Those whom the gods would destroy, they grant their wishes. Those in Europe and around the world who yearn for a victory by John Kerry in the US presidential election ought to keep that bit of ancient Greek wisdom in mind.
During the Cold War, America was the natural leader of the Atlantic community, but the price of this leadership was that the US had to accept the autonomy and influence of its European allies. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush embarked on a unilateral foreign policy. The traditional Atlantic alliance was replaced by what the US called "coalitions of the willing," where "the mission determines the coalition," not historic alliances.
This policy divided Europe. It has also fueled deep divisions in the US presidential campaign, with one of the most potent arguments used by Kerry being that he will restore trust between America and its allies; that as president he will recruit international help in Iraq.
America undoubtedly needs more allies to bring Iraq's chaos under control and to build an Iraqi state that is seen as legitimate both by Iraqis and the world. Allies are seen as an answer to America's twin credibility and legitimacy deficits in its occupation of Iraq. But can a Kerry-led US get a fresh start in Europe? Will a President Kerry really be able to rally allies to America's side?
Iraq's mayhem has hardened the antagonism of countries like France and Germany, which led the opposition to the war in the first place. Even countries that rallied to Bush's call for help, like my homeland, Poland, are now wary of their involvement.
Consider the attitudes of France and Germany. Their leaders can scarcely hold their tongues, so badly do they want a Kerry victory. But they are not going to change their policy to help Kerry win, and they won't change even if he does. As a gesture intending to boost Kerry's chances, German Defense Minister Peter Struck suggested that his country might reconsider its position on troops in Iraq. But Chancellor Gerhard Schröder instantly shot down that trial balloon, declaring: "To be clear, we will send no troops to Iraq."
At a time when democracy is under threat, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided. Subscribe now and save $50 on a new subscription.
Subscribe Now
Actually, Germany, like most European countries, is politically and logistically unable to send meaningful military forces to Iraq. France, which did ponder sending 15 000 soldiers to Iraq had the UN given its blessing to the war, is as clear as Schröder. According to Michel Barnier, France's Foreign Minister, "Neither today, nor tomorrow," will French troops be sent. Both countries firmly believe that military success in Iraq is impossible.
So will transatlantic relations remain as poisoned as they are now if Kerry wins? Is Texas swagger merely to be replaced by the distinguished disdain of a Boston Brahmin?
This is probably too pessimistic. Europe cannot give an openly negative answer to Kerry's request for help, because that would be a slap in the face to the most pro-European American likely to be elected president anytime soon. Such a rejection would not only put transatlantic relations even more at risk than they are today; it would also put relations
between
European countries in peril.
So some compromise must be found should Kerry win. Fortunately, one is possible. The first part is purely face-saving: both parties must simply declare their good will. Today, European leaders are unlikely to throw even that slender lifeline to Bush. The reality behind such a declaration is that Europe would deliver low-level military and economic involvement in Iraq.
Most European leaders understand the tiny wiggle room that Kerry will have if elected. The near certainty that the House of Representatives will be in Republican hands, and perhaps the Senate, too, means that America's Congress will pounce on any supposed attempt by Kerry to "sell out" Bush's war. So Kerry may put even more pressure on Europe to help out in Iraq than the unilateralist Bush ever did.
But there is a second, more fundamental, part to any viable compromise: a redefinition of transatlantic relations. The key point here is joint recognition that a fundamental transatlantic community of values exists, and that both sides need each other. That transatlantic community must jointly feel responsible for maintaining peace and stability in the world.
The US must accept this principle, and recognize that Europe is a partner, not merely a servant, whether willing or unwilling, of American orders. If burdens are to be shared, decisions must be shared as well.
This will require that America recognize the validity of Europe's view of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as the major roadblock toward a peaceful Middle East. Europe, for its part, must not only show that it feels responsible for the world, but that it is ready and willing to act accordingly by contributing in a significant way to reconstructing Iraq. Europe's military means may be limited, but it has important experience in peacekeeping and "state building" that can be brought to bear.
Is Europe really ready to undertake such an effort if its wish for a Kerry victory comes true?
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
Donald Trump's return to the White House will almost certainly trigger an unmanaged decoupling of the world’s most important geopolitical relationship, increasing the risk of global economic disruption and crisis. After all, Chinese leaders will be far less conciliatory than they were during his first term.
thinks Xi Jinping's government will be less accommodative of the “Tariff Man's” demands this time around.
No matter how committed Donald Trump and his oligarch cronies are to a tax cut, the laws of arithmetic cannot be repealed. If only a handful of Republican lawmakers keep their promise not to increase the US budget deficit, there is no way that the incoming administration can enact its economic agenda and keep the government running.
points out that no amount of bluster or strong-arming can overcome the laws of arithmetic.
Those whom the gods would destroy, they grant their wishes. Those in Europe and around the world who yearn for a victory by John Kerry in the US presidential election ought to keep that bit of ancient Greek wisdom in mind.
During the Cold War, America was the natural leader of the Atlantic community, but the price of this leadership was that the US had to accept the autonomy and influence of its European allies. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush embarked on a unilateral foreign policy. The traditional Atlantic alliance was replaced by what the US called "coalitions of the willing," where "the mission determines the coalition," not historic alliances.
This policy divided Europe. It has also fueled deep divisions in the US presidential campaign, with one of the most potent arguments used by Kerry being that he will restore trust between America and its allies; that as president he will recruit international help in Iraq.
America undoubtedly needs more allies to bring Iraq's chaos under control and to build an Iraqi state that is seen as legitimate both by Iraqis and the world. Allies are seen as an answer to America's twin credibility and legitimacy deficits in its occupation of Iraq. But can a Kerry-led US get a fresh start in Europe? Will a President Kerry really be able to rally allies to America's side?
Iraq's mayhem has hardened the antagonism of countries like France and Germany, which led the opposition to the war in the first place. Even countries that rallied to Bush's call for help, like my homeland, Poland, are now wary of their involvement.
Consider the attitudes of France and Germany. Their leaders can scarcely hold their tongues, so badly do they want a Kerry victory. But they are not going to change their policy to help Kerry win, and they won't change even if he does. As a gesture intending to boost Kerry's chances, German Defense Minister Peter Struck suggested that his country might reconsider its position on troops in Iraq. But Chancellor Gerhard Schröder instantly shot down that trial balloon, declaring: "To be clear, we will send no troops to Iraq."
HOLIDAY SALE: PS for less than $0.7 per week
At a time when democracy is under threat, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided. Subscribe now and save $50 on a new subscription.
Subscribe Now
Actually, Germany, like most European countries, is politically and logistically unable to send meaningful military forces to Iraq. France, which did ponder sending 15 000 soldiers to Iraq had the UN given its blessing to the war, is as clear as Schröder. According to Michel Barnier, France's Foreign Minister, "Neither today, nor tomorrow," will French troops be sent. Both countries firmly believe that military success in Iraq is impossible.
So will transatlantic relations remain as poisoned as they are now if Kerry wins? Is Texas swagger merely to be replaced by the distinguished disdain of a Boston Brahmin?
This is probably too pessimistic. Europe cannot give an openly negative answer to Kerry's request for help, because that would be a slap in the face to the most pro-European American likely to be elected president anytime soon. Such a rejection would not only put transatlantic relations even more at risk than they are today; it would also put relations between European countries in peril.
So some compromise must be found should Kerry win. Fortunately, one is possible. The first part is purely face-saving: both parties must simply declare their good will. Today, European leaders are unlikely to throw even that slender lifeline to Bush. The reality behind such a declaration is that Europe would deliver low-level military and economic involvement in Iraq.
Most European leaders understand the tiny wiggle room that Kerry will have if elected. The near certainty that the House of Representatives will be in Republican hands, and perhaps the Senate, too, means that America's Congress will pounce on any supposed attempt by Kerry to "sell out" Bush's war. So Kerry may put even more pressure on Europe to help out in Iraq than the unilateralist Bush ever did.
But there is a second, more fundamental, part to any viable compromise: a redefinition of transatlantic relations. The key point here is joint recognition that a fundamental transatlantic community of values exists, and that both sides need each other. That transatlantic community must jointly feel responsible for maintaining peace and stability in the world.
The US must accept this principle, and recognize that Europe is a partner, not merely a servant, whether willing or unwilling, of American orders. If burdens are to be shared, decisions must be shared as well.
This will require that America recognize the validity of Europe's view of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as the major roadblock toward a peaceful Middle East. Europe, for its part, must not only show that it feels responsible for the world, but that it is ready and willing to act accordingly by contributing in a significant way to reconstructing Iraq. Europe's military means may be limited, but it has important experience in peacekeeping and "state building" that can be brought to bear.
Is Europe really ready to undertake such an effort if its wish for a Kerry victory comes true?