When Belgium's Vice Prime Minister takes a trip to the toilet in the offices of his ministry, he doesn't waste his time with some smelly little urinal cake. Nope. He goes straight for the gusto -- the face of George W. Bush.

"Go ahead. Piss on me."

The piss stickers, specially made to be used in urinals, can be seen these days in the public toilets of Belgian schools, youth clubs, and pubs. They were designed by Laurent Winnock..., which would not be worth mentioning if Winnock did not work in the offices of Vice Prime Minister Vande Lanotte, as one of his press spokesmen.

[...]

Bush may be our government's guest, the ministers will greet him, smile and tell him that he is most welcome, but we all know what they think of the bastard.

Obviously not a member of the prestigious "Coalition of the Willing." But we all know that outside of the leaders of a handful of countries, there was no such 'coalition'. The citizens of those countries were as overwhelmingly against the Administration's policies as the rest of Europe and the world.

Flashback to March of 2003 -- in one of the greatest examples of "leaders" vs. "public opinion", millions of workers staged anti-war protests in Spain, even as Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar stood firmly by the Bush Administration's plan to attack Iraq.

Across Europe and the world the public was overwhelmingly against Bush's policy on Iraq. According to contemporaneous polls:

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

~ 71% of the French believed Bush's Iraq policy was unjustified.

~ 86% of Germans opposed military action in Iraq.

~ 87% of Russians opposed military action in Iraq.

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

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

~ 83% of Argentines opposed military action in Iraq.

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

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

...and Spain?

Gallup showed 74% of Spaniards opposed military action in Iraq. A January 2003 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 Bush-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 fell to 13 percent without a second UN resolution while the percentage against the war rose 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 upon 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 remained, if the citizens of countries across the globe were so firmly entrenched against military action in Iraq, why were their elected officials so firmly in support of Bush? Did they know something their constituents didn't? Considering the numerous desperate attempts by pro-Bush leaders to provide 'evidence' that Iraq required invasion (you know, like forged documents and fabricated dossiers), it seems a tad far-fetched to believe that if they actually had legitimate, compelling evidence that they would've kept it secret. There must have been another explanation.

Certainly some of that support can be accounted for with bribery -- but there was still something else at work here.

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

As a background, it's 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. Everything that threatens that identity 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 -- particularly in Eastern European nations, which were dominated by Russia less than a decade and a half ago. In addition, the eldest generation still holds a lingering suspicion for Germany as a result of WWII. Under these circumstances, the United States becomes an indispensable, alternative relationship.

FRAMING with a WEDGE

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 as a result of the Soviet collapse.

Ironically, it was France that helped frame the issue as a choice between Europe and the U.S. 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. They believed that on election day, the issue of the Iraq war would be subordinate to the greater issue of Franco-German Dominance.

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:

FRAME: If a European is asked whether he opposes or supports the United States' invasion of 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 rather maintain a degree of independence by aligning with the United States on security issues?" then you would most likely receive a very different answer.

The Bush Administration understands this. Recall the pains taken 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 Short, the Bush Administration is taking advantage of both European geopolitics and a built-in fear of French-German domination to both garner support for their otherwise unpopular policies and to mitigate the regional influence long-held by France and Germany.

In turn, Bush and his supporters tout Bush's "moral-clarity" as the reason for the cooperation of the "willing" -- inevitably fooling some here at home and abroad. The truth is, however, that 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.

Getting back to the stickers, I'd rather Bush's face take the plunge without Old Glory in the background. But it does serve as a stark reminder that much of the rest of the world looks at the face of George W. Bush and then pisses on the entire nation as a result.