Democratic Allies and Alliances
I'll have more to say shortly in response to the very interesting comments and suggestions our idea of Concert of Democracies has sparked here at America Abroad. For now, I wanted to bring your attention to an oped Jim Goldgeier and I have running in tomorrow Financial Times that relates to some of these issues. (Reprinted below the fold.)
US and Europe must learn about alliances
By Ivo Daalder and James Goldgeier
In recent months George W. Bush has rediscovered the virtues of having allies and working within alliances. In every big challenge confronting the US – from Iraq to Afghanistan, from Iran to North Korea – he has sought to enlist the help of America’s traditional allies. But in many cases the very allies who bitterly complained about the US president’s unilateralism only a short time ago have been reluctant to do their part in helping multilateralism succeed.
Nowhere is this more true than in Europe. Last month’s Nato summit should have been the time for a rousing call for the alliance to act effectively and transform itself into an organisation that would establish partnerships around the world to address common threats. But progress was minimal, because the Europeans were unable to seize the opportunity presented by an America that has realised it cannot solve these problems alone. Even on current multilateral efforts, key Europeans are falling short.
Take Afghanistan. While Mr Bush originally declined to make the war there a Nato operation, he eventually saw that having the alliance lead there would both lessen the US burden and enhance prospects for success. So, for the past two years, Nato has been in charge of stabilising the country and has been steadily adding (mainly European) troops. Last month the US put the bulk of its own forces in Afghanistan (some 12,000 troops) under Nato command, a sign of the faith it now places in the alliance.
Yet, even as Nato has accepted more responsibility, some key allies have failed to do their share. For months European countries refused to send helicopters that Nato commanders said were essential, and a call for an additional 2,000 troops similarly went unheeded. Worse, most allies that did send forces to Afghanistan placed conditions on how, where and when they could be employed – severely reducing their effectiveness. Mr Bush’s plea at the recent Riga summit to lift these caveats mostly fell on deaf ears. The best that allies such as Germany, France, Italy and Spain were prepared to do was to commit in principle to assist allies in an “emergency”. Meanwhile, the alliance confronts the spectre of failure in Afghanistan because, apart from the Americans, only the British, Canadians, Dutch and Australians are willing to fight in the most dangerous areas of the country.
Or take Iran. Eighteen months ago Washington bought into the European Union-led approach of trying to negotiate an end to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. The US offered economic incentives and later declared its willingness to talk directly with Tehran if a deal proved possible. In return, Britain, France and Germany agreed to consider sanctions if Iran refused to negotiate seriously.
Yet, although it became clear that Tehran was not prepared to take even the first step of suspending its uranium enrichment programme, efforts to impose real sanctions have so far been opposed by the Europeans.
It is not in every instance, of course, that the Europeans have failed to follow through. In fact, over Lebanon it was Italy, France and Germany that agreed this summer to deploy their forces in a beefed-up United Nations force to help end the war between Israel and Hizbollah. Europeans account for most of the 10,000 troops now deployed there – and not a single American is among them.
So genuine co-operation and burden sharing – real multilateralism – is possible and, indeed, necessary. Lebanon cannot simply be an isolated case. An effective Nato is the sine qua non of democratic multilateralism. But to be truly effective, Nato must seek partnerships with countries such as Japan and Australia that share its values and can contribute to its operations. The dismissive response to this suggestion by Jacques Chirac, French president – that “the United Nations remains the only organisation with a universal vocation” – completely misses the point. Nato should have no universal pretensions but must be able to operate globally with democratic partners.
Europeans must show they can act when action is needed. But there is no need for them to take up these burdens alone. Only by beginning to develop Nato as a global institution of democracies will the allies be capable of not just talking the multilateral talk, but actually walking the multilateral walk.
Ivo Daalder, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is visiting professor at the Robert Schuman Centre, European University in Florence; James Goldgeier, fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is professor of political science at George Washington University
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Comments (24)
Ivo
Appreciating your point about Lebanon and I know that France furnished a fair amount of resources in Afghanistan how real is this problem. Europe in particular likes taking shots at the U.S. from the sidelines and when action is required they are perfectly wiling to hold our coat? This is one reason why Bush was able to get into office, and also convince people to go to war alone. There is something of the view that foreigners like to whine while they do nothing.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 14, 2006 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"although it became clear that Tehran was not prepared to take even the first step of suspending its uranium enrichment programme, efforts to impose real sanctions have so far been opposed by the Europeans"
Perhaps you would care to point out under which international treaty or law Iran has to stop enrichment ? The NPT ?
And compared to the US who is iran a threat to?
Is the the US prepared even to take the first step of renouncing 'regime change' in Iran ?
Strangely enough in most european countries the argument that the US really hates iran but isn't at the moment powerful enough to reduce iran to a bloody shambles and start torturing and murdering its citizens(see iraq) isn't considered a sufficent excuse to start introducing sanctions.
When the US actually has evidence , and this time we mean REAL (as in actual) evidence , that iran is breaking international law then come back to us.
As for afghanistan, the US had full NATO support back in 2001. It rejected it then. Only after iraq had turned into the entirely predictable disaster it is did the US then turn round and start asking for help there. And now according to you it's the europeans to blame ?Maybe the US shouldn't have been making derisive comments about 'chocolatemakers' in 2003.
"Mr Bush’s plea at the recent Riga summit to lift these caveats mostly fell on deaf ears."
And Frances arguments that iraq had no WMD's , no links to 9/11 & an invasion would lead to a civil war fell on totally deaf ears in washington.
The US got the wars it wanted. Please stop whining about it.
December 14, 2006 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So basically your "Concert of Democracies" is a neo-Imperialist alliance of countries willing to go along with the US imperial agenda, to be used as a cudgel against developing nations & free of any nonsense restrictions like international law and the concept of equal sovereignty of nations?
Also, you're basically lying about the situation with Iran.
The "economic incentives" consisted of things such as allowing Iran to buy spare parts of is US-made civilian airliners - which the US is already LEGALLY OBLIGATED to provide anyway. And that was pretty much all.
The US didn't express a "willingness to talk directly with Tehran if a deal proved possible" - the US offered to deign to be present at the negotation table if Iran first gives in to maximalist US demands before any negotiations start by giving up its right to have an independent nuclear enrichment program - even if it was totally monitored by the IAEA.
December 14, 2006 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think pieces like this in many quarters abroad are considered a lot more important than the actual policies and actions by the Bush-administration. Bush will for sure be gone in two years. Daalder and collegues, on the other hand, represent an approximation of the best that can be expected from Washington in foreseeable future.
It's far too early to know for sure, but I more and more get the hunch that unless the Democrat Party makes a considerable change of tune, we can forget all about improvements of the function of institutions such as NATO until it's irrevocably too late.
It's hard to avoid the impression that the interests of the allies, such as they perceive them, matters very little - if at all.
If there doesn't exist a foundation of common interests, what's so the meaning of all this?
...except, maybe, trying to inflate anti-Allied and anti-European feelings in the U.S.
December 15, 2006 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
denspark,
You wrote:
"Perhaps you would care to point out under which international treaty or law Iran has to stop enrichment?"
How about the fact that their government violates the U.S. Constitution by simply existing? They are an illegitimate government. They are oppressive, they have a history of collaborating with terrorists, they believe America is the "Great Satan," they send the "morality police" into the streets to make sure women adhere to Sharia principles, they have advocated wiping Israel off the map, and the list goes on and on.
You also wrote:
"compared to the US who is iran a threat to?"
Here is a brief list.
1) Israel
2) The Iranian people
3) The Iraqi people
4) The Lebanese people
5) The kurdish people
6) Women
7) Any people who "violate the principles of Islam"
December 15, 2006 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Iranian gov't violates the US Constitution? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
December 15, 2006 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not exactly sure why that would be funny to you. Are our principles a joke to you? That's sort of offensive to me.
If you believe in the Bill of Rights, Iran is illegitimate. If you believe in Sharia law, or the Communist Manifesto, or some other belief system, then America is illegitimate.
I believe in the Bill of Rights and the ideals our country was founded on, therefore countries that violate the basic rights of man enumerated in the Constitution are doing wrong by their people.
December 15, 2006 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the original comment, the poster asked what international treaties or agreements had been violated. And GHaines cited the U.S. constitution. The two are not synonymous.
I'm very fond of the principles on which this country was founded and tend to agree that "ountries that violate the basic rights of man enumerated in the Constitution are doing wrong by their people." However, I accept that there are other grounds on which a legitimate government can be based. To me, it's neither fitting nor proper nor consistent to tell other countries / other people how they should live their lives.
December 15, 2006 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Viviane,
You wrote:
"it's neither fitting nor proper nor consistent to tell other countries / other people how they should live their lives"
I don't think you really believe that. I don't think anyone believes that. Of course it is fitting, that's why we have laws, judges, police, streetlights, stop signs, rules for sports, code of conduct for schools, etc.
If someone wants to beat their wife, I say that we should tell them not to. I think we should tell them how to live their lives. Apparently, that is a controversial statement. I think people that sell drugs on the street corner should stop, and I support laws that tell them how to live their lives. I think people shouldn't rob me at gunpoint, and I support telling them how to live their lives.
Unless you are an anarchist, you believe that people have a duty to tell others how to live their lives.
Everyone believes in right and wrong. If you think someone is doing something wrong, you have a moral obligation to speak up or act on that impulse.
Iran is doing wrong, as they have been for quite some time. I think we have a moral obligation, as a nation, to at least speak up, and hopefully find a way to act on it. That doesn't mean we have to invade the country, but I hope we do what we can to change how they treat their own people and others.
viviane,
I realize that the U.S. Constitution and International law are not synonyms. My point is that we should judge their government by the standards we judge ourselves by. We, as a nation, have beliefs in right and wrong. If "international law" doesn't judge Iran as illegitimate, then "international law" isn't doing anyone any good.
December 15, 2006 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"how about the fact that their government violates the U.S. Constitution by simply existing"?
I take this to mean that you accept that there is in fact no legal basis for sanctions ?
And as a non american whose democratic "government violates the U.S. Constitution by simply existing" your appeal to the USC is highly amusing...
"They are an illegitimate government. "
Really ? why ?
"they have a history of collaborating with terrorists"
Unlike the US. Who called them anticommunists rather than terrorists.....
"they believe America is the "Great Satan," "
"Axis of evil" i belive you call them....
December 15, 2006 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
denspark,
Honestly I don't know if there are international legal reasons for opposing Iranian Nuclear weapons. My understanding is that there aren't any solid ones. Frankly, it doesn't concern me. Ask yourself if you think Iran deserves to have Nuclear weapons. I say no.
Are you seriously asking why Iran has an illegitimate government? Dictatorships are illegitimate and dangerous and the free world should stop them from being powerful. Some people don't care if Iranians or Iraqis have freedom. Maybe it’s because they are brown, or they speak a different language, or because we can’t see someone’s soul being withering away, so we can pretend it isn’t happening.
I think we are all human beings and we have responsibilities to each other. We should not let dictators subjugate entire countries of people because we are afraid to call them dictators.
You wrote:
"they believe America is the "Great Satan," "
"Axis of evil" i belive you call them....
Absolutely right. The question is which claim do you agree with?
Most people try to run away from the question by saying that both sides have their pluses and minuses, or some morally equivocal nonsense. Many people are afraid to state their opinions.
I have confidence that you will be bold enough to state your opinion and stand behind it. Do you see any qualitative difference between Iran's government and America's?
December 15, 2006 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iran is not a dictatorship. It has a complicated constitutional form of government with several competing branches and power centers and a combination of democratic and authoritarian components. It's no beacon of liberty, but there are many worse governments in the world.
December 15, 2006 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
US and Europe must learn about alliances
No. The US needs to learn about alliances.
As even the left wing luminaries seem to mistake the concept with vassality, I'm not too hopeful, though.
Do you think it possible to see an end to the whole category of post along the lines of "diplomatic mistakes were made on both sides of the pond", and other pox-on-both-houses ingenuities? It's embarrassing.
December 15, 2006 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Absolutely right. The question is which claim do you agree with?"
Iran hasn't launched one invasion of another country. The US has.
"Do you see any qualitative difference between Iran's government and America's?"
As a non american ?
Well the US goverment has invaded other countries.
The US goverment has set up torture prisons throughout the world.
The US government has made torture legal in the US.
None of that is true of the Iranian government, so yes the US government is clearly worse than the Iranian government.
If i go to iran then the the head of state has not given himself the right to have me taken away and tortured. If i go to the US then the head of state has.
Now both governments might torture me, but at least one has the self respect not to bleat on about how their country is special.
December 16, 2006 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
denspark,
You wrote:
"so yes the US government is clearly worse than the Iranian government"
At least we can all see where you are coming from. I'm glad you had the courage to take a position.
Here's a question for the rest of the people posting-- do you agree with denspark that "the US government is clearly worse than the Iranian government" ?
December 16, 2006 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Depends of course on what you compare.
December 17, 2006 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's something to note: the US has formally and officially announced as part of its "Nuclear Posture Review" that it claims the prerogative to drop nuclear weapons on other states, even on a first-strike basis, and even if the other states are not nuclear-armed. Combine that with the fact that the US - in violation of the NPT - is even now building "user friendly nukes" which are intended to be more "usable"
Even China has formally adopted a policy of no first use.
Now, tell me again who is the threat and terrorist?
Who trained, armed and supported the nun-raping death squads who are responsible for events such as the massacre at El Mozote? Who provides billions of dollars in military and other aid to the perpetrators of the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla? Who shot down an Iranian civilian airliner inside Iranian airspace and then tried to blame the Iranians for it?
Who armed, financed, provided chemical weapons, political cover and targetting intelligence to Saddam Hussein?
Who has toppled democracies and installed tyrannies in their place?
Iran?
Get real.
December 18, 2006 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iran as a nation existed long before your Bill of Rights, and your constitution is not an international treaty.
Do you have ANY idea how ridiculously hollow your Bill of Rights argument sounds to Iranian ears? Where were you when the the US was supporting the Shah? Do you have any idea that the government you're claiming is "illegitimate" was brought into power by millions of Iranians themselves who toppled (for the third time) a foreign(US) installed tyrant? Today Iranians are better educated, have longer lives, better access to water and medical care, and yes, despite all the restrictions, they have ELECTIONS which they didn't have before.
If you're so concerned about the Bill of Rights and insist on wrapping yourself around the flag, I suggest you take a gander at the new Legalized Torture Act (aka Military Commissions Act of 2006) not to mention the barefaced LYING about WMDs in Iraq, not to mention all the other things that have been going on (surveillance, extraordinary rendition, propaganda planted in the media etc)
December 18, 2006 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you think Iran compares favorably to America, then nothing I can say will convince you.
Maybe you’re right. Maybe Sharia law is less oppressive than the bill of rights.
This obviously isn't about facts, it is about emotion, and emotion leads to intractable positions. Debate is pointless unless there is some objectivity.
So-- now that we realize that liberal democracies are the real evil, the question should be who do we let into our Caliphate?
Are the Saudis following Sharia as strictly as they should? I am not sure.
Do we let Pakistan in? No, they just made it more difficult to get away with rape. Unless they stop their evil, liberal mood swing, they can't be in our Concert of the Caliphate.
Who else do we let in?
December 18, 2006 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The foundation for the transatlantic relations changed much both in connection with the end of World War II and the end of the Cold War.
The attempts to elevate NATO from its post-Cold War irrelevance seem to have faled, I agree with you on that, but I can't see any reasons to alarmism for that. Other issues are, at this time, so much more pressing - and NATO isn't the right tool to adress them. In other words: NATO is currently oboleted.
/Tuomas
December 22, 2006 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you point me to that section 'thar that refers to Iran? Now, I might not be surprised if somebody came up with a document saying Thomas Jefferson has thought up radioisotopes and had an opinion about enrichment, but I guess he didn't get that into the Constitution.
Iran may do bad things, but it is ludicrous to say that the US Constitution applies to them any more than it does the UK (decidedly not those colonial exploiters), Canada, Myanmar, or Singapore. --
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
December 23, 2006 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also see little evidence Iran, even with a crash effort, is much closer than a decade to a militarily successful nuclear delivery system. Iranian collaboration with North Korea on the Taepodong-2 doesn't quite suggest they are up to Trident D5 standards. At what cost? While you are at it, cancer and diabetes and atherosclerosis kill hundreds of thousands of Americans annually. Clearly, they are illegitimate and dangerous and not stopped. No, it's because freedom can't be imposed from without. I fully agree I can't see souls and, frankly, am not worried about them. If your theory requires an infinite blank check on American lives and treasure, while there are survival-level health and economic problems domestically, yes, I think that dictators doing such, unless they are a direct threat to the United States, are a reality of an imperfect world with limited resources.
Is that a clear enough opinion? Do I make it clear that I will permit dictatorships that are not US-made, not a threat to the US, and not fixable without massive US commitment? When should I expect that the resources to replace my pacemaker battery should go, instead, to doing away with the government of Myanmar?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
December 23, 2006 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Strawman speeches of fear. I might feel better if, at the least, you posited a Wicker Man, more in keeping with my spirituality.
It has nothing to do with the absurdity of portraying liberal democracies as evil. It has to do with feasibility of affecting the behavior of state and nonstate actors, with the dangers of a culture of continuous war, and with real limitations of resources.
Or were you proposing "From Americans according to their ability, to suppressed people everywhere according to their need?" I'd suggest that is Marxist theory, except some of your strawman appeals to dramatic emotion are more characteristic of Groucho than Karl.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
December 23, 2006 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our principles are not a joke to me, but, going before John Locke through the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, there is a concept of a right to self-determination. Let's make it more inconveient and avoid waving the bloody flags of communism or Sharia. You do, I assume, support overthrowing the government of Singapore, as it is not a liberal democracy?
I find the idea of imposing the Constitution or the Sharia on people not believing them as equally ludicrous. Incidentally, what ever happened when Ho Chi Minh, in 1945-1947, asked for reference copies of the Declaration and Constitution, and proposed that the US not support French recolonization but a phased independence program as in the Phillipines?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
December 23, 2006 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink