Posted on 04/14/2008 4:30:19 AM PDT by Renfield
Europeans have been hyperventilating over their self-perceived “victories” vis-à-vis the United States at the recent NATO Summit in Romania from April 2-4. “France and Germany Thwart Bush’s Plans,” ran a triumphant headline in the Hamburg-based Der Spiegel. “Europe Waits Out the Bush Administration,” read another. “Only One Lame Duck Here” said the London-based Guardian in commentary that waxes giddy about Russia’s growing stranglehold over Europe. “NATO Should Disappear” said the Madrid-based El Pais.
But behind the spin, the 26-member NATO Summit (arguably the most important such gathering since the end of the Cold War) exposed a security-dependent Europe that is divided, weak, and fickle above all else.
Consider Spain, for example, where newly re-elected Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was far less concerned about Spanish (or European) security than about getting some one-on-one face-time with US President George W Bush. Zapatero, a self-proclaimed feminist pacifist who is arguably the most anti-American leader in Europe today, is (unsurprisingly) one of the only such Europeans never to have been invited to the White House.
But in the Byzantine logic of Spanish politics, that elusive visit to the Oval Office (to see an American president who is broadly despised by most Spaniards) also happens to be the main litmus test by which Spaniards will judge whether Zapatero gets promoted from provincial politician to international “statesman” during his second term.
Thus Zapatero’s permanent non-relationship with the most powerful leader in the free world has become something of a media obsession in Spain, with the issue generating many miles of ink in national newspapers.
Imagine, then, the internecine recriminations when Zapatero’s much-vaunted “mini-summit” with Bush lasted all of about three seconds…just enough for Bush to shout three words (which brings to a grand total of 18 words the two leaders have exchanged during the last four years) that appeared in newspaper headlines all across Spain: “Hola, Hola, Felicidades.” (”Hello, Hello, Congratulations,” referring to Zapatero’s re-election.)
Zapatero then took to the podium and tried to persuade bemused members of the Alliance… to merge NATO with the United Nations! And, just for good measure, the prime minister also announced that Spain would not be sending more troops to Afghanistan, with or without the UN.
Not surprising, then, that Zapatero was captured in a politically devastating Summit photograph sitting in isolation, while the rest of the leaders present were huddled around Bush at the other end of the conference hall. The picture, which made the front page of every newspaper in Spain, opened up yet another pained debate about Spain’s declining influence in the world since Zapatero took office.
Then take Greece. It refused to allow Macedonia to join NATO because Greece wants its northern neighbor to change its name, which Greeks say jeopardizes their claim as the only the rightful descendants of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC).
The controversy erupted in 1991, when the former Yugoslav republic declared its independence from Belgrade and took the name Republic of Macedonia. Although more than 120 countries have now recognized the Republic of Macedonia under its current name, Greece says the name proves that Macedonia harbors implicit territorial claims on the northern Greek region also known as Macedonia. Never mind that by joining NATO, Macedonia would provide Greece with much-needed stability on its northern border.
Then consider Germany and France, arguably the greatest free-riding beneficiaries of American security since World War II. At the Bucharest Summit, they (together with Spain) refused to extend NATO Membership Action Plans to Georgia and Ukraine because they were afraid of provoking Russia, thanks to Europe’s growing dependence on Russian energy.
Germany, for example, already imports 35 percent of its oil and 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia, more than any country in Western Europe. The problem of energy dependency is being exacerbated by leftwing energy policies that are phasing out the country’s production of nuclear energy in favor of increased reliance on fossil fuels. Indeed, Germany’s (and Europe’s) dependence on Russian energy imports may reach 70 percent by 2020, which (if current German behavior is any gauge) will give Russia a de facto veto over decisions on German (and European) security.
Europeans, in any case, know that keeping Georgia and Ukraine out of NATO will not appease Russia for very long. Indeed, the Germans appear to be looking for a face-saving way out of Europe’s long-term geo-strategic dilemma. On March 4, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier gave a speech titled “Towards a European Ostpolitik” in which he suggests that Europe’s future lies in staking out a position mid-way between the United States and Russia. Say what?
Well, if Germany insists on turning Europe into a province of Russian, then debates over the future of NATO will be moot anyhow.
In France, meanwhile, the government on April 8 faced down a vote of no confidence, as leftists accused French President Nicolas Sarkozy of a dangerous “Atlanticist drift” that risked turning France into Bush’s poodle. Socialist leader François Hollande said Sarkozy decided to send 700 French troops to Afghanistan “under pressure from the Americans” and that France risked losing its independence on the world stage.
With allies like these, expect trouble ahead for transatlantic relations, regardless of who occupies the White House next January.
Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group
I appreciate your comment Frankiep, it goes a long way to swing our opinions around. During my time in the US, I did speak with the average American, and they were generally positive about Europe. Indeed, all that had gone or were planning to go, relished the opportunity to experience cultures that are similar, yet totally alien to that in the US. Same reason I went Stateside too.
Cheers pal.
“Not to take away from my sentiments in my last post, but what you say here is absolutely ridiculous.”
????? Which bit?
“A democratic Republic does not stagnate.”
? Surely you wish to alter that statement, even very slightly? You dont have to be the most educated the easily point out a certain exception to that rule, the exception that you Yanks have used as template for yourselves. Go on, hazard a guess....
“Perhaps in your socialist education and indoctrination”
Eat me boyo. I could well say the same about your schooling, if not more so, cos I have been taught in 7 different countries across Europe, Africa and North America. I would suggest I am better placed for this argument.
bye bye...
“Eat me boyo”?
Well, that was a brilliant comback for someone of your vast, 7 different country education process.
Have a nice day.....boyo
I thought so. Worked long and hard at that comeback, and I’m pretty proud of it.
I always chuckle at those who speak condescendingly of other posters, yet don't take the time to review their statements.
Perhaps you meant "conversation", friend? Or am I too "dumbed down" to catch the gist of your drift?
The part where you stated that the US isn’t grown up enough to make the right moves.
Nonsense.
Been there. Seen it. Wouldn't spend a dime to go back.
Enjoy your dhimmitude.
conservation...
condensation...
convention...
conversation..
got it. cheers.
really?
The Alpiglen?
Gibraltar?
Julian Alps?
Prague?
These are very nice places mate. I suggest you visit if given the chance.
fair enough. just an opinion.
Prosit! Appreciate your good cheer!
“who survive are usually (we do not speak about individual cases) more intelligent and more able compared to their fallen comrades (I know that this is not PC - but it is the plain truth).”
Certainly not in regards to WWII. The Germans soldiers that survived were the ones that were lucky enough to be captured by the west. Mabye a handful of Germans were returned by Russia, the rest killed on the spot or died in Soveit gulags. By 1945, Hitler was relying on the Volkssturm, a rag-tag bunch of poorly trained and poorly equipted old people and children.
“BTW - the contemporary system in Russia might be not exactly “free”, but it is far better than anything that happened there in the past.”
Considering that past governments killed millions of their own, that’s not exactly something to brag about.
“Russia abolished capital punishment since it is not accepted within Europe and Europeans anymore.”
Putin: “Nobody told me those plutonium cocktails were lethal.” ;-)
“The Americans are trying to find ‘friends’ that are loyal to a fault, and can be made to do their bidding in the allies region.”
Please elaborate. What bidding? You mean enforcing security council resolutions?
” Think Britain in Europe, Ukraine and other Eastern Bloc countries further East. They use Taiwan in a similar way, to bait the Chinese, and the South Koreans too.”
What do you mean by ‘bait the Chinese’? Baiting them to do what?
“They will have plenty of yes-men, running their own pseudo-democratic regimes while American turns a blind eye to the crimes they commit in the local arena. “
Crimes commited by who? What nations are you referring to?
“Your troops in Germany are not suitable to “keep Germany down” “
Sure they are, as we have proven in the past. We contained all of Germany with a relatively small force shortly after WWII. We could kill them wholesale. When we met resistance, we’d line up military aged males from a village and shoot them. We were also able to execute their leaders in a not-so-humane fashion. We would make the ropes the wrong length and they would die slowly. I believe that actions like this induced enough fear that they knew going against the allies was a bad idea.
“I am confident in Europes ability to drive a new path for the world. Not in a military perspective, which is where our social and political societies differ from your militaristic one, but by leading by example.”
Explain how this strategy will make Iran comply with their obligations to the council and the NPT. How will ‘leading by example’ bring Iran in complaince with IAEA’s safeguard agreement?
“You are xenophobic, not by design, but over the time being isolated, in a geographical sense, from the world. “
Question 1: How many nations host U.S. troops?
Question 2: Which nation or nations have more overseas deployments than the United States?
After all, today's Europeans are descended from peasants who didn't have the backbone to pack up and head to America when they had the chance.
Their grandchildren and great-grandchildren inherited their temerity.
” Fighting against terrorism in a reasonable ratio i.e. is something that is understood within the European majorities while preemptive strikes because of some WMDs that can not be not found later are not. “
Our action was not preemptive. It was due to non-complaince of the armistice agreement. If you read the terms of the agreement, it was Saddam’s obligation to verifiably destroy any WMDs. As the council noted in UNSC 1441, Saddam had failed to do so. He also would not comply with the other requirements. For example, as the council noted, he was found in non-complaince in regards to terrorism as well. In a post-9/11 world, this was found to be unacceptable by both congress and the White House. And thus, military action was authorized ‘to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime’. If we had authorized the action in anticipation that Saddam ‘may’ violate the agreement, then it would have been preemptive.
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.