America in the World | Notable arguments

Being popular abroad does not necessarily bring America influence

John Bolton for The American Blog:

"The justifiable disgust over Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi’s release underlines what amounts to a spectacular failure of American diplomacy. “Obamamania” overseas is a dominant theme of the media, which endlessly recounts how the U.S. position in the world has improved since President Bush’s departure. “Engagement” with friend and adversary alike is the Obama administration’s hallmark, with diplomatic advances expected to flow like wine.  So what happened? The State Department said on Friday that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked “for weeks and months” to persuade Britain not to release the murderer. Both Washington and London all but begged Gaddafi not to hold public celebrations on Megrahi’s arrival in Tripoli. Yet Britain, the other half of the “special relationship,” ignored Clinton’s efforts, as did Libya, which only recently resumed full diplomatic relations with America."

Mary Dejevsky: Afghanistan will be the first big test of Obama's relationship with Europe

Mary Dejevsky writing in The Independent:

"Mr Obama would not be the accomplished politician he has shown himself over the past year, if he did not exploit his honeymoon with a joyful Europe to demand a vastly increased force contribution for Afghanistan. Those countries deemed not to have pulled their weight will be called upon to do so; saying no will not be an option. Even in Obamaland it will be argued that two futures crucial to our mutual well-being are on the line: a stable Afghanistan free of terrorist camps, and the continued existence of the transatlantic alliance. Except that it is not at all clear how far European leaders, and more particularly their electorates, will accept that analysis. Does a lawless Afghanistan represent a potential terrorist threat of such an order that a costly war has to be fought and won there? Europe has its own backyard to patrol, notably in the Balkans. Might Afghanistan be the point at which Europe calls an end to fighting wars declared in Washington? Do we risk defeat in Afghanistan only because the terrain is tough, or because Nato, without the cold war enemy, is unsustainable?This question, lurking since the collapse of communism, will be posed with some urgency, whether Europe finds itself dealing with Obamaland or McCainia. The paradox is that a more congenial and communicative partner could foster straighter talking – and with it mutual recognition that it may be time for our two destinies to move apart."

Victor Davis Hanson: Right now, Europeans have the best of both worlds

Even some of Europe's elites who are so critical of America will often grudgingly acknowledge America's value, argues Victor Davis Hanson in The American.

"Europeans understand that there are advantages to the present relationship between a militarily powerful America and its hypercritical but mostly unarmed European dependent."

"Right now, Europeans have the best of both worlds—an easily caricatured but very cooperative United States. Indeed, Europeans have found relatively little fault in Bush’s second term, during which time conservative governments have taken office in France, Germany, and Italy. The United States has been sending massive AIDS relief to Africa, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Europe on Darfur, pursuing peaceful diplomacy with Iran and North Korea, and offering gracious thanks for European participation in Afghanistan. And who else in the West, other than the United States, is Vladimir Putin worried about?"

"For all their grievances against Bush, Europeans realize that most of the world’s problems either antedated or transcend the current U.S. president and will be here long after he’s gone. Gas prices skyrocketed largely because both importing and exporting governments have not invested enough in petroleum maintenance and new exploration, and because of the voracious appetites of new consumer classes in China and India. Rogue regimes like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela have enough oil wealth that they need not care about the consequences of irritating the West. Bush did not cause global warming, soaring food prices, Islamic terrorism, or the rise of China. And blaming him for the “fiasco” in Iraq is also problematic: the violence there has declined enormously, and Iraqi democracy continues to move forward."

"A few Europeans even acknowledge that, contrary to popular belief, the Iraq war has not “created” jihadists who migrated to Europe. In fact, it has done just the opposite: radical Islamists more often traveled to Iraq—many of them from Europe—where they were killed in large numbers. Iraq, in other words, may well help explain the weakening of al-Qaeda and its increasing inability to replicate the London and Madrid bombings."

Kim Holmes: The choice for America is between global leadership and deference to international consensus

In a column for the Washington Times last week, Kim Holmes of The Heritage Foundation set out his view of the choice America must make about her role in the world:

"In America, there are basically two competing visions. One -- based on our history and the ideas and founding principles embodied in our Constitution -- is of a nation that safeguards and advances the cause of liberty. The other is of an America whose leadership always defers to international bodies, including the whims of the United Nations and the European Union.

"All Americans should reflect on this: If we do not take up the burden of leadership, who will? And, who would we rather have make decisions over our lives?

"If we allow our actions to be determined by other nations that aspire to some evolving idea of 'international law' and 'international consensus,' we should not be surprised by their indifference to our security.

"In such a world, the UN could block a raid we want to conduct to destroy a terrorist camp that launched another brutal attack on America. Or our Secretary of State could be hauled up before a European court to answer charges of 'war crimes' in Iraq.

"The UN or other international body even could decide how Texas, Florida or any other state in the union convicts criminals or manages prisons."

Deen and Landberg: Russia's war with Georgia may revive US-Europe rift

Mark Deen and Reed V. Landberg report for Bloomberg that issues such as European countries' military overstretch and dependence on natural gas from Russia may limit Europe's willingness to support the United States over Georgia:

"Both Europe and the U.S. have serious concerns about Russia and will try to sing from the same hymn sheet,'' said Mick Cox, an international relations professor at the London School of Economics. "Yet the differences of nuance are there, and they matter. Russia is keen to exploit them."    

With memories of the trans-Atlantic spat over Iraq still fresh, all parties want to avoid a repeat. Even so, the EU's proximity to Russia and economics make it harder for the bloc to rebuff its neighbor.    

Trade between Russia and the EU jumped 23 percent in 2007 to $284 billion, making the EU Russia's biggest trading partner and Russia the bloc's third-largest partner. The EU also depends on Russia to supply a quarter of its natural gas.

Nicholas Wapshott wonders if Europeans love Obama because he shares their worldview

Nicholas Wapshott in City Journal:

"Obama’s early and long-standing opposition to the Iraq War has made him a standard bearer for an anti-Americanism that is now rife throughout the European Union. Many Europeans see his unusual family background and his mixed ethnicity as confirmation of their belief that he is not quite wholly American—that he is even, perhaps, un-American."

Bronwen Maddox says Europe is learning to appreciate America's role in overcoming shared problems

Bronwen Maddox in The Wall Street Journal:

"There is a sense now in Europe that this hostility is fading in a new appreciation of shared problems. Afghanistan is one of those -- but one where the U.S. contributes by far the greatest military resources (about 85% of the air power and two-thirds of the military effort overall). So is Iran, and so is Africa; in Britain, the U.S.'s willingness to stand firmly behind a drive for sanctions on Zimbabwe was deeply appreciated as an affirmation of shared democratic values. Russia is prickly, bordering on systematically obstructive to Western goals, and Europe is well aware of its dependence on the gas pipelines running westwards and the value of American support in this difficult diplomacy. There is a new sense that Europe should be careful what it wishes for; that it is harder to persuade the U.S. to stay engaged in these problems than to keep it at bay."

Fouad Ajami on Europe's understanding that American power maintains world security

Fouad Ajami in The Wall Street Journal:

"The great battle over the Iraq war has subsided, and Europeans who ponder the burning grounds of the Islamic world know the distinction between fashionable anti-Americanism and the international order underpinned by American power. George W. Bush may have been indifferent to political protocol, but he held the line when it truly mattered, and the Europeans have come to understand that appeasement of dictators and brigands begets its own troubles.  It is one thing to rail against the Pax Americana. But after the pollsters are gone, the truth of our contemporary order of states endures. We live in a world held by American power – and benevolence. Nothing prettier, or more just, looms over the horizon."

Gideon Rachman: Is irrelevance Europe's logical choice?

Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times:

"Europeans often look like irrelevant whiners. They complain about the American response – but they are powerless to alter events themselves.  Irrelevance is not particularly dignified or noble. But it could still be the logical choice for Europe. Arguably, the EU has achieved a sort of nirvana. It is too strong to be attacked; and too weak to be asked to sort out the rest of the world’s problems. As Harry Lime might have pointed out, Europe has become a giant Switzerland."