Posted on 05/07/2008 1:54:33 PM PDT by The_Republican
Silvio Berlusconi's re-election as Italy's Prime Minister is more promising and more important for Italy and the United States, and for trans-Atlantic relations generally, than most commentators have admitted. Although the Bush Administration has just nine months left in office, significant progress is both possible and desirable in enhancing ties between America and Europe.
President Bush's critics have been quick to assign him blame for weakened trans-Atlantic relations, particularly because of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. They argue that public opinion polls show European popular sentiments turning against the United States. They gloat that two of Bush's staunchest personal and political allies--Prime Ministers Tony Blair in Britain and Jose Maria Aznar in Spain--have left office, in large part because of dissatisfaction with their support for the Iraq war.
But look today at Europe's political leadership: Nicolas Sarkozy in France has replaced the bitterly anti-American Jacques Chirac. In Germany, Angela Merkel has replaced the dyspeptic and anti-Iraq war Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Prime Minister Gordon Brown in Britain now once again speaks about the US-UK "special relationship." And now, Berlusconi will soon return to the Chigi Palace. How times change.
Europe's new political configuration has already partially manifested itself in NATO's decision in Bucharest to support deployment of U.S. missile defense assets in Poland and the Czech Republic. Even the Bucharest Summit, however, reveals continuing problems, such as Europe's reluctance to start Ukraine and Georgia on the path toward ultimate NATO membership. Pressed by Russia not to open up to these former Soviet republics, Europe bent its collective knee to Moscow. And in Afghanistan, NATO forces are divided between those daily facing difficult combat situations, and those like Italy's and Germany's posted in less dangerous parts of that embattled country.
America's European critics repeatedly disparage its supposed unilateralism, contending that the United States should modify its policies to create a multilateral front against threats such as Iran's nuclear weapons program. From the U.S. perspective, however, the problem is not American unilateralism, but Europe's unwillingness to do much of anything to stand up to external threats, whether from Iran or from a newly resurgent Russia. That is why the NATO missile defense decision is so positive, representing as it does a clear, alliance-wide recognition of the Iranian threat. That is also why the decision on Ukraine and Georgia is so negative, reflecting a European unwillingness to resist Russia's new leverage.
This continuing tension in European thinking underlines the importance of Berlusconi's return to power. He and Italy can now make a critical difference, but only if he is prepared to confront the conventional wisdom about Europe's future. In truth, a larger global role for Europe requires a larger role for individual European nations, not a more powerful European Union. The historical record is clear: the larger the prominence of Brussels in E.U. affairs, the smaller the aggregate role of Europe in the broader world.
Preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability could be a decisive test both of trans-Atlantic relations and of Berlusconi's leadership. For more than five years, European diplomacy by Britain, France and Germany ("the EU-3"), supported by the United States, has failed to constrain Iran's nuclear program. One principal reason for this failure has been Europe's collective unwillingness to impose meaningful--i.e., stringent--economic sanctions against Iran. Italy, with its large trade relations with Iran, Germany and several others have opposed strong sanctions, and, as a consequence, Iran continues toward a deliverable nuclear weapons capability. In fact, diplomatic efforts to stop Iran now unfortunately seem to be at a dead end.
Berlusconi will thus face a difficult decision, since the imposition today of even very stringent sanctions will likely be too little too late to disrupt Iran's progress. Moreover, Romano Prodi's outgoing administration has left Berlusconi a weakened Italian economy, which only makes the incoming Prime Minister's choices more complex. Unfortunately, however, weak sanctions--"sanctions without pain"--which have long been Europe's preference, are in reality worse than no sanctions at all. Weak sanctions give the appearance of action, while in fact concealing the reality that they have no effect whatever.
The unmistakable signal that such a policy sends to rogue states like Iran is that they can continue their progress on weapons of mass destruction with impunity. That is precisely what they have been doing. For both America and Europe's leading nations, therefore, the diplomatic chances of preventing Iran from achieving its objectives are rapidly diminishing. Although tough sanctions are at this point almost certainly too late, they would at least demonstrate that Italy and other Europeans are preparing for the even more difficult step that may be required, namely changing the regime in Tehran, or, as a last resort, the targeted use of military force against Iran's nuclear program.
Of course, the United States faces its own election in November, and the outcome could well result in a change in America's own direction on Iran. But under the U.S. constitutional system, a President retains full executive power until the moment he leaves office. Moreover, Bush may well be succeeded by John McCain, who takes an even harder line on Iran than Bush does. Mrs. Clinton, no Republican unilateralist, said just before the Pennsylvania primary that she would "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. The argument to delay decisive action, therefore, misses the critical point that delay works in Iran's favor, as it continues to overcome the scientific and technical challenges in its path to nuclear weapons. Delay almost always works in favor of the proliferators, and that is abundantly clear in Iran's case.
What will Berlusconi do when he takes office? One way to pull Italy out of its current malaise is to help the United States lead the fight against Iran's nuclear ambitions. The EU-3--which intentionally excluded Italy from their ranks--have failed for over five years. Berlusconi can provide a significant alternative, and, even more importantly, do something concrete to derail Iran's threat to the North Atlantic community as a whole.
...and too bad we are about to take our own anti-American course.
Right when Obamania is taking America in an anti-American direction. Nice timing.
Agree. Europe will be kissing our (collective) ring once they’re completely overrun with Muzzies.
I like the way the author seems to imply there is a connection between the candidates choosing conservative governments and pro and anti-americanism.
As anywhere else, it is domestic issues which dominate the choice of candidate in an election, not the feelings the candidates have towards a foreign country....
That’s what I thought too......
I PRAY this means that the elected leaders of the West are FINALLY coming to grasp the magnitude of the threat posed by ISLAM.
I just hope it’s not too late!
I PRAY this means that the elected leaders of the West are FINALLY coming to grasp the magnitude of the threat posed by ISLAM.
I just hope it’s not too late!
All this has got to be an embarrassment to the Democrats. If they win it all then the USA will be the last remaining major Western anti-American power.
But the effect is pro-American heads of State. Leaders with economic good sense tend strongly to be pro-American.
Not neccessarily, The two Prime-Ministers that I can think of with the worst relationship with America in modern times have been Conservatives. Ted Heath and John Major. Admitedly, in the latter case it was a personal thing between Clinton and the UK Conservative government because the latter rather stupidly supported Bush the elder’s re-election campaign and sent files relating to Clinton’s time at Oxford in the 1960s to try and damage Clinton....
Whatever floats your boat mate. In your dreams.
“The doctrine of the Bush administration was that the US doesn’t need Europe and it showed. Recent changes came over as insincere.”
Of course, that wasn’t unrelated to the fact that France and Germany were dealing with Saddam Hussein’s government(in violation of U.N. resolutions), and they did everything to fight us on affecting change in Iraq. They stood to lose a lot, and they did.
“The two Prime-Ministers that I can think of with the worst relationship with America in modern times have been Conservatives. Ted Heath..”
I thought Heath got along just fine with Nixon. What do you mean by this?
“The doctrine of the Bush administration was that the US doesn’t need Europe and it showed.”
What do you mean by this? Can you give examples?
“A recent study found out that Adolfinejad / Iran is several times more popular in the U.S. than in European nations like Germany.”
Why doesn’t Germany place unilateral sanctions on the terrorist regime in Tehran as the U.S. has done? They are Iran’s largest European trading partner.
“Direct and indirect trade combined was only a good third (38%) of that of United States before the invasion.”
Your link doesn’t appear to support your statement. Could you elaborate?
“Germany could have easily been bought off beforehand with a permanent seat on the UN security council.”
This wouldn’t have been worth while at all. A demilitarized pacifist state as a permanant member of the council would be terrible. They won’t even let former Warsaw Pact nations join NATO because of their own cowardly position towards Moscow.
Well, he may have ‘got on just fine’ with Nixon, all PMs do to a certain extent because the special relationship is bigger than whoever happens to be the head of government in either respective government. But he was a europhile who saw Europe as a counterbalance to American power.
You have to remember that large-scale pro-Americanism within Britain’s right wing is a relatively recent phenomenon. Before Thatcher gave Britain and Reagan’s America common ideological purpose, old fashioned tories often had a rather contemptuous attitude towards the ‘vulgar’ americans, some still do.
By the same token, not everyone on the left hates America. There is a journalist over here called Jonathan Freedland who writes for the Guardian who wrote a book called ‘bring the revolution home: the case for a British Republic’ in which he waxes lyrical about the American system and advocates the abolition of the monarchy and the adoption of an american-style political system. So you cannot simplify British pro and anti-americanism as being the right vs the left....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.