Farewell, New EuropeHow Bush administration blunders destroyed the budding pro-American alliance.
Posted Tuesday, June 5, 2007, at 7:00 AM ET
It was a sunny day in June, and George W. Bush was making a speech at the University of Warsaw. Inside, the politicians listened with interest; outside, crowds gathered to cheer. Afterward, the press was full of praise.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponHard to imagine, but true. That's what President Bush's first visit to Poland was really like—I was there—back in the unfathomably distant summer of 2001. On that same trip, Bush also went to Spain. During a joint press conference, Spanish President José Maria Aznar thanked Bush for his administration's "kindness." "Spain is a friend of the United States, and President Aznar is a friend of mine," said Bush.
Not all of the trip went so smoothly: There were protests at a U.S.-European summit and elsewhere. Nevertheless, these predictable displays of outrage were tempered by the first hints of something new: a pro-American, European alliance consisting of Tony Blair's Britain; Silvio Berlusconi's Italy; the center-right governments of Spain, Portugal, and Denmark; and, of course, the ex-Communist states of Central Europe. These were all countries that had recently undergone market liberalization, countries prone to resent the Franco-German domination of continental politics. In 2003, when Donald Rumsfeld slightingly referred to Germany and France as "Old Europe," this vague, almost-alliance acquired a name: "New Europe." It meant pro-American, accepting of global capitalism, and supportive of the war on terrorism. Not coincidentally, these were the countries that eventually made up the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq.
A mere four year later, New Europe no longer exists. Aznar, Blair, and Berlusconi are finished, partly victims of failure in Iraq. Central Europe's mood has changed profoundly, from pro-American to deeply skeptical. On Friday, President Bush plans to spend precisely 3 hours and 10 minutes on the ground in Poland, making no speeches and seeing no one much besides the Polish president. And it won't be a very wide-ranging discussion. Mortally wounded by Iraq, damaged further by the U.S. administration's lack of interest in its concerns—change in the U.S. visa regime, military assistance—New Europe probably will now be killed off completely by American plans to build a missile-defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Belatedly, the State Department has done its best to promote the project, and pro-American politicians in both countries are scrambling to find a way to support it. But it remains deeply unpopular, and it isn't clear whether the parliament of either country could accept it. Europeans don't understand why a piece of equipment designed to protect the United States from Iran needs to be placed in their territory, particularly since Iran in fact threatens Israel, not the United States or Europe. Nor do they see why they should accept without question a piece of military hardware that opens them up to new risks. This week, Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened to point his own nuclear missiles at Europe if the missile shield is built. "It is obvious," Putin told journalists Sunday, that "if part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States is located in Europe and will be threatening us, we will have to respond."
This is, of course, entirely cynical: There are good reasons to ask whether this particular system really has to be built right now, but it isn't "strategic nuclear potential," and it isn't designed to threaten Russia, as the Russians know perfectly well. Still, Putin's Cold War rhetoric is beginning to worry people all across the continent; he must be counting it a huge success. Yet it seems no one in the Pentagon ever imagined that anyone might object to the project, or that the locals might want some extra reassurance, or that a bit of judicious diplomacy might have smoothed the way in advance. According to some, the State Department didn't even know the missile shield was going ahead until the Pentagon had already made the decision. Sound familiar?
And all this, every bit of it, was avoidable. Indeed, New Europe is expiring just as France and Germany have acquired leaders distinctly more pro-American than their predecessors. With a bit more attention, and a bit less arrogance, the trans-Atlantic alliance might now be reinvigorated instead of angry and resentful. When, if ever, we get around to assessing Bush's foreign policy, the damage done on the old continent may loom almost as large as the damage done in Iraq.
Happy Birthday, Smokey Bear
Are Gas Grills More Eco-Friendly Than Charcoal Ones?
He-Man: Briefs of Rage and Other Toy-Inspired Movies We're Dying To See
Kaus: Seven Possible Theories Explaining Palin's Resignation
The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti Cordially Invites You to a Fourth of July Cookout
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons
Remarks from the Fray:
That pro-American leaders have popped up in France and Germany gets only an off-handed mention, when it is far more important than the anti-missile matter. The US is only one factor in elections there, but things have clearly been trending our way.
Yes, Russia's hacked off, but they're generally hacked off anyway, and not even mostly at us. Look at the games they've been playing with Europe's energy supply, which has nothing to do with Bush.
It's idiotic to pretend that a bit of diplomacy here or there could have made a big difference. Europe got all in a tizzy when Reagan put missiles there, too. His diplomacy was no better, Russia was upset, there were mass demonstrations. But it didn't end up damaging our relationships, and neither will this. That's because our relationship isn't a tactical matter, dependent on niceties. Instead, it is strategic to both parties, and will effortlessly withstand stuff like this. In a year or two, the increased security the missile defense provides will knit the alliance more tightly together than ever.
As is true everywhere else, the grumpiness is much more about Iraq than about missiles.
--Larry
(To reply, click here.)
The idea of a loyal pro-American "New Europe" was always a bit of a leap given that it was based on fickle coalition governments in power in Italy, Spain, Poland, the Czech Republic and, to a lesser extent, in Romania and Hungary. Certainly both France under Chirac and Germany under Schroeder were arrogant in their dealings with these new EU members and did little to address their concerns. At the end of the day these countries now share sovereignty within the EU.
Of course these "new" Europeans were paranoid about their Russian neighbour, looked to the US through the halo effect of the cold war, and had unrealistic expectations of the actual benefits compliance with the foreign policy objectives of the United States would bring.
These electorates asked themselves what exactly did Polish and Spanish and Italian troops die for in Iraq? Why is it that they hosted black sites for torture often little more than ten years after the demise of their own secret police and their fascist pasts? And why complicate an already difficult relationship with the bear next door in order to guarantee the security of the US mainland?
One could also see the tizzy the British got themselves into when it was realised that the missile interceptors would be placed in the Czech Republic and not in the UK. It was practically embarrassing, and right on top of the debate over the utter dependence on the US for the updating of their Trident nuclear deterrent. Coupled with the deep unpopularity of the UK's association with Bush's Iraq policy; [these issues] have seriously damaged the credibility of the "special relationship". Britain as Greece to America's Rome? Scholars will tell you that Greece became merely a province in the Roman Empire, without influence.
The UK is gradually being "Europeanized." Slower, of course, given its traditional innate conservatism and [suspicion] of that continent a mere 34 km away and not withstanding the determined efforts of Murdoch's press and the paranoia of the little Englanders. But, the British too realize that they wield far greater influence and possibility to direct events to their benefit in cohesion with the rest of Europe, regardless of the "special relationship" across the pond.
Sarkozy, as the son of Hungarian immigrants and Merkel, as a former Osie, are surely more sensitive to these new democracies of Central Europe and now fellow EU members than their predecessors. They too now see the security issues involved in energy dependency on Russia. European politicians realise they can either speak in unison and with consensus on their common interests, or [they can] be divided among themselves as Lilliputians picked off by both the US and Russia.
--obrien
(To reply, click here.)
Aggressive unilateralism is a bad idea, but it is not a "blunder". It is central to Bush's foreign policy, even today. Indeed, the missile defense system is an example. As with the Iraq war, he has convinced a few governments to go along, despite political opposition in the countries themselves. The reason that Blair, Berlusconi and, especially, Aznar are no longer with us is because the Iraq war was always deeply unpopular in Britain, Italy, and Spain.
On another point, why is Anne so sure that the missle defense is not aimed at Russia? "Star wars" was conceived to stop ballistic missiles, which are well out of the reach of even the best financed terrorists or rogue states, but Russia has them. And terrorists and rogue states are some way from being able to target Europe, as distinct from, say, Israel or the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.
While the proposed European system falls well short of Reagan's "star wars" dreams (what doesn't?), they are part of the program, are located to stop Russia (not Iran), and, Russia might well argue, are the first step in constructing the system as originally imagined.
Perhaps, and this is my guess, Anne simply believes Bush when he says it is not aimed at Russia. She is one of those simple people who never learns.
--lloyd667
(To reply, click here.)
(6/6)