Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : PROPAGANDA AND THE GWOT Year 3 - 2004 (mainly Iraq)
Are We Still 'All American'? by J-M Colombani 
Are We Still 'All American'? If you want sympathy from France, just elect John Kerry. BY JEAN-MARIE COLOMBANI Saturday, March 13, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST NEW YORK--On Sept. 12, 2001, Le Monde carried an editorial by me whose title--"We Are All American"--had a certain resonance with people in this country. Today, on a visit to this city from Paris, I have the opportunity to ask the question: Are we still all "American"? Frankly, the question concerns us--French and Europeans--less than it concerns America itself. For us, the answer is relatively simple: Of course, we must be and must remain "American" in everything that involves our common destiny against terrorism, the war waged on democracy, and on all those who wish to live free, by the shadowy group called al Qaeda. I am not sure that America, on the other hand, perceives the true extent of the reality that has been created by the war in Iraq. What could be the perception of a European today? It is a vision that has unfolded in two steps. The first step, in the intensity of the shock caused by the twin towers' destruction, was the absolute need for solidarity. Let us remember here the involvement of French and German soldiers, among other European nationalities, in the operations launched in Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban, track down bin Laden and attempt to free the Afghans. The second step, the war in Iraq, led to confusion regarding Washington's intentions, and to a division within "the Atlantic community" and among the Europeans themselves. The problem was not so much the war itself, but the fact that it was launched without U.N. approval, when certain countries--including France--considered the inspectors' job unfinished and thought that international pressures on Saddam Hussein could be increased before a military invasion of Iraq, under the authority of the U.N. What George Bush is criticized for is very simple: not only to have lied about the weapons of mass destruction--the official pretext for the war--as now publicly established by recent investigations; but also to have swayed American opinion, and tried to sway European opinions (much closer to one another than one would think from the different positions of their governments, with Paris and Berlin on one side, and London, Madrid and Warsaw on the other) into believing that the war on Iraq was part of the battle against al Qaeda and international terrorism. Everyone clearly sees, and now admits, that this link did not exist. Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq today is in fact a consequence of the war, and not the opposite. So by introducing this distortion, Mr. Bush has diverted the attention from a cause--the fight against al Qaeda--that called for solidarity, and has taken a path--the unilateral war on Iraq--that has led throughout the world to the rebirth of an incredible current of hostility against the U.S., which no one should rejoice at. On the contrary, it should cause concern. This said, however, we have moved on. Clearly, the United States' difficulties in the field have led Washington to be more lenient with those of its allies--France and Germany--that it had drifted from; and these allies are willing to get involved once more now that the banner of the U.N., and therefore of international legality, is raised again. It is moreover not impossible, once Paul Bremer's mandate is accomplished and an Iraqi legitimacy is established, that French soldiers will participate in the consolidation of the situation in Iraq. But beyond that which separated us when Colin Powell and Dominique de Villepin were clashing at the U.N., and beyond what will likely draw us together again--the urgent need to prevent the situation from deteriorating in Iraq--we must realize the need for Europe and the U.S. to rebuild their relationship. For if no one pays heed, the two shores of the Atlantic will drift ever further from each other. On both sides, the reasons are deep-rooted. Europe can no longer be considered Western Europe. Since the end of the Cold War, its center of gravity has moved to the east. The enlargement of the European Union dominates its agenda. Should other milestones occur, they would take place to the east of the " Old Continent." So would the threats, as a form of authoritarianism re-establishes itself in Russia. The symbol of the Continent's shift eastward is probably the transfer of the German capital from Bonn to Berlin. On the other hand, the Americans will have to get more and more involved, whether they want to or not, in a "hemispheric" mindset; which is why they are attempting to organize their whole hemisphere, from the largest (the relations between Mr. Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox attest to this) to the smallest (as shown by the military intervention in Haiti). And after the hemisphere looks at the problems of its own well-being, the concern will be Asia, and mainly China. Therefore, if we do not do anything, "in the long run" we shall become strangers to one another. Which we are not. If we are not yet estranged, we owe it to two men, two concepts that have allowed the United States and Europe, whatever the misfortunes, to remain, all-in-all, bound together for 50 years. They are Lord Keynes and George Kennan. One inspired the West's development policies, the other its "containment" strategy. The first policy allowed progress and wealth; the second finally triumphed over the Soviet empire. Today, "containment" has given way to "pre-emptive" war; and the logic of development and free-trade threatens to be replaced by a return of protectionism. In our interdependent and already multipolar world, the two main axes being wielded by Mr. Bush (as opposed to his father) are therefore a threat to the very foundation of the historical alliance between the U.S. and Europe. This is why John Kerry is, a priori, perceived with so much sympathy. He personifies the promise of an America that will get back on track--more just, more cohesive, more generous. In brief, less "unilateral." So that we can still all remain "American" in years to come. Mr. Colombani, editor of Le Monde, is the co-author, with Walter Wells, of "Dangerous De-Liaisons," just published by Melville House Publishing. (This piece was translated for The Wall Street Journal by Alfred de Montesquiou.) |