| « | From The Morning's Collection Of Rejection Slips |
»
|
|
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Nothing Is Often The Smart Thing To Do And Always A Smart Thing To Say
The worthy Marc Schulman of American Future points us toward this International Herald Tribune column by Reginald Dale:
All European eyes this week have been glued on the peripatetic Condoleezza Rice as she issued her plea for a "new chapter" in trans-Atlantic relations after two years of acrimony and misunderstanding. It has been equally instructive, however, to observe her European audience.As the new U.S. secretary of state dashed around their capitals, Europeans sat comfortably auditioning Rice for the new role they want her to play in drawing the Bush administration closer to Europe. They produced copious reviews of her performance, from the glowing to the snide. But none felt the need to step up on the stage themselves.
The overwhelming message from the audience was that a fresh start in trans-Atlantic relations would require the United States, and not Europe, to make all the concessions. Typical was the comment of an EU diplomat, who demanded "a complete convergence of views," meaning that Washington should swallow European viewpoints hook, line and sinker.
It is true that Rice was not seeking decisions of substance. In repairing trans-Atlantic relations, the first prerequisite was to improve the political climate and the style of discourse, as she has done. A principal complaint of the Europeans has always been President George W. Bush's rough-hewn Texan style.
Ah, the Game of Thrones in action. But as George R. R. Martin has written in his magnificent novel by that very title, "My lord, when you play the game of thrones, you win or you die."
Europe is dying, and knows it.
The Game of Thrones was classically the exercise of power, in one or more forms, in the attempt to bend an opponent to one's will. Kings would deploy armed men against one another, whether to conquer, to intimidate, or to isolate their adversaries. The preponderance of force would decide whose will would prevail, at least in the near term. It was an inherently uncertain thing, as the grand alliances that rose against Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and Hitler proved.
Of course, force in the field had to be buttressed by firmness of resolve. A king too eager for approbation might be persuaded to weaken his own position to get it -- particularly if those whose approval he sought were his opponents. In a few medieval cases, condemning words were the sole instrument deployed against an aggressor, and in some of those, they actually worked. The history of the Papal States is instructive in this regard.
The Old European "powers" have been hoping for such an outcome in our time. In the practical sense, they're impotent militarily, economically, intellectually and demographically. The nations of western Europe (Britain excepted) were unable to marshal five percent of the American contribution toward the relief of the Christmas tsunami in south Asia. Their economies are beyond moribund, hagridden by insoluble unemployment and negative growth rates. Their cultures are sunk deep in degeneracy, and have become irrelevant to the advance of human knowledge. Their populations, except for the stream of Muslims invading from North Africa and the Middle East, are declining.
But they detest American "unilateralism," which is to say, American / British / Australian / Eastern European initiatives to pacify and democratize the Middle East and to thwart aggression in the Far East, to the point of endemic continental nausea. They're anxious to find some way to bind our hands.
President Bush has dispatched Dr. Rice to Europe to probe for the possibility that America might reconcile with the Old World, most particularly with France and Germany. This, despite repeated statements of immovable opposition to American foreign policy from Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder. Inasmuch as the coverage to date indicates that those nations will stand firm in their contemptuous rejection of our initiatives, and inasmuch as Dubya could not reasonably have expected anything else -- he does have the best intelligence services in the world reporting to him, to say nothing of the reports from the international press -- one must wonder why Dr. Rice is bothering.
Europe is under pressures dissimilar to ours, of course. Muslim immigration to France, Germany and Italy threatens to transform those countries utterly within two or three decades at the outside. Already, the police and civil authorities of those countries appear incapable of dealing with Islam-powered violence. Attempts to find some ground on which to halt the flood of Muslims into Old Europe have been countered by everything from public denunciations of "racism" to outright assassination. This, at least, is a problem America does not have -- for now.
When we add Islamic pressure to their collapsing economies, their cancerous welfare states, and their military incapacity, it becomes clear that the nations of Old Europe have nothing of substance to bring to any table at which the United States could profitably sit. So why talk to them at all? Why make even a gesture toward conciliating them? Why pretend an interest in accommodating their passivism toward the mounting threats to liberal democratic society?
Partly, it's a holdover from the days when the Atlantic Alliance was all that stood between freedom and the triumph of Communist totalitarianism. Partly, it's an act of generosity toward lands to which many Americans trace their roots. And partly, it's a characteristic American weakness: the desire to be liked even by those who detest us and all that we stand for. But in yielding to these, we undercut our own moral basis, we risk implying the subordination of our decisions to European assent, and we assist the Old European powers in thinking that they can continue to matter internationally despite their inability to muster any power of relevance.
It's time for Washington to learn the virtues of silence.
There's no arbitrary, a priori need for any two states to have formal relations with one another. The notion is a survival of the days when all trade between nations had to be approved by the state -- when the word of a king could start or stop the flow of wealth across borders, to the benefit of some and the detriment of others. In the modern market economy, nations don't possess that power any more. In point of fact, they didn't possess it even in the days of absolute monarchy; it was always effectively impossible even for a powerful state to prevent the flow of goods between nations, regardless of pretensions to the contrary.
The only time two states truly need a standing communications channel between them is when they're at war, whether as allies or as adversaries.
Our State Department would hardly agree with any of this. It runs counter to their institutional mindset and mission. Yet it is so. For the United States to have consulates in other countries, so that the services and assistance of our government are available to Americans in those lands, is fully justified. But for Washington to conduct "relations" with other states, as if the potentates of those lands had some viable grounds for input into our government's decisions, is wrong, has always been wrong, and ought to come to an end at once.
The proof is before us today. There's not one word in any statement being made by any foreign statesman, diplomat, or mouthpiece for the same that suggests that America has anything to gain from soliciting other nations' good opinion. Nor does it matter that we're the ones that have something to give. If we were a beggar nation, as poor as we were in Revolutionary times, it would still avail us nothing to treat with the thrones of Europe, or any other state. International "assistance" always comes with a price tag; one always pays excessively for it.
Because of the clarity afforded by the current world situation, the opportunity is upon us to remake American foreign policy all the way to its roots. In place of the World-War-era assumption that nations must consult and collaborate, both for moral and practical reasons, we should implant a replacement principle of silence as a rule. Our national security cannot be subordinated to the opinions of others. Our sovereignty cannot abide the suggestion. And considering the extent of Old Europe's necrosis, and how little our principal detractors have to offer us, the sole logical response to their carping is, "Why should we talk to such as you?"
Comments
As you have touched upon, I have yet to have someone provide a convincing explanation as to why the good offices and opinion of France or Germany are either required, or even desireable (other than in the general “it’s good to have friends” way), under the conditions imposed by todays world situation?
In fact, at this point I see significant advantage in being mildly hostile, that way it isnt necessary to pussyfoot on trade subsidies, agricultural subsidies, protectionist laws, airbus etc....
We have made it clear, their opinion no longer matters to us, we should now finish the job and say “You are irrelevant in every way. The only reason we talk to you at all is to sell you computers, and buy wine and cars from you, and if we dont, your economies will collapse completely anyway”.
There is nothing that france or germany provide us, that we cannot get elsewhere. Conversely, Germany and France need our market for their economies to do anything at all.
We have literally all the cards, now let’s start making the big bets and force the euroweenies all in.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/12/2005 at 10:18 AMI should probably take your advice and say nothing, but… How do we as individuals force our State Dept. to accept our views and implement them? They certainly won’t listen to us as indiviuals, but if the President and Dr. Rice saw eye to eye with the views of yourself, Mr Dale. and others, and sent a directive down the chain of command, do you think it would be acceded to? Does the congress have any say so in the making of policy as regards this course of action? I have thought for years that we should have nothing to do with France or Germany and in that vein, I have not knowingly bought any consumer goods made in either of those countries. My father and an uncle gave up their lives so that those self absorbed people could be able to live without a dictators heel on their necks. So much for gratitude, not once but twice! I’ll quit here.
Posted by on 02/12/2005 at 02:13 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
