BigBadBrian
03-07-2005, 09:43 AM
Europe needs America
Peter Brookes
March 7, 2005
It’s been almost a full year since former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar’s party lost the majority in the Cortes (parliament) due to a vicious terrorist strike, Spain’s troop commitment to Iraq and Aznar’s warm relationship with President Bush. You’d think the man might have some second thoughts about America’s dominant role in the world.
In fact, he’s having none.
On the contrary, in a recent interview Aznar said he sees American power as more important than ever, especially considering the independent, “soft power” foreign policy agenda being pushed by Europe’s dominant powers, France and Germany.
Aznar continues to buck Europe’s prevailing (liberal) wisdom. In fact, he believes that it’s Europe that needs the United States now more than ever -- not the other way around.
Aznar’s attitude is refreshing, if not surprising.
Remember that a year ago this Friday, al Qaeda operatives brutally attacked Madrid commuter trains with 10 bombs, killing 191 people. The attacks stunned the world... and, just days later, sent Aznar’s popular, right-of-center government down to defeat in national parliamentary elections.
Aznar’s successor, socialist Jose Luis Rodriquez Zapatero, quickly withdrew 1,300 Spanish troops from Iraq, cooled relations with Washington and lowered Madrid’s high international profile.
For its part, al Qaeda could claim a small, but significant, series of victories: It had cracked the Iraqi Coalition, helped bring down Aznar’s pro-American government and deepened the ongoing transatlantic estrangement.
But having survived a 1995 Basque ETA terrorist attack himself, Aznar isn’t one for going soft on terrorism -- or America. In fact, today he appears more convinced than ever of the importance of the transatlantic relationship and America’s role in the world.
And for good reason: A number of European powers now downplay the need for military “hard power,” while overselling the efficacy of diplomatic and economic “soft power” in resolving global challenges, such as Iran’s nuclear-weapons program.
Europe’s declining defense budgets and military capabilities are eroding its potential global influence. Europe cannot guarantee its own security, in Aznar’s opinion, much less guarantee the security of others.
He’s also deeply concerned about European “unilateralism” -- a growing inclination (and French obsession) to go it alone, without the United States. Aznar views this approach as counterproductive to European interests.
In Aznar’s calculus, European “soft power” alone — no longer pairing itself with America’s military might — won’t be sufficient for Europe to maintain (much less increase) its global influence.
Aznar’s absolutely right on these accounts. And, fortunately, the intellectual chasm between U.S. and European views may actually be closing.
The narrowing of the divide isn’t due to the recent diplomatic charm offensives by both sides, though they certainly didn’t hurt. But what’s really making a big difference in mending U.S.-European ties are a number of far more dramatic events: Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution; Iraqi, Afghan, Palestinian and Saudi Arabian elections; talk of political openings in Egypt; Syrian promises to withdraw from Lebanon; and Iranian nuclear negotiations.
It’s starting to dawn on European “soft power” advocates that military “hard power” isn’t passé after all. Even France’s Le Figaro, which opposed the Iraq military intervention, has now asked the once-unthinkable question about Iraq: “What if Bush was right?” Other Euro dailies are following suit.
It’s reasonable to conclude that American (and Coalition) “hard power” in Afghanistan and Iraq is — at least partly -- responsible for sparking the mind-boggling, positive changes that parts of the Arab and Muslim world are experiencing today.
Make no mistake: The ability to back up “soft power” with the credible threat of “hard power” makes a big difference in international affairs, especially when dealing with prickly states like Iran, Syria or North Korea. Europe seems to have forgotten this important canon of international affairs.
Perhaps, equally important is that the success of American efforts in the Arab and Muslim world is changing European minds about President Bush and the wisdom of his brand of forward-leaning American foreign policy.
A greater appreciation for the White House’s approach will not only bridge the transatlantic divide, but will hopefully result in greater U.S.-European consultation, coordination and cooperation on a broad range of international issues, from Burma to Zimbabwe.
And, finally, perhaps, the Europeans, will come around to sharing Aznar’s fuller understanding that a strong America and a strong transatlantic relationship will amplify -- not diminish -- Europe’s voice on the global stage.
Peter Brookes, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, is a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a New York Post columnist.
Peter Brookes
March 7, 2005
It’s been almost a full year since former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar’s party lost the majority in the Cortes (parliament) due to a vicious terrorist strike, Spain’s troop commitment to Iraq and Aznar’s warm relationship with President Bush. You’d think the man might have some second thoughts about America’s dominant role in the world.
In fact, he’s having none.
On the contrary, in a recent interview Aznar said he sees American power as more important than ever, especially considering the independent, “soft power” foreign policy agenda being pushed by Europe’s dominant powers, France and Germany.
Aznar continues to buck Europe’s prevailing (liberal) wisdom. In fact, he believes that it’s Europe that needs the United States now more than ever -- not the other way around.
Aznar’s attitude is refreshing, if not surprising.
Remember that a year ago this Friday, al Qaeda operatives brutally attacked Madrid commuter trains with 10 bombs, killing 191 people. The attacks stunned the world... and, just days later, sent Aznar’s popular, right-of-center government down to defeat in national parliamentary elections.
Aznar’s successor, socialist Jose Luis Rodriquez Zapatero, quickly withdrew 1,300 Spanish troops from Iraq, cooled relations with Washington and lowered Madrid’s high international profile.
For its part, al Qaeda could claim a small, but significant, series of victories: It had cracked the Iraqi Coalition, helped bring down Aznar’s pro-American government and deepened the ongoing transatlantic estrangement.
But having survived a 1995 Basque ETA terrorist attack himself, Aznar isn’t one for going soft on terrorism -- or America. In fact, today he appears more convinced than ever of the importance of the transatlantic relationship and America’s role in the world.
And for good reason: A number of European powers now downplay the need for military “hard power,” while overselling the efficacy of diplomatic and economic “soft power” in resolving global challenges, such as Iran’s nuclear-weapons program.
Europe’s declining defense budgets and military capabilities are eroding its potential global influence. Europe cannot guarantee its own security, in Aznar’s opinion, much less guarantee the security of others.
He’s also deeply concerned about European “unilateralism” -- a growing inclination (and French obsession) to go it alone, without the United States. Aznar views this approach as counterproductive to European interests.
In Aznar’s calculus, European “soft power” alone — no longer pairing itself with America’s military might — won’t be sufficient for Europe to maintain (much less increase) its global influence.
Aznar’s absolutely right on these accounts. And, fortunately, the intellectual chasm between U.S. and European views may actually be closing.
The narrowing of the divide isn’t due to the recent diplomatic charm offensives by both sides, though they certainly didn’t hurt. But what’s really making a big difference in mending U.S.-European ties are a number of far more dramatic events: Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution; Iraqi, Afghan, Palestinian and Saudi Arabian elections; talk of political openings in Egypt; Syrian promises to withdraw from Lebanon; and Iranian nuclear negotiations.
It’s starting to dawn on European “soft power” advocates that military “hard power” isn’t passé after all. Even France’s Le Figaro, which opposed the Iraq military intervention, has now asked the once-unthinkable question about Iraq: “What if Bush was right?” Other Euro dailies are following suit.
It’s reasonable to conclude that American (and Coalition) “hard power” in Afghanistan and Iraq is — at least partly -- responsible for sparking the mind-boggling, positive changes that parts of the Arab and Muslim world are experiencing today.
Make no mistake: The ability to back up “soft power” with the credible threat of “hard power” makes a big difference in international affairs, especially when dealing with prickly states like Iran, Syria or North Korea. Europe seems to have forgotten this important canon of international affairs.
Perhaps, equally important is that the success of American efforts in the Arab and Muslim world is changing European minds about President Bush and the wisdom of his brand of forward-leaning American foreign policy.
A greater appreciation for the White House’s approach will not only bridge the transatlantic divide, but will hopefully result in greater U.S.-European consultation, coordination and cooperation on a broad range of international issues, from Burma to Zimbabwe.
And, finally, perhaps, the Europeans, will come around to sharing Aznar’s fuller understanding that a strong America and a strong transatlantic relationship will amplify -- not diminish -- Europe’s voice on the global stage.
Peter Brookes, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, is a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a New York Post columnist.