The coming four years will reveal whether transatlantic cooperation or transatlantic confrontation prevails.

The coming four years — Bush’s tenure or so — will be decisive for US-European relations. According to the results, a major input determining the shift of the global balance will emerge.  It would be tedious to list the fundamental reasons why, if rationality would prevail, transatlantic cooperation should be more likely than transatlantic confrontation. As so often, the good reasons do not suffice to bring about what mutual interests and compatibilities make likely. Once in the collective mind of the governors and the governed, reality is replaced by constructs of an imagination that has cut itself loose from the anchor of reality, then results will come about that, in reacting to nightmares, end in creating them.

Europe’s current liaison to America is considerably more wobbly than normally admitted. This is — contrary to an opportunistic rendition of those whose goal is to blame “W” rather than to confront truth — not a new development. The only thing novel about it is that the Europeans have become, on the official and public level, demonstrative about their hostility. Furthermore, a widening segment of the US — it does not yet include the political class when it talks officially — is becoming aware of the state of things. The offensive loudness of Europe has a bit to do with the disappearance of the Soviet threat. Mainly, however, it owes to the fact that an influential state and its pompous leader have inserted themselves into the campaign. France and Chirac are in this game because they hope to use the alleged global break in the weather to weaken American positions and then to grab the leadership of the upshot as it crystallizes. Clearly, in leading this campaign, the motive is not that the US is making the wrong move in the face of the forces that challenge it and, by implication, the developed world. Nor is it that it is felt that the means and the will to combat whatever might harm Europe is locally available. Much rather the underlying assumption is that, there is no major threat lurking in the dark — except American supremacy.

The challenge of Islamic fundamentalism can be neutralized and weathered by Europe — at least till the “next election”– if it remains directed against the USA. This, it is felt, can be accomplished by (a) disassociating Europe from the US, (b) demonstrating anti-Americanism in the process, and (c) by showing sympathy towards some Moslem entities through circumventing official sanctions and extending to them diplomatic succor. The hope is that the vacuum created by receding US power can be filled by “Europe” without needing to develop and rely on the physical might normally associated with leadership. It would appear that this expectation rests on illusions. Those who, like the Islamists, Russia, China, etc, who are likely to oppose America with Europe’s help, will possess and apply the power it takes to win. It is hard to see why the means that led to success against the US would not be used “marching home from the battle” against Europe. Once the USA had been forced to acquiesce, Europe’s cooperation or opposition will be of little consequence to the power(s) that had prevailed while Europe cheered, over America.

It is probable that the here wide-spread, intuitive calculations are wrong. The campaign to attain a global power position commanded by some politicians that are astride the European mule, is not taking place in the state of permanent wind still. It is rather so that we are, unfortunately, situated between two storms on the radar screen. For this reason, and also irrespective of all incantations even if frequently repeated, toppling the Amis will not quite create a world in which all are equal, brothers and non-violent. “Violent, imperial America” and “universal brotherhood” are not realistic alternatives. The crumbling of US pre-eminence will heave a replacement into the paramount position. We can rest assured that this player will be neither Europe nor one of the countries of the Continent. Who will it be? Let the heroic self-infatuated Davids (here and over there) contemplate how their favorite candidate will use its power. Will the restraints be as strong and the intentions as benign, as they were in the case of the “American Imperialists?” 

The new boss on the block will be a player for whom violence will have worked. Concurrently, its particular form of institutional dictatorship and weltanschauung with a universal claim, too, will be confirmed by success. Notice that the implication of the above is that it is most unlikely that this power will be a stable democracy. Additionally, the new superpower will be poor and thus be forced to be more exploitative than the “American supremacists” were. The more so since, as we know, leadership is costly. Systems that are, on account of their world-view, economically inefficient, have a hunger for money that is hard to still. When the for system-imminent reasons inefficient economy is unable to sustain the organism, while the same features provide for its efficiency in war, then there will be conquest and domination. Simply put: if you cannot produce it you must take it. Wolves would be better off if, as good shepherds, they would nurture their lambs. However, being predators they must resort to attacking the herd and killing the sheep.

America’s critics have a point when, among other things, in justifying stances that lead to the loosening of ties, they refer to her unilateralism. Indeed, unilateralism there is. However, the implied accusation that going it alone is self-serving and aggressive and therefore the preferred US approach in her foreign relations, is a distortion. For one thing, the US would be glad to have a strong Europe as an ally. Especially since a weak and therefore complex-ridden Europe is inclined to mark its territory by anti-Americanism. As for the rest: US unilateralism comes about because Europe is rather reluctant to defend itself against long term and indirect challenges. In these cases it is inclined to desist from acting but not averse to criticizing America from the side-lines. It is a modus operandi founded on the assumption that while Europe neglects defending itself, ultimately America will, because, supposedly, it must.

This gets the writer to humbly submit a recommendation for the US policy of the future. America must really try to overcome her conditioned reflexes and drives. Self control shall be implemented. She shall hear and heed the voices demanding less interventionism in the business of others. Thus what is needed is the exercise of the restraint demanded. Just stay out of tussles! Please, when the next crisis that is not directly impacting on the USA rolls around, stay out and suggest what is PC, namely that the UN be called in. Once that phase is passing try to resist acting before the high water has risen to European chins. Once you act because you need to, do not do it with more vigor than the national interest demands. “Late and less” has an immense virtue: it educates.