Helmut Schmidt: Europe does not need a guardian
The American foreign policy has never been so imperial.
Europe must live with it - but it should not submit
Article in die Zeit of 01.08.02
zeit.de
English translation in
xave.de
Here an excerpt
[begin quote]
Washington is getting ready militarily and logistically for a repeat war against the Iraq. If and when the decision to actually go ahead will be made, is open. It is also open, whether George Bush junior, as was the case with his father, considers a resolution of the UN Security Council to be necessary. The American public today supports increasingly the preventive war doctrine. There's even talk of nuclear first strike. It is not clear, what the ideas about the resulting internal situation in the Iraq or in Saudi Arabia are, in the Lebanon, about the parts of Iraq and Turkey, where twenty million Kurds live, about Israel, about the West Jordan territory and Gaza - and how Washington plans to deal with these issues.
There are some issues, which Washington should not avoid facing:
1. The war against the Iraq can eliminate both the unpredictability risk of the ruling Saddam Hussein and the risk of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The war, however, cannot extinguish the various Islamic terrorisms; it is probable that the American-Iraqi war would rather stimulate them.
2. The heterogeneous Islamic terrorisms found their secret cover in over sixty Islamic-oriented states. They are financed in a substantial fashion by a few Opec-rich states. Additionally to a number of religiously fanatic spiritual leaders and mission centres the solidarity with the Palestinians plays a crucial role in Arab states. Growing on the fertile soil of poverty, particularly in the over-populated cities, the extremism threatens nearly everywhere both the internal peace and governments, which are getting into dire straits because of the one-sided pro-Israeli policy of the USA. A farsighted policy and financial support, not the rocket impacts, are the only way to help for them.
3. Because of their unique position in the Middle East, US are the only player of influence, who is able to provide order and peace there; they have good relations with Israel, with Saudi Arabia, with Egypt and with Turkey, and in addition have unique military and financial levers at their disposal in the region. However, when it comes to the complex problem in the Middle East, the Washington policy has been inconsistent and without a clear goal for decades - largely due to domestic reasons. As long as there is no change, nobody will be able to bring about a peaceful solution to the Middle East.
4. Nuclear first strike by America - whoever the target would be - would be a global renegation on the nuclear non-proliferation strategy, adhered in full agreement so far by USA, by all Nato partners and by Russia. This would at the same time become a dangerous precedent for the other seven states, which have nuclear weapons today.
For the Europeans some clear strategic principles result:
1. Hundreds of millions Muslims live in geographical proximity to Europe and to the small part already in the states of the European Union. Therefore, and because of the strong migratory pressure from the over-populated cities of Asia and Africa, Europe has a vital interest in avoiding a global clash of civilizations with the Islam; the masses of Islam adherents constitute already one fifth of the mankind, and their pro portion is on the rise. Therefore the European Union must follow the course of tolerance and dialogue with the Islam. Therefore the European Union cannot support political actions, which Islamic peoples view as provocation.
2. Europe has experience with all different kinds of terrorists (it's 25 years ago today - see Mogadischu! - that the German terrorist RAF got support from Muslim terrorists!). The European governments have so far stayed within the limits of the current law. At the same time it is natural for them to cooperate internationally. There is no reason for them to do damage to these established principles.
Why should Europe spend more money on arms?
3.The theoretical case of a "preventive" war led by the USA did not obligate the members of the North Atlantic defensive alliance to the military assistance. The two-plus four-contract of 12 September 1990 even forbids the German participation. The case could turn out differently if a positive vote in the UN Security Council were available.
It would be good, if Europeans could make Americans see these points, including the aforementioned European strategic givens, in our own light. We Europeans should maintain the friendship and the alliance with America for reasons of common history and kindred cultures. That, however, does not have to prevent us from realizing, that we do not have any interest in the developing American tendency to the single-handed actions or to the imperialism. We do not need to follow every single turn of the foreign policy of the USA, for instance the pressure to spend again more money on arms in the future. We do have all the good reasons not to follow the example of the very high and daily growing foreign debt of the US economy or the increasing national indebtedness of America or frightening excesses of American carnivore capitalism.
[end of quote]
dj |
