 |
A
Hard Look at Europe's 'Hard Cases'
|
|
As Americans grow increasingly concerned about the fate of their troops in Iraq, the government continues to scrounge for commitments from would-be allies. Despite apparent successes in the hunt for Saddam, General Abizaid's now-revised policy of going on the offensive has inevitably caused new deaths and injuries, some of which should never have happened. The White House would like a quick PR victory, such as the capture of Saddam, to shift attention from new stories of low morale, fatigue, and perceived unjust treatment of the troops. Yet allies have been slow to offer their own soldiers as cannon fodder. While the US has announced a list of 30 countries willing to send troops to Iraq, most of these states are offering only a handful of soldiers. So far, potentially big sources of "human resources" – such as Russia, India, France and Germany – have resisted the call to arms, citing instead the need for a UN Mandate. For their part, the willing are an eclectic bunch – banana republics, respectable democracies and even traditionally unwelcome states, such as Ukraine and perhaps Serbia. Disregarding Danger and Public Opinion, the Poles Jump to the Lead Heavily represented are countries fitting the Rumsfeldian definition of "New Europe" – basically, countries to the east and south of the current European Union, some of which are headed for the EU and others of which are currently in institutional limbo. The former category includes the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Latvia. The latter group includes Balkan states such as Albania, Macedonia, and hypothetically, Turkey. Washington recently announced that it will cough up $200 million in taxpayer dollars for a 9,000-strong Polish led-contingent, to be functional by September. Yet with the exception of Poland itself, which has offered 2,300 troops despite deep public misgivings, all of these countries are offering token forces. Clearly, their very participation reflects the need to curry favor, or, in some cases (like Macedonia), the need to guarantee the state's future existence. All of the "New Europe" countries are, however, hoping to reap the political and economic rewards of American alliance. Yet what will they actually gain? The answer would be easier to ascertain, were it not for the contradictory prior relationships the US has had with various members of the line-up. With some, the relationship has traditionally been cozy (Poland, the Baltic states and Bulgaria). With others, like Ukraine, America has traditionally been meddlesome and openly hostile. Macedonia, of course, has been the subject of numerous American experiments and since 1998 arguably has suffered more than any other European country from a schizophrenic US foreign policy. Now, let's consider the prizes of the victors. What did they actually get? 'New Europe' Buys its Own Presents Earlier this year, Poland won the right to spend 3.5 billion of its taxpayers' dollars on American military aircraft. In most cases, it seems, the big prize for allies is just that – the right to keep on paying American military contractors for weapons they will never actually need. Really, who's going to attack Poland? Should the Czechs be trembling? What about Albania – historically endangered more by itself than by anyone else, and which has a less than stellar record of keeping its US-bought weaponry secured? In fact, the US previously set an ultimatum of July 1st regarding the International Criminal Court. Those countries which chose to follow the EU's lead by not amnestying American citizens from any future trials risked losing American military aid. The fact that so much of "New Europe" rushed to sign the amnesty clause indicates just how little these countries believe in themselves or the EU. The absurdity reflected by their timid compliance could be summed up like this: "please, we'll give you millions of dollars, just don't get mad at us!" Of course, the situation is more complicated, and is bound up with these countries' dreams of NATO accession. However, America's fairly unilateral war on Iraq has shown that NATO has outlived its usefulness as a military alliance. Perversely, it may only exist in the future as a means for defense contractors to profit from sales to new members – which is exactly what the whole ICC showdown seemed to be. A more enticing prize for allies is the prospect of enhanced trade with America. However, this should hardly prove favorable for small countries easily controlled by rapacious American corporations. Aside from the defense industry, determined efforts are being made in many sectors, notably, technology. Take Romania, frequently cited as a new forward position for American troops. In June, US Ambassador H.E. Michael Guest euphemistically declared a happy future for Romanian-American "partnership" and "bilateral trade," in reference to what was basically a hostile takeover of Romanian software by Microsoft. Other tech giants – such as IBM, Hewlett-Packard and Cisco Systems – are all jostling to sell "e-governance" solutions to incoming EU countries. Microsoft has recently set up offices in Serbia and Macedonia, to peddle product and to crack down on unlicensed software. In the end, the "New Europe" exists more as an imagined strategic investment bloc than anything else. Britain's Rough Treatment – a Prime Reason for Caution Indeed, what can the new allies realistically expect? Certainly they could not hope for better treatment than is enjoyed by America's number one ally, Great Britain. However, as a recent report by the Guardian's Will Hutton showed, Britain is getting the royal shaft from its former colony: "…when (leading British defense contractor) BAE became a subcontractor to build the new American jet-fighter, the F-35, with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman in 2001, the Government had to accept that it would not have automatic access to the key codes allowing us to adjust the plane's weapons systems to changing future threats. We are to put £2 billion up to share the development costs of the aircraft, but can only adapt its use if the US agrees." Hutton points out that until now, the trans-Atlantic friendship has meant automatic sharing of key codes. However, the new arrangement may mean that the codes for Britain's national defense will end up being stored in somewhere in Chicago – if, as Hutton predicts, Boeing does in fact purchase BAE Systems. Such a merger would put the fate of BAE's 100,000 workers in question, and would be a "grave betrayal" of Britain's national interests: "…Boeing, touted as the most likely partner and with whom BAE has had talks about talks, is four times its size. It would be swallowed up whole. BAE's investment, research and employment policies would be dictated from Boeing's new HQ in Chicago, but only after close consultation with the Pentagon. Contracts and development work from Europe would dry up. Britain's armed forces would operate largely with American kit. And, as Geoff Hoon has signaled, their command structures would be adapted to permit American battlefield direction and control." If this is the kind of relationship America is pushing even with its closest allies, Eastern European countries should really consider what they're in for after Iraq. Confusion and Contradictions: Serbia and Ukraine The country with most reason to be wary is Ukraine. Although it has been constantly attacked for alleged human rights abuses, un-democratic leadership, and poor governance in general, Ukraine was warmly welcomed into the fold when it pledged 1,800 troops for Iraq. Still, Washington is cautious, and is still deliberating over whether it should be included in the "New Europe" or not. The same goes for Serbia, which was attacked not only with words but with cluster bombs and depleted uranium in 1999, and which has received far more stick than carrot in the cave man-style "negotiations" held since then. However, Serbia's provisional Prime Minister, Zoran Zivkovic recently offered up to 1,000 of his troops for use whether Washington may desire. Although the US did not immediately accept the offer, there are strong signs that certain prerequisites are being executed by Belgrade. As an apparent gesture of appeasement, on 2 August Serbia fired 12 top generals. Some of them had operated in Kosovo, and probably were viewed as remnants of the "old guard." Apparently, the US wanted assurance that the Serbian troops in Iraq didn't have previous experience of fighting them. 'Saving' Eastern Europe: New Lows for Media Imperialism Although there are potential storm clouds on the horizon, the Neocons continue to enjoy their season in the sun. Unfortunately, it seems that their policy of deliberate cultural ignorance and disdain has infected the so-called "liberal" media. Take, for example, a recent Washington Post editorial by Jackson Diehl, which displays a sickening but all-too-common arrogance regarding Eastern Europe. After making an easily disproved contention – that the Yugoslav army was "crushed" by NATO in 1999 – he frets about "what to do" with Ukraine, Turkey or Serbia, as if they were merely errant schoolboys to be disciplined: "…The easy part of reconstructing Europe after the Cold War was expanding the West to include countries such as the Czech Republic and Poland, which had Western traditions and a history of democracy. States such as Romania and Bulgaria have since been nursed toward free-market capitalism and democracy by the promise of membership in the transatlantic alliance. But what to do with Ukraine, a country the size of France with a population of 50 million, which teeters between democracy and autocracy, as well as between alignment with Moscow and with Washington? Or Turkey, a country that forms Europe's border with the Arab Middle East and belongs to NATO but not the EU? Or, indeed, Serbia, the most frequent starting point for European wars in the past 100 years?" This paragraph strongly evokes the image of "benevolent America" long cultivated by neocon imperialists. Romanians and Bulgarians would probably disagree that they needed "nursing." Criticizing Ukraine shows that the new ally's generosity with the troops is likely to yield few results. Turkey – which has abundantly proved its commitment to democracy – has little use for the moral authority of the United States. And the bizarre closing dig at Serbia is historically selective – to say the least. Lay Off, Good Republic! The answer about "what to do" with these countries is – nothing. Washington's imperialists, captivated by their own perceived importance to the rest of the world, cannot imagine that foreign nations should be allowed to follow their own course, form their own alliances and proclaim their own sovereignty in the same way that America has always done. Articles like Diehl's merely show how pervasive imperialist rhetoric has become in American political discourse, and how far the country has deviated from its republican roots. Rejoice – the Pentagon is Bringing Salvation However, we should note that this article does not just reflect a newspaperman's off-the-cuff opinions. Diehl quotes Bruce Jackson, a "well-connected former Pentagon official" whose messianic imperialism includes "saving" Eastern Europe: "'…where this part of Europe finds itself five years from now is where we will be for the next 50 years,' predicts Bruce Jackson, a well-connected former Pentagon official and advocate of NATO expansion, who has made it his mission to call attention to Europe's last hard cases. The alternatives are stark in their range – countries such as Serbia and Ukraine could be coaxed into becoming democracies, U.S. military allies and part of a federal Europe; they could fall under the suzerainty of a resurgent Russian empire; they could drift along as unstable buffer states, home to drug and arms traffickers, terrorist groups and presidents-for-life. Jackson, who recently founded the Project on Transitional Democracies, has been trying to persuade policymakers in Washington and Brussels to aim for the first alternative, even if it means tutoring some unsavory characters – or in Europe's case, subsidizing more poor farmers. 'These are the last victims of communism, fascism and nationalism,' Jackson says. 'They imagine themselves part of Europe, and allies of the United States. Not all of them will necessarily make it – but we will be judged by how many of them we can save.'" Breathtaking Arrogance, Breathtaking Ignorance Every assertion in these two paragraphs is open for criticism. The prevailing fatalism – summed up in the phrase "not all of them will actually make it" – is patently absurd. A favorite tactic of imperialists wishing to appear benign and well-meaning is to distance themselves from any appearance of control or even influence over world events. Does Jackson really want us to believe that the US would ever allow "a resurgent Russian empire?" Does he really except us to believe that the government might not seek to control world events, as it has so energetically done in the past? Further, the very notion that America should be concerned to help the EU subsidize European farmers is ludicrous, considering that the two powers are verging on a trade war over agriculture exports and have disagreements over genetically modified foods. Later on, he states that some "parts of Brussels… would prefer to keep Turkey out of the EU and exclude Ukraine and the Caucasus from the West altogether." This is quite humorous, considering that since it defied Washington in February, Turkey has never been more popular in Europe, and also considering that it's America that has always pushed to keep the Ukrainians out of Europe – until, oddly enough, they offered troops to relieve political pressure on the Bush Administration. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Indeed, Jackson's entire view is riddled with inconsistencies, presuppositions and fallacies – as is so often the case in solipsistic, narcissistic Washington. In claiming that these countries merely "imagine themselves" to be part of Europe, Jackson merely shows that he can't imagine himself what Europe really is. This is not hard to understand, given the neocons' scorn for cultural diversity and historical differences. They are simply unwilling to contemplate anything more complicated than the moralistic duality upon which the Bush Administration has constructed its case for intervention and war. Tragically, this willful ignorance has helped ruin any credibility that American foreign policy might have once had in the eyes of the world.
|
Previous articles by Christopher Deliso on Antiwar.com A
Hard Look at Europe's 'Hard Cases' Murky
Intelligence, Murky Wars Respect
the Troops – Not Their Spineless Leaders Globalization
and the Future of Western Intervention Occupational
Hazards of War Without End McNews
Comes Gunning for Greece The
Albanians and the State Washington's
Confused Macedonia Policy 'The
Yanks Have Really Screwed Up in Iraq' Wolfowitz
in Skopje – What Next for Macedonia? America's
'Conservative' Christians – and the Middle East's Occupation
by Bad Example Iraq's
Cultural Catastrophe – and Ours Has
America Gone Commie? The
Ends of Alliance in Iraq Washington's
Hubris Invites a Fatal Iraqi Misjudgment Suing
in England, Vacationing in France: the Misplaced Patriotism of Richard
Perle Top
Ten Bogus Justifications for the Iraqi War Disaster
Par Extraordinaire? Almost
Spot On: The British Critique of American Newspapers So
Many Fronts, So Little Sense Poisonings
or Power Plays? Terrorist
Bombing in Kumanovo, 1 Dead The
Instability Myth, Free Markets and Macedonia's Future The
Interview That Never Happened The
Price of Paranoia The
Trouble with Turkey Greater
Albania: a Place, or Just a State of Mind? Explosion
Rocks Macedonian Parliament
Baghdad
Braces for War Envisioning
Peace in the Shadow of War Seducing
Intervention: Nobody's
Fault But Their Own? In
European
Intelligence: The US Betrayed Us In Macedonia A
Georgian Gaffe Heavy
Fighting Erupts in Aracinovo on First Anniversary of NLA's 'Free Zone' Kodra
Fura and Macedonia's Emerging War Kosovar
Terrorists Renew Attacks on Macedonia Macedonia
On War Footing Over Kosovo Border Provocations Macedonian
Tortured In Tetovo Village, As Gang War Rages Macedonia:
A Nation of Ingrates Mujahedin
In Macedonia, or, an Enormous Embarrassment For the West How
Not To Capture Osama bin Laden Whispers
of Folly and Ruin Blurring
the Boundaries in Macedonia When
The Terror Goes Down To Georgia: Some Thoughts On The Caucasus Imbroglio
In
Macedonia, Terrorism Remains the Law But
Would It Be an Evil Axis? Economics
and Politics in Macedonia: an Interview with Dr. Sam Vaknin Macedonians
and the Media Secrets
of the Blue Café On
the Front Lines in Tetovo Interview
with Ljube Boshkovski A
Connection Between NATO and the NLA? The
Legacy of War: Kidnapped Persons in Macedonia The
Day's Disturbances and Developments in Macedonia
Crisis in Macedonian Government –
Albanian Hackers Deface Macedonian Website
Partition: Macedonia's Best Lost Hope? Important
Notice to Readers of the Macedonia Page Selective Democracy Comes
to Macedonia Macedonia Capitulates With a Friend Like Pakistan Afghan-Americans Oppose Interventionism,
Seek Unity The Afghan
Quagmire Beckons Suddenly, Terrorists
Are Everywhere Turkey's Eclipse: Chechnya Comes Home
To America A Quiet Battle in the Caucasus:
Georgia Between Russia & NATO Central Asia: The Cauldron
Boils Over Bin Laden, Iran, and the KLA The Macedonian Phrase-Book:
Writing NATO's Dictionary of Control Barbarism and the Erasure
of Culture Macedonian Endgame: The Sinister
Transformation of the Status Quo Christopher Deliso is a freelance writer and Balkan correspondent for Antiwar.com, UPI, and private European analysis firms. He has lived and traveled widely in the Balkans, southeastern Europe and Turkey, and holds a master's degree with distinction in Byzantine Studies from Oxford University. In the past year, he has reported from many countries, including Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Greece, the Republic of Georgia and the Turkey-Iraq border. Mr. Deliso currently lives in Macedonia, and is involved with projects to generate international interest and tourism there. |