There is much teeth-gnashing among the neocon crowd in DC as they watch their leader on his "charm offensive" across the Atlantic. President Bush speaks with members of the EU about the "alliance" and "shared values" , but the neocons will have none of this. Writing in the Weekly Standard Gerard Baker mocks the "irrelevance " of Europe:
IN THE ENDLESS THEORIZING about the transatlantic relationship, it
is tempting to dismiss Europe as irrelevant, a nineteenth-century
superpower in a 21st-century world.Its sclerotic economy, stagnant demography, military obsolescence,
and strategic pusillanimity create the impression of a gently
disintegrating, mildly irritating, but mostly inconsequential relic.
The dogs of Europe may bark, but America’s caravan is moving on to the
Middle East and Asia Pacific.
I wish Baker could explain to me why global investors are fleeing the US dollar for the Euo. But it is interesting that this same crowd which only two years ago was calling for an end to NATO after that organization refused to endorse a preemptive invasion of Iraq now sees NATO as the cornerstone for the US-Europe alliance.
Above all, the United States should seek ways to strengthen and renew
NATO. It should resist the calls of European superpower dreamers (and
their supporters in the United States) who want to see NATO wither and
be replaced by a transatlantic political community of "equals." NATO
has been the best hope for the liberation of Europeans before. It
should remain the cornerstone of Washington’s European strategy in the
global struggle for democracy.
Over at the National Review, Andrew Stuttaford ridicules the EU process for drafting a constitution. This is an unprecedented effort of 24 states to craft a document that expresses shared values and aspirations. But Stuttaford finds it contemptible:
The project of a federal EU has long been driven, at least in part, by
a profound, and remarkably virulent anti-Americanism, with deep roots
in Vichy-era disdain for the sinister "Anglo-Saxons" and their
supposedly greedy and degenerate culture. Throw in the poisonous legacy
of soixante-huitard radicalism, then add Europe’s traditional
suspicion of the free market, and it’s easy to see how relations
between Brussels and Washington were always going to be troubled.
What’s more, the creation of a large and powerful fortress Europe
offered its politicians something else, the chance to return to the fun
and games of great power politics.
What really angers Stuttaford is the language that confirms a commitment to cultural diversity and social equity:
what a sorry, shabby work it is, an unreadable mish-mash of political
correctness, micromanagement, bureaucratic jargon, artful ambiguity,
deliberate obscurity, and stunning banality that somehow limps its way
through some 500 pages with highlights that include
"guaranteeing" (Article II-74) a right to "vocational and continuing
training," "respect" (Article II-85) for the "rights of the elderly…
to participate in social and cultural life," and the information
(Article III-121) that "animals are sentient beings." On the status of
spiders, beetles, and lice there is, unusually, only silence.
This is the same crowd that is stridently calling for an amendment to the US constitution that codifies discrimination against gays and lesbians (The Federal Marriage Amendment – aka The Hate Amendment).
To counterbalance the neocon perspective it is worth taking note of Martin Winter’s commentary in today’s Frankfurter Rundschau, as President Bush visits Mainz. Winter notes that Bush’s visit in Brussels did not end with a common declaration. "The pillars of the free world are too far apart to bridge" at this time, and soaring rhetoric about "spreading freedom" and "fighting tyranny" can do little to repair the fissure. While Winter concedes the military supremacy of the US, he sees equal strength in the EU approach:
So überträgt die EU ihre Erfahrung auf die Welt, dass eine friedliche
und demokratische Gemeinschaft nur mit viel Geduld, einer großen
Bereitschaft zum Kompromiss und vor allem langem Atem aufgebaut werden
kann. Hier scheiden sich der europäische und der gegenwärtige
amerikanische Weg. Washington fehlt der lange Atem.
(my translation: The EU can offer the world its experience that a peaceful and democratic community can only be achieved through a lot of patience, openness to compromise, and staying power. This is where Europe diverges from the current American way. Washington doesn’t have this kind of staying power.)
0 comment
Martin Winter’s commentary suggests there is a “European way” of spreading democracy. There is, at least a Euro-Atlantic way that has proven most effective in certain situations. Specifically, I am speaking about those in which the EU and NATO can offer at least vague promises of future Euro-Atlantic integration to countries such as Ukraine, Croatia and Georgia that openly push for membership in these bodies.
Robert,
Winter does seem to credit the EU for the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, and I’ve noted that Bush, when he talks about “spreading freedom”, also seems to claim credit for the Ukraine.
Why don’t we give credit to where it is due – namely to the Ukrainian people? They did it on their own. And that is what has been so inspiring to watch
David,
you’re absolutely right about giving credit to the Ukrainian people — not least when you look at the weather they endured while defying Kuchma and his cronies! Nonetheless, my main point was about the types of situations in which the European Union can most effectively help spread democracy. Winter doesn’t take into account that patience, openness to compromise and the other things he mentions are not on the table in every situation. It was possible for the EU, acting in concert with the United Staes, to help Ukraine rid itself of its regime. But would Serbia be moving towards democracy today unless the Western military intervention had significantly weakened Milosevic and exposed him for the fraud he is? The answer is far from conclusive.