Posted on 02/10/2003 3:51:01 PM PST by blam
Analysis: Can the old world order survive this much collateral damage?
The credibility and future of the United Nations, Nato and the Commonwealth are threatened by deep divisions and public arguments
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
11 February 2003
This truly is the season of "collateral damage". As everyone knows, that weasel phrase was coined by the Pentagon to hide the ghastly realities of war, of the killing of innocent civilians and the destruction of their means of living. But even before war with Iraq has started, it threatens to do massive collateral damage of another kind to the international diplomatic and security structures of the modern world.
The Iraqi crisis is poisoning transatlantic relations and relations within Europe. The United Nations and the North Atlantic alliance, not to mention what passes for a common EU foreign policy: all could see their credibility undermined, perhaps fatally if the present divisions persist. The next few days and weeks could be decisive for all three.
One might even add as a footnote to this list the crisis in the Commonwealth over the recommended readmission of Zimbabwe, though even the most enthusiastic backers of the Commonwealth would not pretend that its well-being is crucial to the happy progress of human affairs.
This is, in short, a Henry Kissinger moment, and the great man yesterday duly obliged. The road to Iraqi disarmament, he told The Washington Post, was the most serious crisis for Nato since the alliance was born in 1949.
"If the US yields to the threat of a French veto, or if Iraq, encouraged by the action of our allies, evades the shrinking non-military options still available, the result will be a catastrophe for the Atlantic alliance and the international order."
In Mr Kissinger's opinion, "the credibility of American power in the war on terrorism [will] be gravely, perhaps irreparably, impaired". And in the most apocalyptic view of current developments, the main multilateral institutions created since 1945 are at risk of being sidelined for good.
This judgement might be excessive. Nato, the European Union and the UN have had fraught moments in the past: Suez, for example, when America intervened to brake the Europeans (Britain and France) just as the Europeans (the French and German governments, and public opinion across the continent) are trying to do to Washington now.
The deployment of intermediate nuclear weapons in Europe and the row over the Soviet gas pipeline to Europe in the early 1980s generated immense strains on the alliance. As for the UN, on most big issues it was paralysed for the first four decades by the criss-cross vetoes of the two superpowers. Predictions of Nato's demise, or slide into irrelevance, have been a constant of the past decade.
This crisis is different. It is a moment of truth, waiting since the Soviet Union vanished and removed the common threat that bound together America and Europe.
The true end, if not the calendar end, of the 20th century was Christmas Day 1991, when the hammer and sickle was hauled down from the Kremlin and replaced by the red, white and blue flag of the Russian Federation. The ideological scourges of fascism, Nazism and Communism, which had made the century the bloodiest in human history, had finally been extinguished.
Then there was a drifting interregnum, of small wars, economic good times and titillating scandals which did not stop Hubert Védrine, the former French foreign minister, from coining the term "hyperpower" to describe the overwhelming relative might of America. But under Bill Clinton, it seemed an emollient hyperpower.
The 21st century began not on 1 January 2001 but on the brilliant early autumn morning of 11 September 2001. That day's attacks in New York and Washington not only defined the new enemy: international terrorists who might strike not with commercial jets loaded with aviation fuel but with biological or even nuclear weapons. The attitude of the wounded and angry hyperpower was transformed overnight. That day revealed not America's weakness but America's might.
Scholars theorised on "asymmetrical warfare", pitting shadowy terrorist groups against the US armed forces. The true asymmetry, at the root of the strains between America and its allies, is in their respective military power. This has definitively exposed the fiction that Nato and the UN are parliaments of equals. More plainly than ever, the decisions that matter are made in Washington.
Of course, personalities have played their part. Europe liked Clinton; he was in some ways an honorary European. Not so Messrs Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, with their blunt language and in the case of Rumsfeld unconcealed scorn.
Their vision of a Hobbesian world where the law of the jungle prevails, their readiness to use the power at their disposal, appals what Donald Rumsfeld calls "old Europe". And he is right. It is an old Europe; prosperous and peaceful, scarred by memories of the 20th-century horrors that blossomed on its soil, wedded to the status quo, instinctively believing that change must be for the worse, and fearful that a strike against Iraq will cause more problems than it solves.
It is a Europe with a very different approach to the Palestine-Israel conflict, a Europe that simply does not see itself threatened by Saddam Hussein (or for that matter the terrorists). Here too, the glue of a common foe that held fractious partners together against the Soviet Union is not there.
The question is: how far will the arguments extend? "Throughout my lifetime there have been differences," Mr Rumsfeld said yesterday. "Nato will not disintegrate." But the alliance may slide into irrelevance. The row over defensive planning to help Turkey, a vital US ally, in the event of war with Baghdad infuriates Washington. But it can simply provide the Patriots and more in a bilateral deal, bypassing Nato completely. What is more, it talks openly of a reduction in troop levels in Europe, which would symbolise its growing disdain for the continent.
The second area of collateral damage is within Europe. The 2003 Iraq crisis has once again proved that, when push comes to shove Britain will as De Gaulle proclaimed always choose le grand large ("the open sea", aka the US), despite Tony Blair's efforts to have it both ways. In any case, a common European foreign policy, given the differing histories and interests of Europe's main players, was always Utopian.
The real novelty is the division within the rest of Europe. France and Germany have always considered themselves the engine of European integration. Given that 18 European countries (including Italy, Spain and Poland as well as Britain four of the six most populous present and future EU nations) have expressed support for the American stance, that notion is questionable.
France is the main butt of US anger and not surprisingly, for it is at the centre of the third, and the greatest, institutional challenge exposed by the Iraq crisis: the future of the UN itself. The world body's finest hour was the coalition assembled under its aegis by the first President Bush to drive President Saddam from Kuwait.
How different now. "It's the UN that's really on the line," says Professor Michael Mandelbaum, one of America's best foreign policy specialists.
"Transatlantic relations will be noisy and contentious. But they'll be like the workings of a democracy, where disputes ultimately are secondary to what bind the parties together.
"Iraq is now shaping up for the UN's credibility as the 1930s Manchurian crisis did for the League of Nations. The odd thing is that those who profess to love the UN the most (ie the French) are undermining it, while those that don't greatly like it (the US), are trying to give it teeth. If it fails, no one would lose more than the French."
If that happened, the UN might go the way of the League of Nations, and one fragile underpinning of the post-1945 world order would go with it.
The institutions
UN SECURITY COUNCIL
Date of birth: 1945
Why it was created: Founded as the United Nations' enforcement arm to maintain international peace and security after the Second World War.
Dominant nations: US, Britain, France, Russia and China are the five permanent veto-wielding members of the exclusive club.
Relevance today? After the euphoria at the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the Security Council has been consigned to virtual irrelevance since the late 1990s, when the US and Britain took military action in Kosovo without an explicit UN mandate. The Council's strength is its unity now in tatters.
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
Date of birth: 1949
Why it was created: For collective safety and to "promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area". An attack on one member "shall be considered an attack against them all".
Dominant nations (out of 19): America
Relevance today? Collapse of the Berlin Wall spelt the beginning of the end as Nato tried to reinvent itself through the kinder, gentler Partnership for Peace, and expanded to Russia's borders. The failure collectively to back America in a crisis could deal a fatal blow to the US-dominated alliance if the superpower proceeds unilaterally.
COMMONWEALTH
Date of birth: 1931
Why it was created: The 1949 London Declaration launched the Commonwealth in its modern-day form, after earlier incarnations that followed the death of the British Empire. Members swear allegiance to the Queen as the head of the Commonwealth.
Dominant nations (out of 54): UK
Relevance today? It has occasionally shown its teeth by expelling or suspending members.Has been divided on racial lines since suspension of Zimbabwe last year. Its readmission is likely to lead to a lengthy spell of embarrassed silence.
This is, in short, a Dom Periom moment
The UN becoming irrelevant
The beginning of the US stopping spending huge amounts of money protecting ingrates in Europe.
Etc, Etc.
A ringing endorsement if I ever heard one!
The EU will survive in some sort of fashion, but NATO is doomed, and hopefully, the phoney credibility of that other sterling outfit, the UN, might be tarnished a whole lot.
Once we take care of Iraq, you will see these mush-heads shutting up pretty quick.
So what else is new?
No, there's been a sea change and I think the EU that Germany and France had in mind is dying and a whole new being is formed in the meeting rooms of the other countries.
Time will tell.
Hold on, Bro...Dom's a French champagne. Maybe you ought to reconsider and try a really nice California Roederer Estate L'Ermitage Brut 1993 or equivalent. I know no one likes Californa, either, but we're the home of Free Republic and certainly not as bad as France, LOL.
the main multilateral institutions created since 1945 are at risk of being sidelined for good. This judgement might be excessive. That judgement might not be excessive. One of the many misunderstandings that most Europeans have about President Bush is their failure to see what kind of leader this is. Bush is not a reactive person. He is a man who looks out across the landscape, sees far, recognizes patterns, decides where he wants to go, and is damned successful at getting there. Thomas Friedman recently wrote in the New York Times of the Bush Administration's breathtakingly ambitious plans to literally re-form the Middle East... to move that whole area away from despotism and poverty toward something resembling the modern world. One can deride such an effort, or call it unrealistic, but it is an illustration of how Bush thinks. Rid the world of terrorism? We'll have to drain the whole damned swamp. What makes Bush unusual among elected officials is that he does not stop there. He formulates a plan and sets out to get it done, knowing in advance that it might take decades. "Re-forming the Middle East" is ambitious stuff, but this is a man who sees it needs doing, and will set out to do it. So France and Germany would like to up-end the UN, NATO, and the EU as well, so as to make room for a European super-state which they intend to lead? Bush probably has some ideas about how Europe might be re-ordered as well. He can't help it; it is how he thinks. What France and Germany have to watch out for is that, having put the ball in play, they might find themselves with an unexpected opponent who plays a mean game of "let's re-order the world." Bush was a busy man, and he might not have moved any time soon to replace the UN and/or NATO with new institutions, but if someone else is going to precipitate the action anyway, I predict he will turn out to be a major force in deciding what happens next. Several commentators have characterized this latest obstructionism from France and Germany as "jumping the gun" by revealing their plans to dominate Europe before they really had their ducks lined up. I don't think they know the half of the mistake they just made. |
Yes, and among the first to open very wide were Tony Blair's. I can't find any other way to explain his enthusiastic alliance with our President. Blair and Bush et.al are systematically cutting the cojones off Brussels. We are witnessing earthshaking (and long overdue) global power realignments. The Plumber has finally arrived and is pumping the cesspool! Did anyone else catch his speech this a.m. in which he effectively declared war on the ACLU and its intimidation of public religion? We live in amazing and invigorating times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.