Monday, March 17, 2003

 
Ulterior Motives Dominate European Leaders' Alignment with Bush

In the latest example of "leaders" vs. "public opinion", millions of workers staged anti-war protests Saturday in Spain, even as Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar stood firmly by the United States' plans to attack Iraq.

Indeed, Across Europe and the world the public is overwhelmingly against the Bush Administration’s policy on Iraq. According to the recent polls:

~ 65% of the British disapprove of Bush's Iraq policy.

~ 71% of the French believe Bush's Iraq policy is unjustified.

~ 86% of Germans oppose military action in Iraq.

~ 87% of Russians oppose military action in Iraq.

~ 68% of Mexicans believe Bush's Iraq policy is unjustified.

~ 80% of Japanese are opposed to a US military attack on Iraq.

~ 83% of Argentines oppose military action in Iraq.

~ 79% of Danes oppose a US-led war without a UN mandate (Vilstrup Research - January 25, 2003)

~ 52% of Canadians oppose US Military action against Iraq.

and Spain?

Gallup shows 74% of Spaniards oppose military action in Iraq. A January poll by the conservative newspaper El Mundo found 80 percent of Spaniards opposed the U.S. stance towards war in Iraq while another by a radio station in the same month showed only 6.6 percent thought there were reasons to go to war.

And their sidekick Portugal?

No official polls were available but an informal survey by Diario Digital showed opinion running almost two to one against Portugal supporting any U.S.-led action.

How about Italy? Don't forget that Berlusconi is a Bush lapdog.

A poll by Swg published on January 29 showed 72.7 percent of Italians disagreed with a U.S.-led preemptive war against Iraq while 18.8 percent said they would support such action.

And then there is "New Europe" who wholly supports the Bush administration. Right?

Hardly.

Czech Republic: A poll by the publicly-funded CVVM agency in the Czech Republic showed 67 percent were against a war with Iraq and 24 percent of respondents were in favor. The support total falls to 13 percent without a second UN resolution while the percentage against the war rises to 76 percent.

Hungary: A Gallup poll published on January 27 showed 82 percent of Hungarians opposed military action under any circumstances. The remaining 18 percent said they would support a war but of those, two thirds said that support would be conditional on UN approval.

Poland: A TNS-OBOP survey showed 63 percent of Poles opposed sending troops to join any action against Iraq but 52 percent thought the country should give political backing to the United States for any such action.

So the question remains, If the citizens of countries across the globe are so firmly entrenched against military action in Iraq, why are their elected officials so firmly in support of the Bush Administration's position? Do they know something that their constituents do not? Well, considering the desperate attempts that the Pro-Bush leaders have made to provide "evidence" that Iraq requires invasion (you know, like forged documents and fabricated dossiers), it seems somewhat far-fetched to believe that if they did indeed have legitimate evidence that they would inexplicably decide to keep it secret from the public. Thus, there must be another explanation.

Certainly some of that support can be accounted for with bribery, as I noted last week. But there is still something else at work here.

In fact, there are several compounding factors accounting for this contradiction.

As a bit of background, it might be useful to understand the political dynamic that exists in Europe.

As with most nations, each country's sovereignty and national identity is of the utmost importance to it's citizens and anything that threatens that is a potent issue… …more so by far than a potential US invasion of Iraq.

In Europe today, the economic and political scene is dominated by the world's third and fourth largest economies, Germany and France respectively. Countries are bound together, not only by geography, but also by political institutions such as the EU and the Euro common currency.

In addition, It might not be surprising that many Europeans still cling to fears about a world in which France, Germany and Russia are all reading from the same page. Eastern European nations in particular were dominated by Russia less than a decade and a half ago. Also, there is a lingering suspicion for Germany as a result of WWII. Under these circumstances, the United States becomes an indispensable relationship.

Indeed, these countries are concerned about being part of a Europe dominated by France and Germany. For them, the question is: Is it better to have a close, subordinate relationship with a French-German coalition or is it better to mitigate the coalition's dominance by creating a security alliance with the United States, relying, for their national security, upon a very distant, very powerful ally that is unlikely to try to subordinate their national identities?

Given the current economic situation in Europe, there is little desire for increased integration and greater loss of autonomy. For example, Eastern Europeans might want very much to be a member of the EU, but not at the expense of losing the perceived autonomy they regained in 1989 via the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Governments who have sided with Bush have done so because they understand that on election day, the Iraq war will be a side issue and the power of the French-German coalition will be a central issue. And if it's not, they will make it the central issue.

Ironically, it was France that defined the issue as a choice between the European position and the U.S. position. When some European governments chose to align themselves with the Bush Administration, they did so not because they cared about the war resolution, but because they were more concerned about French-German power than about the possibility of a U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Indeed, in this situation, as with most, the wording of the question and thus the framing of the debate is what matters. So how has this debate been framed? How about this: If a European is asked whether he opposes or supports the United States over Iraq, the vast majority will say they are opposed. However, if you ask them: "Do you prefer to live in an integrated Europe dominated by France and Germany, or would you prefer to maintain a degree of independence by aligning with the United States on security issues?" then you would most likely receive a very different answer. European leaders understand this and are staking their political career on the belief that it is true.

The Bush Administration understands this as well. Recall that they took pains to fan these flames by labeling France and Germany as "old Europe". The implication was clear. These are no longer the nation's of influence in Europe and it is time for a new face

In Summary, it is both European geopolitics and a built-in fear of French-German domination that stimulates European governments to support Bush, not any of the "Bush-moral-clarity" nonsense spewed by conservative boot-lickers. Simply put, the leaders of these nations are betting that their constituents are not going to be casting their votes in the next elections with Iraq on their minds, but rather with a mindset focused on the future of Europe and their country's position of influence and sovereignty within it.

Join our mailing list!

posted by Thomas Ball 1:29 PM