History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
In today’s Times, Thomas Friedman dispenses some advice regarding president Bush’s impending trip to Europe. The whole thing is worth a read, but the gist can be captured in the following three paragraphs:
Let me put this as bluntly as I can: There is nothing that the Europeans want to hear from George Bush, there is nothing that they will listen to from George Bush that will change their minds about him or the Iraq war or U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Bush is more widely and deeply disliked in Europe than any U.S. president in history. Some people here must have a good thing to say about him, but I haven't met them yet.
In such an environment, the only thing that Mr. Bush could do to change people's minds about him would be to travel across Europe and not say a single word - but just listen. If he did that, Mr. Bush would bowl the Europeans over. He would absolutely disarm and flummox people here - and improve his own image markedly. All it would take for him would be just a few words:"Read my ears. I have come to Europe to listen, not to speak. I will give my Europe speech when I come home - after I've heard what you have to say."
If Mr. Bush did that none of the European pundits would be able to pick apart his speeches here and mock the contradictions between his words and deeds. None of them would comment on his delivery and what he failed to mention. Instead, all the European commentators, politicians and demonstrators would start fighting with one another over what to say to the president. It might even force the Europeans to get out of their bad habit of just saying,"George Bush," and everybody laughing or sneering as if that ends the conversation, and Europe doesn't have to declare what it stands for.
I know that there are those whose knee-jerk response will be that they do not care what Europeans think. Those people may not care, but the sentiment is wrong, and it hurts America. It is easy to mock Europeans, I suppose. But we need them. If not now, we will need them in the future. This administration has badly damaged our diplomatic relations with almost the entirety of the world and this is a state of affairs that we cannot allow to last forever. If President Bush is capable of heeding Friedman’s advice, if he is capable of going in and not perpetuating the cowboy image that does incalculable harm to his administration and thus to our country, he might be able to salvage something of our relationship with the rest of the world for the next four years.
I am a liberal Democrat who wants Bush to succeed in Europe not because I want him to benefit, but because his failure will hurt all of us, whether we support or loathe him. There is no sense in hoping out of spite that relations with our traditional allies grow any more strained. Barring an unforeseen catastrophe or strategy, we have the administration that we have until January 2009. We may have to hold our noses, but those of us who oppose much of what this President represents still need to wish him well even if we suspect that he’ll muck things up more.
If you are like me, a liberal who supports a strong stance against both terror and tyranny, this administration has been vexing because in too many places it has failed where we hoped it would succeed and it has succeeded where we hoped it would fail. But on the international front, hoping for failure is a recipe for disaster. Someday soon we may need erstwhile allies and recently strained friends. Here is hoping that President Bush can get it right where he has gotten things so very wrong in the past. The current situation is too important to continue the acrimony and alienation that has characterized the last two-plus years.
I'm sure grade school teachers have heard more tortured excuses.
And I'm beginning to wonder if all your views can't be so easily reduced to nothing more than a Pink Floyd song. But even that's a bit generous. At least the song had artistic value.
chris l pettit -
1/31/2005
it might be bad writing...if it is my apologies for my misperception of your post. But even if it is bad writing, could there be some indicativeness of an ideological stance, even if that was subconscious? I ask because you often take stances about "us" and "them" in regards to many topics...the worst of which is Israel. I am sure you can accuse me of nitpicking again, but linguists will tell you that sometimes writing styles are indicative of deeper prejudices and stances...those fundamentally flawed assumptions that I always ask you to examine and that you many times continue to ignore. If it is bad writing...maybe you should write more carefully...hiding behind the ignorance of the masses and their bad writing (or ideological underpinnings) is a poor way to go about things. As for Mr. Simon, he pretty much gives away his "us" versus "them" mentality.
It was not condescending (your perception)...it was just that I did not have a whole lot of time to write and was actually unsure of your position...hence the question for you to just think about it. I am encouraged that it led you to better explain your position and maybe the bad writing involved, even in such vitriolic fashion...
CP
E. Simon -
1/29/2005
Well, we actually came close until I realized the following. As far as the value of diplomacy, I certainly wouldn't want to come across as an uncultured, brutish Neandertal. But my point was that soon dealings between nation-states will be superceded by the rising importance of dealings between continents.
The implication is that soon our friend will have to give up his fight to erase the nation-state in favor of a war against land masses. Geographical distinctions between bodies of water will have to go. I'll rest up this week-end and get to work on it starting Monday.
E. Simon -
1/29/2005
Nothin' but the best at Casa Simon.
Stephen Tootle -
1/29/2005
I think reading this thread was the perfect way to end the week.
Derek Charles Catsam -
1/28/2005
Chilean wine -- very nice.
dc
E. Simon -
1/28/2005
... hehe... And to think that for a second I actually did consider engaging the latest Chris-ism in defense of what was an admittedly much more garbled post than I intended or realized last night - for reasons that shall go nameless but have something to do with the rich, acidic soils of certain regions in Chile, and 25 oz. bottles of their products.
Other than the obvious aftermath of path-dependent events that were specific to the last four years, I think that my main point would be how the dynamic among nations is being increasingly affected by further regional political integration. If we were to analyze it in the abstract, I think this is an interesting phenomenon that can ultimately be shaped in a way so as to benefit the international dynamic. Of course, if we were to go to war against the English language, the concept of government, the idea of not only power-sharing, but of power (or agency) altogether, then not even the most negligent degree of tipsiness can render an opposing view beyond redemption. But the light-hearted approach provided a good laugh and probably got the point across better than anything else.
Tom Bruscino -
1/28/2005
Jes. (Esperanto for "Yes")
Derek Charles Catsam -
1/28/2005
I (First person pronoun referring to Derek Charles Catsam at this moment in Odessa, Texas, but that is such b.s. place-ism) think (an assertion based more on the epistemological than the ontological) the (article, possibly oppressive in its implication that one can ever be so definite about something that belongs to all hominids even if a selfish person claims to possess something so universal as a so-called individual thought)idea (noun, object of sentence -- and yet almost by definition, objects must be subservient to the power nexus of the subject -- free the subaltern "object," which the international community must refer to as the "equal noun"!) that (plural pronoun, in this usage it should be used to introduce a restrictive or defining relative clause -- how imposibly draconian. Free the Relative Clause! Free the Relative Clause!) we (damned pronouns referring to more than one person in a group of which I am part -- how dare you break the world up into we and they for something so tyrannical as the idea of clear explanation?) should (who am I to say? OPPRESSOR! OPPRESSOR!) parse (priviledging verbs is so phallocentric) every (I find your attempt to be inclusive so derivative and patently manipulative) word (Must we always use the English version? Cultural imperialist!) we (there you go again! You learn nothing! Tiem for a Great Leap Forward!) use (yet another manifestation of the west's imperialist domain -- not facilitate, not share, but use, and then inevitably throw away!).
dc (naming, of which initialing is just a covert ops plot, is part of the paternalist power structure you retrograde jerk!)
Stephen Tootle -
1/28/2005
I am laughing out loud right. Actually I was laughing, but now I am just smiling as I write this.
Tom Bruscino -
1/28/2005
Derek: What do you mean "international relations"? What do you mean "international"? Don't you know there are no such things as "nations" unless you are some sort of violent caveman--especially in this context when you clearly mean states? So how could there be such a thing as "international," as in realtions between nations (states)?
The world is just one big community under a universal law that must be respected--as is understood everywhere but the United States and Israel. Until you (by which I mean Derek, who is a person--although I'm not sure yet if there is such a thing as an individual "person," so much as there are just people living in the world community subject to that universal law) understand that, you are just a backwards ideologue with no conception of how the world works.
Derek Charles Catsam -
1/28/2005
Correction: I do use "us", but in the context of "all of us," presumably, again, not objectionable unless one is on a crusade to stamp out pronouns. But then I am just trying to be reasonable.
dc
Derek Charles Catsam -
1/28/2005
In addition, re-reading my piece, the only time I use "us" and "them" within the same sentence -- do i use "us" at all? --(I actually use "we" and "them" and in that explicit construction, only once, but let's not let facts and truth get in the way) it is in this context: "We need them." In other words, the United States needs Europe, and, while I am not explicit about it, vice versa. This would seem to be precisely the sort of internationalism that you embrace. I am perplexed by your criticism now more than I was initially because I more and more get the feeling that you are going to come in and levy baseless criticisms toward anyone who does not bend to your unyieldingly dogmatic conception of what international relations ought to be. There is no room for moderation. My post may have been lots of things -- it would be hard to place it within an ideological framework. I reiterate that i have no idea what you find so objectionable here.
Derek Charles Catsam -
1/28/2005
Chris --
Yes, let's pretend that my use of common pronouns was a categorical assertion of otherness rather than a simple recognition that Europe and the United Staes are rather different and that there are lines that divide us. Let us pretend that phrasing this in any other way would be anything other than poor writing. Let's pretend that my use of thse common pronouns shows something nefarious and that no European nations differentiate between "us" -- the United States, and "them" -- European countries.
meanwhile the rest of us will understand that basic principles of writing are not ideological assertions and we will acknowledge a real world where there are "us"es and there are "them"s and that is how fundamental grammar works.
Sigh.
Do you feel the need to start a fight constantly about the most picayune matters? Nitpicking is not a particularly useful form of conversationm, Chris, and I challenge you to write a piece in which you do not use basic pronouns.
I'll let Mr. Simon defend his own stance. I'll let readers decide if my alleged sins rise to the level of your condescension and vitriol. There is bs here all right. It just starts in the comments section by someone who apparently believes that punctuation is optional and that pronouns are retrograde.
dc
chris l pettit -
1/28/2005
You wanted to be called on bs...just think about that statement and what I have said before about the problems with ridiculous nation-state stances and addressing this as an "US" and "them" standard...just think about it is all I ask...
Ideologies is all it is...
and please don't tell me anyone buys Mr. Simon's nonsense on the issue...overvaluing diplomacy? how about respecting international law and the rule of law and actually acting as a member of the internaitonal community instead of treating the situation like a billiard table where a bunch of balls (states) are jostling for the best position? Sometimes I really wonder...
What do you think of Ferguson's belief that the shifting religious make-up and the Turkey issue is pulling Europe away from the West more than the U.S. is being led astray by Bush?
E. Simon -
1/28/2005
"A non-nuclear Iran,..." if it wasn't obvious. Sorry, busy day.
E. Simon -
1/28/2005
The Europeans - (how can I put this without sounding too simplistic?) - often overvalue diplomacy, it seems. At least that seems to have often been the guidepost of what were heretofore the major players on the continent. And there's nothing wrong with relationships for the sake of relationships. But "with whom?," "in exchange for what?," and "at what cost?" are good questions for a pragmatic foreign policy. I'm curious as to what concrete variables we are at a loss for within the context of the state of the current relationship(s).
Most of what is in our interest is in the interest of European nations. Cooperation with the French, for example, or any other European nation for that matter, in fighting terrorism is robust. I think trade and economic issues are being handled in a rational and increasingly well-organized manner, interrupted only rarely with some inconsequential political posturing (Bush for a few months appeasing heavy manufacturing swing states on steel tarrifs, for instance), followed by appropriate and predictable responses (with the E.U. courtesy of WTO blessing to threaten the sanctions - a move to which Congress finally forced the pres to fold). The big sticking points are in more traditionally "military" security/defense issues.
And even these aren't being played as unadroitly as some might speculate. On Iran, for instance, I think most European leaders appreciate the U.S. being able to play "bad cop" to their "good cop." A non-nuclear is just as much in their interests as it is ours. However, Europe is wary of controversial or even vocal stands on military conflict, and not without good reason. Their history has taught them some terrible lessons, lessons that the political culture has been wise to incorporate and even apply a bit too broadly. And this disposition will continue until Europe develops first, a politically well-structured defense body, and then, a cohesive defense policy, that its collective body politic can live with and advance in a serious way. But that doesn't make the U.S. responsible, in the meantime, for de Villepin's double-talking about face when it came to Mr. Hussein.
And nor should it. The last thing I would want to see is a U.S. presidential candidate vying for benefactor of the entire world, or even its good-will, over the interests of U.S. voters. In an increasingly democratized world, disagreements between nations might have the potential to breed more antipathy among their respective populations. But there is also more leeway to manage this given the infinitely lower likelihood of war to result. And the flip side of the coin is also the greater potential for the rest of the world to do a better job managing their own affairs, in which they would come to regard as natural less reliance on U.S. actions to conform to what they would like. But until that day comes, we need to understand that this transition period is going to have its ups and downs, in reality as well as in perception. Yet it is still much more pragmatic to accept that then to yearn for a utopia of a global community that yearns for nothing more then U.S. leadership.
Pretty soon we'll be living in a politically regionalized world. Along with the U.S. Europe, Africa, and now South America will all be incorporating the virtues of power sharing within the their own increasingly democratized political cultures (the subcontinent of India already does, as well). And this only seems like a natural (and I might argue, crucial) step in leading to a more cohesive, and perhaps necessarily more federalized structure within which to manage the issues of import to global politics.
Derek Charles Catsam -
1/28/2005
Greg --
I do not discount the role of the Europeans themselves, and I do not think that we should worry about the french. And this is not just another example of french bashing -- they have made clear both their antipathy and their own course, their stance with regard to iraq loses much of its moral clarity when considered next to the moral repugnance of their oil-for-food behavior and other interests, and it seems more and more clear that they see themselves as some sort of self-appointed spokesperson for the rest of the world against America even if the rest of the woprld wished they would just shut up to. but i think ferguson overstates it -- we had Europe in our corner after 9-11 and th4e administration helped to suquander that with a sort of tone deaf recklessness that is almost unfathomable. We've had disagreements with the Europeans before. The Europeans were with us by and large during the Clinton years. They were even with us when most of them could not stand reagan. I think there is more to it than Ferguson wants to admit.
I tend to admire ferguson more than I agree with him. He's a prolific sumbitch.
dc
I read the editorial from the Times also, and I agree with you that it is wrong to wish Bush to fail on the international stage, whether you agree with him or not. I also agree with your statement that it is wrong to discount the opinions of Europeans becasue, as you accurately put it, "we need them. If not now, we will need them in the future." Although Bush has the support of a number of European nations in Iraq and in the broader war on terrorism, there are certainly a number of key nations opting not to support the president. But, Niall Ferguson has a different take on the growing figurative distance between Europe and America in the current Atlantic. While he doesn't let Bush off the hook completely he does make an argument for the rift being a result of post-Cold War politics and shifting European demographics rather than simply Bush's bravado in Iraq:
"All this helps to explain, in turn, why in so many recent surveys Europeans have expressed a desire for a foreign policy less dependent on the United States. In the absence of the Soviet Union, in the presence of increasing numbers of Muslims, and in light of their own secularization, European societies feel more detached from the United States than at any other time since the 1930s."
"In the face of this kind of asymmetry it is well nigh impossible to turn back the clock to those halcyon days when there was just one West, indivisible. John Kerry would have tried, but he would have failed. George W. Bush has lower expectations of transatlantic relations. But he should not be blamed for their deterioration. His much exaggerated "unilateralism" is not why the Atlantic seems a little wider every day. It is Europe, not America, that is drifting away."
