Title: Message
| This Isn’t
About Iraq Anymore |
|
| Every time
Rumsfeld speaks, I think, ‘There goes another ally!’ His comments are
usually true, but he’s a statesman, not a columnist |
|
| |
|
Feb. 24 issue
— In the fall of 1993 an Australian writer, Owen Harries, published
an essay in Foreign Affairs magazine in which he prophesied “the collapse
of the West.” The West, he explained, has existed for centuries as a
cultural concept. But it has usually been deeply divided politically—think
of all of Europe’s wars. |
|
| |
|
 |
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE POLITICAL
WEST—the Western strategic alliance, NATO, etc.—was a product of the cold
war. “It took the presence of a life-threatening overtly hostile ‘East’ to
bring it into existence,” Harries wrote. “It is extremely doubtful whether
it can now survive the disappearance of that enemy.” It has taken a
decade, but Harries’s prediction has come true. It was not Russia and
China that led the anti-American charge in the United Nations Security
Council last week. It was France and Germany. The demonstrations against
the United States are the largest in countries that were once America’s
closest allies.
Many diplomats have
downplayed Western divisions over Iraq. The Atlantic alliance is always in
trouble, like a marriage, quipped Colin Powell at Davos. But this time
it’s different. In the past, both Americans and Europeans were tied
together in a common struggle against Soviet communism. Suez, Vietnam,
Pershing missiles, Grenada—all were issues where there was tactical
disagreement. On the big strategic issue, everyone in the West saw eye to
eye.
Iraq has proved a breaking issue not
because of wide disagreements about it. The West doesn’t disagree
fundamentally on Iraq. But the debate is not really about Iraq, it’s about
the United States. Many in Europe worry more about America than Iraq. For
them Iraq is a tactical issue. The strategic issue is what are they going
to do about America, the dominating power in the world today.
During the early 1990s many believed that the bipolar
world of the cold war would yield to a world of many powers. But Europe,
which was to have become a mammoth actor on the world stage, showed itself
to be a disunited continent, and one in economic crisis. It actually
slipped in its share of world GDP and military spending over the last
decade. Japan’s economy also went sour. Russia moved in a few years from
being a great power to a great power vacuum. China and India, for all
their growth, remain developing countries. The only one left standing was
the United States of America, rising taller than any nation in
history.
Few countries have truly adapted
to this new international landscape. France and Germany, for example, seem
to have decided to place as many obstacles as they can in America’s way.
But this will surely not stop American action. It will merely ensure that
this action takes place outside the context of the United Nations and
NATO. Is this a victory for the French and Germans in the long run? They
have split Europe, weakened NATO and diminished the Security Council—all
to prevent action against Saddam Hussein. A world with fewer rules and
restraints is one in which America will do just fine. It is the rest of
the world that benefits most from these institutions. |
|
|
|
|
If some European countries have been slow to recognize the realities of
American power, so has Washington. The Bush administration came to office
determined to demonstrate that it was not constrained by treaties and
international institutions. It has also spoken ill of old allies, eager to
prove that it has freedom of action. But it’s obvious that Washington has
total freedom. That’s why it would be wiser not to mention it every few
days. When your power is so obvious and overwhelming, you need to show not
that you can act alone but that you want to act with others.
The poster child for America’s self-defeating
machismo is Donald Rumsfeld. He brings to mind another famously impolitic
American diplomat, John Foster Dulles. Dulles, Winston Churchill once
remarked, “is the only bull I’ve seen who brings his china shop with
him.”
Most of Rumsfeld’s tart observations
are true. In fact they’re often dead-on. But he is not a columnist, he’s a
statesman (thankfully, since he’d drive many of us out of the business).
To much of the world his jabs convey an arrogance that speaks not of
leadership but domination. Every time Rumsfeld opens his mouth, I think,
“There goes another ally!”
The West is now
divided, as Owen Harries predicted, partly because of broad, historical
forces. But it is also the result of bad diplomacy—on both sides. And
unless the latter changes, the demonstrations in Europe over the weekend
will mark the opening salvo of a new politics of protest. Europe, instead
of being America’s leading partner, will become its most energetic
opponent. This will be bad for the entire world. After all, when the West
has been united it fostered peace. When divided, the result has always
been war.
© 2003 Newsweek,
Inc. |
http://msnbc.com/news/873553.asp
