|
ONE YEAR LATER |
 |
|
|
 Michael Johnson is based in London, England |
|
|
of TheColumnists.com
Americans visiting Europe today probably feel a little
less welcome than the
last time they came. It's not that the Europeans have stopped
loving us. It's worse than that. They are afraid of us--of what
we have become, of what we might do next.
The turning point, as with so many other things in the past year, can be dated from Sept. 11.
From the very beginning the British, the Italians, even the Germans were genuinely horrified by the images of flaming aircraft and leaping victims. I could feel the moral support everywhere. My very uptight English boss, who never comes within three feet of another person if he can help it, walked up to me on September 12 and clapped his hand on my shoulder.
"It must be awful for you," he said. "I want you to know we are with you all the way."
Only in local groups of small-minded Muslims over here did we hear the familiar refrain that America had it coming. But now the moderate Muslims dominate the debate, and al-Qaeda gets little sympathy. The moderates in fact are furious over the trouble al-Qaeda has caused them. There is still a deep reservoir of anti-American resentment in the developing world but violence against the US appears contained. Things seem to be settling down.
To me, the most offensive
comment about Sept. 11 came not from some
half-blind Muslim cleric but from an American, Norman Mailer,
who in his own
twisted logic explained that the Twin Towers were always doomed
to be taken down:
"The WTC was not just an architectural monument but also was dreadful for people who didn't work there, for it said to all those people: 'If you can't work up here, boy, you're out of it.' Everything wrong with America led to the point where the country built that tower of Babel, which consequently had to be destroyed."
Not my experience, Norman, but sorry you felt that way.
But the world is watching more with trepidation than sympathy as September 11 changes the way the United States is projecting its power around the world. It has been a long time since Washington has felt so strong and so morally free to act on its own. This is what bothers the Europeans, who in their relatively weakened state would prefer to negotiate their way to solutions of big conflicts.
Europe beware: The images of U.S. destruction and vulnerability faded quickly into images of a murky "war" on terrorism and, in turn, those have given way to visions of cruise missiles plowing into buildings in and around Baghdad.
Polls in August indicated 72 percent of Americans were in favor of hitting Iraq if Congress approves.
Iraq has ended up as the target because it embodies all the elements that encourage those who like the sounds, sights and smells of military strikes. Iraq is a rogue state and oil-rich, has a history of major mischief, is virtually defenseless, and is far away from U.S. borders. Iraq might also have something to do with al-Qaeda, but that is of little consequence, since no one has been able to establish the link. Nor, for that matter, has anyone been able to prove Iraq guilty of that other forbidden activity--making weapons of mass destruction.
Yes, most people in the developed world still feel outrage over the atrocities in New York and Washington. Support from around the globe is sure to come pouring in as the anniversary approaches.
But here we are a year on, and the Europeans are still doubtful, like everyone else, that Washington knows what to do next. I recently saw a quote from Columbia University Professor Eric Foner who wondered aloud which was worse, "the horror that engulfed New York or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House."
That rhetoric is all the more disturbing in the way it wavers from week to week. Are we trying to kill Saddam, or are we trying to kill Bin Laden (if he is not already dead), or are we just going for a "regime change"? All the military means to achieve those options are being justified by President Bush's context-setting comment of September 12: "This is war." War, as we know, can be used as a justification for circumventing laws and constitutions.
And is it really appropriate for a U.S. President to announce to the world his determination to have Saddam or Bin Laden killed? I cannot recall that kind of language from a White House podium ever before in my lifetime, and I'm getting old.
With people such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Perle involved, there seems to be no official need to explain to the people exactly why Iraq needs to be attacked. Do they know something we don't? If they don't, what is this Iraq campaign all about? Is this exploratory surgery? Is it calculated to give Americans some kind of finality that the Bin Laden wild goose chase has denied them?
I am no fan of Tom Friedman, the New York Times journalist, but he got it right recently when he said it is obviously mad to launch a war if you can't explain to your own people why it is necessary. Being Friedman, he had to add that the explanation should fit on a bumper sticker.
In that vein, two of Washington's most reliable allies, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, have expressed their reservations recently. Blair was ambiguous about his position for several weeks during the summer but now seems to be getting on board. Schroeder is staying away, however, going so far as to remind Washington that "Mr. Blair does not speak for Europe."
Europeans never liked George
W. Bush very much but they preferred his other persona, the mumblin',
bumblin', phoney-baloney down-home cowboy. At least
he was amusing. Now that he wants to send in the Marines, he
has people worried. He seems to be acting out the American reflex
to get in there, roll up his sleeves and sort out uncomfortable
situations. It's the American Way.
The Europeans are different. They would much rather live with a potentially dangerous Saddam than run the risks associated with blasting him into submission. For example, they ask, who would replace him? Somebody worse?
Rand Corporation's Robert Kagan laid out the European fears in an article in Policy Review a few weeks ago. "The US may be a relatively benign hegemon," he wrote, "but insofar as its actions delay the arrival of a world order more conducive to the safety of weaker powers, it is objectively dangerous." Europeans are unhappy, he noted, "about the American propensity to choose force and punishment over diplomacy and persuasion."
Watching my country from afar as it tries to find a way forward after September 11 has not been a pleasant sight. The war of nerves from Washington plays on the baser instincts of the U.S. character by holding out the hope of national catharsis through more violence and destruction.
The rest of the civilized world understands that U.S. leadership without a Moscow counterbalance is a fact of life in this curious period of history. What's missing is clear-minded discourse, a set of individuals at the top that we can trust, and an approach to world problems that the international community can live with.
As someone said recently, "The iron fist of American power should be covered with a velvet glove."
© 2002 by Michael
Johnson. The logo illustration is © 2001 by Jim Hummel.
You
can comment on this column online. Please address your message
to either "The Editors" or Michael Johnson. To send
an email, click here: talkback@thecolumnists.com
| Home | About Us | Archives | Talkback | Shopping Mall |