WHAT'S FOR LUNCH? :

A subaltern or a general? : European leaders are as uneasy as their citizens about their role vis-a-vis the US. Soon, they must make a choice--and their decision will change the world for ever. (John Lloyd, 22nd July 2002, New Statesman)

For the past decade, since the end of the Soviet Union, we have been confused about the shape of the world and about the strategic role that Europe can play. But now, as the US begins to clarify its own stance, the options become more apparent. There are four in all.

The first option is to be a willing subaltern to the US. Many say that is what the UK - even the European Union - already is. But it isn't seen that way from the US, and it certainly isn't an overt choice - rather, the European role is more one of unwilling subaltern, who recognises, even on his own continent (Bosnia and Kosovo), that he cannot do much without the US. [...]

The opposite of the willing subaltern is the captain of his fate. That option is available in either the united or disunited Europe option. The first involves a European military structure with command and control, multinational forces and joint defence procurement. The European military superpower would then have the size, resources, intelligence and leadership to counterbalance the US military. It would not oppose it: initially at least, it would try to complement it, running joint exercises and preparing to fight common foes. [...]

What of the disunited Europe option? This would involve the maintenance of national defence postures that would go every which way - though not, one would assume, against each other. The larger, nuclear-armed states (Britain and France) would presumably keep the remnants of a global role and would intervene to protect their interests or citizens, or perhaps for humanitarian reasons. The smaller states would remain as now - largely decorative, though sometimes part of an international project. This option would leave Europe painfully conscious of the gulf between each individual force and that of the US. And it could only watch as the Chinese built up their power (some analysts believe the real Chinese defence expenditure is double the official level), as the Russians recovered their strength, and as countries such as India extended their nuclear capabilities.

The fourth and best option - best from the point of view of amour-propre and avoidance of conflict - would be to take up the position of the comrade-general. He would be in charge of a force strategically committed to the US, as US forces would be strategically committed to Europe. In other words, it would be a new kind of Nato - except Europe would have the capability to do many, if not all, of the tasks that the US military currently does.

None of these options is wholly pleasant. But they will have to be faced. Europe risks irrelevance if it does not make the consequences of America's unprecedented military superiority clear to its own citizens, and seek their consent for a clear strategy of living with it, beside it or under it.

The most amusing thing about essays like this is the blithe assumption that it matters to anyone what Europe decides and that the decision could be put into effect. In the first place, if Britain and America, with all they have in common, are headed in the direction of no longer being allies, what is the basis for believing that the various nations of Europe, with their divergent cultures, can act as a coherent unit? Second, with the demographic problems that Europe faces in the coming years and the already rising tide of immigrant hatred, aren't these countries' own internal problems likely to overwhelm any concern about external matters? And with aging populations and declining workforces putting an unbearable burden on the social welfare net, where would Europe get the money to build a serious military force? Are the French really going to work that 36th hour of the week to help pay for the tanks that can then be sent to Bosnia, never
mind work a 40 hour week so that Europe can have a Missile Shield? It's been obvious since WWII, but gets more so with every passing year, that Europe just doesn't much matter anymore. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 24, 2002 3:13 PM