Posted on 05/29/2002 4:14:28 AM PDT by Enemy Of The State
By Ian Davidson
It is no surprise that US President George W. Bush's tour of Europe has been greeted by protests from Berlin to Rome. What is surprising is that, given the differences now arising between the US and its allies -- the word schism might not be inappropriate -- Bush's meetings with Europe's leaders proceeded so smoothly. Those disagreements are not only about Israel, or US tariffs on steel imports from the EU, or the possibility of American courts imposing the death penalty on suspected terrorists who carry European passports; they increasingly embody a fundamentally different vision about how the world should work.
During the Cold War, when the West feared attack by the Soviet bloc, the US and Europe were united through NATO in standing up to that threat. Today, when the central fear in Western countries is of international instability and terrorism, the NATO allies are far less united in how to respond.
This is partly a question of trans-Atlantic differences in the levels of defense spending, and therefore of military capability. The US spends far more on defense than its European allies and as a result its military capa-bility is different in quality as well as in quantity.
We saw the consequences of that gap in Afghanistan. Article 5 of the NATO Treaty was invoked as if the twin towers attack was an attack on the whole alliance. Many expected that the US would call for a collective NATO response. Instead the Bush administration decided to wage the war essentially on its own; for this kind of small war, it really did not need its European allies, although in the latter stages of the fighting, French Mirage jets and British, German, Danish and Norwegian special forces troops were active in battles in the mountains along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.
With America's planned defense budget increases, the trans-Atlantic gap in military capability will become a chasm. Gradually, effective military cooperation between the US and Europe will shift from being unnecessary and unwelcome, to being impossible. It may be argued that the Europeans should try to close this chasm, by increasing their own defense spending. Perhaps they should; but there are two problems.
The first problem is that European NATO consists of 16 separate countries, 16 separate defense budgets, and 16 separate defense forces. Even if they were, collectively, to match US defense spending, they could not match US defense capability unless they combined their defense spending in a single budget. So Europe cannot begin to match the US unless it becomes a single federation.
The second, more important problem, is that (for a variety of reasons) Europeans do not set as high a value as the US on purely military capability. Not all of these reasons are admirable: during the Cold War some European allies became accustomed to freeloading on the US; some were double freeloaders by choosing neutrality.
But freeloading is not the whole story. From Washington, the past half-century may look like the story of a victorious Cold War against an outside enemy; but from Europe, it looks more like the story of a slow, unremitting effort to find political, economic, legal and institutional alternatives to military power as a way of tackling geo-political problems.
For hundreds if not thou-sands of years, European countries made war repeatedly with each other. In the first half of the 20th century they succeeded in turning these conflicts into two world wars and Europe into a charnel house. After World War II, they tried an entirely new tack, with the great experiment of European integration and institution building.
This institution building is far from complete, but the process transformed European attitudes. Europeans are now irrevocably committed to peaceful solutions for their own international problems, and they increasingly think that peaceful solutions, or at least partly peaceful solutions, will be useful for other peoples' conflicts.
The present US administration, by contrast, seems to put a much higher priority on war and the rhetoric of war. We see this contrast being acted out on the ground. In the Balkans, bombing was carried out mainly by the US; peacekeeping mainly by Europeans.
There are, of course, local reasons why the Europeans set a high priority on peacekeeping and reconstruction in the Balkans. War in these countries is a direct threat to Europe's inter-ests and stability, so European governments have a direct interest in promoting peace. Moreover, EU governments decided that all these countries, like those in Central and Eastern Europe, are legitimate candidates for membership in the EU. Therefore, it is in the EU's interest to help them qualify in terms of political, civil and economic stability.
It is this prospect of a massive enlargement that defines the central challenge facing the EU -- how to strengthen its institutions to be able to handle a Union whose membership will expand from 15 to 27 countries -- perhaps more. That is the subject of the EU Convention now underway in Brussels, and which is designed to pave the way for a new treaty-making conference next year.
If EU governments are able to strengthen central political institutions, enlargement may be successful; if not, it may be blocked. Moreover, with stronger central institutions, the EU may start to make progress in developing a more coherent European Security and Defense Policy. But nobody should imagine that Europeans are ever likely to share the priority attached by America to the value of military power.
Ian Davidson is an adviser to, and a columnist for, the European Policy Center, Brussels, and a former Financial Times columnist.
At least not until the next time that Europe is threatened by a military attack. Reality intrudes rudely into pipedreams.
Thank God. Just look at how screwed up Europe is now. We do not want to be like Europe!
Rubbish. The Europeans INSISTED upon war against Serbia to "solve" their own internal problems in 1999. Before that, they DEMANDED war in Bosnia. The only reason that they claim that they want to find non-military solutions to their problems is so that they can justify criticizing the U.S.
Really? No suprise?
No on was surprised to see anti-nuclear activists PROTESTING the President most responsible for reducing global nuclear arsenals?!
The press was so surprised that they still haven't realized the irony...
There was a lot of talk about U.S. "unilateralism" after Bush abrogated Kyoto but Bush's success in building the anti-terror coalition and his recent triumph in signing an arms control treaty with Russia and winning Russian approval for abrogating the ABM treaty and agreeing to NATO expansion have silenced many critics.
Loudmouth socialists in France, Germany and Britain enjoyed bashing Bush, but their message is not resonating and recent electoral reverses are damping much of that down.
The main differences in policy right now are over the Palestine question and Iraq. If recent history is any guide, at the end of the day the Western policy will be much closer to the current Bush position than the European position.
From time to time, these governments became expansionist: Napoleonic France, Hitler’s Germany, the USSR.
In most cases, European governments have been focused on internal social welfare issues. Since WW 2, Europe has been a protectorate of the US and has devoted itself to rebuilding from war’s devastation and the creation of a continental social welfare state. Since human desires are insatiable, the demands of the welfare state crowd out defense needs. And since there remain no serious inter-European reasons for war, it is unlikely that any European country will spend more than is required to field an honor guard.
European politicians realize that re-armament will cost them votes with their welfare-state constituents. They also believe that the US will continue to provide them with a military defense against any conceivable aggression. Finally, they lack the belief in the value of Western Civilization. Lacking that, they see no need to defend the West against the gradual encroachment of Islam.
I believe that Islam is now sufficiently wealthy and radicalized enough to step up the rate of encroachment. That may energize the general public in Europe so that it becomes politically popular to resist. And resistance eventually means the building of armies.
We’ll see.
Many seem to. Otherwise I doubt they would voice their objections as loudly.
If it was solely about simple disagreement on the policies of where the war should go, there would be more efforts to undercut the criticism of the President by attacking the left wing groups in Europe and offering support to their ideological opposition. Thats not the case, and some are content to simply bash away while allied troops are at this moment fighting in Afghanistan and the Middle east as part of the coalition. That fact, and it is a fact, seems lost on many.
The line being offered up by the pundits a few months ago was "its all about defending western civilization"
Well...if Europe is not the birthplace of western civilization and western concepts like democracy and the rights of the individual perhaps some can give their idea of exactly what is?
US interests will best be served by unilaterally taking action and forming coalitions with and accepting help from other nations on an ad-hoc basis. Waiting for consensus from lackadaisial partners will result in missed opportunities. This will probably mean the withdrawal of the US from all international and regional treaties. Or the US may remain a member in name only, using the organizations to its own benefit.
Schism. There is a schism between the Europeans and Americans. The schism is the result of different experiences. The US experienced WW1 and WW2 as wars of triumph. The US was a knight rushing in to rescue a damsel in distress. Ever since, the US has been the most powerful nation in the world. With the exception of Vietnam, the US has experienced successes. It is dominant in technology, economics, politics, military, and culture.
Europe had a different experience. In WW1, half of Europe required the aid of a weak outside power to survive. The other side had a humiliating defeat. In WW2, all of Europe was destroyed. Half required an outside power to intervene to survive. The other half was enslaved for half a century. Europe now finds that even united it is no match for a single country, the same one to which it is beholden. It is not a history that inspire confidence and pride.
”I live in Europe, and the main difference I see is that Europeans see the complexities of international politics clearer than average Americans.”
Translation: Europeans are sophisticated, Americans are dumb. Remember the old expression that was common when the USSR existed: Americans play checkers, Russians play chess? The USSR collapsed and you don’t hear that expression much any more. Maybe there is an advantage to playing checkers. The oh so sophisticated Europeans managed to destroy their continent twice in 50 years.
He then goes on to say:” It's not a black and white world, and, given the choice between sending young men to die and achieving the same results through political negotiation, they will go more readily to the bargaining table.”
To which I reply: Given that choice of course we negotiate. But that begs the question … how do you bargain with someone who wants you dead so badly he will kill himself and his children to kill you? What evidence is there that negotiation will achieve your objective? And if negotiations fail, what is your alternative? The dilemma that Europe faces is that it suddenly realizes that in a dangerous world they have disarmed. They don’t prefer negotiation; it is their only alternative. But human psychology will not allow them to admit their helplessness and to rationalize their position they dress up their impotence as sophistication.
Your are having an arguement with another man. You tell him that sometimes, even if you don't like to, you are forced to fight to defend yourself with force. He absolutely disagrees. He says resorting to force is always wrong. Mature Adults always negotiate their differences and violence begets violence. In the middle of his arguement you suddenly cock back your arm and punch him in the middle of the face. You step back as he gets to his feet. He starts to charge at you. You stop him by apologizing for your anger and use of force. He calms down. When the argument heats up again you punch him once again, hard. As he stands, you apologize again. You continue until he can't remain pacifist any longer. At that point, you have proven your point.....there are times when you are forced to defend yourself with force. The only real question is when you will do it.
How many injuries will we suffer at the hands of those who wish to do us harm? They are not shy about telling us. There is no guess work to be done. The fundamental muslims are very open about their intentions to destroy us and our way of life. Instead of fighting, there are many among us who wish to understand the enemy and persuade him to like us. How long would anyone tolerate a neighbor down the street who threatened to enslave his family and destroy his career?
It is something to think about. Hopefully there will be enough time for Europe to figure it out.
Without that, you get Hitler, and maybe Stalin too, to remind you jerkoff artists what Black and White really looks like.
Right now it looks a lot like Jihad.
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.