[Nasional-e] Western publics can't stomach U.S. foreign policy

Fri Feb 14 02:00:16 2003

Western publics can't stomach U.S. foreign policy
   William Pfaff IHT  Thursday, February 13, 2003

The split in NATO

MUNICH The stalemate at NATO this week has been unnecessary and in basic
respects irrelevant. By posing the argument in terms of defending Turkey in
the event of a military intervention in Iraq that formally has yet to be
decided, the United States was attempting to force the NATO allies to commit
themselves to such an intervention.
.
The threat made by U.S. officials in the corridors of the annual Munich
strategic seminar last weekend, to transfer U.S. NATO bases in Germany to
"new Europe," meaning former Communist Europe, was also empty. Germany has
no need of U.S. bases on its territory. The United States needs those bases.
They are the logistical and operational foundation for the American
strategic deployment in Europe, the Near and Middle East, the horn of Africa
and Central Asia.
.
The United States could lease new bases in Poland, Bulgaria or Romania. But
if forces stationed there were committed to operations that did not enjoy
popular support in these countries, America would face the same problem it
has now in "old Europe."
.
NATO has been moribund since the Cold War ended, for lack of a strategic
purpose. Its life support system remained the popular support it has
continued to enjoy in its member countries, based on agreement over common
security interests.
.
The support system now has been disconnected because the agreement has
broken. America's German bases are now part of a U.S. deployment that
encompasses more than 40 nations and supports a foreign policy meant to
establish an integrated international order with "the United States as the
ultimate guarantor of order and enforcer of norms," to quote Andrew Bacevich
of Boston University. Iraq intervention is part of this.
.
By adopting this policy, the second Bush administration has opened a deep
strategic divide between itself and Western Europe. This is why there is a
trans-Atlantic crisis. Public opinion in NATO Europe has turned against the
United States. Washington prefers to call this "anti-Americanism." This is
not true. It is hostility to American foreign policy.
.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld maintains that the three European
governments making difficulties for the United States over Iraq are
"isolated." Actually, NATO popular opinion is universally opposed to a war
against Iraq not mandated by the United Nations. The dissident governments
speak for about 80 percent of West European opinion - and more than 70
percent of opinion in Eastern Europe as well. Who, then, is isolated?
.
Rumsfeld arrived for his weekend in Munich confident that he would rapidly
humiliate the German government and isolate France diplomatically. On
Monday, France and Belgium blocked the U.S. proposals concerning war on
Turkey's border, saying they were premature and compromising. Later in the
day, Russia joined the Germans and French in recommending an extended UN
arms inspections program in Iraq, and China did so on Tuesday.
.
As far as the Security Council is concerned, the relevant question until
this week had been whether France would veto a resolution authorizing
military intervention. The question now became whether the United States
would be forced to veto a French or French-German resolution expanding the
UN inspectors' mandate. German sources on Tuesday said that 11 of the 15
members of the Security Council supported the Franco-German position.
.
The key to it all is public opinion. The public in Europe, and to a lesser
extent in the United States, seems convinced - rightly or wrongly - that
Iraq currently threatens no one outside its frontiers, and that such threat
as it may pose in the future is containable at less human cost, risk and
injustice than war would impose.
.
The Bush administration believes otherwise, and will almost certainly attack
Iraq before the end of March, with or without UN endorsement, whatever
public opinion may be in the NATO countries. This being so, not only is the
argument in Brussels this week irrelevant, but so, now, is NATO itself.
.
Tribune Media Services International

< < Back to Start of Article The split in NATO

MUNICH The stalemate at NATO this week has been unnecessary and in basic
respects irrelevant. By posing the argument in terms of defending Turkey in
the event of a military intervention in Iraq that formally has yet to be
decided, the United States was attempting to force the NATO allies to commit
themselves to such an intervention.
.
The threat made by U.S. officials in the corridors of the annual Munich
strategic seminar last weekend, to transfer U.S. NATO bases in Germany to
"new Europe," meaning former Communist Europe, was also empty. Germany has
no need of U.S. bases on its territory. The United States needs those bases.
They are the logistical and operational foundation for the American
strategic deployment in Europe, the Near and Middle East, the horn of Africa
and Central Asia.
.
The United States could lease new bases in Poland, Bulgaria or Romania. But
if forces stationed there were committed to operations that did not enjoy
popular support in these countries, America would face the same problem it
has now in "old Europe."
.
NATO has been moribund since the Cold War ended, for lack of a strategic
purpose. Its life support system remained the popular support it has
continued to enjoy in its member countries, based on agreement over common
security interests.
.
The support system now has been disconnected because the agreement has
broken. America's German bases are now part of a U.S. deployment that
encompasses more than 40 nations and supports a foreign policy meant to
establish an integrated international order with "the United States as the
ultimate guarantor of order and enforcer of norms," to quote Andrew Bacevich
of Boston University. Iraq intervention is part of this.
.
By adopting this policy, the second Bush administration has opened a deep
strategic divide between itself and Western Europe. This is why there is a
trans-Atlantic crisis. Public opinion in NATO Europe has turned against the
United States. Washington prefers to call this "anti-Americanism." This is
not true. It is hostility to American foreign policy.
.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld maintains that the three European
governments making difficulties for the United States over Iraq are
"isolated." Actually, NATO popular opinion is universally opposed to a war
against Iraq not mandated by the United Nations. The dissident governments
speak for about 80 percent of West European opinion - and more than 70
percent of opinion in Eastern Europe as well. Who, then, is isolated?
.
Rumsfeld arrived for his weekend in Munich confident that he would rapidly
humiliate the German government and isolate France diplomatically. On
Monday, France and Belgium blocked the U.S. proposals concerning war on
Turkey's border, saying they were premature and compromising. Later in the
day, Russia joined the Germans and French in recommending an extended UN
arms inspections program in Iraq, and China did so on Tuesday.
.
As far as the Security Council is concerned, the relevant question until
this week had been whether France would veto a resolution authorizing
military intervention. The question now became whether the United States
would be forced to veto a French or French-German resolution expanding the
UN inspectors' mandate. German sources on Tuesday said that 11 of the 15
members of the Security Council supported the Franco-German position.
.
The key to it all is public opinion. The public in Europe, and to a lesser
extent in the United States, seems convinced - rightly or wrongly - that
Iraq currently threatens no one outside its frontiers, and that such threat
as it may pose in the future is containable at less human cost, risk and
injustice than war would impose.
.
The Bush administration believes otherwise, and will almost certainly attack
Iraq before the end of March, with or without UN endorsement, whatever
public opinion may be in the NATO countries. This being so, not only is the
argument in Brussels this week irrelevant, but so, now, is NATO itself.
.
Tribune Media Services International The split in NATO

MUNICH The stalemate at NATO this week has been unnecessary and in basic
respects irrelevant. By posing the argument in terms of defending Turkey in
the event of a military intervention in Iraq that formally has yet to be
decided, the United States was attempting to force the NATO allies to commit
themselves to such an intervention.
.
The threat made by U.S. officials in the corridors of the annual Munich
strategic seminar last weekend, to transfer U.S. NATO bases in Germany to
"new Europe," meaning former Communist Europe, was also empty. Germany has
no need of U.S. bases on its territory. The United States needs those bases.
They are the logistical and operational foundation for the American
strategic deployment in Europe, the Near and Middle East, the horn of Africa
and Central Asia.
.
The United States could lease new bases in Poland, Bulgaria or Romania. But
if forces stationed there were committed to operations that did not enjoy
popular support in these countries, America would face the same problem it
has now in "old Europe."
.
NATO has been moribund since the Cold War ended, for lack of a strategic
purpose. Its life support system remained the popular support it has
continued to enjoy in its member countries, based on agreement over common
security interests.
.
The support system now has been disconnected because the agreement has
broken. America's German bases are now part of a U.S. deployment that
encompasses more than 40 nations and supports a foreign policy meant to
establish an integrated international order with "the United States as the
ultimate guarantor of order and enforcer of norms," to quote Andrew Bacevich
of Boston University. Iraq intervention is part of this.
.
By adopting this policy, the second Bush administration has opened a deep
strategic divide between itself and Western Europe. This is why there is a
trans-Atlantic crisis. Public opinion in NATO Europe has turned against the
United States. Washington prefers to call this "anti-Americanism." This is
not true. It is hostility to American foreign policy.
.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld maintains that the three European
governments making difficulties for the United States over Iraq are
"isolated." Actually, NATO popular opinion is universally opposed to a war
against Iraq not mandated by the United Nations. The dissident governments
speak for about 80 percent of West European opinion - and more than 70
percent of opinion in Eastern Europe as well. Who, then, is isolated?
.
Rumsfeld arrived for his weekend in Munich confident that he would rapidly
humiliate the German government and isolate France diplomatically. On
Monday, France and Belgium blocked the U.S. proposals concerning war on
Turkey's border, saying they were premature and compromising. Later in the
day, Russia joined the Germans and French in recommending an extended UN
arms inspections program in Iraq, and China did so on Tuesday.
.
As far as the Security Council is concerned, the relevant question until
this week had been whether France would veto a resolution authorizing
military intervention. The question now became whether the United States
would be forced to veto a French or French-German resolution expanding the
UN inspectors' mandate. German sources on Tuesday said that 11 of the 15
members of the Security Council supported the Franco-German position.
.
The key to it all is public opinion. The public in Europe, and to a lesser
extent in the United States, seems convinced - rightly or wrongly - that
Iraq currently threatens no one outside its frontiers, and that such threat
as it may pose in the future is containable at less human cost, risk and
injustice than war would impose.
.
The Bush administration believes otherwise, and will almost certainly attack
Iraq before the end of March, with or without UN endorsement, whatever
public opinion may be in the NATO countries. This being so, not only is the
argument in Brussels this week irrelevant, but so, now, is NATO itself.
.
Tribune Media Services International