Those whom the gods would destroy, they grant their wishes. Those in Europe and around the world who yearn for a victory by Senator John Kerry in the US presidential election ought to keep that bit of ancient Greek wisdom in mind.
During the Cold War, the US was the natural leader of the Atlantic community, but the price of this leadership was that the US had to accept the autonomy and influence of its European allies.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush embarked on a unilateral foreign policy. The traditional Atlantic alliance was replaced by what the US called "coalitions of the willing," where "the mission determines the coalition," not historic alliances.
This policy divided Europe. It has also fueled deep divisions in the US presidential campaign, with one of the most potent arguments used by Kerry being that he will restore trust between America and its allies; that as president he will recruit international help in Iraq.
America undoubtedly needs more allies to bring Iraq's chaos under control and to build an Iraqi state that is seen as legitimate both by Iraqis and the world. Allies are seen as an answer to America's twin credibility and legitimacy deficits in its occupation of Iraq. But can a Kerry-led US get a fresh start in Europe? Will a President Kerry really be able to rally allies to America's side?
Iraq's mayhem has hardened the antagonism of countries like France and Germany, which led the opposition to the war in the first place. Even countries that rallied to Bush's call for help, like my homeland, Poland, are now wary of their involvement.
Consider the attitudes of France and Germany. Their leaders can scarcely hold their tongues, so badly do they want a Kerry victory. But they are not going to change their policy to help Kerry win, and they won't change even if he does.
As a gesture intending to boost Kerry's chances, German Defense Minister Peter Struck suggested that his country might reconsider its position on troops in Iraq. But Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder instantly shot down that trial balloon, declaring: "To be clear, we will send no troops to Iraq."
Actually, Germany, like most European countries, is politically and logistically unable to send meaningful military forces to Iraq. France, which did ponder sending 15 000 soldiers to Iraq had the UN given its blessing to the war, is as clear as Schroeder. According to French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, "Neither today, nor tomorrow," will French troops be sent. Both countries firmly believe that military success in Iraq is impossible.
So will transatlantic relations remain as poisoned as they are now if Kerry wins? Is Texas swagger merely to be replaced by the distinguished disdain of a Boston Brahmin?
This is probably too pessimistic. Europe cannot give an openly negative answer to Kerry's request for help, because that would be a slap in the face to the most pro-European American likely to be elected president anytime soon.
Such a rejection would not only put transatlantic relations even more at risk than they are today; it would also put relations between European countries in peril.
So some compromise must be found should Kerry win. Fortunately, one is possible. The first part is purely face-saving: Both parties must simply declare their good will. Today, European leaders are unlikely to throw even that slender lifeline to Bush. The reality behind such a declaration is that Europe would deliver low-level military and economic involvement in Iraq.
Most European leaders understand the tiny wiggle room that Kerry will have if elected. The near certainty that the House of Representatives will be in Republican hands, and perhaps the Senate, too, means that the US Congress will pounce on any supposed attempt by Kerry to "sell out" Bush's war. So Kerry may put even more pressure on Europe to help out in Iraq than the unilateralist Bush ever did.
But there is a second, more fundamental, part to any viable compromise: A redefinition of transatlantic relations. The key point here is joint recognition that a fundamental transatlantic community of values exists, and that both sides need each other. That transatlantic community must jointly feel responsible for maintaining peace and stability in the world.
The US must accept this principle, and recognize that Europe is a partner, not merely a servant, whether willing or unwilling, of American orders. If burdens are to be shared, decisions must be shared as well.
This will require that the US recognize the validity of Europe's view of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as the major roadblock toward a peaceful Middle East. Europe, for its part, must not only show that it feels responsible for the world, but that it is ready and willing to act accordingly by contributing in a significant way to reconstructing Iraq. Europe's military means may be limited, but it has important experience in peacekeeping and "state building" that can be brought to bear.
Is Europe really ready to undertake such an effort if its wish for a Kerry victory comes true?
Aleksander Smolar is president of the Stefan Batory Foundation in Warsaw and senior researcher at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath