Published on Thursday, July 25, 2002 by The International Herald Tribune |

NATO's Europeans could say 'no'
A polite mutiny

William Pfaff International Herald Tribune, Los Angeles Times Syndicate International
Tension and distrust now are the most important factors in America's relations with its European allies. The initial European reaction to last September's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington - a tightening of alliance links - has been wasted.

The American press is given mild and conciliatory messages about the underlying firmness of trans-Atlantic cooperation in the war against terrorism and the unimportance of European criticisms, but these reassurances are not borne out by conversations with European leaders or in analyses in the mainstream European press.

Criticism and apprehension about the consequences of U.S. policies prevail. In private, there is consistent criticism. In public, nothing serious is said or done by the European governments, other than useless complaints that Europe is being ignored.

It might seem that Americans could therefore reasonably ignore what the Europeans think or say, in the belief, borne out by experience, that European objections to U.S. policies make no difference. The Europeans will eventually fall in line. They have no real alternative.

This time, that might be a dangerously complacent conclusion because the Europeans do have alternatives, explosive ones. They could overturn the post-Cold War alignment tomorrow, and do so to their own probable political and economic profit.

They do not themselves understand their power. Few in Europe's leadership seem to grasp that if the European NATO governments and public indeed object to a U.S. attack on Iraq, as they say, they can prevent it, or at least block it for many months, while accomplishing a fundamental transformation in the Middle Eastern situation to their own advantage (and possibly that of the Israelis and Arabs as well).

Few understand that the European Union does not have to wait until it has built up its feeble military forces in order to have an independent world policy, with independent international influence to rival that of the United States. The world today is not one in which military forces are automatically the relevant or most effective means of power. This already is evident in the commercial and economic relations of Brussels with Washington. Washington cannot dismiss European corporate strength and economic competition. It is compelled to deal with the European Union as a powerful trade rival, to which it has to make concessions. The same thing could be accomplished in political relations if the European NATO allies, or even some of them, were to take a simple but decisive step: reaffirm that NATO is an alliance of independent and politically equal countries. They could refuse American use of NATO's European assets in an attack on Iraq, on the grounds that such an attack does not fall under the agreements on countering terrorism that produced NATO's Article Five resolution of last September.

To do this would not destroy NATO. It might even save it by re-creating in it a political equilibrium. Sooner or later the European powers will have to deal with the consequences of U.S. unilateralism, and if the European public feels strongly about Iraq (and indeed about the Israel-Palestine situation), now could be the best occasion to act. The fundamental reason that NATO will not be destroyed is that the United States needs it more than Europe does. This is not widely understood.

NATO no longer serves to protect Europe from any threat. The threat is gone.

For the Europeans, NATO is an expensive relic of the Cold War. For the United States, NATO has to exist. Washington may be indifferent to allied opinion, or in no need of allied military support, but it has to have the European alliance because NATO provides the indispensable material and strategic infrastructure for American military and strategic deployments throughout Europe, Eurasia, the Middle East and Africa. NATO gives the United States a military presence, usually with extraterritorial privileges, in every one of the alliance's member countries, and in most of the former Warsaw Pact and former Soviet countries that are members of the Partnership for Peace. Washington needs NATO because without NATO the United States has no legitimate claim to a say in European internal matters. Richard Holbrooke once said (to some European indignation) that the United States is a European power. So it is, so long as NATO exists.

A polite mutiny by some or all of the European NATO countries on the question of war with Iraq would certainly produce what Saddam Hussein might describe as the mother of all trans-Atlantic rows, but in the end the United States would back down. Even this article's suggestion that there might be a European NATO mutiny on Middle Eastern issues will probably produce a row, but it will also weigh in Washington's considerations.

After such a mutiny, NATO would be a different alliance. After that, the European allies would certainly never again have reason to complain that Washington was paying no attention to them. But do the Europeans really want this? Or is it all talk?

International Herald Tribune Los Angeles Times Syndicate International
Copyright 2002 The International Herald Tribune



GlobeNet3 Global Secretariat
Unit 718 CityLand MegaPlaza
Ortigas, Pasig City, PHILIPPINES
Tel: +63-2-687-7481
Telefax: +63-2-687-7482