With America on the ropes and its enemies

resurgent, Europe must consider the danger

that this poses to themselves.

NRC Handlesblad, The Netherlands

A Weak America Also

Means a Weak Europe

"As long as America is weak, European leaders will have to show leadership for the West as a whole. That is a role that decades of American supremacy have scarcely prepared them for."

By Christoph Bertram

By Meta Mertens

August 6, 2007

The Netherlands - NRC Handlesblad - Original Article (Dutch)

By distancing themselves from the United States, European governments undermine their own influence. As long as America's global profile declines, European leaders will have to demonstrate leadership to the Western world as a whole.

The power of America has been so great for so long that many think even George W. Bush's presidency can do little to harm it. The incorrectness of this idea becomes clear from people like Vladimir Putin of Russia, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who are taking advantage of America's shrunken influence and prestige.

This is no reason for schadenfreude [taking pleasure in the pain of others]. On the contrary, it's high time that friends of the United States, especially Europe, realize that America's weakness also undermines their own international influence.

The proof of America's weakness is all around us. When American power was at its peak, Russia accepted the fact that apparently nothing could be done about NATO's gradual penetration into the Soviet Union's former sphere of influence. President Putin tolerated American bases in Central Asia which were installed to support the campaign against the Taliban, and he raised no serious objections when the U.S. withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, used to defend against missile-delivered nuclear weapons. Keen on admitting Ukraine as well as Georgia into NATO, America didn't need to spare Russia's feelings, because it was certain that the Kremlin would accept the changes as inevitable.

That was yesterday. Today, Putin is trying to regain the influence that Russia lost over recent years. With a skillful hand, he plays on the anti-American sentiment in Europe. Meanwhile, he puts pressure on the Baltic countries - a clear signal that NATO mustn't be expanded any further. In Ukraine, the political forces which have resisted closer ties with the West have gained ground. The Kremlin also paints an exaggerated picture of the planned construction of a modest American anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, which Moscow says would damage Russian security interests.

Or take Iran, another power that benefits from America's weakness. Only a few years ago, the Iranian government appeared sufficiently impressed with the U.S. to reluctantly work toward an agreement concerning its nuclear program, in which its enrichment activities would have had to be suspended or even terminated.

There was talk of bilateral contacts with the United States which, if successful, would have ended almost thirty years of hostile relations. Today, Iran perseveres with its enrichment program, despite warnings from the U.N. Security Council threatening new sanctions; in addition, Iranian officials openly ridicule the military action America threatens it with.

All these examples point to the same thing: America has less and less influence in the world. The Bush Administration is internationally scoffed at for the arrogance of its views and the limits of its power.  It lacks support at home and respect abroad.

Since America's rise to superpower status during the Second World War, it has never suffered such a deterioration of its international influence.  Even during the war in Vietnam which was followed by its humiliated retreat from Southeast Asia, there was never serious doubt that America could deal - morally and materially - with the Cold War, which was at that time the great strategic task.

But in today's world where everything is interconnected, influence is no longer measured by the number of nuclear warheads, but the competence of a country to win others over to a policy it considers necessary to its essential interests. Bush's America has squandered that influence - in the Middle East, in Asia and Africa and in large parts of Europe.

Many in the United States prefer to consider this situation temporary, and one that will end as soon as a new President and Congress are elected in 2008.

They don't realize on the one hand, how great the damage is, and on the other, how unrealistic they are about the chances that those vying to succeed Bush - many of who initially supported his wild ventures - will be able to restore the trust and respect that their nation once enjoyed.

To accomplish that will require more than just a new face in the White House. It will take many years of hard work to bring America's needs and resources back into balance and reach the point that its initiatives are once again considered a means of building a more equitable world order, rather than as narrow-minded attempts to secure American interests.

The continuing weakness of the United States also means a weakening of Europe. When American superiority was at its peak, European governments profited twice: They belonged to the powerful West, and other countries vied for Europe's favors as a possible counterweight against American predominance. Even if Europe deviated from the American point of view, it never noticeably affected the West's strategic effectiveness, because American power was more than enough to compensate.

But that Kite will no longer fly. When European governments now distance themselves from America - as their citizens often demand - they turn the United States against them and at the same time, further erode it. At the same time, they undermine their own global influence and offer others the chance to play Europe against America, gambling away the slight chance of putting a reformed America and the West back on their feet.

For these reasons, even when European leaders disagree with the views of the United States, they the combine forceful support for the transatlantic community with a discrete but resolute message to Washington that this partnership must not be pushed to the ultimate limit.

Whether they can execute this difficult maneuver successfully remains to be seen.  Fortunately, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown understand what's at stake, and it appears that some in the Bush Administration are aware of the problem. As long as America is weak, European leaders will have to show leadership for the West as a whole. That is a role that decades of American supremacy have scarcely prepared them for.

CLICH HERE FOR DUTCH VERSION