Jewish World Review Feb. 24, 2005 / 15 Adar I, 5765

Robert Robb

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports


Europe is no pillar of U.S. security


http://www.jewishworldreview.com | President Bush seems to be managing the diplomacy of his European trip rather well.

He has achieved an effective balance between making nice and reiterating his tough message about the need for a proactive U.S. and European role in advancing freedom and democracy in the world.

European leaders seem to be responding favorably. Of course, that's in significant part because of the evocative success of the Iraq election. If the election had gone badly, or even if the voting narratives had been less dramatic and heroic, chances are this would have been a trip of European I-told-you-sos for the president.

Given the rupture over Iraq, which crystallized differences in global perspectives and approaches, Bush's trip pretty much had to be devoted to soothing and repairing relationships. But that merely postpones a difficult discussion that ultimately needs to take place.

In his introductory speech in Brussels, Bush declared: "In a new century, the alliance of Europe and North America is the main pillar of our security."

In most respects, that's simply not true.

The only sense in which it is remotely true is the oversized diplomatic role Europe continues to play, particularly its disproportionate representation on the U.N. Security Council, a remnant of the post-World War II world.

So, what Europe thinks has consequences. But, contrary to the Cold War era, U.S. security interests are not anchored in Europe.

Europe remains an important economic partner. About a fifth of all U.S. trade is with Western Europe.

But Western Europe is a declining economic force. It's growth rate has been about half that of the U.S.

There's growing recognition in the European Union that it has a sluggish tax and regulatory climate. But politically, it's far harder to reverse unproductive restrictions than to prevent them from being imposed in the first place.

Europe's welfare states face even more serious demographic challenges than the United States. Birth rates are well below population replacement levels, and immigration is proving as politically contentious there as here, and even more of a security threat.

After his visit to its headquarters on Tuesday, Bush said that NATO was the most successful alliance in world history. And there's some merit to that claim.

But NATO was established to facilitate U.S. assistance, and cement U.S. commitment, to protect Europe against a threat that no longer exists: a communistic, expansionist Soviet Union.

These days, this formalized European security relationship is neither necessary nor beneficial to the United States.

The European Union has one and half times the population of the United States and a slightly bigger economy. There is no realistic regional security threat the countries of Europe shouldn't be able to handle primarily on their own.

Protecting against terrorism requires a high degree of cooperation between countries, to track and disrupt terrorist cells and the flow of funds.

But when it has come to shooting wars, the pattern has been pretty constant. In Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, the United States has done virtually all the fighting, and Europe has contributed to the peacekeeping.

After September 11, Afghanistan was our fight. But Europeans should have taken the lead in the Balkans.

Unfortunately, they were neither prepared nor willing. The European countries in NATO spend about half as much on their military as does the United States.

Donate to JWR


In recent years, there has been discussion in Europe about developing a military capability independent of NATO. The United States has discouraged that, based upon the mistaken belief that anything that diminishes our military or diplomatic influence is contrary to our interests.

But Europeans might take the need to invest in their own security more seriously if there was more of an independent force, and assume responsibilities that are more properly theirs than ours.

The Bush administration has talked about redeploying U.S. military forces in Europe, moving some of them from West to East. But it remains wedded to the NATO anachronism.

This is perplexing. After all, the administration has the important insight that projecting force and influence to confront today's threats is best done through coalitions of the willing. But in NATO, as in the U.N., the unwilling have a veto.

It's better to have good relationships with European states than bad ones. But, except for perhaps gaining some diplomatic elbowroom, that's no longer the main event in protecting U.S. security interests.



JWR contributor Robert Robb is a columnist for The Arizona Republic. Comment by clicking here.

Up

02/18/05: Memo to the Dems: Greenspan ‘the Oracle’ is not the guy you want
02/11/05: Federal ‘belt-tightening’: You call that an austerity budget?
02/07/05: Did I mean that? — Why Bush ‘encouraging’ Iran to rebel should be done with caution
02/04/05: Prez reaffirms commitment to fundamental conservative reform
02/02/05: If Bush's war turns out to have worked, was it worth the cost?
01/28/05: Would a diminishing U.S. global influence actually do us good?
01/21/05: Broadness of new Bush Doctrine diffuses focus from the true terrorist threat
01/05/05: Why is this any of the government's business?
12/15/04: Finally a maverick Nobel Prize winner for economics?
12/10/04: The challenge four more years of the Bush administration presents to conservatism's fundamental beliefs
12/02/04: Sportsmanship? What's that?
11/22/04: Tax reform limited by, uh ... tax reform
11/14/04: Empowerment agenda reality check
10/13/04: And what tax rate should Americans making over $200,000 a year pay? Some pre-debate advice for the President
09/24/04: Too many of the wrong people have too much ability to influence public opinion too quickly?
09/20/04: Kerry asks good question about security costs
09/07/04: Right city, right message
08/30/04: Bush's key task: His reinvention as a true uniter
08/20/04: Bush's burdening the Middle Class
08/13/04: For prez to win, he must change his campaigning style
08/03/04: Missing in Beantown was a sense of the art of the possible
07/26/04: Kerry inflated agenda reveals he's failed to truly make the transition from legislator to presidential candidate
07/12/04: Edwards punctuates Kerry fantasies
07/06/04: Kerry ups the ante in bid for Latino vote
06/30/04: High Court gave administration limits
06/25/04: Parallel (political) universes
06/21/04: Al-Qaida-Iraq interaction strengthens case for war
06/02/04: Gas whiners don't believe in or trust markets
05/10/04: Border reforms fail on black-market issue
05/07/04: It wasn't Bush's recession nor Bush's recovery
04/28/04: Arizona to become test market on immigration as a political issue
04/23/04: Accusations that the Bush administration has been shredding civil liberties are hyperbolic
04/16/04: Learning the limits
04/14/04: Aug. 6 memo is not even a water pistol, much less a smoking gun
04/11/04: Once 9/11 Commission's political theater ends, we must debate real security issues
04/09/04: Fact checking Kerry's federal budget plans
04/08/04: Should the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq be delayed beyond the current deadline?
04/02/04: Kerry's tax epiphany makes some cents
03/31/04: What could have prevented 9/11
03/26/04: Knock off the high-stakes blame game
03/23/04: McCain a ‘straight talker’? Who is he kidding?
03/17/04: Bin Laden makes distinctions?
03/12/04: In the dangerous neighborhoods, cause for hope, if not yet optimism
03/01/04: Greenspan view scary, but Dems in denial

02/27/04: How not to achieve a mandate


© 2004, The Arizona Republic