A More Humble Euro-Basher (Crapweasels – malign, just plain stupid… or both?)

The American Spectator ^ | April 30, 2004 | Jacob Laksin

[quidnunc]

Humility being all the rage on the Right these days, allow me to make my own contribution to the gallery of grovelers enlightened by recent turns in the War on Terror. Last month I contended in this space that even as the battle against terrorism roars on, European consensus about taking up the fight remains seriously confused. More heinously, I suggested, Europeans understate the dangers of a toxic ideology whose sweep across the globe will uproot ethnic cultures, destroy freedom and democracy, and shackle indigenous peoples in an oppressively one-sided worldview.

But if an April BBC poll has it right, I was wrong. Europeans have no illusions about this fearsome ideology. Only they don't call it terrorism. They call it globalization. Topping only its chief exponent, the United States, globalization was identified by 52 percent of BBC viewers as by far the biggest problem in the world, more nefarious even than war and terrorism, which lagged in third place. But surely I overstate the case. Surely European leaders have a more realistic view of the terrorist threat, right?

Judge for yourself. Since the March bombings in Madrid, Europe's much-hyped commitment to fighting terrorism has produced little more than sound bites. In late March, for example, 25 leaders of current and soon-to-be EU states concocted something called a "Declaration on Combating Terrorism." We warmongers may frown on this sort of formality as a dangerous distraction, but it's only because we subscribe to the hopelessly atavistic idea that declarations are only worth making when they have something to declare. On these grounds, Europe's falls well short. Oh, it sounds marvelous. Listen to the current European Council president, Bertie Ahern, explain it. "We are at one in the European Union in assessing the gravity of the threat which terrorism poses," he says.

Chock full of back-patting, the declaration is notably short on strategy. What of pooling intelligence information about terrorist activities? The French, after all, have sound information in North Africa, while the British have an ear to other parts of the Middle East. Our dangerous times suggest a comprehensive intelligence-sharing agreement would be useful enterprise. Nothing like that here. Instead, there are "solidarity clauses." These Hallmark-worthy formulations commit EU countries to act jointly in the instance of a terrorist attack. Let it not pass without notice that measures to actually prevent attacks are nowhere mentioned. The reason for this, rarely discussed in polite European company, is rather simple: The complete distrust European countries have of one another so impairs their capacity for cooperation that preventive action may as well be impossible.

-snip-