Being an avowed internationalist, as the French foreign minister demonstrated recently, can be great fun. One gets to criticize the United States--especially the Bush administration--in lots of creative ways, like sneering that the axis of evil concept is simplisme--more on that later--and complaining that America's valiant European allies are not allowed to do any of the substantive work of waging war on terror.
As somewhat of a middling internationalist myself, I don't support the automatic impulse to reach for the cruise missile launch button whenever a malicious tyrant like Saddam Hussein goes on a particularly fiery tirade. However, it is both counterproductive and arrogant for Europe's leaders to issue melodramatic press releases whenever the Bush team dares to--horror of horrors!--suggest that it may act in America's national interest.
Oh yes, it is also downright hypocritical, and here's why. After Sept. 11, NATO took the historic step of invoking Article V of the treaty, vowing to join the United States in defeating international terrorism. Expressions of support poured in from continental capitals, but beyond platitude-filled speeches, the "all-for-one-and-one-for-all" commitment of our NATO partners proved to be a virtually meaningless symbolism.
While U.S. fighter pilots were risking their lives over Afghanistan, the alliance proudly announced that it would send five airborne warning and control system aircraft to patrol the dangerous skies of the contiguous 48 states. It even accepted the unprecedented risk of deploying a few ships to the eastern Mediterranean Sea, no doubt to defend Greece against the imminent invasion by Bulgaria. So much for our valiant allies.
None of this suggests that Europe doesn't want to help the United States, but its military capabilities simply wouldn't allow it. In all honesty, what kept Europe safe during the Cold War was not the Austrian Navy or the Royal Swedish Air Force. Living in comfort under the U.S. nuclear umbrella and protected 24 hours a day, seven days a week by U.S. armored divisions deployed on their soil at U.S. taxpayer expense, Europeans grew complacent about providing for their own common defense.
If the White House does not see the necessity to consult with its NATO allies about its plans for Iraq or North Korea, it is not solely because of the ideological bias among such uncompromising unilateralists as Paul Wolfowitz. Europe clearly bears some responsibility by neglecting its own armed forces to the point that they are utterly tangential to the success of the transatlantic alliance. Speaking of the military imbalance between America and the rest of the world, the historian Paul Kennedy recently wrote that "nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power."
The problem is not that Paris, Berlin and Brussels are not spending enough--as a percentage of GDP, defense expenditures of some European states exceed that of the United States. The real problem is how all these billions of euros are allocated. Wars of the future will not be won by legions of half-trained conscripts, which, sadly, is how the armies of about half of NATO must be characterized. America is light years ahead of Europe when it comes to smart bombs, sophisticated fighter jets, rapid-reaction naval forces and satellite-based military intelligence. Until our allies recognize that their tangible defense investment is lacking, they will be incapable of supporting U.S. forces in anything except peacekeeping.
The one exception to this is the United Kingdom, perhaps the only country in Europe whose armed forces are technologically comparable to America's. Moreover, Prime Minister Tony Blair has shown genuine leadership in the war on terror, which is far more than I can say for any other European head of government. British troops, though already facing the difficult challenge of maintaining stability in Macedonia and Sierra Leone, took an active part in anti-Taliban operations, a more dangerous endeavor than cruising around the coast of Greece. Their contribution proved that the United Kingdom is America's only real ally in Europe. Not surprisingly, the White House is more than happy to confer with Downing Street about its future international adventures. A coincidence? I think not.
This brings us to the delightful comment by Hubert Vedrine. It goes without saying that France's record of famously never surrendering to the forces of evil makes it the perfect country to lambaste America's efforts to make the world's cities--including, say, Lyon and Marseilles--safe from terror. Beyond allowing pundits to poke fun at Vedrine's ingratitude and complete lack of tact, this minor diplomatic incident raises a larger point. With allied leaders like Vedrine, the United States will have no choice but to resort to unilateral action. Not every time, mind you, and hopefully not most of the time, but there will be occasions when this is inevitable.
In this one outlandish comment, writ large, is the essential dynamic of the transatlantic relationship. All too often, the United States is left alone to do what must be done to preserve international security. And if Europe thinks that's simplisme, so be it.
Pavel Molchanov is a Trinity junior. His column appears every other Tuesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.