|
Jewish World Review Feb. 24, 2005 / 15 Adar I, 5765
Robert Robb
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.
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.
02/18/05: Memo to the Dems: Greenspan the Oracle is not the guy you want 02/27/04: How not to achieve a mandate
|