European Alarm Over Obama

A group of distinguished "intellectuals and policymakers" including Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa recently issued "An Open Letter to the Obama Administration from Central and Eastern Europe." Describing themselves as "Atlanticist voices within NATO and the EU," and supporters of America for "promoting democracy and human rights around the world." But they fear that concern for their countries is no longer at the heart of American foreign policy. NATO's passive reaction to Russia's incursion into Georgia makes them wonder if the US is really committed to their defense. Meanwhile, joining NATO and the EU has not, they discover, led Moscow to accept their "complete sovereignty and independence." Even if Russia is a status-quo power globally, within its own neighborhood it is a "revisionist power, pursuing a 19th century agenda with 21st century tactics and methods." They distrust Russian president Medvedev's plan for a "Concert of Powers." Over time Russia's "creeping intimidation" could lead, they fear, to "a de facto neutralization of the region." Meanwhile, its young elites identify less and less with America.

To reverse this deterioration, the group proposes a six-point agenda for the next twenty years. Among their prescriptions and observations are the following:

• The US "should reaffirm its vocation as a European power."
• NATO should adopt "proper Article 5 defense planning for new members."
• Members should dialogue with Moscow only with a "coordinated position."
• Missile-defense should not be scuttled by unfounded Russian opposition.
• The US and the EU must take their strategic partnership more seriously.
• Security cooperation must include energy security.
• US visa policy favoring West European countries like France over stalwart allies like Poland and Romania is "incomprehensible" and should be corrected.

What all this boils down to is that the authors are nervous about recent US efforts to repair relations with Putin's Russia. The fears of so distinguished a group should be heard with respect. They are correct to see Obama's recent initiatives pointing toward a major reversal of the Bush administration's Russian and European policy, and to some extent of the Clinton administration's as well. It was under Clinton, after all, that NATO first began expanding to former parts of the Soviet Union, notably the Baltic states. Meanwhile, NATO's "partnership for peace" program was sponsoring joint maneuvers and close military relations with former Soviet republics in Central Asia. A few years later, the Bush administration was proposing NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, together with a NATO missile defense system installed in several CEE countries.

Russia has grown increasingly unhappy with these policies and more and more inclined to intervene politically, economically and even militarily to counter them. All along, however, the policies have enjoyed vociferous backing in the United States from ardent NATO supporters and a variety of ethnic pressure groups.

In the Bush years, the policy was not only implicitly anti-Russian but anti-European as well. When France and Germany opposed the Iraq war, Secretary Rumsfeld famously invoked America's influence over the "New Europe" of the CEE states. Such a divisive policy suited very well the Bush administration's vision of a dominating U.S. in a unipolar world. But it also provoked a developing crisis in transatlantic and European relations. On the one hand, France and Germany were denied support from much of Europe. On the other hand, they were backed by Russia and China in the Security Council. Four Eurasian great powers lined up against America's unipolar pretensions. Initially, these events were widely read in Washington to signify a disintegrating European Union. In retrospect, however, the forming of a Eurasian bloc to counter the U.S. was an early symptom of a nascent geopolitical revolution. It pointed to the transition from a unipolar hegemony to a plural world of several great powers. The nascent Eurasian bloc continued to check American initiatives, particularly toward Iran. This provoked an American rage against Europe, France in particular.

By Bush's second term, however, it had gradually burned itself out. America's mounting difficulties in living up to its unipolar pretensions began to compel a new interest in repairing relations with "Old Europe." Bush's initial policy was coming to seem egregiously inappropriate. It most assuredly does not fit America's current predicament. With our military overextended and our finances in grave crisis, circumstances compel us to cooperate with the world's other great powers, rather than attempt to dominate them. This is the world that Obama faces and that the U.S. must somehow adapt to. The effort to "reset" relations with Russia is thus part of a broader strategy, one where the US is more likely to appease Russia and Europe than confront them in their own neighborhoods. We can pray that Russians and Europeans also have the wisdom to collaborate in building a new system of collective security--one that aims to turn everyone's individual weakness into the world's collective strength.

In this context the position of the distinguished CEE leaders seems profoundly mistaken. Given the region's history, their apprehensions are easy to sympathize with. But history clouds rather than enlightens their vision. Today, policy that antagonizes Russia on the one hand and France and Germany on the other, and relies for order on overwhelming American military power, seems a highly unpromising foundation for stable security across Eurasia. Under present circumstances, it is certainly not a policy in America's own interest. Many people fear we did not respond very well to the opportunities presented to us by Gorbachev twenty years ago. Perhaps our own Western crisis now gives us the chance to do better. Obama seems to sense this. No doubt it is too much to expect the CEE countries to greet any such policy with enthusiasm. No one can deny that they have suffered terribly over the past century. We can only hope that they do not, once more, take the wrong path.

 

Comments

[greatscot]

The signers of this document are dinosaurs really, - old cold warriors who remember the evil Soviet Empire as it was. Most Europeans, East & West want the U.S. to bug out. A majority of both the Polish & Czech people DON"T want the anti-missile system. The U.S. is hooking up with the Russia-haters for its own benefit, not theirs, as they will find that out just like everyone else has who becomes a "staunch ally" of the United States. If the Georgian prime minister thinks the U.S. will defend Georgia, he should just go back to eating his tie, - its not going to happen. As regards American military bases in Europe, - they should be closed. They are merely a part of force projection and as such are supportive of U.S. Hegemony. Since the Bush II regime issued a policy stating Europe is a rival of America and should be restrained from developing any capacity to challenge the U.S., why would Europe support American hegemony? The answer is narrow-minded (presumed, but misguided) self-interest, and that's what this docoment represents more than anything else.

[Tackora]

The signers of this document are dinosaurs, indeed. These nations in central Europe have the size of an educated population commensurable with that of Russia. They had twenty years to build up their economic, financial, and political strength and form an alliance that could very well have held the ground against the influence of Russia or anyone else.
Instead, these political midgets and their cronies narrow-mindedly pursued their own personal interests, stole, sold out and "privatized" much of these nation’s industrial and natural resources. They disrespected their own people. They have corrupted governance from top to bottom. There is hardly anything they did better than their communist predecessors. They failed to accomplish in growth and progress anything comparable to what the West-European nations accomplished in their 20 years after WWII under more difficult circumstances.
They have miserably failed, and now they expect the USA to take care of them, as if they did not know from history that such thing is never a free lunch.

[piul05]

Excellent post.

[S1m0n]

Ironically or not, it's a fact that the Georgian president's American lobbyist was Randy Scheunemann, who was also one of John McCain's senior Foreign Policy advisors. Scheunemann's job was to liase with the US government, carrying Georgia's water and making sure Georgia understood where it stood with respect to the US.

Given that the Georgian president appears to have had wildly unrealistic expectations about what the US would do to back him up, it seems very likely that Scheunemann was at a minimum incompetent, but more likely dishonest and corrupt, telling Georgia whatever would keep the cheques coming.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/13/mccains-top-foreign-polic_n_118743.html

[RobinSeattle]

This is rather odd. It used to be there was much criticism of U.S. hegemony from europeans, especially those on the left, and now they want to effectively make the U.S. the King of NATO?

Also, "US visa policy favoring West European countries like France over stalwart allies like Poland and Romania is "incomprehensible" and should be corrected."

No it shouldn't. The influx of Romanians into Britain has powered part of the resentment among the British populace of EU immigration policies during a declining UK economy. Romania is also a repressive state. The U.S. takes enough immigrants without making it easier for more to come here while our economy is shattered and illegals drive down wages already. We need an immigration moratorium until we can come up with a streamlined, rational and efficient methodology to deal with those who want to come here.

[S1m0n]

The odds of the United States provoking a serious military confrontation with Russia in defense of Georgia remain the same - ZERO - no matter who's occupying the White House.

If Havel et al thought otherwise, they need to dramatically revise their expectations.

[RobinSeattle]

By the same token, though, there is still a lot of talk on the right about air strikes on Iran, a country that Russia sees as being in its sphere of influence. The media has really dropped the ball on that and are enabling what could be a dangerous policy toward Iran.

[americaforme]

Break away from the USA and buck up! Our global hopping, putting out fires is over. We have our own crisis at hand. We dont have the the money for our own people. Our states are going bankrupt, and so sorry folks, we need to mend the USA NOW. (We the People) are rising up, and congress better listen to us, or they will be looking for another job. Yes, we do have new policy's, staying out of new financial engagements.

[LMPE]

There is no "Old Europe" and "New Europe". There is just Europe. By all accounts, the overwhelming majority of the populations in every European country (and every country worldwide) opposed the invasion of Iraq.

Europe's leaders should draft a document calling on the UN to legally declare the tea party movement and the birthers a bunch of cavemen. Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel led independence movements in their countries, so surely they can follow my suggestion.

[iridium53]

I really don't know the answer - but, what percentage do the EU and NATO countries (besides the U.S.) contribute?

The U.S. commitment to the U.N. is tremendously disporportionate to the U.S. economy vs. EU. Is it the same for NATO?

Given the economic protectionism of the EU countries, and, the support for EU banks by U.S. perhaps it is time to reevaluate U.S. position re EU and NATO? Perhaps it is time that these countries rely more upon themselves?

[raaf]

The only commitment of the US to the UN is that it's systematically sides with Israel, blocking any resolution that dares to criticize Israel, without exception. As for the financial part the US doesn't even pay it's bills to the U.N.