While European policy since World War II is more focused on diplomacy and international development, ``the U.S. sees military action as an additional option to solve conflicts,' Jan-Friedrich Kallmorgen, director of the Atlantic Initiative in Berlin, said in an interview today. ``U.S. foreign policy is often perceived in Europe as unilateral and aggressive.'
That is self deception on a grand scale. Has Kallmorgen forgotten about colonialism already?
Germany in particular has been mostly demilitarized and has not had the option to use military force though its recent deployment of troops into Congo, Gabon, Uzbekhistan, and Afghanistan probably have more to do with the pursuit of resources rather than peace that most Germans naively believe is the target.
Regarding diplomacy, one needs only review the German diplomacy toward its neighbor Poland and the current PR offensive to portray Germans as WWII victims particularly in Poland. Please google "Erika Steinbach" or "Prussian Trust" for starters.
Germany has a very interesting energy situation, which is to say, that it is in a very precarious position. According to the EIA site, Germany produces around 170k barrels of oil per day and has minimal reserves. It relies on Russia, which is perceived as not only unreliable, but demonized in the press.
eia.doe.gov
Norway, another important supplier, seems to be facing peak production.
eia.doe.gov
When one considers that the UK, while exporting oil and gas to Germany, has indeed become a net importer of gas and is expected to become a net importer of oil by 2010,
eia.doe.gov
eia.doe.gov
and also note that Norway, which is peaking, supplies the UK
eia.doe.gov
the security of energy for a country like Germany should be, and is, a huge concern.
While many Europeans would like to believe that Tony Blair is a "lapdog" for George W, (whatever that means), it seems to be out of bounds of the debate that Blair may have been reacting to the same political pressures, but not exerted by master orator and salesman George W. ;-)
Angela Merkel was the only mainstream politician in Germany to support the US war in Iraq. Her conservative party, in which around 75% of members opposed the war, chose her as the candidate for Chancellor in 2005 despite the fact that it was perceived by the public that the war was a major blunder. IMHO, Merkel was chosen not despite her support but rather because of it. Germans should take responsibility and ask questions about how it could have happened given her conspicuous position rather than blaming the US.
IMHO, the importance of the Caspian Sea area and the construction of pipelines that bypass Russia are an extremely important long term development. Germany needs energy and it may need to engage in an honest and open national dialogue and admit as George W. did, that Germans, despite being at the forefront of renewable energy technology, are addicted to oil.
If Germans were not so inundated with anti-US propaganda and instead started to look at their own energy security and make an honest assessment about their tolerance for lifestyle changes needed if energy were unavailable, this poll may have an entirely different outcome. |
