PINR: "The Europe-U.S. divide"
Printed on Monday, April 28, 2003 {at} 08:34:25 CST

Power and Interest News Report (PINR) 

(PINR) -- The recent tensions between the United States and Western 
Europe show no sign of abating and further highlights the growing 
differences between these former allies. After the fall of the Soviet 
Union, the traditional threat to Western Europe dissolved. Throughout 
the 90s, the U.S. began to realize that without the threat of the Soviet 
Union, there was no state which to protect the European continent from. 
Furthermore, the U.S. could now pursue its envisioned foreign policy 
without having to be overly concerned with the opinions of those in 
Europe -- whether it be the public or the politicians and diplomats; 
without Europe being threatened, European states had no cards to play 
against the United States, as the French consistently had done in 
conflicts such as the one in Vietnam. Despite this lack of dependence, 
during the first decade after the fall of the Soviet Union the United 
States continued to pursue its traditional role in European relations: 
in 1991 the Bush administration worked with Europe to attack Iraq in 
the Gulf War, and later in the decade the Clinton administration worked 
with Europe to attack Serbia in the Balkans.  

Throughout this decade, even though neither the Bush administration 
nor the Clinton administration necessarily needed Europe to achieve 
their interests, the link between European states and the United States 
was too strong to circumvent. While the U.S. did flex its muscles more 
during the decade after the Soviet Union's fall in 1991, by and large 
it continued to work with its traditional allies in Western Europe and 
through the multilateral institution of the United Nations. All of this 
changed with the election of George W. Bush in the fall of 2000.  

The coming to power of the Bush administration coupled with the 
September 11 attacks provided Washington the opportunity to reinstate 
full-scale power politics back into U.S. foreign policy. This policy 
change reflected the belief in Washington that the United Nations was 
becoming irrelevant. The U.N. was created to restrain large powers from 
colliding; the need for the United Nations was evident after World War II 
when for the second time in 50 years the power projections and interests 
of regional hegemons clashed and resulted in much bloodshed. The purpose 
of the U.N. was to prevent strong states from destroying each other again.  

The need for the U.N. to restrain weak states was less clear. During the 
decades after its creation, it was not the U.N. that restrained weak 
states but was instead the superpowers that did so. The United States 
restrained weak states within its sphere of influence and the Soviets 
restrained weak states within their own sphere. Because of this reality, 
the U.N. was used by the United States to check the power of the 
Soviet Union, while the Soviet Union used the U.N. to check the power 
of the United States.  

Now that the Soviet Union is gone, the only power the U.N. has left to 
restrain is that of the United States, but the Bush administration has 
reacted with hostility to attempts by the U.N. to restrain U.S. actions. 
Therefore, what the world has now witnessed with the decision to attack 
Iraq is the Bush administration taking the United States one more step 
away from internationalism and one closer to power politics, which 
remains the condition of world order that has prevailed since the 
creation of the modern state system at the Peace of Westphalia in 
1648.  

The American disdain for being restrained by the United Nations is why 
the entire world, except for isolated U.S. allies such as Great Britain, 
Japan, and Australia, have felt threatened by the U.S.' latest move in 
Iraq. The eyes of the world were watching to see whether the U.S. would 
decidedly choose a world of power politics, or remain within the confines 
of internationalism. Now, since Washington chose power politics, the 
world is scrambling to adjust. The U.S. has shown that it has no need 
for the United Nations since the U.S. sphere of influence now covers 
the entire world, as there is no superpower to challenge its hegemony.  

When a state in the Middle East now steps out of line, as Iraq did, 
it will be the United States that works to restrain it, not the United 
Nations. If a state in Asia steps out of line, it will also be the 
United States that will work to restrain it. The entire globe is now 
within the United States' sphere of influence, which has made the U.N. 
more impotent than ever. This is what has so enraged Europe. 
By increasing its power outside the restraints of the United Nations, 
the U.S. has further weakened the power of all states still working 
within the United Nations.  

Other states will only accept U.S. power politics if they also find the 
U.S. political, economic and societal model as desirable. But this is 
not the case. These disagreements express America's failure at persuasion 
and, judging by history, the U.S. will not be able to rule by striking 
down every state that challenges this model. This looks to be the current 
plan shown through the Bush administration's 2002 National Security 
Strategy.  

Each time the U.S. strikes down a challenger to its rule, the U.S. is 
going to have to rely more and more on coercion in order to preserve 
its new world order. This state of affairs will weaken U.S. persuasion 
around the world and increase the growing resentment held toward the 
United States. It will further encourage potential superpowers such as 
China to increase its power as to be able to rival the United States. 
When this happens, as it did in World War II between the U.S. and 
Japan, the world could very well witness another clash between the 
powers and interests of titans along with all the negative implications 
that holds.  

Erich Marquardt drafted this report. 

The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an analysis-based 
publication that seeks to, as objectively as possible, provide 
insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest 
around the globe. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers 
and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. 
PINR seeks to inform rather than persuade. This report may be 
reproduced, reprinted or broadcast provided that any such reproduction
identifies the original source, http://www.pinr.com. All comments 
should be directed to content{at}pinr.com. 

Source: PINR / YellowTimes ...
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1300&mode=thread&order=0

Cheers, Steve..

---