Washington Post Op.Eds. Deliver Double-whammy to Those Infatuated with Europe’s Contempt for Bush, U.S.

(Washington, D.C.): It is not every day that the Washington Post publishes even one op.ed. article that makes a significant and positive contribution to the quality of the security policy debate. Today is, however, one of those blue-moon kinds of days when the Post editorial page features two such articles — one by regular columnist Michael Kelly, the other by the former editor of Foreign Affairs, Fareed Zakaria, who writes a column for Newsweek Magazine and edits its international edition.

The two essays represent important intellectual lodestars for those who are trying to make sense of the venomous attacks to which President George W. Bush has been subjected by European leaders, elite commentators and enviro/anti-nuclear/luddite/anti-American activists on the continent and elsewhere. According to Messrs. Kelly and Zakaria, it is the Europeans who are acting in a unilateral fashion — to the detriment of common Western security interests and values.

With respect to the charge that the United States is acting dangerously unilaterally, Mr. Kelly writes approvingly: “There are worse isms’ than [American] unilateralism, and three are imperialism, fascism and communism. A century of American resolve, often in the face of European disdain, created a continent where not one of these lives as a serious force. Not bad.” Amen.

The story line for George W. Bush’s first trip to Europe was set some time ago and was shallow and silly from its inception. By now it is so established that it is reducible to jokes that depend entirely on the conventionality of conventional wisdom.

The editorial cartoonist Jeff Danziger got off a typical snorter in the Boston Globe yesterday with a cartoon headlined “Dubya Does Europe.” George Bush, looking like a stereotype of a hayseed, stands before a panel of protesters looking like stereotypes of Europeans, complete with helpful little country flags on their shirts. Tied to Bush’s cowboy boots are four tin cans labeled “Trade,” “Death Penalty,” “Kyoto Treaty” and “Star Wars.” (Get it? The cans represent Bush’s hick positions on certain issues that enlightened Europe holds to be wrong.) The Europeans are holding a big sign that reads “Bush Is Wrong!” (Get it? Europe thinks Bush is wrong.) One of the Europeans is saying to another: “On the other hand, he’s done wonders for European unity.” (Get it? Europe is united in thinking Bush is wrong.) Har!

Generally, in a running story, the more the media accept a story line, the more wrong that story line is. The rule holds here. First of all, as Wall Street Journal columnist George Melloan has noted, “Europe” does not oppose Bush’s views because ” ‘Europe’ doesn’t exist as a true political entity.” “Europe” is convenient shorthand to describe neighboring nations that, historically, have been more at odds (and frequently at war) with each other than otherwise.

In recent years, 15 of these nations have come together as the European Union for reasons of increased leverage and economic gain in trade. This arrangement does entail cross-border agreements and some surrender of sovereignty among member states to the central arbitrators. But “Europe” is still not a real political — or cultural — entity. The member nations of the EU clearly retain their own political and cultural identities. This is why the EU is popular: Europeans have learned that their trade union can bring great improvements in the standard of living while still allowing member nations their own strong national characters. (Ireland is the most obvious example here.)

A second reason why speaking of what “Europe” thinks is embarrassingly simplistic is that European public opinion — as represented in the European press — is mostly limited to elite opinion. And there is no news here: For decades, this elite class has generally cherished a sneering and jingoistic contempt for America and for American values. This attitude fulfills an obvious psychological need; as the former global ruling class of Europe saw America emerge overwhelmingly superior in economic, political, military and cultural terms, a natural response is to insist on Europe’s moral and intellectual superiority. A helpful explicator of the European view, one Etienne Schweisguth of the Institute for Political Studies in Paris, explained this in the New York Times’ inadvertently parodic account of continental reaction to the execution of Timothy McVeigh (headline: “Almost as One, Europe Condemns McVeigh Execution”): “There is definitely a sense here, certainly among the elite, that we are ahead of the U.S. on this issue morally and intellectually. . . . It allows Europeans to feel that the United States is not in a position to give anyone morality lessons.”

Third, as the great Foucaultian boulevardier Tip O’Neill once said, “Toute la politique est locale.” The view of “Europe” on American behavior is shaped by the political needs and worries of European politicians. Sometimes this leads those leaders, just as it does in America, to — sad to say — mere hypocritical posturing.

Nowhere is this more risibly obvious than in the outrage expressed by European politicians over Bush’s position on the Kyoto protocol on global warming. Bush did not kill Kyoto. He buried its moldering corpse. Kyoto called for the United States to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by an insane 30 percent, which would have devastated not only the American but also the global economy. Further, developing nations, including two of the biggest polluters, India and China, were exempt from the accord. In 1997, the Senate declared by a vote of 95 to 0 that it would ratify no treaty that did not include everyone, effectively killing Kyoto. President Clinton and his administration did nothing for three years to resurrect it. And as for morally superior Europe, not a single EU nation has yet ratified the accord.

America is not Europe. America was created as an escape from, and antidote to, Europe. American “unilateralism,” as its critics call it, has not produced anything like perfect leadership. But there are worse “isms” than unilateralism, and three are imperialism, fascism and communism. A century of American resolve, often in the face of European disdain, created a continent where not one of these lives as a serious force. Not bad. 

Contrary to the fast-jelling conventional wisdom, the greatest threat to the Atlantic Alliance today comes not from American unilateralism but from European disarray.

American foreign policy has always been somewhat unilateral. (It is part of the reality of being a global superpower.) And Europe’s outrage over such policies as the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, the Reagan buildup, Grenada and Nicaragua makes present complaints seem trivial. What is new in the transatlantic relationship is that over the past decade Europe has been coming together in union. This process — important and heroic on its own terms — has been a disaster for its foreign policy, particularly its relations with America.

Ironically, while European nations criticize America for isolationism, they have become absorbed in their own affairs during the past decade. Where their leaders once strode comfortably on the world stage — think of Adenauer, de Gaulle, Schmidt, Kohl and Thatcher — they have been replaced by men and women with narrow horizons. Europe’s foreign ministers now spend most of their working hours poring over the minutiae of EU initiatives.

Consider defense policy. Having pledged to create a new all-European Rapid Reaction Force, European governments continue to slash defense spending, now spiraling down at a rate of 5 percent a year. In America this ornithological combination is called a chicken hawk.

Europe often criticizes the United States for shooting from the hip. But what to make of the EU’s recent mission to North Korea, undertaken without consultations with Washington and designed solely to embarrass the United States? When we do it, it’s unilateralism. When the Europeans do it, it’s diplomacy.

Usually bad diplomacy. The search for a common foreign policy means that most of the time you get paralysis coupled with copious expressions of banality. Former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who is deeply pro-European, describes his frustration in dealing with the European Union. “There are meetings, 10 hours long, about where the next meeting should be. There is ceaseless competition between dozens of agencies. . . . The noble idealism of the architects of a united Europe has turned into the triumph of bureaucrats.”

Just linger (if you can stand it) over a snapshot of European diplomacy to understand Holbrooke’s point. The EU is usually represented by its commissioner for external relations, its high representative for common security and foreign policy, another relevant EU official (trade, agriculture, whatever), the current president of the EU and often the past or future president as well — because there’s a new one every six months! It must be like negotiating on a merry-go-round.

The greatest danger to Atlantic relations, however, is not that of European incompetence. It is of a default anti-Americanism. To the extent that Europe does widen its horizons and play a world role, it is increasingly defining its foreign policy simply by being different from — and opposed to — America. On issue after issue, it seems to search for a way that it can differentiate itself from Washington rather than recognize the vast similarities in interests and outlook. If this tendency were to continue unabated, it could mean the end of the Atlantic Alliance. It would also be tragic for Europe if its nations could find common ground only in their shared resentment about living in an American-dominated world. It is an ambition unworthy of a great continent, a great culture and a still-vital partner of the United States.

The writer is editor of Newsweek International and a columnist for Newsweek.