The two pieces dating July 8, 1998 of the herald tribune are based on two completely different subjects and only after close analysis can one find any similarities, however both pieces are extremely thought provoking. As well as, well tackled examples of imperative subjects in our day and age.
Friz Stern’s article “A Century of Building Blocks for the New Europe” talks about Europe’s turbulent past and uncertain future. In the article Stern suggests that before Europe as a whole can evolve it must go through a series of basic changes and cyclical steps. He refers back to history, with the examples of suppressed and oppressed regimes which make up a large part of European history. Regimes such as that of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin , thrived by feeding hatred between countries on the European continent and glorifying their own military might and subsequent victories. They taught history that only favored them, like religious zealous dogma, which created a stark discrepancy in most history text books and left confused masses. However sadly the state of European affairs has not changed much from the days of cruel dictators, to today the day of demagogues European history is still dictated by European politics as leaders such as Milosevic gain political power only by sowing the seeds of hatred against a different country. Instead Stern like many other optimistic thinkers believes that Europe should coalesce as one entity instead of different autonomous countries, viewing each other as bitter enemies.
Like stern in the case of Europe I do agree that countries within the European continent should bury the hatched, so to say and propagate institutions such as the European Union. However I also feel that Europe’s animosities are age –old and have deepened over time therefore the idea of a united Europe may be a far fetched notion. For instance if small countries such as India and Pakistan cannot improve relations after fifty years of nonstop peace treaties and talks , a similar scenario is also present in the relations between Israel and Palestine , these countries have all had painful bloody pasts which they cannot seem to put behind them. Therefore in the case of Europe a solution promoting unity is hard to imagine when applied to Europe’s mammoth size and multicultural heritage.
“America in History: Realists Don’t Buy the Wilson Line” by William Pfaff initially poses a debate between U.S support and imposition of democracy on all other nations and specifically whether or not they have the right to do so. In addition to this Pfaff, presents his own point of view as well, in which he states that America is blinded by a false optimism when it comes to the idea of democracy. As it feels that democracy is a cure for all the worlds’ problems and yet seems to ignore the fact that in order to achieve efficient democratic system countries must go through specific changes and basic steps. Therefore America’s role as the bastion of democracy dating from its own break away from Britain does not require it to impose democracy on all other nations. As for countries still engulfed in feudal systems or dictatorship, democracy is neither a practical or apt solution instead, I feel that it only breeds more corruption along with a stark discrepancy between classes.
Like the author I too believe that Americas usual and imposition of democracy is much like a quest for the holy grail, as when applied to countries of a third world stature where elections are monitored and there is a great deal of pressure and emphasis put on the restoration or adoption of democracy, countries do yield to powerful forces such as the U.S but for them democracy becomes nothing more than a farce that allows them more lee way where international aid is concerned. As the ancient political systems still remain but in the backdrop and control the political arena of these countries. Therefore the U.S should refrain from making assumptions on the part of other countries and as the author suggests accept reality, a mere “tragic affair.”