OLD THINK:

Europe is too powerful to be ignored (Joseph Nye, March 10 2003, Financial Times)

[S]ceptics have a myopic view of power that focuses too heavily on the military dimension, where the US excels. But power in the 21st century is distributed differently on different issues and resembles a three-dimensional chess game. On the top board of military issues, where US military expenditure is equal to the next two dozen countries combined, the world is unipolar. There is only one superpower. It is likely to remain that way unless Europeans want to double the proportion of gross national product spent on defence to equal US levels. But even more modest European capabilities should not be discounted. European participation in a coalition against Iraq helps the legitimacy of the US cause and European nations could play a crucial role in the aftermath. There are more European than US troops helping to keep the peace today in the Balkans and in Afghanistan.

The middle board of economic issues is a sharp contrast from the military board. Here the world has a multipolar balance of power. The US cannot achieve a global trade agreement without the agreement of Europe and others. In the area of antitrust, General Electric was unable to merge with Honeywell because the European Commission opposed the move. And recently, Microsoft had to make significant changes to its new passport system in order to meet European privacy regulations. This is hardly the "American hegemony" that some proclaim. Moreover, despite the political popularity of the US in Donald Rumsfeld's "new Europe", the US is becoming less prominent in business and investment there. EU countries account for three-quarters of the "new Europe's" trade.

The bottom board of the three- dimensional chess game consists of transnational issues that cross borders outside the control of governments. Examples include illegal migration, drugs, crime, the spread of infectious diseases, global climate change and, of course, transnational terrorist networks. On this board, power is chaotically organised and it makes no sense to speak of unipolarity, hegemony or American empire. While these
issues are having an increasing effect on the lives of ordinary Americans, they cannot be solved by military power or by the US acting alone. Co-operation with other countries, particularly the capable Europeans, is essential to Americans' ability to get the outcomes they want.

Europe is not likely soon to become the military equal of the US but it has enough sticks and carrots to produce significant hard power, the ability to get others to do what they would not otherwise do. In addition, despite internal divisions, Europe's culture, values and the success of the EU have produced a good deal of soft power, the ability to attract rather than merely coerce others.

Despite policy differences over Iraq, no two parts of the world share more of the basic values of democracy, liberty, tolerance and human rights than do Europe and the US. Mr Bush and President Jacques Chirac should cool the exaggerated rhetoric that obscures these similarities and the importance of working together. France should think again before producing a train-wreck by using its veto in the United Nations. And US unilateralists should remember that those who focus on only one board in a three-dimensional game are likely to lose in the long run.

Mr. Nye seems trapped in a 19th Century worldview, where Europe remains important because it used to be and where Grand Alliances will bring peace to a weary Western world. In fact, Europe's demographic and economic crises are significant enough for us to question whether it makes any sense to yoke ourselves to the dying continent, when we could be looking to those regions whose salad days lie ahead of them--Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, parts of Asia. Mr. Nye flatters himself about the wider nature of his vision, but he's narrowly focused on the folks who are most like us at the moment, even though they're now headed down. Better, if we're worried about the future, to look towards those countries that, while they have quite a ways to go, are inevitably going to become like us. Mr. Nye is like a confused surfer trying to ride the ebb tide.

Meanwhile, he underestimates the degree to which unilateralism and even geopolitical isolation can remain an effective option in a globalized world. On the middle rung of his chess board we need only lower our own trade barriers to reap most of the benefits we're likely to gain from Free Trade. Why should we care if European taxpayers subsidize our purchases of their goods? While, on the other hand, it is going to become more and more difficult for Amnerican exports to compete abroad, regardless of what trade rules exist, because our currency is going to be so much stronger than anyone elses. Certain goods that only we make--like cultural/intellectual goods: computer programs, movies, music, biotechnologies, pharmaceuticals, stock in US companies, etc.--will continue to thrive, but no one will have enough euros to buy an American made machine of any kind. As Europe declines our goods will be priced out of its markets regardless of any structural barriers.

The bottom rung argument is the most bizarre, though you hear it often from Atlanticists trying to scare folks. What Mr. Nye and others are proposing is that a France which is terrified of its burgeoning Muslim population will allow radical Islamic terrorists to operate with impunity inside her borders in order to teach us a lesson. This fantasy, of an al Qaeda that would not choose to attack its anti-Muslim hosts and of a French people who would tolerate a globalist Islamic movement in their midsts, would be amusing if so many transnationalists weren't using it to try and keep us bound to Old Europe.

Just as the generals always prepare for the last war and the Fed always fights the problems of the youth, so does the foreign policy establishment try to prop up the system that they were taught in grad school "worked" fifty years ago, no matter how much the world has changed.

MORE:
A Theory: What if there's method to the Franco-German madness? (Michael Ledeen, March 11, 2003, Jewish World Review)

They dreaded the establishment of an American empire, and they sought for a way to bring it down.

If you were the French president or the German chancellor, you might well have done the same.

How could it be done? No military operation could possibly defeat the United States, and no direct economic challenge could hope to succeed. That left politics and culture. And here there was a chance to turn America's vaunted openness at home and toleration abroad against the United States. So the French and the Germans struck a deal with radical Islam and with radical Arabs: You go after the United States, and we'll do everything we can to protect you, and we will do everything we can to weaken the Americans.

The Franco-German strategy was based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States.

This required considerable skill, and total cynicism, both of which were in abundant supply in Paris and Berlin. Chancellor Shroeder gained reelection by warning of American warmongering, even though, as usual, America had been attacked first. And both Shroeder and Chirac went to great lengths to support Islamic institutions in their countries, even when - as in the French case - it was in open violation of the national constitution. French law stipulates a total separation of church and state, yet the French Government openly funds Islamic "study" centers, mosques, and welfare organizations. A couple of months ago, Chirac approved the creation of an Islamic political body, a mini-parliament, that would provide Muslims living in France with official stature and enhanced political clout. And both countries have permitted the Saudis to build thousands of radical Wahhabi mosques and
schools, where the hatred of the infidels is instilled in generation after generation of young Sunnis. It is perhaps no accident that Chirac went to Algeria last week and promised a cheering crowd that he would not rest until America's grand design had been defeated.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 11, 2003 10:02 AM