July 31, 2004
LOOKIN' FOR LOVE IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES:
Alas for Kerry, the days of transatlantic amity are gone (Niall Ferguson, 31/07/2004, Daily Telegraph)
The key point was in the paragraph on Iraq. "We need a president," declared Kerry, "who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home. Here is the reality: that won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership – so we don't have to go it alone in the world. And we need to rebuild our alliances…"In other words, a Kerry administration would set about mending fences with allies who are not currently on America's side - which means most of continental Europe - in order to reduce and ultimately wind up America's commitments in Iraq.
Significantly, Kerry mentioned Europe at the top of his speech, recalling the time when his diplomat father was stationed there. Was I just dreaming, or did he say he had "unforgettable memories of being a kid mesmerised by the British, French and American troops" he saw? Did he really say French? (Rewind the tape. Yes, he did. Boy, do his speechwriters know how to lose votes.)
Well, here's another reality for you, Mr Kerry. Even if you are elected in November, and even if the European leaders do fawn over you in a way not seen since the days of JFK, I don't expect much in the way of burden-sharing, least of all from the French. Sure, with you in the White House, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroder would spout all sorts of fine words about restoring transatlantic harmony. But I would be quite astonished if practical support, whether in the form of money or men, were to be forthcoming.
This is not a fashionable view, least of all in academic circles. A clear majority of those who think, write and talk about international relations for a living take the view that the transatlantic alliance system can and must be restored.
Of course, academics want us to be more like Europe in all things. Indeed, you could say this election is about whether we should remain American (Red) or join secular/statist Europe (Blue). Posted by Orrin Judd at July 31, 2004 8:37 AM
I can't recall who said it but here goes for a paraphrase: Nations do not have loyalties(friendships), they have interests. I believe it was Bismark and if so I believe he was right on the mark.
Coalitions of the willing, with common interests/purpose, therefore form the best alliances for as long as the intersts remain germane to all within the coalition. Members may drop out and new members join as their national interests coincide. Coalitions need not, indeed should not, continue beyond the the existance of common purpose.
We probably should consider altering our membership in NATO to that of the position of France, providing only consent and advice until a common purpose emerges upon which we may form a coalition of willing nations.
President Bush has ushered in an era in which America looks to its own interests ... and I for one have no interest in returning to the one world concept. It isn't viable. Like the ocean, change is the only constant.
George Washington was wise in his advice against foreign/European entanglements. Willing coalitions are the answer; thanks to both G.W.'s for their foresight/insight respectively.
Posted by: genecis at July 31, 2004 9:47 AMgenecis: It was Lord Palmerston, British Prime Minister during our Civil War. His quote was to the effect that Britain has no permanent allies, only permanent interests.
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at July 31, 2004 1:55 PMgenecis:
Exactly, and since the USSR is no more, I fail to see what compelling interest the US has in meddling in EU affairs.
All that's really required is that America and various European powers not engage in armed conflict against each other, and that is basically beyond their abilities now, so problem solved.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 31, 2004 3:23 PM"share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers...bring our troops home...we don't have to go it alone..."
Or, we could instead let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Noel at July 31, 2004 6:48 PM