There is still much grumbling in the neocon camp about Bush’s attempt last week to strengthen relations with the European allies. Now Tom Donnelly in the Daily Standard is asking: why bother? As "human history’s one and only superpower" why should the US care about what Paris or Berlin thinks? So Donnelly recommends putting our efforts in an alliance that really matters: Japan.
there’s an instructive study to be done comparing Japan’s recent
revitalization with Germany’s continuing geostrategic decline. How much
war guilt is too much war guilt? In the brief pause between the
Eurolove-fests of the past two weeks, it was leaked that Japan has
essentially agreed to conduct a joint defense of Taiwan with the United
States. This is a huge development and an act of real courage by the Japanese government.
So the cause of Germany’s "geostrategic decline" is excessive war guilt? Just last week the neocons were upset about the the growing global influence of the EU. I guess the new tact is: if we ignore them, maybe they’ll go away.
What is sensible to Japan may well appeal to others who, unlike most
Europeans, feel the world is still a dangerous place and for whom the
practices of political liberty seem more under threat. India might well
come to similar conclusions. One of the more misguided–not to say
myopic–beliefs of European statesmen is that the United States needs
its European partners. Even President Bush says the Euro-American
relationship is the prime pillar of U.S. strategy. But Europeans think
themselves more attractive than they really are. Yes, it would be
preferable to maintain the transatlantic alliance of shared interests
and more-or-less shared values. But these days there are allies whom we
may need more.
It is true that the world does look more dangerous to Japan because of its proximity to North Korea. But Bush’s mismanagement of North Korea has only increased the danger. The European approach to Iran shows that there are better srategies for containing nuclear proliferation beside nuclear saber rattling. Of course, to the neocons diplomacy is a dirty word.
0 comment
David, you just cannot say that the “European” negotiation-oriented approach yields better results than the confrontational American style. On Monday, Mohamed El Baradei told the IAEI Board of Governors that Iran must do more to address what he called a “confidence” deficit — and this after months and months of talks with the Europeans.
Also, El Baradei told a German newspaper that if the Iranians are determined to get nuclear weapons, they probably will be able to build them in two to three years.
More importantly, I believe that if the Iranians truly want these weapons — and it looks to me as though they do — than Tehran will not listen to anyone who offers it economic incentives so it will change course. Maybe, as El Baradei believes, American military strikes will make the Iranians even more bent on acquiring nukes.
However, my point is that if the Iranians truly want nukes, then they will keep working at it until they get their hands on them, regardless of what candy the EU may dangle before them.
Robert –
Would you agree that the US confrontational approach has not worked out so well with respect to N. Korea?
David, I agree with you on North Korea. My point was that Iran is not the right example with which to sing the praises of European diplomacy. As far as we know, there is a very good chance that Iran is determined to get nuclear weapons no matter what. If you want to say the U.S. invasion of Iraq has made Tehran more nervous and more determined to acquire nukes, go right ahead. That doesn’t change my basic assertion.
But as I said a few posts ago, the low-key European approach works best in certain specific contexts, such as those of Ukraine and Georgia. These are countries before which you can dangle the prospect of Euro-Atlantic integration and seduce them into doing what you want. In addition, they don’t have other, bigger objectives — such as becoming nuclear powers [Of course, Ukraine go rid of its last nuclear warheads in 1996].
Richard,
One question to you: why does Iran want nukes?
To terrorize other nations, or to protect itself from a US-led invasion (perfectly logical fear, under the circumstances)? Seems to me the Europeans could help mitigate the latter fear. But even if you’re right and they are hell-bent on geting nukes, how does a US military threat stop them? Maybe it only accelerates any programs underway.