Posted on 06/27/2004 9:01:12 PM PDT by neverdem
LONDON — At this week's NATO summit conference in Istanbul, it will be in the political interest of America's European adversaries — France's Jacques Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schröder — to appear to cooperate with the coalition helping Iraq complete its liberation.
At the same time, it is in the political interest of George W. Bush and Britain's Tony Blair to appear to be delighted with whatever safe and cheap aid that the Chirac-Schröder bloc allows NATO to offer instead of supplying alliance troops.
In this way, the French and German leaders can tell their nations that no diplomatic cost was attached to their opposition to removing Saddam Hussein. And Bush and Blair can face elections this year and next, able to make two claims: that the prewar split in the Western alliance has happily healed, and that the war was justified by the belated blessing of the leaders who fled from the fight.
Behind this facade, however, exists a hollowed-out alliance. Its previous common purpose — to block the westward march of Soviet imperialism — has not been replaced by a new purpose: to defeat imperial terrorism. Unless the democracies of France and Germany elect leaders capable of grasping that current challenge, NATO will continue to atrophy, supplanted by ad hoc coalitions of the willing to meet emergencies.
Such a withering of the West's grand alliance is not inevitable. Although savants in the U.S. seem certain that Bush and Blair will be punished by voters for their sin of strangling the worst regime in the cradle of terror, the view I get from London is different.
Britain's Labor Party is unlikely to thrust aside its eloquent leader and proven vote-getter. Blair has recently flummoxed internal dissenters as well as opposing Tories by proposing referendums not just on giving up economic sovereignty to Continental bankers but also on turning over political sovereignty to the bureaucrats of Brussels in the proposed European constitution. Like a strong majority of Euroskeptical Britons, Blair is now lukewarm on both issues, which snatches the clothes of the Tories.
Bush should accede to his stalwart ally's request for the release of four British subjects now held in Guantánamo, underscoring the special relationship. And as the interim government in Baghdad puts a nationalistic Iraqi face on its internal battle, Bush and Blair will be bolstered politically by (a) the reality of a shift in the war's fortunes as well as (b) the papering-over of the cracks in the wall of NATO solidarity.
Presume that Bush wins re-election this year and Blair the next. Further presume (and I know all this is hard to do) that necessary belt-tightening in France and Germany, at a time when unemployment is stuck near double digits, takes its toll at the polls.
Germany's Schröder is a political zombie, with a Thatcheresque successor in the wings. The sclerotic government of Chirac is desperately trying to block the rise of the charismatic finance minister, Nicolas Sarkozy. This savvy dynamo of Hungarian descent, 49, is tough on immigration, France's sleeper issue. Though he would surely irritate London and Washington in the grand French tradition, Sarkozy would probably not align himself with a German politician to treat the rest of Europe, as does Chirac, as children not well brought up.
Dare to think the unthinkable: What would the Western alliance look like if Bush and Blair receive fresh mandates, and Chirac and Schröder give way to leaders who see the modern collective defense in sponsorship of freedom outside their area? What if NATO is given new life by the urgent need to confront the new threat of terror networks?
Then we would see the emergence of NATO II, no longer North Atlantic but tied by need for citizen safety. It would not compete with the United Nations as a universal forum for debate and funneler of humanitarian aid, but be led by democracies willing to make proportionate sacrifices to provide for the common defense.
Of course, today's hollowed-out NATO could continue down the path of pretended mutuality that we will see in Turkey this week. And the voters of its member nations may follow Spain in choosing leaders averse to the cost of collective security. But as the old NATO showed, nations find safety in numbers.
what's your take on this, neverdem? I can't quite make out how to judge this piece.
The US supplies 63% of the budget and about 99% of the mobility and strategic assets of NATO. The Europeans used to provide real estate to face the Russians. The real estate is nearly worthless now. We need a new alliance geared against the terrorist threat, but it won't look like NATO. It may have Russia, Singapore, China, Japan, Australia, some Eastern European countries and India in it. Why should it have France?
My understanding is that Chirac is being Chirac.
#3. The way france has acted and is acting, agreed they are not needed, they would definitely be more of a hindrance than a help.
Speculation about a moribund, pointless, almost useless alliance unless there are some political changes in Europe.
#6. that's about what I got out of it too. I guess the only thing we can say is they need to get their act together over there. They should be helping us in getting these terrorists and their regimes instead of trying to hinder us.
Don't forget that France is not even a member of NATO, just an associate nation. She also holds her security council seat not by merit but by gift of the United States and Britain. The same is true of China, but at least China fills the seat by virtue of its size and potential.
I think Bush and Blair almost certainly guaranteed re-election. I know that's not how polls looks, but polls are pointless, as we all know. I think when it comes down to it, the majority in each country will vote for who they see as handling the war on terror most effectively (I also suspect this may be aided by a foolishly miscalculated attack on the US in the next few months).
Kerry is a total lightweight on this issue, and he has *noone* on his team who can change that view. Even if people thing Bush is a dope, they don't think that about Cheney, Powell, Rice, or Rumsfeld (Dem wishful thinking aside). The Bush administration exudes competence to the mainstream public, and competence is comforting. Even though Kerry is taking the right stand on the war now, in not offering much of a changefrom Bush, noone takes him seriously in that regard.
I'm a bit more skeptical that France and Germany could go more interventionist. There is broad, deep resistance to that approach there now, and economics is going to dominate far more that WoT in Europe. I'd say if anything, Europe may even further abdicate its responsibility in ensuring world stability.
The economy wont matter much in the US election. I tend to think it's more lucky timing than anything, but the perception in the US is things are finally picking up. People, for the most part, wont vote for their pocketbook.
We'll see.
Interesting combination, but I have my doubts about China, not until they felt threatened by Islamist terrorism. I think they would abet it if they could without getting caught. I don't think the Russkies are too far behind the Chicoms. The Russkies are still helping Iran with its nuclear program, IIRC.
IIRC, France withdrew from the military part of the Alliance, but France maintained its membership in the political part when DeGaulle told the U.S. to remove its bases in France in the 1960s.
#9. I pray so, I surely don't trust the likes of someone like kerry in command, he has sold U.S. out so many times in the past, I shudder to think about it.
President Bush is really trying to do the best that he can and as we have all seen, it ain't easy with an enemy at home as well as abroad.
Best FReegards, Defender2
D2
As I said, France is not even a member. Twenty years ago we had to wonder if they would fight if the balloon went up.
NATO is a living corpse - a zombie.
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.