Is
there an alternative to
European estrangement
from America?
By
Jonathan
Power
May 7, 2003
LONDON - Europe, including Britain, is going through
an agony of heart searching about what its future
relationship with America is going to be. American policy
makers seem to have no compunction about telling
Europeans that they no longer need Europe to do what they
want to do in the world. The mood may be extreme- one
can't imagine ex president Bill Clinton allowing it to
run away with itself as it has the last six months. But
Bush, aided by the fallout from September 11th , seems
quite capable of making these so called neo-conservative
views the mainstream over the next five years.
On the European side the signs of estrangement are
just as manifest. While in Britain, always at heart a
warrior nation, public sentiment, following victory in
the war, has swung back in favour of American leadership,
in the rest of Europe opinion is firmly against being
under the American thumb. The meeting earlier this week
of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg to create a
pioneer group of European Union states to advance the
cause of defense integration is but one manifestation of
this.
The argument is spilling over into Britain where the
intellectual class on balance is more pro European than
pro British (and out of step with general opinion). In
London's Financial Times columnist Michael Prowse argues
that Europe must develop the will to build up an
independent military capacity that the U.S. will respect,
dismissing the arguments of those who have long said this
would cost too much by stressing the savings that would
come from integration. And in the current issue of
Prospect magazine the former British ambassador to
Moscow, Rodric Braithwaite, argues that Britain has
allowed itself to get too dependent on America even
though it gets little in return. And it must learn to
stop being taken for granted and be prepared to walk away
from the table, as the Turks did before the war, refusing
to allow American forces permission to cross its
territory. Maybe, too, he says, Britain should be ready
to forgo the tight links with American intelligence and
the military that allow it to maintain its own nuclear
deterrent and instead revive the idea of a joint
Anglo-French deterrent since the French nuclear forces
are truly independent.
I find all these arguments disturbing, if
understandable. Where does it end? Given present day
American paranoia I think it would end in Washington
seeing Europe as a rival power block. This is not a very
good idea. Even if were most unlikely to lead to war it
would lead to a lot of other distasteful things- more
bitter trade disputes, less academic cooperation, less
tourism both ways, and a general worsening of mood
whereby popular opinion begins to caricature the other
side, making it difficult for politicians to cooperate in
the myriad ways they do now. Besides Washington will take
no more notice of Western Europe whether it spends 4% of
its gross national product (the US figure) on its
military than 2% (Europe's present figure).
Europe must strive to take the lead not by challenging
American prowess but by trying to set an example in less
confrontational ways. This is what it has been doing the
last few years- bringing the often factious, less than
democratic, sometimes corrupt, east Europeans up scratch
so that they can become full upright members of the
European Union. This is what it has done with its
peacekeeping efforts in post war Bosnia and Kosovo. It is
what it has done by fighting for the establishment of the
International Criminal Court, the Kyoto treaty on global
warming and a multitude of other endeavours. But these
are just the beginning.
Working with Canada, Japan, Russia and, to use that
well worn expression appropriated by the Bush
Administration, "coalitions of the willing", it needs,
making use of its immense economic power, to push through
much more aggressive policies on a settlement of the
Israeli/Palestine dispute, on bringing Iran out of the
cold, on working with Pakistan and India to find an
acceptable compromise over Kashmir, on further
development of its already unique ability to field peace
keeping troops, and to rebuild the UN so the Americans
can start to respect it once again, which means not least
finding a secretary general who can command American
attention, perhaps an American. (Former secretary of
state James Baker comes to mind.)
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said this week that,
"I don't want Europe setting up in opposition to America.
I think it will be dangerous and destabilizing". That is
right. But to make sure it doesn't happen Blair has to
work as hard on Europe as he did on Iraq- which means
taking Britain into the Euro and signing up for a common
foreign policy, as long as it is not an anti-American
one. This is a big jump for all of Europe but a far more
sane and sensible one that dwelling too much on a unified
defense force able to match America's.
I can be reached by phone +44
7785 351172 and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
Copyright © 2003 By
JONATHAN POWER
Follow this
link to read about - and order - Jonathan Power's book
written for the
40th Anniversary of
Amnesty International
"Like
Water on Stone - The Story of Amnesty
International"
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
 
|