Ольга Кравцова - Английский язык для специальных и академических целей: Международные отношения и зарубежное регионоведение. Часть 1

The results of the survey show that in most of the 44 countries (with Israel and the USA itself being the few exceptions) people oppose missile strikes from drones conducted by the USA. In countries such as Argentina, Japan, Russia, Greece, Spain, Mexico and Nicaragua more than two-thirds of the respondents said they disapprove of these attacks. Besides, an overwhelming majority of the respondents from the Islamic states (90% in Jordan, 87% in Egypt and 84% in Palestinian Administered Territories) are also opponents of the practice of using drones to conduct strikes.

Unsurprisingly, the interviewees from the closest allies of the USA tend to justify this method of combating terrorism — in Israel about 65 per cent of the respondents back it. In Great Britain, Poland and Germany those who approve of the USA conducting missile strikes account for 32-33 per cent of all the respondents. Their number is also large in China (35%) and India (28%).

Unit II. US: from Democracy to Empire?

To conclude, frequent deaths of innocent people as a result of missile strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia breed resentment of the citizens of many countries regardless of their attitude to the USA in general. Islamic states are the most critical as they perceive such methods inhibiting extremism as an aggression against Islam. Except for the closest allies of the USA, only China and India seem to be more or less justifying the strikes; it is possible to speculate

that as these countries view Islamic extremism and terrorism as one of the greatest threats to international peace and security they consider such ‘strict measures' to be indispensable.

Unit II. US: from Democracy to Empire?

According to the findings, it is evident that an overwhelming majority of people in different countries across the globe appear to disapprove of the US drone strikes against extremists. Even in the USA the population is divided over the issue; the biggest support, understandably, comes from Israel. Not surprisingly, the strongest opposition is found in the Middle East, though little support is also characteristic of many Latin American countries, Greece and Spain, which are not directly involved in this fight against terrorists. On the whole it is clear the USA doesn't enjoy universal support on that issue.

A survey was conducted by Princeton Survey Research International from March 17 to June 5, 2014 among 48,643 people from 44 countries. The survey has been conducted by the means of telephone and face-to-face interviews of people older than 18. The participants are asked whether they approve or disapprove of the USA conducting missile strikes from pilotless aircraft to fight terrorists. The figures are divided into sections which show answers received in different groups of countries: the first group represents the USA and European countries, the second deals with the countries of the Middle East, the third and the fourth are dedicated to Asian and Latin and Central American countries, respectively.

UNIT III

THE ROAD MAP FOR UNIT III

VERBAL JOUST

Holding a one-to-one debate on a politically relevant topic (for details see p. 116)

TERM PRESENTATION

Making a power point presentation based on one's analysis of an issue relevant to the topic “EU: At the Crossroads” (for details see p. 109)

PROJECT WORK

Compiling a Video Library (for details see p. 117)

Stage 1

Finding a video clip on the topic “EU: From Coal and Steel to a Bigger Deal”. Preparing a short statement on its merits

Stage 2

4—+

Writing Vocabulary notes and Listening/Viewing and Comprehension tasks to make the item ready for use in class

Stage 3

Peer viewing and reviewing

1. Do you see Europe as one entity? Is the European Union, in your opinion, synonymous with Europe?

2. Which part of Europe plays a leading role in the international arena?

3. Do you think that politically Russia is part of Europe?

Unit III. EU at the Crossroads

TEXT A

Europe is still in the process of reorganizing itself after the loss of its empire and two devastating world wars, and it remains to be seen whether that reorganization will be peaceful. Europe is not going to regain its empire, but the complacent certainty that intra-European wars have ended needs to be examined. Central to this is the question of whether Europe is a spent volcano or whether it is merely dormant 1. The European Union has a total GDP of over $14 trillion, a trillion more than the United States. It is possible that a region of such wealth — and of such diversity in wealth — will remain immune from conflict, but it is not guaranteed.

It is unreasonable to talk of Europe as if it were one entity. It is not, in spite of the existence of the European Union. Europe consists of a series of sovereign and contentious 39 39 Dormant — not doing anything at this time : not active but able to become active 40 40 Contentious — exhibiting a tendency to quarrels and disputes nation-states. There is a general entity called Europe, but it is more reasonable to think of four Europes (we exclude Russia and the nations of the former Soviet Union from this list — although geographically European, these have a very different dynamic from that of Europe):

— Atlantic Europe: the nations that front the Atlantic Ocean and North Sea directly and that were the major imperial powers during the past five hundred years.

— Central Europe: essentially Germany and Italy, which did not come into existence until the late nineteenth century as modern nation-states. It was their assertion of national interest that led to the two world wars of the twentieth century.

— Eastern Europe: the nations running from the Baltic to the Black Sea that were occupied by Soviet troops in World War II and developed their recent national identities from this experience.

— There is, of course, a fourth less significant Europe, the Scandinavian countries.

In the first half of the twentieth century, Atlantic Europe was the imperial heart of the world. Central Europeans were later comers and challengers. Eastern Europeans were the victims. Torn apart by two world wars, Europe faced a fundamental question: What was the status of Germany in the European system? The Germans, frozen out of the imperial system created by Atlantic Europe, sought to overturn that system and assert their dominance. The conclusion of World War II found Germany shattered, divided and occupied, controlled by Soviets in the east, and England, France, and the United States in the west.

During the 1950s, when NATO was created, the European Economic Community was also conceived. The European Union, which emerged from it, is a schizophrenic entity. Its primary purpose is the creation of an integrated European economy, while leaving sovereignty in the hands of individual nations. Simultaneously, it is seen as the preface to a federation of European countries, in which a central European government, with a parliament and professional civil service, would govern a federal Europe where national sovereignty was limited to local matters, and defense and foreign policy rested with the whole.

Unit III. EU at the Crossroads

Europe has not achieved this goal. It has created a free-trade zone and a European currency, which some members of the free-trade zone use and others do not. It has failed to create a political constitution, however, leaving individual nations sovereign — and therefore never has produced a united defense or foreign policy. Defense policy, to the extent it is coordinated, is in the hands of NATO, and not all members of NATO are members of the EU (notably the United States). With the collapse of the Soviet empire, individual countries in Eastern Europe were admitted to the EU and NATO.

In short, post-Cold War Europe is in benign 1chaos. It is impossible to unravel the extraordinarily complex and ambiguous institutional relationships that have been created. Given the history of Europe, such confusion would normally lead to war. But Europe, excepting the former Yugoslavia, has no energy for war, no appetite for instability, and certainly no desire for conflict. Europe's psychological transformation has been extraordinary. Where, prior to 1945, slaughter and warfare had been regular pastimes for centuries, after 1945 even the conceptual chaos of European institutions could not generate conflict beyond rhetoric.

1. Do you find the author's classification of European countries logical and reasonable? What are the criteria of this classification?

2. Do you share his view of Europe as a ‘schizophrenic entity'?

3. What does the statement “post-Cold War Europe is in benign chaos” imply? Do you agree with this opinion?

Underneath the surface of the EU, the old European nationalisms continue to assert themselves, albeit sluggishly 41 41 Benign — not causing harm or damage 42 42 Sluggish — economically inactive, slow . This can be seen in economic negotiations within the EU. The French, for example, assert the right to protect their farmers from excessive competition, or the right not to honor treaties controlling their deficits. Therefore, in a geopolitical context, Europe has not become a unified transnational entity.

For these reasons, talking of Europe as if it were a single entity like the United States, or China, is illusory. It is a collection of nation-states, still shell-shocked by World War II, the Cold War, and the loss of empire. These nation-states are highly insular 43 43 Insular — separated from other people or cultures and determine their geopolitical actions according to their individual interests. Primary interactions are not between Europe and the rest of the world, but among European nations. In this sense, Europe behaves far more like Latin America than like a great power. In Latin America, Brazil and Argentina spend a great deal of time thinking about each other, knowing that their effect on the globe is limited.