PRAGUE, Czech Republic, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- How quickly elections change the dynamic.
After nearly openly seeking President Bush's defeat in November, European leaders are poised to welcome the president on the eve of his first trip to Europe since re-election. With a "love-fest" atmosphere in the air, there are still serious policy disputes between European Countries and the United States.
During a recent press conference of the Foreign Press Association in Berlin, I asked German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, in the forefront of President Bush's planned visit what his strategy and future military policy would be. Cynically smiling, the chancellor rather curtly stated: "I leave that to my defense minister. I support his policies." The assembled press went quiet, I was stunned.
I imagined Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair, both of whom I have little time for, answering this question before the assembled international press. Chirac would have gone into a treatise of French military history, noting France's great military tradition and ending in a crescendo about the glory of France. Tony Blair would have emotionally stated his case for "searching and destroying" terrorism worldwide, adding his sorrow about the death of young British men and women in Iraq, how he stands behind their families, but how he knows having a strong British military is a necessity.
And Chancellor Schroeder, Germany's first baby-boomer chancellor? Here is a man who refused war with Iraq, who fiercely contested his reelection campaign with anti-U.S. rhetoric. Yet it is the same man who sent troops into Afghanistan, who allowed U.S. military flyovers during the Iraq war, allowed U.S. military hospitals on German soil to take care of the Iraq wounded, and who wants his country in the U.N. Security Council.
Why would a man, a leader of the world's third-largest economy, a man who wants to transform Germany's role in the world, answer a more than serious question with such hubris. I would even say stupidity. Was he having a bad day?
It should not matter.
But it goes to the heart of how the United States and Germany, and maybe Europe, perceive the world. A U.S. president who answered a similar question, in a similar way -- IF HE DARED -- would have found editorials abound in the next days press, criticizing him harshly.
Imagine, I mean just imagine, President Bush or Clinton, essentially saying they support a Cabinet secretary dictating military policy. It might not be political suicide, but it might come close.
Yet not a note could be read in the European press the next day, not a sound was uttered in television, on radio, not even the Internet.
The simple fact is that as long as Europe can hide behind U.S. military might, behind U.S. military doctrine, as long as young U.S. men and woman, boys and girls, are dying to keep Europe free, and most European countries do not face the pain of war, of soldiers coming home dead, of their own citizen's experiencing the destruction of war, they will not face up to the necessity of defining a meaningful defense and security policy. Europeans will continue to smugly sit in their debating chambers, criticizing U.S. hegemony, U.S. military arrogance -- as they see it -- thinking of themselves as the "true civilized societies."
President Bush should insist that European leader's focus on several issues. Here are nine possible statements and questions:
1. He should make clear to Schroeder that the United States is prepared to support Germany's place in the U.N. Security Council, but not before the German chancellor can cogently express his future military strategy, his future military doctrine, himself, and not through advisers. (Has the German Chancellor given any thought to how he should respond to soldiers coming home in body bags? Or, would he give the family of a lost one a similarly smug answer that he gave me?)
2. He should ask what Europeans think their role is in Iraq. How much money does Europe intend to invest in Iraq this year? Do they intend to build hospitals? Schools? Will they commit forces, even as peacekeepers? The Europeans should announce investments of $50 billion in Iraq.
3. If U.S. rumblings on war with Iran are wrong, or the use of force is incorrect, what is Europe's public policy prescription for Iran?
4. Now that the elections in Ukraine are over, what will Russian President Vladimir Putin do to help stabilize the Ukraine? When will he help end the autocratic Belarus government of Alexander Lukashenko?
5. Slovak President Rudolf Schuster should be asked what specific steps he expects to take to ensure Slovakia's role as a bridge between Europe and the Ukraine. (Slovak Foreign Minister Eduard Kukan and Czech Defense Minister Karel Kuhnl will take up this question at the 6th Transatlantic Drift Debate held in Bratislava April 18 and 19).
6. Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko should make it clear that he intends to uphold democracy in his country and that he intends to have free and fair markets. President Bush should announce that he intends to invest $5 billion in the Ukrainian economy. The EU Commission should announce it intends to match this.
7. Now that the six-party talks with North Korea have broken down, and with Ambassador Christopher Hill taking the lead for the United States on this issue, what will Europe's "added-value be?" Who will Europeans select to be their point-person for North Korea? (Assistant Secretary of State Hill, the former U.S. Ambassador to Poland and South Korea, is a highly competent and thoughtful man and deserves a similar European counterpart. Global Panel and the Prague Society are themselves currently negotiating a North-Korea Summit for November in New Zealand.
8. He should express clearly that a secure Israel is an essential part of European Foreign Policy, and a historical responsibility for Europe while politely, but forcefully, pointing out that Israel is still the only functioning democracy in the Middle East.
9. How will Europe better monitor its investments in the Middle East? Most analysts agree Yasser Arafat stole millions, if not billions, from his own people. How will the European's ensure that their money gets to the people who need it, to the populations who are supposed to be the beneficiaries?
It was President Lyndon B. Johnson who once noted that U.S. forces are "the watchmen on the walls of world freedom."
It is far time for Europe to define this role for itself.
--
Marc S. Ellenbogen is president of the Prague Society (praguesociety.org) and chairman of the Global Panel Foundation (globalpanel.org).
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
