In the fall of 1993 an Australian writer, Owen Harries, published an essay in Foreign Affairs magazine in which he prophesied "the collapse of the West." The West, he explained, has existed for centuries as a cultural concept. But it has usually been deeply divided politically--think of all of Europe's wars.

The political west--the Western strategic alliance, NATO, etc.--was a product of the cold war. "It took the presence of a life-threatening overtly hostile 'East' to bring it into existence," Harries wrote. "It is extremely doubtful whether it can now survive the disappearance of that enemy." It has taken a decade, but Harries's prediction has come true. It was not Russia and China that led the anti-American charge in the United Nations Security Council last week. It was France and Germany. The demonstrations against the United States are the largest in countries that were once America's closest allies.

Many diplomats have downplayed Western divisions over Iraq. The Atlantic alliance is always in trouble, like a marriage, quipped Colin Powell at Davos. But this time it's different. In the past, both Americans and Europeans were tied together in a common struggle against Soviet communism. Suez, Vietnam, Pershing missiles, Grenada--all were issues where there was tactical disagreement. On the big strategic issue, everyone in the West saw eye to eye.

Iraq has proved a breaking issue not because of wide disagreements about it. The West doesn't disagree fundamentally on Iraq. But the debate is not really about Iraq, it's about the United States. Many in Europe worry more about America than Iraq. For them Iraq is a tactical issue. The strategic issue is what are they going to do about America, the dominating power in the world today.

During the early 1990s many believed that the bipolar world of the cold war would yield to a world of many powers. But Europe, which was to have become a mammoth actor on the world stage, showed itself to be a disunited continent, and one in economic crisis. It actually slipped in its share of world GDP and military spending over the last decade. Japan's economy also went sour. Russia moved in a few years from being a great power to a great power vacuum. China and India, for all their growth, remain developing countries. The only one left standing was the United States of America, rising taller than any nation in history.

Few countries have truly adapted to this new international landscape. France and Germany, for example, seem to have decided to place as many obstacles as they can in America's way. But this will surely not stop American action. It will merely ensure that this action takes place outside the context of the United Nations and NATO. Is this a victory for the French and Germans in the long run? They have split Europe, weakened NATO and diminished the Security Council--all to prevent action against Saddam Hussein. A world with fewer rules and restraints is one in which America will do just fine. It is the rest of the world that benefits most from these institutions.

If some European countries have been slow to recognize the realities of American power, so has Washington. The Bush administration came to office determined to demonstrate that it was not constrained by treaties and international institutions. It has also spoken ill of old allies, eager to prove that it has freedom of action. But itÕs obvious that Washington has total freedom. ThatÕs why it would be wiser not to mention it every few days. When your power is so obvious and overwhelming, you need to show not that you can act alone but that you want to act with others.

The poster child for America's self-defeating machismo is Donald Rumsfeld. He brings to mind another famously impolitic American diplomat, John Foster Dulles. Dulles, Winston Churchill once remarked, "is the only bull I've seen who brings his china shop with him."

Most of Rumsfeld's tart observations are true. In fact they're often dead-on. But he is not a columnist, he's a statesman (thankfully, since he'd drive many of us out of the business). To much of the world his jabs convey an arrogance that speaks not of leadership but domination. Every time Rumsfeld opens his mouth, I think, "There goes another ally!"

The West is now divided, as Owen Harries predicted, partly because of broad, historical forces. But it is also the result of bad diplomacy--on both sides. And unless the latter changes, the demonstrations in Europe over the weekend will mark the opening salvo of a new politics of protest. Europe, instead of being America's leading partner, will become its most energetic opponent. This will be bad for the entire world. After all, when the West has been united it fostered peace. When divided, the result has always been war.

Back to top