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
Lockheed Martin on Tuesday responded to concerns over delayed shipments of F-16V Block 70 jets, saying it had added extra shifts on its production lines to accelerate progress. The Ministry of National Defense on Monday said that delivery of all 66 F-16V Block 70 jets — originally expected by the end of next year — would be pushed back due to production line relocations and global supply chain disruptions. Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) said that Taiwan and the US are working to resolve the delays, adding that 50 of the aircraft are in production, with 10 scheduled for flight
Victory in conflict requires mastery of two “balances”: First, the balance of power, and second, the balance of error, or making sure that you do not make the most mistakes, thus helping your enemy’s victory. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made a decisive and potentially fatal error by making an enemy of the Jewish Nation, centered today in the State of Israel but historically one of the great civilizations extending back at least 3,000 years. Mind you, no Israeli leader has ever publicly declared that “China is our enemy,” but on October 28, 2025, self-described Chinese People’s Armed Police (PAP) propaganda
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
China’s third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, entered service this week after a commissioning ceremony in China’s Hainan Province on Wednesday last week. Chinese state media reported that the Fujian would be deployed to the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea and the western Pacific. It seemed that the Taiwan Strait being one of its priorities meant greater military pressure on Taiwan, but it would actually put the Fujian at greater risk of being compromised. If the carrier were to leave its home port of Sanya and sail to the East China Sea or the Yellow Sea, it would have to transit the
RSS