The Hindu : India and the U.S.-European divide

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Sep 26, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

India and the U.S.-European divide

By C. Raja Mohan

THAT THE mobilisation of anti-American sentiment was a decisive factor in the narrow victory that the Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, managed to pull off in the German elections shows how far Europe and America have drifted apart. The dramatic reversal of more than five decades of Atlanticism in Germany, one of the most loyal of American allies in Europe, signals a deep political rift in the Northern hemisphere. It is also significant that the intensity of German opposition to American unilateralism and the impending war against Iraq was so strong that it could override the popular dissatisfaction with the lacklustre economic performance of the Schroeder Government over the last four years.

It has been no secret for some time that all is not well with the alliance between America and Europe, that had been the pivot of global relations for decades. After a brief moment of European solidarity with the Americans after September 11, the relations between the two sides have nose-dived. There is a profound unease in Europe today at the prospect of a renewed American war in the Persian Gulf. The rising European anxieties have not even spared the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who is struggling to explain his backing of the imminent American war against Iraq to Labour backbenchers as well as to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The European differences with America on Iraq have capped a series of disagreements in the last few years and have covered such wide areas as global environmental policy, the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, missile defence, arms control, America's uncritical support to Israel's tough line against the Palestinians and the role of the United Nations in the management of international security challenges. The U.S. and Europe have argued before, sometimes passionately. But never have the two sides appeared as far apart.

The Bush administration's policies have sharpened the image of American foreign policy in Europe as being too crude in its understanding of the world. The Europeans see the Americans as being too quick to resort to force in dealing with global problems, impatient with diplomacy and unwilling to

abide by the restraints of multilateralism. The Europeans see themselves as more sophisticated in their understanding of the world. They believe in the efficacy of negotiations and diplomacy and see the use of force as a last resort. They emphasise the importance of international law.

The Americans, on the other hand, see the Europeans wallowing in a multilateralist illusion. Europe, from Washington's perspective, is too domesticated by the politics of social welfare to focus on the new challenges to international security. The Europeans are seen by the U.S. as being too caught up with procedure to focus on the outcomes of diplomacy. Americans saw Europe as perpetually whining on all key issues and were confident that in the end it would fall in line. But as it prepares for the war in Iraq, the U.S. is finding that the Europeans are moving beyond mere protests to actually resisting American policies in key international forums. And that is the essence of the tectonic movement within the Euro-Atlantic world.

As anti-Americanism has risen in Europe so has the contempt for Europe in America. En route Europe over the weekend, the U.S. Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said, the thought hasn't crossed his mind that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) could have a role in the unfolding crisis in Iraq. European members of NATO will indeed be briefed about Iraq this week, but Washington does not expect them to join it in the Gulf War. That is one of a piece with the strategy the U.S. adopted in keeping NATO out of the military operations in Afghanistan. Europe and NATO are welcome to clean up after the American forces through peacekeeping and policing in the conflict zone. But the U.S. has no desire to involve them in the principal act of inflicting a military defeat on the adversary. The U.S. believes that taking the Europeans along would necessitate a prolonged committee approach to a strategy that will constrain the American ability to use decisive force at the appropriate moment.

More fundamentally, the U.S. is convinced that the Europeans do not have either the military capabilities or the political will to contribute to the management of new security challenges. Many Americans argue that since the end of the Cold War the European Union did not invest in keeping abreast of military technological developments. Instead of investing more in defence, the Europeans opted for the peace dividend after the Cold War. Unlike Washington, which sees itself as a principal player in the management of international security, the Europeans having discovered the virtues of "perpetual peace" in Europe have no desire to subscribe to what they see as exaggerated American threat perceptions. For America, Europe is increasingly an irrelevant behemoth.

Washington also believes that the Europeans do not understand its security concerns after September 11. The U.S. Vice-President, Dick Cheney, made explicit this American damnation of Europe some days ago. "We are in a place now that some... of our European friends, for example, have difficulty adjusting to," he said, "because they haven't — in the case of the Europeans — the experience we have of 3,000 dead Americans last September 11. They are not as vulnerable as we are, because they are not targeted." "They also really don't have the capacity to do anything about the threat," he added. "They could participate in an international coalition, but left to their own devices, they can't deal with Saddam Hussein."

The current European criticisms of the American approach to international relations today echoes many of the arguments that India used to employ in the past. That should have drawn India and Europe closer on global political issues. But it has not. At precisely the moment the Europeans are emboldened to criticise the U.S., India believes that it cannot jeopardise the budding strategic partnership with America. As a result, India has been far less critical than Europe of the U.S. policy on Iraq and less insistent on a multilateral route. At a moment when Europe proclaims that power politics is passe, India is beginning to de-emphasise the notion of collective security and stressing the importance of comprehensive national strength and balance of power.

It is not surprising that there is greater convergence today between India and the Republican-led U.S. on key international issues stretching from common support to missile defence and rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the importance of limiting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. As the biggest victim of international terrorism, India is more enthusiastic than Europe about the American war since September 11. India also finds it easier to negotiate and bargain with the U.S. on nuclear issues and the Kashmir question than listen to European hectoring.

As a rising power, India is more sympathetic to the American effort to rework the rules of the global game from which it could benefit. Europe, on the other hand, is a staunch defender of the present order. No wonder then that segments of the American establishment are questioning the European over-representation in the global decision-making structures and demanding a greater say for nations such as India, which is more in tune with the U.S. than Europe.

If New Delhi gets its act together in the present global crisis, India might be better positioned than ever before to alter its standing on the global stage.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

A heinous act

Back at the helm

India and the U.S.-European divide

One year of the war on terror