After the Triumph of Obama, Europe Needs To Abolish NATO
Published in NRC
(Netherlands) on 26 November 2008
by J.H. Sampiemon & Karel van Wolferen (link to original)
(Netherlands) on 26 November 2008
by J.H. Sampiemon & Karel van Wolferen (link to original)
Translated from
by Anne Hukkelhoven.
Edited by Bridgette Blight.
Europe has to give up its feudal status towards the U.S., acknowledge that Afghanistan is a lost cause and exchange NATO for a Euro-Asian security union.
Europe must take advantage of the election of Barack Obama to no longer let its place in the world depend on decisions in Washington, D.C. Emancipation of Europe is badly needed. The urgent cases that the American president probably wants to tackle, are now not under control.
If Europe passes by on new chances, it will almost certainly get drawn into global developments that serve no one, except weapon producers. Aside from a small group of addicted atlantics, Europeans to the west of the Polish and Czech border do not share American enemy fantasies.
In the past years, Americans have shown little sense of reality in determining their self interest. America has a great need of artificial enemies. To be able to be elected, Obama had no chance but to present himself as a potentially powerful commander in chief and that implied that he had to go along in the generally accepted vision that the U.S. is under attack from many sides and needs to wage a pretended war against terrorism. This last thing is, without an enemy that can surrender, immediately a farce and a fatal lie that has enabled abuse of power by the Bush government.
The political exploitation of fear by the Bush government has brought us Europeans uncertainties, tensions and unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in which torture and violation of various international treaties is seen as collateral. Europeans who had never expected this from their strongest ally from the Cold War, therefore felt a great sense of relief with the election of Obama. But that sense of relief comes too early. It is still a guess what Obama really thinks of the supposedly enemy world, even though his apparent particular intelligence and common sense give hope.
But even when he understands that for example continuing to fight against the Taliban can only lead to more and bigger misery; that a radical end to further provocation and alienation of Russia is needed, and the promotion of a neo-cold-war atmosphere; that Chavez of Venezuela is not a dictator and does not have to be an enemy; that Pakistan needs to be dealt with with great caution; that colossal size, an enormous competition potential and 'undemocratic' governing are no reasons to see China already as an inevitable future enemy; that the policy of Israel in the Gaza strip is unendurable; that the large-scale loss of American influence in the world is in the first place the result of abolishing diplomacy by Washington for eight years.
Even if he understands all these things well, and wants to correct as much as possible, even then he faces much more than Republican opponents: an own politically corrupt party, an own country that is doing horribly bad by eight years of mismanagement, and a primarily dumb media world that he will need to convince.
What Obama nor anyone else controls, is the unpleasant fact that the U.S. seems to be unable to live without enemies out of psychological and institutional reasons. To start with the second: something exists that was christened by president Eisenhower in his parting speech as military-industrial complex. The alarming images that he summoned in his warning have become reality into the details, especially in the last eight years. It has nothing to do with truculent officers, as some think, but with a Keynesian engine under the American economy. A large number of Congress members is for their reelection dependent of the defense industry in their districts. It would take a political genius with the power of Hercules to use military expenditures for roads, bridges and other infrastructure, with a comparable electoral benefit for Congress members as a result.
The psychological reason is more difficult to grasp and is still not sufficiently valued by the European economic elite. The American nation is almost addicted to continuous proof that it has a superior status and operates in the world as a positive, salvation-bringing, moral power. In their widespread national imagination, Americans assume that their country is essential for the order in the world. In the strategic bed of the Cold War, Europeans have lost the urge to dismiss such ideas. In order to keep in believing in moral superiority, many American congratulate themselves regularly. Proof of this was visible in the election of a non-white president that was followed by the much-heard triumphant yell: only in America! That Americans also discredit themselves often, is the other side of this narcissism.
The first and especially the second World War were wonderful opportunities to confirm the world image of good and evil. And the Cold War seemed to be made for it. The end of it brought besides joy also trauma for America, because with it disappeared the main calibration point of political bonafides on every level of public activity. Without bad guys there are no good guys, at least none that can continuously prove themselves as such. The necessity of enemies for own moral use dates back to before the current president George W. Bush. But he knew how to hit the sensitive American nerves when he painted the world as a battlefield between good and evil after the attacks on Sept. 11. And he could be reelected via a campaign that was completely based on the fear for the dangers from the corner of evil. Currently, there is much talk about drawing a line under the America of the last eight years, but many American commentaries point to the fact that the illusions from that period, together with the neoconservative agenda, are being held high by the so-called liberal hawks. These are the left-liberal hawks, that have settled into American nationalism.
The European willingness to help Obama with his heavy task, is very much present. In the end, Europeans help themselves with it. After Jan. 21, requests can be expected from the Obama government. Thomas Friedman, columnist for The New York Times, who is considered in politically educated Washington more as an exemplary weather vane than as a sensible analyst, gives an idea of what could be the content and tone of these requests. In a recent column, he challenged Europe and countries in Asia: you applaud our choice for Obama, but when will you start doing something for us? He meant more troops for Afghanistan and more severe sanctions against Tehran.
Secretary of State Maxime Verhagen (Center Democrats, CDA) thought it wise to already show his willingness to keep on fighting alongside America in Afghanistan. With that he does not do Obama, Europe or Afghanistan a favor. Obama's election promise to act more forcefully against the Taliban was necessary to win in a nation that was being lied to for many years with the message these isolated living tribes are a real threat to America. Obama's plans for Afghanistan are already seen as one of his weaker spots. William Pfaff, an infallible political indicator, concludes that Afghanistan, together with indecisiveness on withdrawal from Iraq can be the downfall of his presidency. Both the American voters as the majority of the people and the government of Iraq want America to withdraw.
When Obama is able to end the empty fantasy of the war against terrorism and can make his country feel relatively comfortable as the still largest industrial power in a world without plausible enemies, then he will take a large step back to the relatively stable and peace-loving world order that had arisen at the end of the twentieth century, mainly thanks to America. A European Union, or part of it, that tells the world that it backs again the Charter of the UN and the hence attained international law, would really benefit the position of the idealistic Obama.
But the EU can do more. Especially point resolutely to Afghanistan as a lost cause. Even though we are talking about the future here, we have to consider it a political fact of which the validity rests on experience, historical knowledge and logical analysis of experts. Part of the more worrisome recent developments is the urge of distinguished American circles to enforce the feeling of being under attack with new Cold War fantasies. The relation between America and Russia is still a main latch around which the world turns. This relation has been seriously disrupted in recent years by a semi-extorted, misplaced economic-political transformation that has caused indescribable misery and poverty. Added to this were broken promises to Russia of a political-strategic nature.
No one has benefited, especially not Europe, from the missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic by the Bush government, its digging into the Ukraine and Georgia, and its hammering on continuous expansion of NATO towards the East. Here a number of lines collide that make it hard for Obama, but at the same time give him the opportunity to accomplish a real change, with European support.
For many American policymakers and political analysts, history repeats itself with events like this and few presidential advisers and policymakers have a three-dimensional view of the world. Therefore, Europeans that plead for an independent approach are quickly disqualified in Washington as unreliable allies. That is what happened with the opposing Schröder and Chirac before the American invasion of Iraq. But then why does the much-discussed alliance exist? With about a thousand military bases and battle installations, America made our planet into a garrison. NATO has become a tool of that, and the idea that it protects Europeans is laughable.
With the choice for Obama, America has been given a chance to free itself from the ideological freedom spasm that manifests itself as continuation of the Cold War. The Bush government acted as the leader of a criminal nation. Europe made that easier by aligning itself as a collection of lieges that let itself be bullied. They could not raise an official voice to assure the rest of the world that the European people do not believe at all in preventive warfare.
Does Europe have a chance to change, like America? The financial crisis has brought stronger to light the much-criticized internal strife of Europe. But the blockade of political integration in Europe is inseparably connected with the outsourcing of European policy in the area of defense and foreign policy to the American administrator.
The media are crowded with suggestions of what a US under Obama should do. The idea that something may be expected from Europe, apart from continuation of the liege status, is not mentioned.
An initiative to abolish NATO would be a welcome sign of guts, peacefulness and strategic understanding of the world. The alternative of involving Russia more in the continuation of the alliance has failed so far. But a new start could be made as a step to a Euro-Asian security organization in a new fashion. The heavily leaking American security umbrella above Europe can be folded. On second thought, it does not sound too strange that Obama can only benefit from European countries retaking their own responsibility, but then collectively, for their foreign policy, for the first time since the Second World War.
Obama demonstrates a potential for statesmanship and seems to posses good instincts. Does Europe have the ability to approach him on the same level?
Europe must take advantage of the election of Barack Obama to no longer let its place in the world depend on decisions in Washington, D.C. Emancipation of Europe is badly needed. The urgent cases that the American president probably wants to tackle, are now not under control.
If Europe passes by on new chances, it will almost certainly get drawn into global developments that serve no one, except weapon producers. Aside from a small group of addicted atlantics, Europeans to the west of the Polish and Czech border do not share American enemy fantasies.
In the past years, Americans have shown little sense of reality in determining their self interest. America has a great need of artificial enemies. To be able to be elected, Obama had no chance but to present himself as a potentially powerful commander in chief and that implied that he had to go along in the generally accepted vision that the U.S. is under attack from many sides and needs to wage a pretended war against terrorism. This last thing is, without an enemy that can surrender, immediately a farce and a fatal lie that has enabled abuse of power by the Bush government.
The political exploitation of fear by the Bush government has brought us Europeans uncertainties, tensions and unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in which torture and violation of various international treaties is seen as collateral. Europeans who had never expected this from their strongest ally from the Cold War, therefore felt a great sense of relief with the election of Obama. But that sense of relief comes too early. It is still a guess what Obama really thinks of the supposedly enemy world, even though his apparent particular intelligence and common sense give hope.
But even when he understands that for example continuing to fight against the Taliban can only lead to more and bigger misery; that a radical end to further provocation and alienation of Russia is needed, and the promotion of a neo-cold-war atmosphere; that Chavez of Venezuela is not a dictator and does not have to be an enemy; that Pakistan needs to be dealt with with great caution; that colossal size, an enormous competition potential and 'undemocratic' governing are no reasons to see China already as an inevitable future enemy; that the policy of Israel in the Gaza strip is unendurable; that the large-scale loss of American influence in the world is in the first place the result of abolishing diplomacy by Washington for eight years.
Even if he understands all these things well, and wants to correct as much as possible, even then he faces much more than Republican opponents: an own politically corrupt party, an own country that is doing horribly bad by eight years of mismanagement, and a primarily dumb media world that he will need to convince.
What Obama nor anyone else controls, is the unpleasant fact that the U.S. seems to be unable to live without enemies out of psychological and institutional reasons. To start with the second: something exists that was christened by president Eisenhower in his parting speech as military-industrial complex. The alarming images that he summoned in his warning have become reality into the details, especially in the last eight years. It has nothing to do with truculent officers, as some think, but with a Keynesian engine under the American economy. A large number of Congress members is for their reelection dependent of the defense industry in their districts. It would take a political genius with the power of Hercules to use military expenditures for roads, bridges and other infrastructure, with a comparable electoral benefit for Congress members as a result.
The psychological reason is more difficult to grasp and is still not sufficiently valued by the European economic elite. The American nation is almost addicted to continuous proof that it has a superior status and operates in the world as a positive, salvation-bringing, moral power. In their widespread national imagination, Americans assume that their country is essential for the order in the world. In the strategic bed of the Cold War, Europeans have lost the urge to dismiss such ideas. In order to keep in believing in moral superiority, many American congratulate themselves regularly. Proof of this was visible in the election of a non-white president that was followed by the much-heard triumphant yell: only in America! That Americans also discredit themselves often, is the other side of this narcissism.
The first and especially the second World War were wonderful opportunities to confirm the world image of good and evil. And the Cold War seemed to be made for it. The end of it brought besides joy also trauma for America, because with it disappeared the main calibration point of political bonafides on every level of public activity. Without bad guys there are no good guys, at least none that can continuously prove themselves as such. The necessity of enemies for own moral use dates back to before the current president George W. Bush. But he knew how to hit the sensitive American nerves when he painted the world as a battlefield between good and evil after the attacks on Sept. 11. And he could be reelected via a campaign that was completely based on the fear for the dangers from the corner of evil. Currently, there is much talk about drawing a line under the America of the last eight years, but many American commentaries point to the fact that the illusions from that period, together with the neoconservative agenda, are being held high by the so-called liberal hawks. These are the left-liberal hawks, that have settled into American nationalism.
The European willingness to help Obama with his heavy task, is very much present. In the end, Europeans help themselves with it. After Jan. 21, requests can be expected from the Obama government. Thomas Friedman, columnist for The New York Times, who is considered in politically educated Washington more as an exemplary weather vane than as a sensible analyst, gives an idea of what could be the content and tone of these requests. In a recent column, he challenged Europe and countries in Asia: you applaud our choice for Obama, but when will you start doing something for us? He meant more troops for Afghanistan and more severe sanctions against Tehran.
Secretary of State Maxime Verhagen (Center Democrats, CDA) thought it wise to already show his willingness to keep on fighting alongside America in Afghanistan. With that he does not do Obama, Europe or Afghanistan a favor. Obama's election promise to act more forcefully against the Taliban was necessary to win in a nation that was being lied to for many years with the message these isolated living tribes are a real threat to America. Obama's plans for Afghanistan are already seen as one of his weaker spots. William Pfaff, an infallible political indicator, concludes that Afghanistan, together with indecisiveness on withdrawal from Iraq can be the downfall of his presidency. Both the American voters as the majority of the people and the government of Iraq want America to withdraw.
When Obama is able to end the empty fantasy of the war against terrorism and can make his country feel relatively comfortable as the still largest industrial power in a world without plausible enemies, then he will take a large step back to the relatively stable and peace-loving world order that had arisen at the end of the twentieth century, mainly thanks to America. A European Union, or part of it, that tells the world that it backs again the Charter of the UN and the hence attained international law, would really benefit the position of the idealistic Obama.
But the EU can do more. Especially point resolutely to Afghanistan as a lost cause. Even though we are talking about the future here, we have to consider it a political fact of which the validity rests on experience, historical knowledge and logical analysis of experts. Part of the more worrisome recent developments is the urge of distinguished American circles to enforce the feeling of being under attack with new Cold War fantasies. The relation between America and Russia is still a main latch around which the world turns. This relation has been seriously disrupted in recent years by a semi-extorted, misplaced economic-political transformation that has caused indescribable misery and poverty. Added to this were broken promises to Russia of a political-strategic nature.
No one has benefited, especially not Europe, from the missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic by the Bush government, its digging into the Ukraine and Georgia, and its hammering on continuous expansion of NATO towards the East. Here a number of lines collide that make it hard for Obama, but at the same time give him the opportunity to accomplish a real change, with European support.
For many American policymakers and political analysts, history repeats itself with events like this and few presidential advisers and policymakers have a three-dimensional view of the world. Therefore, Europeans that plead for an independent approach are quickly disqualified in Washington as unreliable allies. That is what happened with the opposing Schröder and Chirac before the American invasion of Iraq. But then why does the much-discussed alliance exist? With about a thousand military bases and battle installations, America made our planet into a garrison. NATO has become a tool of that, and the idea that it protects Europeans is laughable.
With the choice for Obama, America has been given a chance to free itself from the ideological freedom spasm that manifests itself as continuation of the Cold War. The Bush government acted as the leader of a criminal nation. Europe made that easier by aligning itself as a collection of lieges that let itself be bullied. They could not raise an official voice to assure the rest of the world that the European people do not believe at all in preventive warfare.
Does Europe have a chance to change, like America? The financial crisis has brought stronger to light the much-criticized internal strife of Europe. But the blockade of political integration in Europe is inseparably connected with the outsourcing of European policy in the area of defense and foreign policy to the American administrator.
The media are crowded with suggestions of what a US under Obama should do. The idea that something may be expected from Europe, apart from continuation of the liege status, is not mentioned.
An initiative to abolish NATO would be a welcome sign of guts, peacefulness and strategic understanding of the world. The alternative of involving Russia more in the continuation of the alliance has failed so far. But a new start could be made as a step to a Euro-Asian security organization in a new fashion. The heavily leaking American security umbrella above Europe can be folded. On second thought, it does not sound too strange that Obama can only benefit from European countries retaking their own responsibility, but then collectively, for their foreign policy, for the first time since the Second World War.
Obama demonstrates a potential for statesmanship and seems to posses good instincts. Does Europe have the ability to approach him on the same level?