is it a collective thing or do the individual countries have their own policies? Is it all handled by NATO? How does the EU feel about Russia in the Ukraine and Syria? What about China's expansion by building up islands in the South China Sea? Does it support Israel's right to exist? Does it care if Iran gets nuclear weapons? What about the rights of women in Muslim countries? do they want to see terrorism confronted head on? I've heard all kinds of criticism of American involvement in these areas. Is that a prevailing attitude over there? What's the official policy? Or does American leadership also mean you get to theory craft all day long but make no real decisions?
How close or disperse the EU is politically is kind of in flux and changes from issue to issue. NATO doesn't have much to do with it, though. Most Germans are strongly opposed to military involvement in the Ukraine case, I'm not sure how they feel about Syria; I feel that it won't get worse. Chinas expansionism is viewed critically by both the US and the EU. Israels right to exist isn't a matter of question, it is a political fact in the EU. (Israels right to be sassy, cruel and abusive not so much.) The prospect of Iran getting nuclear weapons is generally a negative prospect to Europeans, but by no means the boogeyman the US has been indoctrinated with. Women's rights in muslim countries are supported strongly, probably similar to US policies in the matter. As for confronting terrorism head on, there's neither much love for letter agencies nor for wars of aggression on foreign countries nor for killing people without a trial nor for torture nor for widespread violation of human and generally civil rights. If that answers the question. Also not sure what "American leadership" you are talking about; if you mean the US, how is it leading anything but wars nobody wants to follow in anyway? ... Leading in human rights violations in the west? ...
Playing the mediator for both Ukraine and Iran, for example. Or taking up millions of refugees someone's actions displaced. Or refusing to attack Iraq.
I agree obamas lack of leadership lead to the refugee crisis. Perhaps if the EU had taken an active role in holding Iraq together it wouldn't have happened. The Ukraine and the Iranian deal are disasters. Not sure I would point to that as leadership. also I'm not really seeing an EU policy on refugees. Germany is stepping up but that seems to be a unilateral decision on their part. If you think American leadership in the Middle East is all war and agression wait until you see what Russian leadership looks like there (see Ukraine).
I am confused. Are you saying that the fact that you don't like some of the outcomes in what the EU has done means they don't have foreign policies? Your original question was asking if they had any, but when pointed to examples of what their stances and what they do, you dismiss it as "disasters" and say it's "not leadership." In other words, Leadership and Foreign Policy, according to you, is that they act in a way you agree with and achieve outcomes that you consider positive?
Or maybe it was US support for terrorists. You mean we should have stopped the US from invading Iraq? I'm sure you'd have taken bombs on the invading troops like champs. In which way are they any sort of a desaster? Ah, yes, the Iranian baby eaters will now build super duper nukes and eradicate the Israelis because they are completely insane. Right. The usual nonsense and propaganda. Ukraine, where Russia killed hardly anyone taking over the Krim? Ukraine, where Russia is continuously on the round table with the other countries involved and actually still supplies Ukraine with gas? Hmm, yeah, what the US did in Iraq was a lot better. I agree that the Russians should have bombed the crap out of Ukraine, then taken random people from there and tortured them, then installed a nonrepresentative and repressive puppet government, then went home and let it all fall to Bane Shift again. Or just cut the chaos short and just support terrorists like the US did in Syria. Yeah, not all war and aggression, some is terrorism, too.
if you want to make the distinction between poor leadership and lack of leadership you're entitled I suppose.
Just as you are entitled to blame everyone for not warmongering, because clearly that's a sign of weakness in 2015. George Bush for a 3rd term please
Personally, I think the Iran deal is good, and that Ukraine's outcome, while not rainbows and unicorns, could have been far worse. It's one of those WW-inciting type of scenarios. But the point is, world is complex, and it's hard to tell what the best outcome really is in any scenario. And disagreeing with choices a country/entity makes is not the same as those countries/entities not doing anything.
I'm surprised you don't like trump more tbh. He hates bushes too. And he'll do business with anyone, same as the EU aparently.
I share a reasonable opinion with someone? I therefor must like him. Must not happen to you often, sharing reasonable opinions with someone else huh
What's narrow minded? I'm not limiting my disdain to just Belgians. I'm trying to expand it to include real Europeans.
Back to topic, the short answer is not really. The European Union isn't as united as all that, states have sovereignty as long as they don't break EU law (and even then, it does get occasionally broken). So foreign policy varies from country to country, and each country can and does exercise it without needing to consult others or the EU parliament.
I don't think he meant it that way, tho it sure did come off in that sense. If I had to take a guess, I think he was dismissing them as they were irrelevant. Not that he didn't agree with them, but that his original question is still unanswered. I say this as I tend to have the same reaction when people supply information that is irrelevant, or rather incomplete to question. As for the question at hand, I shy away from political affairs so I don't have a clue. Really? What's the point of a Union where anybody can disagree on anything at anypoint, and possibly hinder others in the Union. I mean, I'm sure they do more good then bad otherwise it would've been disbanded long ago. Surely there must be an open, and unyielding policy which at some-point they are required to abide by?
The EU is more of a monetary and economic union than a political one, though the line is somewhat blurry there.
What was irrelevant about the direct answers to his direct questions? As for the latter, the point of a loose Union is preserving freedom ... A bit of a foreign concept to US citizens, I know.
