When compared to Europe of the past, do you believe that the Wilsonian creation of the EU has made Europe, safe, peaceful democratic and stable/stronger economically?
I'm trying to wrestle with the thought of whether or not foreign interventionism can be successful in spreading peace, democracy and prosperity. when enforced correctly.
I've come to the conclusion that the best example of a Wilsonian creation is the EU which was born out of a number of Wilsonian foreign policies such as the Marshall plan, and the idea to adopt former soviet sates and former dictatorships into the EU.
Another subject of discussion relating to the above question is this.
''Tunisia is regarded as the lone success story of the Arab revolts. Since Ben Ali’s departure, Tunisians have maintained a relatively wide margin of freedom of expression and pursued a messy and ongoing transition to democracy, even as its neighbors descended into violence (as in Syria and Libya) or reeled under the resurgence of the authoritarian order (as in Egypt and Bahrain).''
If Tunisia were to accept EU membership, it's current freedoms could be nurture and then it's democratic status could be solidified.
No wars in the west for 60 years, disregarding the Basques and the Troubles
No wars in the East for 15 years until Russia fucked up that streak last year
This has to be a record, no doubt helped by EU stability and cooperation
>>818279
Why is it allowed for the media to call invasions of other countries """""""""" Intervention ”""""""""""
The EU has definitely helped to establish an unprecedented peace between the main European powers - Britain, France, Germany, Italy. The idea of any of those countries fighting a war today is the highest insanity. By fostering economic, political and cultural interdependence, it would be entirely pointless to have a war, and there is no security dilemma.
God bless the EU.
It really looks like reverse Soviet Union.
>>818279
Nukes and NATO kept us safe, as well as the rise of external threats such as China, radical Islam, and to some extent Russia. Not the EU.
You think trade links are what stop nations going to war with each other? Several of the most intelligent people in the world told us that both world wars would not happen because of the magnitude of trade between European nations. Guess what happened, humans fought anyway.
>>818858
>NATO kept us safe
G L A D I O
L
A
D
I
O
The EU was alright when it stayed as a economic union, a big free trade bloc. Now the EU is doing everything it can to erode national sovereignty and absorb all political power, leaving the old nations as weak, dependent vassal states. It is, of course, illegitimate, as being shown with its inability to deal with things like the migrant crisis.
As for stability? You can thank NATO for that. The common enemy of Russia made it ridiculous for member nations to attack on another. Also, people say 'The EU has provided peace' like that's a good thing. True peace cannot last forever. It will, one day fall apart and war will be right back, only this time, no one will be prepared for it.
>>818858
I think there's an argument to be made that the destruction and near-total economic collapse as a result of both World Wars forced European nations to look forward and imagine the third world war. With the advent of nuclear weapons, at that time, you seriously had to wonder if there would actually be anything left worth saving.
As a result, I think the European powers all silently agreed that "We've had enough." Is the EU (and by proxy, its forerunners) directly responsible for this? Probably not, but I think the idea of the EU was born from that same idea of "We're done. We actually don't want to completely annihilate all life on the continent."
That's my opinion and it may be a bit too optimistic, I'll freely admit but, I do believe there was some non-spoken agreement between the major European powers that they weren't going to try and completely obliterate each other from that point on.
>>818447
>EU stability and cooperation
That's a fancy way of saying "NATO and nukes".
>>818979
Yeah, that kept away the USSR, put the reason there have been no intraeuropean wars is likely the united front the European powers have presented post WWII.
>>818823
Aren't France and Italy basically waging war against one another in Libya?
>>819896
I'm the middle guy you quoted, I'd describe my international relations position as a realist-liberal
>>818447
>noh, do not say so, it's okay ma friend i lov u 2
kek
>>818279
Easy rule of thumb.
Did Wilson do it?
If yes, then it's total shit.
>>819966
I'm still trying to figure out where I stand, can't decide if I'm an interventionist or something else, would you support the idea of Tunisia integrating with the EU to preserve it's democratic status.
I would argue it was the cold war that ended the intra-European wars. It fostered a sense of greater unity among Europeans and brought about the concept of cultural, economic, and technological warfare. The European powers compete, but they do so with soft power and coercion rather than with hard bullets.
It's only been 60 years, that's barely a blip on the radar in European history
>>821701
>I would argue it was the cold war that ended the intra-European wars.
The forced friction between the west and the east, and the resulting reliance and encouraged integration with each other was a result of
Foreign interventionism.
>>818858
>NATO kept us safe,
>>818971
>As for stability? You can thank NATO for that
>>818979
>>EU stability and cooperation
>That's a fancy way of saying "NATO and nukes".
NATO is also a Wilsonian creation.
