Opinion Editorials, November 2003, www.aljazeerah.info
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine
Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people
Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah
Cities, localities, and tourist attractions
Will US allow Europe to become an adult?
Luc Debieuvre
Gulf News | 29-11-2003
States are cold-blooded monsters who only have interests. This is why they normally care about their own people, protect them, help them gain new markets or extend influence and usually, care little about others, as the US has done in Iraq. So why is US behaviour becoming so odious to an increasing part of the world? Probably because of its pretension that whatever they do, they do for the world not for themselves.
They did not fight in Vietnam to maintain their presence in South East Asia, they fought communism; they did not invade Iraq to expand their presence in the Middle East, they fight terrorism.
This is also why they will never win the war over terrorism for democracy, for the definition of their target is biased: whoever doesn't think as they do is a "terrorist". Democracy is their only view on the way powers should be organised; a kind of a variable geometry colonial democracy.
This behaviour should be remembered when reviewing the emerging independent European defence issue. EU members assume defence through its own army and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Nato.
Effectively, Nato is in the hands of the US which provides most of the equipment and assumes the highest commanding responsibilities, the civilian head of Nato is usually non-American. Besides those that have not the means to build an independent defence force - all the EU states except the UK and France - the new members of the EU will find with Nato the kind of safety belt which could protect them.
Yet, if Europe is to become a political entity with an autonomous power, it needs strength to support it. Especially if Rumsfeld's words: "It is not a coalition which commands the mission but the mission which commands a coalition" - mean the death of Nato's classical role.
The US argument: "Why do you need to build-up something which already exists" has the same limited value as, "Why do you need to manufacture Airbus aircraft as we can provide you with Boeing".
Independence means capacity of choice and Europe may have different choices to the US for whom anything opposing hegemony is considered as antagonist. As Henry Kissinger said: "It is necessary that countries do not lead their foreign policy as if their first objective was to put an end to this unavoidable evidence of the American military superiority."
Keep quiet and move away. Since European security and defence mechanisms were set-up, it is time to allocate means and forces. This was summed-up in the 1998 St Malo declaration made by the UK and France: "Europe needs to have the ability to play its full role on the international stage, including the capacity for an autonomous action backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them and a readiness to do so".
Alas, British policy these days seems to depend upon who was on the phone last and the practical implementation of an autonomous defence has been vigorously attacked by the US and a US-led diffuse opposition by EU newcomers. What is the story all about?
A joint proposal by Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg in April 2003 to set-up a European integrated programmation defence headquarters, distinct from Nato's HQ. Nato's reaction was swift: "We do not think it is useful to improve military capacities, notably because such a structure already exists within Nato or at the national level" said UK Defence Minister Geoff Hoon. Why Airbus, we already have Boeing.
Even Tony Blair appeared to have said one day that "the European Union should be endowed with a joint capacity to plan and conduct operations without recourse to Nato resources and capabilities" and that is what happened recently in Macedonia and in DR Congo.
A more global approach is emerging from the new European constitution draft which provides for the capacity to join forces for whoever member wishes it. This two-step or 'avant-garde' approach allows for members who feel it to go faster and deeper into the union.
Some European countries who are not prepared to assume their own destiny and pay the price for it may prefer the sole American umbrella, but why should other countries be prevented to team-up?
Actually, Europe as the world second economic power and a growing political power, will necessarily develop a European defence and the recent agreement to set-up a new defence agency which will co-ordinate military purchases is a first step in this direction.
If the UK joins, the move will be swifter. If they don't, their belonging to the European Union will ultimately be at stake. So they will join, because it is their interest. For sure, 'America today is the truth and light for Tony Blair' who himself adds that "whatever other may say, most people know that our alliance with America and our position in Europe give us unparalleled purchase on international affairs for a country of our size".
He may be right regarding the size of the country but for the rest, what kind of 'purchase' is he referring to: being informed by the American ally one hour before strikes, being told by Rumsfeld that finally 'the US might well have done it without the British', benefiting by special treatment for UK prisoners in Guatanamo, being heard about environment, steel levies or Palestine?
For which reasons would the US be entitled to forbid the EU to implement 'strengthened co-operations' and at the same time warn about the risk of 'a giant recluse freed of his friends and advisers' when the Bush Administration cronies start any editorial with formulas such as 'US former allies and friends France and Germany'?
"The biggest threat to the Atlantic Alliance is not the progress of European Defence. What would really threaten its future would be a weak, divided Europe, abdicating its responsibilities. Europe Defence will progress because it is a necessity for everyone who wants a strong Europe and a lasting alliance". This was written by Kissinger who cannot be seen as a strong supporter of an independent Europe.
For sure, a new transatlantic partnership where "one should escape from a dilemma between a relationship based upon command and obeisance and a relationship based upon opposition or rivalry" (P. Hassner) should be drafted; but a first step is to have a minimal power before talking to whoever recognises strength only.
Let's hope that on the occasion of the UK-France Summit which was held last week, Blair will realise that the UK is no more an island.
The writer is a French political analyst and an economics expert.
 |
| Earth, a planet hungry for peace |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03). |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, like a Python. (Alquds,10/25/03). |
 |