Making nice
With European leaders now eager to get along, U.S. President Bush should demand clear answers to where they stand
By Marc S. Ellenbogen
March 2, 2005
After nearly openly seeking U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in November, European leaders were poised to welcome the president on the eve of his first trip to Europe since re-election. With a love-fest atmosphere in the air, there are still serious policy disputes between European countries and the United States.
During a recent press conference of the Foreign Press Association in Berlin, I asked German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, in the forefront of President Bush's planned visit, what his strategy and future military policy would be. Cynically smiling, the chancellor rather curtly stated, "I leave that to my defense minister. I support his policies."
The assembled press went quiet; I was stunned.
I imagined Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair, both of whom I have little time for, answering this question before the assembled international press.
Chirac would have gone into a treatise on French military history, noting France's great military tradition and ending in a crescendo about the glory of France. Tony Blair would have emotionally stated his case for "searching and destroying" terrorism worldwide, adding his sorrow about the death of young British men and women in Iraq, and how he stands behind their families, but noting how he knows having a strong British military is a necessity.
And Chancellor Schroder, Germany's first baby-boomer chancellor? Here is a man who refused war with Iraq, who fiercely contested re-election with anti-U.S. rhetoric. Yet this is the same man who sent troops into Afghanistan, who allowed U.S. military flyovers during the war in Iraq, who allowed U.S. military hospitals on German soil to care for casualties from Iraq, and who wants his country on the UN Security Council.
Why would such a man, a leader of the world's third-largest economy, a man who wants to transform Germany's role in the world, answer a more-than-serious question with such hubris? I would even say contempt. Was he just having a bad day?
It should not matter.
But it goes to the heart of how the United States, Germany and maybe Europe perceive the world. A U.S. president who answered a similar question in a similar way — if he dared — would have found editorials abounding in the next day's press criticizing him harshly.
Imagine, I mean just imagine, President Bush or former President Bill Clinton essentially saying they support military policy being dictated by a department head. It might not be political suicide, but it might come close.
Yet not a note could be read in the European press the next day; not a sound was uttered on television, on radio, or even on the Internet.
The simple fact is that as long as Europe can hide behind U.S. military might and military doctrine; as long as young U.S. men and women, boys and girls, are dying to keep Europe free; and most European countries do not face the pain of war, of soldiers coming home dead, of their own citizens experiencing the destruction of war; they will not face up to the necessity of defining a meaningful defense and security policy. Europeans will continue to smugly sit in their debating chambers criticizing U.S. hegemony, U.S. military arrogance, as they see it, thinking of themselves as the "true civilized societies."
Nine key questions
President Bush should insist that European leaders focus on several issues. The following are nine possible statements and questions:
1) He should make clear to Chancellor Schroder that the United States is prepared to support Germany's place on the UN Security Council, but not before the German chancellor can cogently express his future military strategy and doctrine himself, and not through advisers. (Has the German chancellor given any thought to how he should respond to the families of soldiers coming home in body bags? Or would he give as smug an answer as he gave me?)
2) He should ask what Europeans think their role is in Iraq. How much money does Europe intend to invest in Iraq this year? Do they intend to build hospitals? Schools? Will they commit forces, even as peacekeepers? The Europeans should announce investments totaling $50 billion in Iraq.
3) If U.S. rumblings on war with Iran are wrong, or statements on the use of force incorrect, what is Europe's public policy prescription for Iran?
4) Now that Ukraine's elections are over, what will Russian President Vladimir Putin do to help stabilize the region? When will he help bring an end to the autocratic Belarusian government of Alexander Lukashenko?
5) Slovak President Ivan Gasparovic should be asked what specific steps he expects to take to ensure his country's role as a bridge between Europe and Ukraine. (Slovak Foreign Minister Eduard Kukan and Czech Defense Minister Karel Kuhnl will take up this question at the Sixth Transatlantic Drift Debate, to held in Bratislava April 18-19).
6) Ukrainian President Victor Yuschenko should make it clear that he intends to uphold democracy in his country and that he intends to have free and fair markets. Meanwhile, President Bush should announce that he intends to invest $5 billion (113 billion Kc) in the Ukrainian economy. The European Commission should announce it intends to match this.
7) Now that the six-party talks with North Korea have broken down, and with Christopher Hill taking the lead for the United States on this issue, what will Europe's "added value" be? Who will Europeans select to be their point person for North Korea? (Assistant Secretary Hill, former U.S. Ambassador to Poland and South Korea, is a highly competent and thoughtful man and deserves a similar European counterpart. The Global Panel Foundation and the Prague Society for International Cooperation are themselves currently negotiating a North Korea Summit for November in New Zealand).
8) Bush should express clearly that a secure Israel is an essential part of European foreign policy and a historical responsibility for Europe, politely but forcefully pointing out that Israel is still the only functioning democracy in the Middle East.
9) How will Europe better monitor its investments in the Middle East? Most analysts agree that Yasser Arafat stole millions, if not billions, of dollars' worth from his own people. How will Europeans ensure their money gets to the people who need it, to the populations who are supposed to be the beneficiaries?
It was former U.S. President Lyndon Johnson who once noted that American forces are "the watchmen on the walls of world freedom."
It is time for Europe to define this role for itself. — The author is president of the Prague Society for International Cooperation (praguesociety.org), chairman of the Global Panel Foundation (globalpanel.org) and an affiliate of the Moynihan Institute of the Maxwell School, Syracuse University. He is a senior advisor to the Oxford University European Affairs Society.
|
Purchase online
Spotlight on
Weekly list
BOL Online