Europe's
Disarming Reply
Our Allies Disdain Military Might, But Can They
Back Up That Approach?
By William Drozdiak
Sunday, September 7, 2003;
Page B01
BRUSSELS
As the United States embarks on an effort to recruit
European soldiers into a broader international peacekeeping force in
Iraq, the Bush administration needs to understand why skepticism
among the allies runs so deep. Even within European countries that
have already dispatched troops to Iraq, there is a smug sense of
vindication among those who opposed the war and who object to what
they believe is a dangerous American habit -- to hastily launch
military campaigns and then call on its friends to help clean up the
mess.
While there may be many reasons behind the frequent
displays of discord across the Atlantic these days, America's dismay
with its major allies can be explained by the reluctance of France,
Germany and other European nations to join in projecting military
power in defense of what the United States sees as vital Western
interests. After providing the security umbrella that shielded
Western Europe from the covetous aims of the Soviet Union for nearly
half a century, Americans think the allies are badly letting them
down with their lukewarm backing for the global war against terror.
Europeans are frequently castigated by many Washington policymakers
and pundits as appeasing wimps, unable or unwilling to confront
sources of genuine evil.
But many Europeans have believed, ever since the fateful
events two years ago this week, that America has been waging the
wrong kind of war. Europeans often ridicule what they perceive as
the Bush administration's proclivity to use a sledgehammer to kill a
fly. They tend to think of America as a muscle-bound superpower that
is too quick to resolve conflicts by trying to annihilate its
enemies -- and failing to consider how to cope with the chaotic
aftermath.
Like many stereotypes, these images often fall short of the
truth. Americans have tried patient diplomacy in many conflicts,
notably Kosovo and Iraq, before resorting to the use of force. And
Europeans have signed up for difficult combat peacekeeping missions,
as in Congo and Sierra Leone, even when the United States refused to
embrace what the rest of the world viewed as causes worthy of
military intervention. But just as the nasty turn of events in Iraq
has demonstrated the importance of maintaining a broad coalition of
democracies, it has reinforced the sharp split between Americans and
Europeans over how to use military force in dealing with the
security challenges of the 21st century.
While Americans feel acutely vulnerable in the global war
against terrorism and no longer enjoy the sense of protection once
afforded by two oceans and a vast land mass, Europeans feel perhaps
more secure than at any time in their history. For four centuries,
every generation of young Germans and French prepared to wage war
against each other. That prospect is now simply unthinkable. With
the waning of the Balkan wars and rapid integration of Russia with
the West, Europeans generally believe they face no serious security
threat -- unless they are dragged into conflict elsewhere by the
United States.
The results of a new survey conducted in the United States
and seven European countries show just how differently Europe and
the United States view the world. The first comprehensive poll taken
in the wake of the Iraq war, it vividly illustrates the yawning gap
between the ways Americans and Europeans perceive the value and
purpose of military force. The Transatlantic Trends 2003 poll of
8,000 Europeans and Americans, sponsored by the German Marshall Fund
of the United States and the Italian foundation Compagnia di San
Paolo, shows that strong majorities in Europe -- as high as 81
percent in Germany and 84 percent in France -- now believe the Iraq
war was not worth the financial and human costs. While disaffection
may be stirring in the United States, most polls still show a
considerably higher level of support among Americans for the
invasion of Iraq.
Other responses underscore Europe's anti-militarist
attitudes. While a clear-cut majority of inhabitants in the Old
World would like to see the European Union emerge as a superpower
partner equal in stature to the United States, support for that view
plummets to about 36 percent when it is suggested that greater
military spending would be required. Nearly nine Europeans out of 10
said they believe that the EU -- which will expand to 25 nations
encompassing 450 million citizens next year -- can achieve
superpower status through its clout in diplomacy, trade and
development aid alone.
The values gap across the Atlantic was even more glaring on
the question of whether there were circumstances when war was
necessary to obtain justice -- 84 percent of Americans agreed, while
only 48 percent of the Europeans said yes.
It is striking how wide the divide has grown across the
Atlantic on the most basic issues of war and peace. In the streets
ringing American embassies in Paris, Berlin and even London, motley
groups of demonstrators stage continuous vigils to protest what they
condemn as the illegal U.S. occupation of Iraq. Although governments
in Poland, Ukraine, Spain, Italy and Bulgaria have defied public
opposition by sending token troop contingents to buttress American
and British forces in Iraq, the newspapers, television screens and
radio waves across Europe are filled with diatribes warning about
the risks of collaborating with a virulent new strain of American
imperialism.
On late-night talk shows, you can frequently hear young
Belgians, Germans and Italians complaining that Europe's tranquility
may be shattered by the insatiable American lust for war. This
lament is emerging as an emotional political theme in Europe's
post-Cold War landscape. Even in Central and Eastern Europe -- where
America is still admired for helping those countries overthrow
communist regimes -- there are growing signs of trepidation about
slavishly following America's lead.
Having pacified their nationalist demons and recovered from
two devastating world wars in the past century, Europeans
understandably wish to wrap themselves in a womb of peaceful
prosperity. Throughout much of the Cold War, many Europeans,
especially Germans, felt dangerously exposed on the front line of
the Iron Curtain and feared their homeland would become a nuclear
battlefield for the United States and the Soviet Union.
When the Soviet empire collapsed, some Europeans believed
that the need for territorial defense had vanished. A cover story
then in the German magazine Der Spiegel argued seriously that the
time had finally arrived for the country to disband its army. Even
today, with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction posing a
threat to Europe as well as the United States, many Europeans are
eager to continue cashing in their peace dividend. Voters remain
opposed to shifting resources from Europe's generous social welfare
programs to the military sector. And politicians across the
continent seem to regard advocating a rise in military spending as
suicidal to their careers.
As a result, the disparity in military spending across the
Atlantic has grown to enormous proportions. Some military analysts
contend that the United States and Europe are no longer able to
fight a coordinated military campaign on the same battlefield. The
United States defense budget, now running at $380 billion a year
(not even counting the cost of the war in Iraq) is greater than the
combined military budgets of all other 18 member states of the NATO.
With little public or political support among the allies to expand
those budgets, U.S. officials shake their heads in exasperation and
wonder how the alliance can be sustained unless Europe starts doing
more to match the high-tech wizardry of American weapons
systems.
But when it comes to fighting a global war against
terrorism, many Europeans believe the Bush administration is placing
too much emphasis on firepower. "We learned the hard way in Algeria
how hopeless it can be to subdue terrorism through brute force,"
observed a senior French official. "You have already spent something
close to $65 billion in the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, yet
there is no guarantee that those countries are anywhere close to
becoming secure and stable."
Other Europeans stress the importance of development and
education aid in Third World countries and say this support may be
more effective in combating the future growth of global terrorism.
As Javier Solana, the EU's high representative for foreign and
security policy, points out, the EU and its 15 member states account
for more than half of the $54 billion in development aid each year,
a degree of generosity that he believes helps every bit, if not
more, than military spending in building a more secure and stable
world.
Europeans have also managed to deploy effective
international police monitoring units and peacekeeping forces that
have helped prevent further hostilities throughout the Balkans. That
experience could prove valuable in helping restore order in Iraq.
German and Dutch units have already assumed the lion's share of the
peacekeeping burdens in Afghanistan, and the Poles are now in the
process of taking on a greater role in central Iraq to supplement
the British forces occupying the southern sector. With American
forces stretched so thin on the ground and now the target of
frequent terror attacks, the added presence of European police and
peacekeeping forces would be welcome relief for the Bush
administration.
But as the EU grows in size and strives to fulfill its
ambitions to become a global power on a par with the United States,
it will have to develop and execute its own strategic vision of the
world. Despite its economic clout, which by some measures surpasses
that of the United States, Europe still behaves like a regional
power. Its largest members -- France, Britain, Germany and Italy --
have abandoned colonial empires and now claim they want to work
together in cultivating stability beyond Europe's immediate
frontiers. Indeed, the next phase of enlargement may bring the EU to
the brink of such treacherous neighborhoods as Central Asia and the
Middle East.
If Europeans hope to establish and maintain lasting
security at those frontiers, they will need to bolster their
diplomatic and economic clout with more formidable military assets.
That may bring about a philosophical clash in a Europe that has
convinced itself that force is not an answer to problems. And it may
bring about a fiscal collision on a continent whose major powers are
already running big budget deficits without shouldering more
military responsibilities. But just as Europeans are urging America
to balance its enormous arsenal with more clever applications of
soft power, Europe needs to recognize that the outside world will
only take it seriously as a global superpower when it can back up
its prescriptions for peace with the ability to enforce them.
Author's e-mail:WDrozdiak@gmfus.org
Bill Drozdiak is executive director of the Transatlantic
Center, a Brussels-based policy institute sponsored by the German
Marshall Fund of the United States for the study of U.S.-European
relations. He previously worked for 20 years as an editor and
foreign correspondent for The Post.
© 2003 The Washington Post
Company
|
.gif)
