EU oil imports set to grow by 29% by 2012
Posted by Euan Mearns on October 3, 2006 - 10:30am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Demand/Consumption
Tags: consumption, eu, oil prices, peak oil [list all tags]
An oil production, consumption, import-export model for the 25 EU states (plus Norway, Iceland and Switzerland) is presented, based on data published in the 2006 BP statistical review.
Applying a 0.5% growth in consumption and a 8% production decline rate points to EU oil imports growing from 9.8 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2005 to 12.6 million bpd by 2012 - an increase of 29% over the next 6 years.
The EU will have to "fight" for these additional resources in an oil import market already hot with competition from the USA, China and other developing countries.
The European Union
The European Union, with a population of around 460 million, consumes over 15 million barrels of oil per day and is the world number two oil consumer after the USA. This article looks at EU oil production and consumption with the aim of establishing future import trends and EU energy security. A recent report has highlighted the fact that EU energy imports are rising and this is happening at a time when Russia is tightening State control over its oil and gas assets.
The EU has 25 member states and has grown in stages since it was formed in 1957:
1957 Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands
1973 Denmark, Ireland, UK
1981 Greece
1986 Portugal, Spain
1990 "East Germany"
1995 Austria, Finland, Sweden
2004 Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia
Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are not formally a part of the EU. But these countries are part of the EU trading block and given Norway's strategic importance as an oil and gas exporter to the EU, these countries are included within the statistics reported here. All of the oil import and export figures are taken from the 2006 BP statistical review. This does not provide data listed separately for Latvia, Estonia, Malta, Cyprus and Slovenia. These small countries, therefore, are not included in the database. However, they are so small that their exclusion will not affect any of the conclusions.
Oil production
Including Norway, the EU has 4 significant oil producers - Norway, the UK, Denmark and Italy.
Norway is by far the most important oil export country, with 2005 average production of 3 million bpd, compared with consumption of only 213,000 bpd, Norway is a significant oil export land. Of great significance, however, is the fact that Norwegian oil production peaked in 2001 and is now undergoing rapid decline - 7% in 2005.
Norway: Production, consumption and exports
The UK turned net oil exporter to net oil importer during 2006. The UK therefore, has changed from being part of the EU oil security solution to being part of the oil security problem.
UK: Production, consumption, imports and exports
Denmark, in many ways is a small-scale version of the UK oil story. With a smaller population (5.4 million) and lower oil production than the UK (377,000 bpd average during 2005) Denmark is a significant second tier producer that has exported oil since 1997. However, Danish Oil production looks like it may be peaking. A Hubbert Linearization (HL) performed by Khebab (note that this link goes to Khebab's edit grid spread sheet), points to ultimate recoverable reserves (URR) in Denmark of 3.05 billion barrels of which 1.74 billion have already been produced. Produced oil represents 57% of estimated total recoverable oil and a decline in Danish production may be anticipated in the near future. In 2004, Denmark had produced 50% of the indicated URR
Denmark: Production, consumption, imports and exports
Hubbert linearisation for Denmark provided by Khebab
Italy, is a large industrial nation with a small amount of oil production - 118,000 bpd in 2005. This does not significantly impact upon oil imports in Italy or the EU.
Italy: Production, consumption and imports
Oil production decline model
EU oil production is dominated by the North Sea. The two big players there - the UK and Norway peaked in 1999 and 2001 respectively. Denmark looks like it may have peaked in 2004. These countries, therefore, dominate the oil decline model for the EU.
Norway declined at 7% in 2005.
The UK declined at >10% in 2004 and 2005 and has declined at around 13% so far this year.
Decline in Denmark looks like it is just about to begin.
EU production declined at 8% in 2005.
It looks like decline in Denmark and Norway may accelerate. However, until more data become available with the passage of time, last year's average decline of 8% is applied to the EU production data going forward to 2020. This may turn out to be conservative and may need to be revised in light of new data as it becomes available.
Oil consumption
Two major events have shaped Europe's geo-political and economic development since the end of WWII. The first was the establishment of the EU in 1957 and the second was the fall of the Berlin Wall followed by the Soviet Union in 1989 / 1991. The EU has brought political stability and economic prosperity to Europe.
The big economies, Germany, the UK, France and Italy, all display similar patterns of oil consumption. Sharply rising consumption in the 1960s and early 1970s was curtailed by the twin oil shocks of 1973 and 1979. Following a period of adjustment and reduction in oil consumption (e.g. closing of oil fired power stations) oil consumption stabilised during the mid 1980s and has remained fairly constant ever since. The population of these countries is rising slowly, is aging and per capita consumption of oil is therefore falling slowly.
Oil consumption in the Big 4 EU economies
The big 4: Germany, the UK, France and Italy
Population 260,946,000
Group as % of EU = 56.2%
Oil consumption 2005 = 8,147,000 bpd
Per capita oil consumption = 11.4 barrels per annum
The per capita consumption of the Big 4, is significantly lower than most other groups and this may be related to more wide-spread poverty in large urban areas, higher population densities in the urban areas, economies of scale or redistribution of wealth from large to small countries.
It is note worthy that oil consumption in Germany, France and Italy has been falling in recent years. This may be related to on-going de-industrialisation combined with growing introduction of renewables and conservation related to environmental awareness. Economic growth has also been anaemic within the Euro currency zone that the UK is not a member of.
Between 1965 and 1985, the Northern and Benelux countries displayed a similar pattern of oil consumption to the Big 4 industrials described above. But, after 1985 a curious thing happens. Like the Big 4, the oil consumption in the Northern countries remained stable post 1985. However, consumption in the Benelux countries began to rise steadily. At the present day, oil consumption in the Benelux countries stands at 25.2 barrels per capita per annum - the highest in the EU by far. The reason for this steady growth in oil consumption is not clearly understood but it may be related to growth of petrochemical industries in The Netherlands and Belgium, the presence of large transport hubs such as Schipol airport and affluence flowing from the location of the European parliament in Brussels.
Oil consumtion in Northern and Benelux countries
Benelux countries: Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg
Population 27,183,000
Group as % of EU = 5.8%
Oil consumption 2005 = 1,880,000 bpd
Per capita oil consumption = 25.2 barrels per annum
Northern countries: Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark
Population 24,636,000
Group as % of EU = 5.3%
Oil consumption 2005 = 968,000 bpd
Per capita oil consumption = 14.3 barrels per annum
Spain is treated separately from the other large European countries because it exhibits an oil consumption pattern that is quite different to the Big 4. Dictator General Franco ruled Spain until 1975. Following a period of adjustment after Franco's death, Spain was admitted to the EU in 1986. Spain's economy has benefited from EU membership, and the population is still growing steadily, in part due to migration from wealthy northern Europe. Oil consumption in Spain has been rising steadily for the last 20 years. The per capita consumption is now on a par with other wealthy European countries, but oil consumption may continue to rise with continued migration.
Oil consumption in Spain, Small countries and East European countries
Spain
Population 43,064,000
Group as % of EU = 9.3%
Oil consumption 2005 = 1,618,000 bpd
Per capita oil consumption = 13.7 barrels per annum
The small countries include Ireland, Portugal and Greece, who like Spain, have benefited from EU membership and have had steadily growing oil consumption for the last 20 years.
Small countries: Austria, Ireland, Portugal, Switzerland and Greece
Population 41,204,000
Group as % of EU = 8.9%
Oil consumption 2005 = 1,501,000 bpd
Per capita oil consumption = 13.3 barrels per annum
In terms of oil consumption, the East European group is perhaps the most significant. These six countries were admitted to the EU in 2004 (along with Latvia, Estonia and Slovenia). The oil consumption of these countries plunged with the fall of the Soviet Union and the introduction of market prices for fuel. Today their per capita consumption of oil, 5.2 barrels per annum, is less than half the EU average. With a population of nearly 68 million, and ambition to reach west European living standards, this group of countries represents a powerful driving force for EU oil demand. For East Europe to reach per capita consumption of 10 barrels per annum would add around 1 million barrels per day to EU oil consumption.
East Europe: Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Lithuania
Population 67,680,000
Group as % of EU = 14.6%
Oil consumption 2005 = 969,000 bpd
Per capita oil consumption = 5.2 barrels per annum
Oil demand model
Attempting to forecast future demand for oil in Europe is in fact much more difficult than trying to forecast oil production decline. Two possible scenarios are envisaged. One where the status quo prevails and ample supplies of liquid fuel remain available at reasonable price for the foreseeable future. In this scenario, increasing awareness of climate change and introduction of more renewable energy (bio-fuels) may continue to slowly drive down demand for oil amongst the Big 4 and northern countries. This falling demand may be offset by rising demand in East Europe and the Mediterranean countries - Portugal, Spain and Greece. These trends have been established for several years and point to demand increasing at a rate of about 0.5% per annum and this is the demand growth used in the EU oil import model.
The second scenario is one where competition for fuel leads to sharply higher energy prices, inflation, recession and reduced demand. Only time will tell whether the status quo will prevail or not. Personally, I consider this latter scenario increasingly likely approaching 2012±3 years, which is when I believe the World will witness peak oil production.
Oil import model for the EU + Norway
EU energy security linked to North Sea production
Prior to 1975 the EU states imported virtually all of their oil. With North Sea oil production, dependency upon imported oil had fallen to below 60% by the late 1990s. In the year 2000, however, the import dependency curve turned and started to rise and will continue to rise sharply for the foreseeable future.
EU dependency upon imported oil fell during the 1980s and 90s. But the trend changed with peak EU oil production in 2000 and from now on, the EU will become increasingly dependent upon oil imports
Falling oil prices through the 1980s and 90s mirror decreasing dependency of the EU on imported oil. The turning point in oil prices and their recent rise is also mirrored by rising depdendency of the EU on imported oil. The global oil market is obviously more complex than this, but falling North Sea production - which is set to continue - is one key factor that explains current high oil prices. Oil price data, annual averages, 2005 base, from BP 2006 statistical review.
In the period leading up to 1995 the World had ample surplus oil production capacity and EU dependency upon imports was falling. Now, surplus capacity has narrowed significantly and EU dependency upon imports is rising. If the status quo prevails, then the EU may need to import an additional 2.8 million bpd by 2012. This represents a rise of 29% in imported oil over a six year period that needs to be set against a backdrop of falling production in many oil export lands. The EU will need to use its economic and diplomatic muscle to fight for new supplies from emerging export countries such as Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Angola where it has to be noted that BP and Total already have a significant presence.
Finally, it is worth noting that in a general sense, the fall in oil price from 1980 to 1998 correlates with falling dependency of the EU on oil imported from outside of Europe. The oil price low of 1998 falls close to the EU oil production peak in 2000 and the rise in oil prices since correlates with increasing dependency of the EU on imported oil. Of course there are many other variables that have contributed to the oil price evolution. However, at peak in the year 2000, the EU produced over 6.2 million bpd and I believe that when oil production in the world's number two consumer started to fall that this has had and will continue to have a significant influence upon the oil price. Put more simply, rising oil production in the North Sea correlates with falling oil prices, but since the North Sea peaked in 2000, oil prices have begun to rise again.
I focused on these three countries in my original January, 2006 post on net exports because they were--based on Khebab's HL work--well past the 50% of Qt mark.
IMO, Russian data continue to be a problem. I have repeatedly wondered about the reliability of the reported production numbers, and the EIA has recently revised Russia's 12/05 to 6/06 cumulative oil production downward by about 50 million barrels.
In any case, collectively these three regions are showing declining production and declining exports, despite historically high (nominal) oil prices.
I've read comments from you that Russian production is reported to be increasing, while Russian export currently are declining.
Out of the blue:
Could the Russian be building up tank farms like SA? As far as my understanding goes, there is some concensus in Russia that it's unwise to flood revenues from oil into the domestic economy. So as an alternative i would think it could be natural that the Russians would wish to have an strategic reserve - or maybe not - would the world biggest oil producer spend money on maintaining a strategic reserve? I see that such idea might be plain stupid, but i appreciate comments.
Regretably i presently don't have opportunity to get the numbers (production, domestic consumption, export) which hopefully would riducule or justify such assertion. Well, the data is poor anyway.
two thoughts spring to mind -
- one is that Russia is reported to be setting up a state oil fund to invest surplus taxes. whether this has actually happened is difficult to see yet. This is logically a better
investment than tank farms
- secondly, if you are sitting on huge reserves, why would you not simply leave the oil in the ground and pump less. I'm not sure it makes sense to build a lot of storage above ground.
Strategic flexibility at some future date, perhaps? Peak oil is about limits on the rate of production, not reserves. If you anticipate the world entering a mode in which the oil market is driven by constraints on rate of production (including your own), then having a reserve from which you can release or withhold oil allows you to be, effectively, a swing producer. That's a very powerful position to be in.
It makes good peacetime sense to install storage aboveground, if you're planning on using it strategically.
Going the other way - ie. reducing production to manipulate the market - I stand by my view that its easier to simply produce less for a while. :) This is what opec does.
War would be an obvious reason to have those oil supplies at the ready. Since WWI and WWII proved that rapid ramp up in industrial ability and the ability to mobilize quickly, even if the target of a first strike, is critical to getting on a winning footing, then I could easily see the Russians or other nations wanting to have an oil supply which can be used rapidly and not be dependent on geology at hand.
Not everything is about market warfare, and I think there are a lot of players getting more nervous about energy than what is let on.
Although consumption did not increase from 2004 to 2005, total energy production fell 4.5% from 2004 to 2005, pushing up imports from 54% of consumption to 56%. Not a promising trend.
Crude oil production, -9%;
Gas production, -5.8%;
Coal, -5.7%;
Nuclear, -1.3%.
2005 total energy consumption per capita (Tonnes of Oil Equivalent, TOE):
EU, 3.6 TOE
Japan, 4.1 TOE
US, 7.8 TOE (We're #1!; We're #1!)
I think the conversion factor is about 7.3 barrels/tonne. IMO, the EU is going to be able handle higher energy prices much better than the US; however, the export/import trend is not promising (for any energy importer).
But the current American method, as practiced in Iraq, does not seem so promising, either in terms of oil production, or in improving the lives of Iraqis.
Europeans are very cynical, we could both agree - they would rather buy off dictators than smash societies. In part, this comes from European experience in doing such smashing in the past, and then getting nothing but ruin in return.
The wheel turns - Europeans now believe a standing military and the willingness to use it a handicap in terms of their well being, while America is abandoning exactly what a number of its founders thought important, such as avoiding the waste of having a standing military absorbing taxes, requiring government to tax its citizens heavily, or go into debt. Further, the founders in general sought to prevent a class of people arising who think military glory is a worthwhile goal (this included General Washington, by the way) - shocking how many of the founders were opposed to the military as an institution - I guess that comes from being occupied by what they thought to be an unjust power unconcerned about the will of people who had to pay the bills in blood and money.
A belief that has largely been backed by a military presence of the US in Europe. I wonder if they would be so quick to think like this if the US left NATO, or perhaps even more importantly, left NATO during the Cold War.
Also how much strain is removed from European governments in terms of defense funding due to the provision of their protection being handled by the US? Could some of these already highly taxed European societies manage to raise taxes further to sustain an Army capable of making their diplomatic, and self defense threats/promises viable?
Who is a military threat to Europe, by the way? European countries taken together have more soldiers than the US, and enough high-tech toys to put out small fires. For anyone with conqueror ambitions, the bomb is a sufficient deterrent. Not having an army suitable for conquest is one temptation less for the ruling elites.
Not meaning to make it sound like charity. I understand the strategic importance for the US to have been present when they were. However I think Europeans of late, due to the anti-Americanism, take for granted the defense edge they have which is provided by American forces.
More soldiers may be useful, but how well trained? Britain certainly has some well trained units, but how does say Spain, or Greece compare?
As for toys... how many of those toys were sold to the Europeans after American tax dollars funded the research. Granted there are weapons divisions in Europe, but most of their toys were bought from American defense contractors.
I'm not trying to take anything away from European defense forces. They have some fine soldiers, and are worthwhile allies. But don't go marginalizing the benefits that the US has provided Europe simply because you disagree with the current actions of the US.
I'll also be really curious what Russian removal of resources will do to promote European hegemony under the EU banner. I could easily see the EU becoming a LOT more Imperial once resource rich countries start looking after themselves, and all those diplomatic deals start to fall through. What would a few cold winters or record breaking summers without steady energy do to motivate the EU towards militarism? Ugly thought, but certainly not unthinkable.
The reason being nationalism, and also the Americans refuse to sell us the latest stuff-- the only country that gets that is Israel (which then sells it to China ;-). They won't even let British companies have it-- you know the people standing beside you in Iraq. (we are seriously talking about pulling out of the Joint Strike Fighter over access to the software).
It's inefficient, we run higher costs because we don't have your economies of scale and volume platforms. The separate national fiefdoms bugger us. But we do have our own weapon systems technology (in some areas clearly superior eg conventional submarines, some forms of artillery and light armoured vehicle etc.).
We (UK) use your nuclear systems, but we were offered the chance to co-develop with the French, and went with the US.
Put it another way, there is no 'Europe' on defence, what there is is different nations of different force projection capability. Its unsurprising the world didn't want the Germans to develop force projection (but they had the best armoured forces in NATO).
We don't spend as high proportions of GDP on defence, but then our labour costs are generally lower, too. What we don't get is your economies of scale.
I do think Europe is likely to strike its own deals with oil-producing states, not necessarily to the US's liking.
A lot of oil producers don't want to be dependent on the US alone, either as a customer or as protection. Hence the Saudis buy their air force from us (the BAe Al Yamamah II project) not from the USA.
This has bearing on the Palestinian problem, and also Venezuela, amongst others. Interests will diverge.
Anti-Americanism that is partially motivated by a different view on the effectivity of armed intervention. So I think the difference in strategical choices motivates the anti-US-sentiments rather than the other way around.
Conquering and occupying an already much more militaristic Russia or parts thereof? Whoever thinks that would work, let alone yield a net energy benefit deserves to become history instantly. Besides, the Baltic and the Black Sea are very nice blockade points even without large forces.
In any case, for the foreseeable future (which is short) Russia and the EU have needs and abilities that are complementary. There's no use in rushing to make enemies.
That raised apparent US defence spending, and suppressed apparent European spending. But in terms of diversion of what were, in fact, smaller GDPs, Europe was holding its end up.
And the basing infrastructure was on European soil, and therefore 'free'.
The US was pursuing a strategy of forward defence: fighting the next war on someone else's soil. A good strategy to be sure, but hardly altruistic.
Except of course, when the American merchants were not allowed to trade with areas the Royal Navy thought its own to protect - try the opium trade.
See where this is leading? Americans keep talking about the 'protection' they are so graciously providing to nations who don't want it (not that Europeans won't take it when it meets their interests, of course - just like American merchant ships did in the past). Of course, if Europeans where as enlightened as Americans, they would have supported the Iraqi invasion, instead of opposing an invasion considered illegal by many, by margins ranging from 60% to 90%.
Amazing how many Americans tend to view European opposition to such a shining success story in the Middle East (how many dead and tortured Iraqis this week? Who knows and who cares seems to be the general American attitude) as anti-Americanism, from some unnamed 'elites.' I guess the Europeans have the misfortune of belonging to that reality based community which the Bush League swept aside in their triumph of will.
I guess the idea that Iraq was a stupid strategic move of the type which only later generations can fully measure is hard for many Americans to accept, especially as the former world champions in invading and exploiting other societies said it was a stupid idea before it happened, while it is happening, and will undoubtedly lead to them to remark on its stupidity for generations into the future.
Unless the problem is that the press isn't reporting the success stories in Iraq, of course. What a comforting thought, that the problems in Iraq are the media, and anti-Americanism in Europe.
Though anti-Americanism among the Iraqis does seem to keep growing, doesn't it? I guess that is because Iraqis just don't understand how wonderful a 20mm armor piercing round through the window (and just coincidentally, through a family member) is, or what a friend a 500 lb through your roof is (it brings a whole meaning to having a blast at home). Really, such people are so ungrateful of the American protection they are now enjoying, without even having asked for it. Americans are just so misunderstood, and all they get for their generosity is resentment and abuse.
Must be real hard living with yourself as an American these days, knowing that all your niceness is so misconstrued. Lucky you can just snatch a few people off the street and torture them to reassure yourself of America's goodness in fighting the good fight, regardless of what other people think.
However, I don't think you can deny that there have been benfits as well. So it all comes down to an accounting of how much good versus how much bad, minus what would have happened if the US didn't try to police the world. Clearly this is too complicated.
More crucially it is entirely subjective. It all depends on what you value and how you think it would have turned out otherwise.
I do think US foreign policy lately has been a disaster and a net negative. Americans need to take an accounting of what has happened and what is the best course of action for the future.
But even if you accept your claim at face value, it is not clear what would be the best course of action for the US, or the world. Do you think another round of American isolationism is the ideal answer, or that the UN could effectively run the whole show? As much as yuo can rightly tout increasing gloal anti-Americanism, I can assure yuo that what US leaders are told behind closed doors in not the same thing.
Asians love to be able to count on the protection of the US, which they can criticize while cuddling up to China. But they know China would not look so cuddly if the US went home. If that happened it would set off an arms race here and could lead to regional conflicts. Then who would intervene?
How effective has Europe been at stopping problems, even in their own back yard?
Again, I am not claiming that what you have said is wrong, only that it is easy to find faults. I think you live in Germany. Didn't they have a go at running the world? How did that work out? How can Germans live with themselves?
I think, on the whole, that Europeans were fairly comfortable with the military role played by the US during the Clinton era (not trying to personalize this, still less to become party-political! Just a matter of historical dating, you understand?)
i.e. this "global policeman" thing, while a lot of the intellectuals didn't like it at the time, was not contested by the "European street", and sure as hell looks like a golden age now. The US engineered an end to armed conflict in the Balkans, and truly put Europeans to shame in doing so.
In the meantime, Europe as a defense community struggles to get any traction (Rumsfeld splitting it down the middle over the Iraq war is probably the proximate cause of this, and this paralysis was undoubtedly his aim). It'll take time to get co-ordinated, but the UK and France have the technology, know-how and logistics to form the backbone of a credible Euro force, filled out by the other members. It can certainly defend its own territory, and project a viable presence anywhere in the world. For the life of me I can't see why Europe actually needs to go begging cap in hand to the US to defend it (against whom?)
For the US : The worst possible outcome, for the world in general, would for the US to go into an isolationist phase. The best possible outcome (my preference) would be Wes Clark as president -- he understands this stuff. (Any other general, Dem or Rep, would be a good second choice).
But tacit bargains can't be expected to endure. The US post war role worked while it was needed and the pain of not having a policeman was fresh in people's minds.
The bargain is no longer valid. It now needs to be reformed or undone. I agree that Europe no longer needs defending as it is hard to image today's Russia or anyone else invading.
Perhaps the best option is a Clinton type approach - Wes Clark's version of I feel your pain involunatry world policemanism. Clearly that would be better than what we have now.
Or maybe it would be best to the US to adopt a tempory isolationist stance. Would the shit hit the fan and the world call for the US to come back, or would they party to the theme of good riddance for generations.
Again, I don't know. My main points here are that this situation is compex, we don't know the alternaives and the consequances are huge. It is easy to follow one's emotions to one extreme or the other. I could argue either ideological extreme now or after 20 beers. But I less hasty and more sober approach is needed.
I appreciate the good responses from you and expat. My favorite commenters here are those I disagree with. We learn or by debating than by agreeing.
I hope it is clear that there are different ways to view these complex situations and there are reason why we disagree other than because one of us is evil, stupid, or manipulated.
As for the UN - strange that an institution designed by Americans to serve American interests is so disparaged by Americans that the current American ambassador to it joked about blowing part of the UN building up. (And people say Americans have no sense of irony.) It is part of the dismantling of 50 years worth of American designed and implemented international institutions which is so incomprehensible to me - no nation has ever been as wasteful as the U.S. And the reasons for throwing away such power seem so short sighted and petty - for example, international conventions prevent torture, so America, needing a free hand, just throws it out. No wonder Bush was so worried about an international justice system - it would have tied his hands, where the American system uses plastic ties, hoods, and shackles. What an insult to American values that other people find torture barbaric. Oh wait - that used to be the other way round when I was younger, when the evil empire was the Soviets, with their mandatory ID for travel and wiretapping and secret detentions. You just needed to ask a Republican about those sorts of evils, and why America was superior.
And that part about Germans living with themselves? Partly they can because they are brutally honest about their mass murdering, warmaking past. Their past is also part of what motivates Germany in being a society deeply interested in pacifism, and trying to live in a way which avoids war - such as avoiding conflicts based on struggling for natural resources, which is one reason renewable energy sources are a major goal here. Of course, this is only one motivation among many, and German society is diverse.
But every German who goes to school visits a concentration camp as part of learning about their history. In Virginia, it is pretty hard to find the slave quarters in all the Virginian founding fathers' estates I'm aware of, and they tend not to be part of the guided tour, in general. It certainly was not part of the tour before the end of the civil rights era - who cared about slaves? After all, the the slaveholders' views on freedom were important, not how their unpaid help lived.
Yes, it is easy to find fault. What is hard is to live differently as a result. I thought around 2 million dead Southeast Asians would be enough for America to reflect about itself and change, but I was wrong.
Spend a bit of time in Vietnam, which incidentally has fought and won a war against China after the ones the fought and won against the US and France. Sit in people's houses in the Mekong Delta where they still have pictures of their sons who opposed the Communist goverment and were sent to "reeducation camps" afterwards and still can't get jobs now, thirty years later.
You would certainly have to agree that much more than 2 million dead in Southeast Asia would be enough for China to reflect about itself as well.
In the US, people did protest and air their concerns openly. The Vietnam war created massive changes in the psyche of Americans and dissent in the US is now as common as patriotism.
You may get your wish of American isolationism. It may be for better or worse. I honestly don't know.
I agree with you on the Germany issue. I do think the country has admirably accepted its wrongs and I do not desire to hold against today's Germans the faults of the forebearers. Similarly, I do think that the US changing the rules, when it suits them, particularly regarding the appalling sanctioning of torture is a shame.
American anti-UNism and UN anti-Americanism is ironic. But it would also be expected had one been able to anticipate US global dominance. What power has ever agreed to be counterbalanced?
At the end of day, I think the situation is complex. There are many parties at fault. To see the US role as all good or all bad is naive at best. I also do think Americans are wrestling with this very issue.
In the German case, the role of the Nazi party came to an abrupt end and the time for reflection was forced on them. As a country, Germans responded admirably, but not every individual did.
Personally, I would like to see a world where there is a better system of global governance and a stronger counter weight to US power. However, were it my job to represent the bbest interests of the American people, I don't think I could honestly say, abandoning the military and ignoring the countries lead role in international affairs would be for the best.
At some point, the US will be forced to step back and everyone will hope something better arises in its place. But the world is the one who will bear the consequences and owes its self a more responsible approach than merely seaking to tear the US down without doing the hard work of seeing if there is something better.
And notice your list (you left off the Japanese) - the Vietnamese don't want anyone else involved in deciding what happens in Vietnam. Whether the result is one we would approve is beside the point. And we all know that communist police states are bad, with their use of torture against 'enemies,' their ID requirements for all citizens for all travel, and their inability to change themselves when faced with new challenges. (Castro's Cuba hasn't really changed - it just survived a reduction in its external resource base.)
The United States became involved in a colonial/civil war mainly due to lies and flawed strategic thinking, and a generation later, America becomes involved in a colonial/civil war due to lies and self-interest (the flaw in the thinking is more along the lines that no strategic planning seems to have been allowed to enter the neo-con world view). But unlike Vietnam, which even now seems to have a touch of something resembling tragic idealism attached to it and where the U.S. wasted lives and treasure in part (however small) on principle, Iraq will be a lot harder to deal with - the U.S. cannot walk away from the oil that easily.
In my view, the only solution for many problems facing the U.S. is to turn back the clock and start again. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. The last 25 years was the time to prepare to deal with peak oil, not the next 10. Two oil producers with declining production invading a third oil producer (just coincidentally created as a 'nation' by one of the decling producers) is not preparation, it is amoral desperation. To use a German term, it is an 'Armutszeugnis' - 'evidence of incapacity' to use a stilted translation, though a literal translation of 'evidence of poverty' adds a certain touch.
But to say nations don't want American protection isn't exactly true either. When the idea of isolationism comes up from an American candidate it gets derided both by politicians here and statesmen abroad as being "naie" in the global community we live in. So which is it? Does America need to get their troops home or keep them abroad?
It seems to me Europeans want it both ways. They want American involvement when its convenient for THEM, but when its America looking at its own interests perhaps to the detriment of certain European interests then there is a cry for the Americans to mind their own business.
Sorry, but our American boys and girls are not the mercenaries of the European nations. They serve American interests first and foremost.
I agree that the Iraq war in its present state is looking pretty messy right now, and that its execution has been lacking. But what a lot of anti-Iraq war people forget was that we were maintaining a no-fly zone and military embargo for near a decade, and that situation was untenable to maintain long term. So America was going to be faced with the situation in Iraq regardless of 9/11 or not. And the two choices were either pull out, and let Saddam rebuild to full strength, or go in and take him out. Considering the screams that would've come from around the ME, and probably the rest of world had we just upped and left, the US was pretty much damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
The Iraq War was a given, and this was recognized by the Democrats and Republicans alike. Clinton had plans drawn up to do something very similar. Multiple democrats made statements about the situation in Iraq needing to be resolved during Clinton's era. The only difference is the Republicans rightly or wrongly had the gumption to go do it.
I think not. I can't see the Euro strategic interests that are advanced by having US troops on European soil. Two European nations have an independent nuclear deterrent. What is it that we want from the US, again?
I'm not sure how true this is, but let's assume it is. He would not have intervened without a truly broad coalition; the motives and objectives would have been clearly stated; he would have planned for the occupation, rather than forbidding any planning; etc... Globally he would have acted pragmatically, rather than being driven by neocon wish-fulfillment fantasies.
And it still would have been a mess.
But he probably would have cut and run after a year or so, which would have been preferable for all concerned.
Great for those two nations, but can the rest of Europe count on France and the UK to come nuke an aggressor opponent? Those nuclear deterents are pretty much for French or British national interest, not collective European interest. Perhaps that will change if the EU succeeds in a united Europe into a single entity, but for now, that is not the case.
Secondly the French do not possess the conventional forces to handle some of the potential threats to European nations (Russia is it resurfaces as a more Imperial power for example). The UK I think could fend off aggression from their island, but not sure how that helps the rest of Europe either. Like it or not, the disjointed European armed forces are not in a situation to go it alone just yet and that is only talking about outside aggression. The story changes again if say an internal European power decided to go Imperial. I know Europeans like to think they are above all that now, but sorry, given the right motivations, that can change on a whim.
You mean like:
And that doesn't include several Middle Eastern nations who provided basing rights to launch the operation from i.e. Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Or Isreal who provided Air corridors, and "secretly" intelligence on Iraqi forces.
So how broad must broad be? Sorry, but the "lack of a broad coalition" is strawman argument. There was a very sizable coalition going in and even with some of the pullouts by smaller nations, the list of countries is still solid. Just because France and Germany didn't sign off on it, didn't mean there wasn't a sizable coalition.
The motives and objectives have been clearly stated. To oust Saddam in light of his refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors, liberate the Iraqi people, and promote democracy in the region.
Granted the reasons themselves have been a little misguided, but W did say why he was going in there and I think he has some sincerity in those reasons. I also think he is misguided or overly optimistic about how to accomplish some of those goals, but I have serious doubts that he is somehow this tyranical idiot one moment, evil genius taking over the world next moment demogogue the Dems and a lot of the world portray him to be.
What I personally think is he is actually decent guy who got some bad advice about a Catch 22 situation with Iraq. Frankly I don't care who is in the White House, if they had to deal with the crap this president has, I doubt any of them would've fared much better, and quite a few would've fared worse. As I said.. Iraq was going to have to be dealt with, and W ended up with the hot tater. Short of maybe a Reagan or an FDR, I can't think of too many other American presidents who would've been able to handle the situation with any sort of "ease".
I know Gore wouldn't have done better, and Kerry would've been a nightmare in 2004. Pulling out at this stage of the game is a mistake, but so is staying the current course of the current administration. Some other tactic needs to be implemented. What that is I'm unsure, but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have it right in my opinion. Which makes things really frustrating as we get ready to vote.