The first long-term results of the Bush administration’s unilateralist foreign policy and its attack on Iraq are coming in. What they show is that the law of unintended consequences is alive and well.
One result is that America’s oldest allies in Europe, who followed US leadership faithfully through the decades of the Cold War, no longer trust Washington to do the right thing. Another result is that they are starting to do something about it, by creating the kind of rival power that the Bush policy was specifically meant to prevent.
All this is still a work in progress, but great historical changes are happening. No one wanted them to happen, either in Washington or Europe, and no one knows where they will end up. Intended or not, these consequences are reshaping the world.
This was the message delivered by a new poll, commissioned by the German Marshall Fund, of public opinion in the US and in seven European countries. The poll showed a sea change in attitudes on both sides of the Atlantic since the German Marshall Fund and the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations took a similar, prewar poll a year ago. Among other things:
– Europeans no longer trust U.S. leadership. A year ago, 64 percent of Europeans wanted strong American leadership in world affairs. Now, only 45 percent do, an astonishing loss of faith in only one year.
– Only 10 percent of Europeans want the U.S. to remain the only superpower. By contrast, 71 percent of them want the European Union to become a superpower. Most hope such an EU superpower will cooperate with the U.S., not compete with it, but the new rivalry to U.S. leadership is evident.
– Americans are much readier to go to war than Europeans are, no matter the cause, and are much more willing to defy the United Nations if they feel vital national interests are involved. A year ago, the differences between the two sides of the Atlantic were much narrower.
The biggest change has taken place in Germany, the most powerful nation in the EU and, with Britain, our most loyal ally throughout the Cold War. But Berlin opposed U.S. policy in Iraq and a furious Bush administration did everything but add it to the president’s “axis of evil.”
The results of this diplomatic deep freeze are in: Germans, who have previously refused to choose between Europe and the U.S., have chosen. Eighty-one percent say the EU is more important to Germany’s future, up from 55 percent last year; only 9 percent chose the U.S.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s attempt to split the EU into “new Europe” and “old Europe”–meaning the countries that supported the U.S. in Iraq and those that didn’t–looks sillier than ever. Rumsfeld’s pet, post-communist Poland, may be the most pro-American European country now, but even the Poles believe, by a 68-to-9 percent ratio, that the EU is more important to them than the U.S. is.
The poll was taken nearly three months ago and released last week. Considering what has happened in Iraq since then, the numbers must be even worse today.
In the short term, the impact of these shifts may be minimal. Bush, facing defeat in Iraq, is being forced to ask for help from the same UN that he scorned before the war. Europeans, especially the French and the Germans, will enjoy watching the humbled Americans eat this dish of diplomatic crow.
They don’t want the anarchy in Iraq to spread any more than Washington does. The Europeans will drive a hard bargain but, if Bush agrees to share power and responsibilities in Iraq, they probably will go along.
The world has changed, and the long-term effects are yet to come.
During the Cold War, the United States was the strongest nation in the world, nearly as overwhelming as it is now, and was the unchallenged leader of the Western world. Its allies, especially the Europeans, accepted this leadership and became loyal followers, for at least three reasons.
Cold War rationale
First, they had no choice: the Soviet Union, weaker but still formidable, loomed menacingly on the eastern horizon, and the Europeans needed America’s protection.
Second, the U.S. chose to sheathe its power in a web of alliances, especially NATO. Everyone knew that Washington was No. 1, but Washington made a point of treating its allies as serious powers in their own right, with needs and opinions that counted.
Third, for all the trans-Atlantic squabbling of the past 50 years, the Americans and Europeans agreed on the overall goal: containment of the Soviet Union. The Europeans learned to trust the steady and often wise U.S. leadership that led to collapse of the Soviet regime.
The Soviet Union, of course, is gone now and so is its unifying effect on the West. If the U.S. feels more vulnerable to international terrorism, most Europeans feel safer than at any time in the past 60 years.
The United States is more dominant than ever, probably more powerful than any nation in history. But it has shunned permanent alliances, bullied its friends and snubbed NATO, making it clear that it prefers to fight its battles alone, unconstrained by the need to consult or compromise with allies.
But if you’re going to go it alone, you have to show you can do the job. The Bush administration is blowing its first big test.
The Europeans never bought the administration’s case for the war on Iraq. About half their governments opposed the attack. Even the European governments that joined the coalition, including the British, wanted Bush to give UN inspectors more time to seek Iraqi weapons. Most went along with the Americans not because they believed Bush’s arguments for war but because they valued the Atlantic alliance too strongly to oppose him. Bush made it clear that he thought he was right and didn’t much care whether the rest of the world agreed with him or not.
But most of the administration’s case is now known to have been false. The coalition fought the war splendidly but is losing the peace. The U.S. now is overstretched and needs help.
The Europeans probably will give the help this time. But the American political bank account has just about run dry. The next time the Bush administration cries wolf–over Iran or North Korea or terrorism or some other cause or crisis spot–the Europeans may not be there.
But if the Europeans won’t be there, where will they be?
The conventional wisdom among Washington’s neo-conservative strategists holds that the Europeans have to rely on the U.S. because they are too weak and craven to defend themselves.
This thinking, articulated by the influential neo-con author Robert Kagan in an article called “Power and Weakness,” holds that the European Union has created a “post-historical paradise” of peace and prosperity, where war is unthinkable and endless negotiations settle all problems. By contrast, Kagan wrote, the U.S. lives in the real world, where rogue nations and war are realities and multilateral negotiations a luxury.
U.S. walks the beat
In such a world, the neo-cons and hard-liners say, a global cop is necessary. The Europeans are nice guys, but they are too weak, too softened by peace, to do the job, or even help. So the US has to do the job alone. It will tell the Europeans what it plans to do, but it won’t ask their permission or assistance, or even listen to their complaints.
To Washington thinkers, this sounds like realism. To the rest of the world, it looks like arrogance. Washington veterans say the U.S. has never had an administration that listens less to outsiders, especially foreigners. Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria has written that every nation that has done business with the Bush administration, with the possible exceptions of Britain and Israel, has ended up humiliated.
A year ago, the Europeans thought they could still talk to Washington. Most never believed the U.S. would really attack Iraq. Even six months ago, the Europeans were shell shocked by the U.S. rush to war. The Atlantic alliance had been their anchor for more than 50 years, and the Bush-Rumsfeld decision to ignore it cut them adrift. With Britain on one side and France and Germany on the other, the EU was split, and Europe’s unity endangered.
But that was then. The Europeans have had time to think and plan. European unity remains bruised but intact. Plans are moving ahead for more military cooperation, inside or outside NATO. French President Jacques Chirac and German President Gerhard Schoeder are coordinating their policy toward the U.S. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has found that his support of Bush has plunged him into the biggest political crisis of his life.
Most important, the German Marshall Fund poll has shown that Europeans want good relations with the U.S. but value European unity more highly. Attempts by Rumsfeld to divide the Europeans haven’t worked.
Kagan is right that the U.S. and European governments–and increasingly Americans and Europeans themselves–see the world in different way, may even hold different values. Eventually, if not now, rivalry seems inevitable.
The Bush administration’s national security strategy calls bluntly for permanent American dominance, with the rest of the world docilely accepting U.S. leadership. One year after this strategy was announced, it’s not working that way.
