0 COMMENTS

As the European continent moves to merge their political and economic interests, there are serious questions that come to the average observer’s mind. Chief among them is the question of whether the new European entity will be proactive, reactive, passive. Will the new Europe take the somewhat anti-American posture of nations like France and Germany, or will it adopt the more America-friendly tone of countries like Spain and England? Speaking of England, what role will
that stalwart ally of the U.S. play in the new body? Will it steer the new Europe towards a more proactive course that obviates the need for the U.S. to constantly take a leadership role in solving European problems? Will it be consigned to the dust heap of irrelevance, within the new entity, forever regarded with suspicion and perhaps contempt, by its new partners due to its
association with the U.S.? Or will England eventually yield to its rich history, culture and traditions, and refuse to become a part of the new Europe that appears bent on subsuming national identities under a new somewhat amorphous, bland giant with an identity that is yet to emerge? England is after all the land of the Royal Family, the land of Big Ben, the land of Fox-Hunting, the land of Afternoon tea, and most important of all the land of the British Pound, a currency that has existed for over 1,300 years, in contrast to the other European currencies some of which have lasted for only 60 – 65 years. Will the average Briton be prepared to subsume that stalwart, time-tested currency to the currency of a new, unproven, continental currency? A currency without a record?

Europe does have a record of some sort, but that record is not necessarily one that inspires confidence. The record is one of spouting a lot of lofty words, ideals and promises, but not generally living up to them. In 1914, when the Austria-Hungary government was working itself into a frenzy over the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne in Serbia, and embarking on an angry path that would eventually lead to war, Europe showed a singular un preparedness for handling the problem. The German Kaiser who had pledged full support for Austria, went away on holiday in Norway on his yacht, at the peak of the crisis, General Von Moltke, head of the German army was receiving treatment at a foreign spa, The Serbian Prime Minister was preparing the groundwork for his election campaign in Belgrade, and the French President was visiting Russia on a state visit. The British offer to mediate in the unfolding crisis was rejected as ‘insolent’ by the Austrian Kaiser, and from there onwards, things spiraled out of control. The
resulting First World War raged on until 1917 when the U.S. officially joined the war, and 19 months later, the war which should never have started, was over. The second world war is a similar story, with the European nations watching Hitler first torment and then exterminate Jews, swallow up Czechoslovakia, march
into Austria, and doing virtually nothing, until he entered Poland. The first major European power to declare war on Hitler was England, and once again, the
U.S. virtually forced into the war by the Pearl Harbor attack, joined the war in 1941, and ended it in 1945.

Europe again was unable to sustain itself after the second world war, and looked to the U.S. for support through the Marshall Aid plan from the U.S. As far as modern areas of European ineffectuality, Bosnia is a prime point, where till today, thousands of American troops remain, playing the leading peace-keeping role on a continent that is supposed to be creating a new
self-sufficient political, economic and presumably military entity. The Yugoslavian situation was also one that the European nations did nothing about, until it was too late, whereupon they again looked westward for the U.S. to solve their problems.

As far as an issue like that of Iraq, the Europeans did nothing after the 1990 Iraq invasion of Kuwait, until the U.S. took a leadership role, and all the while, they counselled negotiation and sanctions with and against Iraq, while Iraq was looting and plundering Kuwait. They were tepid at best, in their support of the commitment to evict Saddam Hussein, until then President George Bush went to the United Nations, and rallied international support. At that point, when war seemed inevitable the Europeans decided to take a more active role. Of course, their contribution (apart from the U.K.) was limited to money and limited troops in the coalition force which was once again, U.S. led. In the modern day problem of the Middle East, the Europeans continually ignore suicide attacks on Israelis, and loudly condemn the Israelis whenever there are any Palestinian deaths from Israeli anti-terror operations. They do so both through political officials and through crass United Nations Resolutions against Israel, and show no balance in dealing with the Israelis and Palestinians. They then wonder why the Israelis pay no attention to them whatsoever in their
recommendations and suggestions for peace, and at that point, yes, you guessed it - They turn to the U.S. for help. They do this by pressuring them, and then
criticizing the U.S. for not exerting enough pressure on Israel to show ‘restraint’. Naturally, the U.S. is expected to help them override Israeli political will, and right to self defence, so as to comply with European sensibilities, even though these same European politicians regularly express veiled contempt for President Bush and the new American administr
ation, and even though, European sensibilities were notoriously silent when 6 million Jews were butchered in Europe in the last century. On another topic, for 11 years, the European nations did nothing about Saddam
Hussein’s flouting of the conditions he agreed to for cessation of war, when he was soundly defeated in the gulf war. Now that President Bush has taken charge
of the situation, they smart and chaff at his ‘aggressiveness’ and ‘hastiness’,
and caution against War. The German Chancellor and Foreign Minister have gone even further, using a dangerous situation like the Iraq issue, for political
means. They took advantage of anti American feelings in Germany, to get themselves elected to power, never ceasing in their strident criticism of Washington’s position against Iraq. They have been more critical of President Bush’s position against Saddam Hussein, than they ever were about Saddam Hussein’s butchery of Kurds, political opponents, hostile relatives, Kuwaitis,
and his violation of the terms under which the gulf war was ended. They rarely made a peep of protest, when the Weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. In place of Washington’s policy, they counsel the policy of ‘containment’, one which they never made any attempt to enforce, over the past 11 years.

As far as North Korea and its sudden dangerously belligerent and erratic stance on Nuclear weapons, the Europeans are once again, markedly silent, even though
North Korea’s Nuclear activity could affect the entire world. So how’s that for political courage? Or responsibility? Or diplomatic dexterity?? How’s that for
taking up the role as the big new power in the world? Easier said than done, isn’t it?
Mr. Blair has taken a lot of heat in Europe and within his country, for his whole hearted support for the U.S., despite the ambivalence of the average British citizen towards the U.S. position. The truth is that it is his resolute support based on sheer principle, regardless of public opinion, that makes him more of a leader, than those who constantly attack the U.S. position because it
is good for their internal politics. A leader does not follow public opinion. He leads his country to where he believes is in its best interest to go, whatever the popular school of thought may be. That’s what he is elected to do. To lead, not to follow.
The British have never been followers, and that is why it is hard to conceive of how they will fit into the whole new European World Order-type entity. Perhaps they should take a long, hard look at this whole new body that they will soon be a part of, and wonder whether the new Europe will ever be anything beyond a
toothless bulldog that simply detracts from the U.K. without giving much, if anything back. Otherwise British independence, common sense and courage which
have been evident through all the major crises of the last century and this century, might disappear as rapidly as the concept of European independence disappears upon a crisis.

Results Page:

SCHRöDER WINS RAZOR-THIN MAJORITY

Date Added: Sunday, September 22nd, 2002
Contributed by: RCN Administrator