it.

Other international reactions to the presidential debate via Reason 24/7.

Translation thanks to Wolfgang Müller

NEXT: Megaupload User Wants Details of Government's Data Seizure

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Despite this, both candidates err when they ignore Europe. For two reasons: On the one side, there is still the Euro-crisis, a threat for the whole world like the conflicts in the Middle East

    We might need a bailout.

    On the other side, the USA will need Europe’s support more urgently when the US wants to be successful in foreign- and security policy.

    If we don’t get a bailout, we might not vote your way at the U.N.

    The rise of China means, that the USA could really need like-minded allies in the international arena, the United Nations and elsewhere.

    I’m typing this comment before I even read the whole post. Wow, I think it, two seconds later, he comes out with it.

    And then there is the scarcity of money, which will brutally limit the room for maneuver of the next US president.

    It might be hard to bail out Europe when the U.S. is broke, too.

    1. If the Euros think we’re going to bail them out, they’re nuttier than a fruitcake. But I don’t think they think that, which is why I think your interpretation here is wrong.

      1. Cynical as it may be, you may be right that they don’t want a bailout… right now.

        But I do believe that if Europe really began to domino into the toilet like lemmings at a swim-party, I’m quite sure that the European Union would start to look to America for a bailout. The desire for spend-and-spend nations/states/municipalities/counties to kick the can down the road (if they can) is overwhelmingly strong.

      2. Umm, Epi, I got bad news for you.

        We’re already bailing them out, via some money-laundering from the Fed to support their various “internal” EU bailout facilities.

        Where do you think the tens of billions of EUs are coming from to fund those things?

        Europe doesn’t have the scratch; you can’t really bail out yourself. So the Fed enters into swap (read: money-laundering) agreements with the facilities where we “swap” dollars for Euros, and, voila money magically appears to fund the ongoing bailouts.

        1. And then there are those financial shenanigans that I don’t really understand, but that I have suspected all along amounted to an essential U.S. Bailout of the Euro.

          Has the IMF been involved yet? Because if they have, we’re also bailing them out.

          1. Just admit you don’t understand and stop there.

            Your suspicion is errant.

        2. RC, you are as usual, full of shit.

          The Fed is doing some currency swaps which in your fevered mind is MONEY LAUNDERING!

          1. I stand chastened by PB’s incisive rebuttal.

            http://online.wsj.com/article/…..82876.html

            The two central banks are engaging in this roundabout procedure because each needs a fig leaf. The Fed was embarrassed by the revelations of its prior largess with foreign banks. It does not want the debt of foreign banks on its books. A currency swap with the ECB is not technically a loan.

            Or, maybe not so chastened.

            1. Oh, you foolish Bushie.

              From the same WSJ

              The Fed is compensated by payment of an interest rate (currently 50 basis points, or one-half of 1%) above the overnight index swap rate.

              US taxpayers are profiting from these harmless swaps.

              Money laundering? That is called “banking”.

              1. Money laundering is the use of transactions to hide the sources or uses of funds. While perhaps a tad contentious in this context, I think their decision to use the swap format rather than loans so they don’t have to carry loans on their books is, well, interesting.

                As for the interest rate? Why would they charge more than the overnight index rate? I suggest that this is because money laundering traditionally comes at a price.

                And, of course, this all begs the question of why the Fed is printing money to bail out the Eurozone at all.

                1. Why are you arguing with shriek?

                  I don’t understand the point of debating with someone who automatically assumes you are a christfag rethuglican because you don’t suck the Obama/Keynesian cock.

                  And he says this to people on a fucking LIBERTARIAN message board.

                  Seriously, let this troll whither and blow away already.

                  1. Tman – you are an imbecile.

                    Let RC handle this since he at least knows where the knobs are – you do not.

                  2. Why are you arguing with shriek?

                    I don’t know.

                    As a hawk, YOU should prefer the Euro over the US Dollar since the ECB is inflation adverse.

                    Err, no, as a “hawk” I prefer that we not print money for any purpose, and especially not to bail out the EU.

                    Do tell me, though, why the “inflation averse” ECB would need all this newly created liquidity?

                    Really, you never will best me.

                    I wasn’t aware there was any competition.

                    1. Err, no, as a “hawk” I prefer that we not print money for any purpose, and especially not to bail out the EU.

                      That is the very definition of a Hawk.

                      I am a Dollar Dove.

                      Bernanke is a Hawkish realist despite your strawman of a “Euro Bailout”.

                2. All off the reservation, RC.

                  Swaps merely provide liquidity for the hawkish ECB in even exchange for USDs.

                  As a hawk, YOU should prefer the Euro over the US Dollar since the ECB is inflation adverse.

                  You are protesting your own position.

                  Really, you never will best me.

                  1. “You never will best me.”

                    Seriously, people ARGUE with this?

                  2. Hi Mr. Puppet, how is your sock fitting today?

                  3. Shriek is the economic Wimp Lo.

              2. US taxpayers are profiting from these harmless swaps.

                Money laundering? That is called “banking”.

                Good article on the whole mess:

                Yes, the Federal Reserve charges interest to make those dollars available. And, yes, the Fed holds euros (or euro-denominated securities) as collateral. Finally, the dollar swaps are short term only.

                But the question remains: Why do the world’s banks need U.S. dollars in the short term?

                Europe isn’t facing a liquidity crisis. The world is facing a structural solvency crisis in which businesses, governments and individuals have all borrowed money — and made promises — that cannot be repaid unless more money is printed (or, more specifically, until more credit is issued).

                This type of system can destroy the standard of living for the 99%, while providing exploitative opportunities for a select few. Never forget the “starving billionaires.”

                At best, the Federal Reserve is putting out a global fire for a few months (maybe days or weeks). This is nothing more than a shell game, akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The underlying problem isn’t being addressed.

                http://www.thestreet.com/story…..urope.html

          2. Money laundering is exchanging bad or impaired financial assets for good or clean assets… sort of exactly like the Fed is doing, so he does have a point.

            The Fed pretends that assets the original holders couldn’t sell at 75 cents on the dollar are worth 100 cents, and issues US treasury debt to replace them. Then the Fed holds the crappy assets on its balance sheet at face value indefinitely. Sounds like money laundering to me.

            1. Pure Bullshit. The Fed has profited from all its transactions. $77 Billion went to taxpayers last year.

              Slough off, fool.

              1. Shorter Shriek: I am bleeding, making me the victor.

              2. Wow at that rate we’ll be able to balance the budget never!

                1. Blame Congress. They appropriate.

  2. Memo to Europe:

    Get used to it.

    Yours truly,

    Canada

    ps: With luck, Chuck Schumer will forget you exist.

  3. Europe, you’re not socialist enough for us anymore. Or still too socialist, I forget.

  4. Ed is spanking the wingnut monkey today.

    No one has mentioned bailing the Euro-Trash out.

    1. actually I was too harsh on Ed.

      This quote

      And then there is the scarcity of money

      shows great promise as far as money is concerned.

  5. If it’s any consolation to the EC, I took a shit in Europe.

  6. Dear Frankfurter Rundschau,

    We regretfully decline your recent request for a credit line increase due to your current outstanding debt obligations.

    Also, we are also out of money, so we probably need to extricate our military back from Germany and other Euro regions, and cease and desist any further NATO protections and military hardware that would require continuing fiscal support. Hopefully you have made adequate investments concerning your military infrastructure in the interim.

    Unfortunately this decision is final, and we regret any inconveniences this may cause.

    Best Regards,

    U. S. of A.

  7. Considering the authorship of the cited article is German, I think that perhaps they are trying to send a warning our way: California is your Greece, Illinois your Spain, and Michigan your Italy. Having to bail those untermensch is costing us dearly. We’d advise that you set them straight before you’re in the same position. Take our struggles as a cautionary tale.

  8. Do you know who else snubbed Europe?

  9. Those Frankfurter Rundschau guys are just journalistic hotdogs anyway, who just want to grill our candidates because they couldn’t cut the mustard and make a real newspaper staff.

    1. Nice!

  10. Omitting Europe is also the result of the current peacefulness in Europe.

    We’ll see how long that lasts…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.