|
![]() |
|
|
But disengagement from Europe is not a sensible option. And conservatives, of all people, should know that. It is they who, for the last decade and a half, have been sounding the alarm about the rise of the European Union and its likely negative consequences for the United States, and they who have been urging a shift in American policy to reverse trends in Europe. Yet conservatives appear to be forgetting that analysis at the very moment it is being massively vindicated. A certain amount of transatlantic tension was to be expected after the Cold War ended. The Western alliance no longer had a common enemy; differences of political philosophy between Europe and America seemed larger once the alternative of communism was gone; and those differences actually increased in response to the widening power gap between them. But European integration was bound to make those tensions much worse, conservatives argued. A European superpower would be contrary to American interests both because of the logic of its position as a rival and because of its dirigiste ideological tendencies. And while in a divided Europe some nations Britain above all could be counted on to have more of an "American" than a "European" outlook, to the extent the unification project succeeded those nations would be absorbed into a pan-European state. By 1989, it was already clear from the controversy over American exports over hormone-treated beef that European leaders saw a trade fight with America as a means of centralizing their power within Europe. Now EU official Chris Patten, discussing steel tariffs, has explicitly said as much. Nor is it hard to find statements from other European leaders to the effect that resentment of American power will serve as the sentimental basis of the European project. In a largely unipolar world, how could it be otherwise? The rise of Le Pen-style nationalism is another vindication for conservatives: European integration was supposed to be the antidote to such outbreaks, but it has instead turned out to be their cause. The logical conclusion from that analysis is not that America should disengage from Europe or be hostile to it. Seething from the sidelines would only help the Euro-nationalists. Still less is it that America should continue to express support for European integration, as President Bush did in Berlin on this trip. It is rather that we should engage Europe more vigorously. We should encourage European nations to make a larger military contribution to NATO and to abandon a European defense force, in return for our taking their military views more seriously. When the time comes to attack Iraq as it probably will, the doubters notwithstanding President Bush should convene a summit including the leaders of those European countries who are making an actual military contribution to the campaign, and excluding officials of lesser European countries and of the EU itself. On the economic front, we should work toward a transatlantic free trade zone including pro-American regimes on Europe's periphery including Turkey and perhaps Russia. (Speaking of Turkey, a nice first step would be to stop leaning on it to provide facilities for the European defense force.) And in general, we should side with those Europeans who favor a larger, freer, more open and Atlanticist Europe. That would be good for America, for global stability, and for ordinary Europeans who, let's not forget, have shown much less enthusiasm for a European superstate than their rulers have. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||