Best of the Web yesterday linked to this opinion piece by Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt of weasel jr. Belgium, who writes:
Belgium has been at the centre of international attention in the past few days.
Correction: Belgium either does not exist or has recently ceased to exist.
Yet the Belgian story of last week is but a small part of something that goes much deeper. I have been trying to find out in recent weeks what is really going on between both sides of the Atlantic. Why are some European countries not solidly behind the US, as they usually are in times of crisis?
A compelling explanation can be found in this terrific essay by Steven Den Beste, who writes:
The answer is that the purpose of the European Union is to roll back the post-war experiment in western Europe with capitalist representative democracy, and to restore Europe to its rightful place at the center of the world's stage by displacing the US as the predominant power in the world.The driving motivation behind it is a religious belief, along with a nostalgia for past greatness, profound distrust of the masses, and resentment of American power and influence, as well as outright fear of what America might decide to do with its unprecedented position in the world.
Back to Mr. Verhofstadt:
Because, I think, the real threat is lacking. At least, that is what most Europeans feel. And a sense of real threat is crucial if we, battle-weary Europeans, are to take up arms.
When in doubt, consult Workers World: "Every new or aspiring NATO member, and most of the old ones, have endorsed war against Iraq."
NATO expanded from 16 to 19 countries in 1999 with the entrance of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Other former socialist countries, now capitalist semi-colonies, are lining up to join. The U.S.-dominated military alliance stretches now from the Baltic to the Black Sea, and has begun to reach from Kosovo to Kazakhstan.
Heh.
Back to Mr. Verhofstadt:
This is not to say I feel any sympathy for Saddam Hussein. He is a villain, a threat to his own people and a substantial factor behind instability in the Middle East. If we do not stop the Iraqi leader, he will go on trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. And without military pressure from the US, there would not even have been any new United Nations inspections in Iraq. On the other hand, neither Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, nor Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, have yet found a smoking gun. And while it is beyond dispute that Baghdad sponsors terrorists, such as the Palestinian suicide bombers, the indications of a link with al-Qaeda are not very substantive, to say the least.
Yeah, he's a bad guy, but...
But, "It Was Never About a Smoking Gun" says former weapons inspector David Kay.
(Rachel Lucas expresses her dislike of the "smoking gun" metaphor here.)
As long as we Europeans feel threatened, the use of war and weapons can more or less be justified. However, without this sentiment, a transatlantic gulf has opened up. I fear this rift will only grow. As long as Soviet divisions could reach the Rhine in 48 hours, we obviously had a blood brotherhood with our cousins overseas. But now that the cold war is over, we can express more freely our differences of opinion. And one of those differences of opinion concerns the fundamental question about the use of war as an extension of politics. (emphasis added)
"Thanks for protecting our necks, again. Good luck saving your own."
Moreover, the balance in transatlantic relations has shifted. Our continent is no longer the exhausted and traumatised west of 1945. Indeed, we remain grateful to America, as well as to Britain, for putting an end to our nightmare. But many things have changed since 1945. That explains the tensions within the Atlantic alliance. For years traditional Atlanticists on both sides of the ocean have been sceptical about the development of a strong European pillar within Nato. Some have even strongly opposed it. And their argument is the same: it would be the beginning of the end for Nato.Exactly the opposite is true: as long as we have no European pillar within Nato, its unity will be at risk. There is an imbalance in the alliance: one superpower and 18, mainly European, countries with shattered defences.
Self-shattered, perhaps? According to this article in Policy Review:
This perceived weakness becomes real when one looks at military spending and capabilities. For many years, European governments have reduced or maintained low budgets for the military and defense, arguing that the post–Cold War world poses lesser threats that can be handled more effectively by means other than brute military force. Americans, on the other hand, have argued that Europeans are making a unilateral decision to forgo extensive military cooperation with the United States. Our findings suggest that this tension will not disappear anytime soon.Europeans may be willing to support the use of force in theory, but they are less interested in spending real money for military purposes. When asked whether defense spending should be expanded, cut, or kept the same, 19 percent of Europeans want to boost military funding, 33 percent want to cut it back, and another 42 percent want to maintain current low defense budgets. By contrast, 44 percent of Americans are willing to spend more on defense, and another 38 percent support current levels of spending, which are already significantly higher than European expenditures.
The rest of Mr. Verhofstadt's comments have already been well-addressed in the post, mentioned above, by Mr. Den Beste.
Posted by oscarjr at February 22, 2003 03:03 PM | TrackBack