 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
June 3, 2002, U.S.
Edition
Europe: Make
Peace With War
If
it wants to be a global power and a player in the Atlantic alliance, Europe
needs a strike force that can fight with or without America
By
Fareed Zakaria
A battle is brewing over the Atlantic, but it's mostly a war of words between Europe's left-wing intellectuals and America's conservative commentators. Britain's Will Hutton fires off a book accusing America of having turned into a cruel, Darwinian society. George Will volleys back, "At least we're not anti-Semites"--or words to that effect. France's Ignacio Ramonet charges America with seeking global hegemony. Charles Krauthammer responds that Europeans just can't get over their irrelevance. And so it rages on. Meanwhile millions of Europeans and Americans continue to do business together, visit each other's countries and partake of their cultures.
The Atlantic alliance has always been full of sound and fury because it is an alliance of free--often noisy--peoples. George W. Bush may have gotten a friendlier reception in Moscow than in Berlin, but that doesn't mean that most Russians love him or his policies. It's just that there are few angry op-eds and demonstrations in Mr. Putin's Russia these days.
Beneath the Atlantic froth, however, there is one large issue that, unaddressed, will be a persistent source of trouble and could fatally divide the alliance. And it will not be solved by a few nice words from Americans about the glories of partnership. It needs, instead, many tough actions from Europe. If it wants to be a global power and a player in the Atlantic alliance, Europe has to get back into the business of making war.
Since the end of the cold war, every serious division between Europe and the United States has been over military action. Europeans simply do not believe in war anymore, largely because of their own experience. After an incredibly bloody past, Europe has moved beyond war--an amazing achievement. Within Western Europe, dialogue, cooperation and trade have made conflict between the allies a distant memory. But the Europeans have now projected this mentality--born of highly unusual circumstances--onto a very different world. They spend lavishly on aid and send negotiating teams around the globe peddling their kinder, gentler power.
But Bosnia is not Belgium. When facing the Balkan crisis, Europe talked tough, imposed sanctions, sent in monitors--but until Washington forced the issue, couldn't abide the thought of waging war. Even now, Europeans remain reluctant to believe that military power can be useful in solving problems. Even though many of them believe that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous aggressor, their solution is "anything but war."
"Much of the difference in attitudes is at root a difference in capacities," says Philip Gordon, a scholar at the Brookings Institution. "We can and they can't." With economies of roughly the same size ($8 trillion each), Europe spends only $140 billion on defense, compared with America's $347 billion. Worse, Europe spends its money badly, maintaining large land armies (created to fight a Soviet invasion) rather than developing technology, logistics and strike forces, which are the needs of the present. The United States spends almost $30,000 per soldier on research and development, while Europe spends $4,000. Even after September 11, no European politician of note has urged a large increase in defense spending.
So Americans fight and Europeans do peacekeeping and reconstruction. But this division of labor is unsustainable. Military power trumps all others, and Europeans resent being second-class citizens within the alliance, in their minds cleaning up a military mess that they did not make. They often note that they have more troops in Afghanistan and in the Balkans than the United States and wonder why they don't have more influence. The answer: peacekeepers don't give you political clout, or else Bangladesh and Nigeria would be world powers.
Europe needs to develop a significant strike force, one that can fight with or without American troops. It would give it a stronger voice in the alliance, which is good for all sides, including the United States. It does not help America to be viewed as the lone, bristling military goliath, warring against the world. Besides, the boring, banal truth remains that while the two sides have differed more of late on most issues--particularly on the Middle East--European governments remain America's strongest allies. And compared with the rest of the world, the two societies have remarkably similar values.
Such a shift would also make Europe a more mature world power. With a full complement of capabilities, Europeans would inevitably have a broader sense of options and solutions to international problems. If it does create this force, Europe will find that articles predicting an Atlantic divorce will amount to little. It pains me to say this, but the sword is actually mightier than the pen--especially if you build a lot of swords.