Americans were infuriated when President Charles de Gaulle announced in the mid-1960s that France was pulling out of NATO’s military command–and that U.S. troops had to leave French soil. Secretary of State Dean Rusk’s retort: “Does that include the dead Americans in military cemeteries as well?”
Rusk’s acidic words echo today as some of America’s closest allies voice reluctance to be drawn into America’s new war on terrorism.
Last week, European leaders sounded like loyal Musketeers after Islamic radicals crashed suicide airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. For the first time, NATO invoked Article 5 of its treaty, declaring that an attack on one member amounts to an attack on all 19. All for one and one for all.
Or maybe not. A week later, ambivalence has set in. The Europeans are all but checking their calendars to see if they’re already busy.
French President Jacques Chirac came to the White House Tuesday to offer support, but his government has signalled reluctance. French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin has cautioned that there is no war “against Islam or the Arab-Muslim world”–a preposterous notion that absolutely no one in Washington has even faintly suggested–and that France would not automatically support American military action against Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden or states supporting terrorists. Furthermore, Jospin loftily explained, France’s solidarity with the U.S. “does not deprive us of our sovereignty and freedom to make up our own minds.”
Translation: This isn’t our fight. We’ll stand by America–and then, when the CNN cameras turn away, we’ll sit down. Good thing for France that Americans didn’t take the same detached attitude when wars twice threatened to turn it into a parking lot for Germany.
What obligations does Europe have to help defend America in one of its darkest hours? Plenty. What have Americans been doing in Europe for most of the last century, if not defending Europe in those two world wars, a rebuilding crusade and a Cold War? Is NATO a one-way street or a two-way street? Is it a pact that delivers mutual aid–or a U.S. protectorate for European countries that have not been able to protect themselves?
Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has offered the staunchest support to President Bush so far in this crisis, says that any retaliation be based on “hard evidence.” The Brits are not giving Bush “a blank check.” And German Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping has called for a “measured” response.
Of course it is important not to run off half-cocked–which, someone in Europe might want to note, this government has not done. Nor does anyone want to touch off more terrorism. That’s why Bush is trying to build an alliance.
It’s unclear what, exactly, paralyzes the Europeans. They can plainly see that last week’s attack struck at all free, Western, industrial democracies, not just one. Hard evidence against at least some of the perpetrators is piling up fast.
Yes, Bush must listen to European concerns and build a coalition that has clout and credibility. Secretary of State Colin Powell and others appear to be doing just that. So what, other than fear, explains the reticence? And while it’s question time, why are thousands of U.S. troops still on the ground defending Europe?
It is startling, in the wake of history, formal alliance and last week’s pledges of support, that the U.S. does not know whether it can count on its European allies. But we are about to find out.
