May 2, 2003
BRUSSELS 'MINI-SUMMIT' ON EURO DEFENSE DRAWS
MIXED REACTION
KEY FINDINGS
** Skeptics demanded
"concrete decisions" on Euro defense, not "nice
statements."
** Strong "European
pillar" would be good for NATO--but is that what the "Gang of
Four" want?
** A common European
defense policy without the UK is "unthinkable."
MAJOR THEMES
Enhancing Euro defense efforts is an 'ambitious' idea, but
skepticism is widespread-- The mini-summit of
France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg identified tasks that are
"increasingly seen as necessary if the EU is to play a credible and
effective regional and international role." Commentators in France, Germany, Ireland and
Spain held that Europe "now seems to understand the significance of the
military dimension" after the "bitter lesson" of its
"self-inflicted political impotence" in the Iraq crisis. Skeptics, however, like Germany's center-left
Sueddeutsche Zeitung, saw "nothing but a...continuation of the
things the EU leaders have proclaimed again and again." Papers pointed out that the four leaders
"did not specify any precise objective," with Austria's Die Presse
adding, "The noble goals of the Brussels Four are not made any more
plausible by the fact that three of its members are among those European states
that spend the least money on military purposes."
A 'more credible' European pillar would be a plus for NATO--but
was that the summit's aim?-- Writers contended that
"everybody agrees" that Europe should "strengthen its defense
identity" and noted that the U.S. repeatedly has called on Europe to
"make credible military contributions to defending common values." Strengthening the "European pillar"
would be "a gain for the Alliance," dailies stated. France's right-of-center Le Figaro
maintained the summit was not anti-U.S. but that Europeans were looking for a
balanced "partnership" with the American superpower. Despite pledges of loyalty to NATO by the
"Gang of Four," outlets questioned the summit's "timing"
and debated whether the Four meant to strengthen the Alliance or take a
"wrecking ball" to it.
Britain's conservative Times decried the summit's concept of a
Euro joint operations headquarters separate from NATO as "dangerous."
British participation is 'absolutely vital' to any common EU
defense policy-- French editorialists
admitted "the jury is still out" whether Chirac's
"multipolar" vision of a European counterweight to U.S. power will
triumph over Blair's "unipolar world...with the U.S. and Europe on the
same side." Even so, they concurred
with the widely held view that "there cannot be a European defense without
the British [and] therefore a close partnership with the U.S." With London directing "the strongest,
most professional and most experienced" armed forces in Europe, as
Portugal's moderate-left Publico put it, there can be "no European
defense worthy of the name" without the UK. A Dutch outlet called for French and British
leaders to return "to the spirit of St. Malo" to lay the foundation
of European defense "in coordination with, and not in competition with,
the Americans."
EDITOR: Steven Wangsness
EDITOR'S NOTE: This
analysis is based on 35 reports from 17 countries, April 29 - May 2, 2003. Editorial excerpts from each country are
listed from the most recent date.
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "Toy
Soldiers"
The conservative Times editorialized
(4/30): "The mini-summit held
between the leaders of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg yesterday must
count as either one of the most intellectually confused or instead politically
dishonest meetings conducted by EU nations....
Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder sought to minimise the significance
of what had been proposed. Meanwhile,
Guy Verhofstadt, the Prime Minister of Belgium and their host, spoke somewhat
more candidly of their collective desire to 'relaunch' European
defence.... Much of what was outlined
has, it should be observed, been suggested elsewhere.... The 'gang of four', though, went yet further,
announcing their intention to form a multinational, deployable force
headquarters for their joint operations and declaring they would create 'a
nucleus of a collective capability which they would make available to the EU
for operational planning and command of EU-led operations' outside
NATO.... That the concept will do
nothing for European defence is indicated by its internal contradictions and
damaging external consequences. The plan
offers no prospect of a serious increase in defence spending--indeed, at least
one leader expressed the hope that co-ordination could allow for 'cutting
costs'--but instead outlined a series of new bureaucracies. It took all of Jacques Chirac’s capacity for
contorted logic for him to praise the 'fundamental character' of the
transatlantic alliance while aspiring to bury it in the form that it has been
known for 54 years, and then move on to contend that a plan which involves
planting duplicate bodies inside NATO would 'limit wasteful national
duplication which exists at present'....
There will be a temptation, given the nature of the EU, for the several
states who believe this is a profoundly bad idea to attempt to dilute it rather
than pull the plug on it. This would be
mistaken.... It would be regarded in Washington
and elsewhere, correctly, as the thin end of an extremely unwelcome
wedge."
FRANCE:
"Blair Against Chirac"
Left-of-center Le Monde editorialized (5/2): “Tony Blair has just said publicly that he
does not want a multipolar world, unlike Jacques Chirac, in which Europe would
be a counterweight for the U.S.... He is
for a unipolar world in which the U.S. and Europe would be on the same
side.... Who between Tony Blair or
Jacques Chirac has the best chance of gaining acceptance for his point of
view?... The jury is still out. The ‘band of four’ will have a difficult time
imposing its position for the simple reason that there cannot be a European
defense without the British, therefore a close partnership with the U.S. But to be partners there must also be a real
interlocutor and on this point the unceremonious attitude of the Bush
administration is not a good sign.”
"Stop The Verbal Warfare Between London And Paris"
Jacques Amalric commented in left-of-center Liberation
(5/2): “It was obviously less than wise
to hold this mini-summit in Brussels...intended to define a European defense
with only Belgium, Germany and Luxemburg.
It was poorly timed in that it looked like nothing more than a way to
provoke London.... What is the point of
this European power that continues to exist in limbo and is used as a sort of
threat or scarecrow? This only serves
the neo-conservative, ultra-nationalist strategists in Washington who would
like nothing more than to derail the plans for a strong Europe.”
"Answering Tony Blair"
Jean de Belot commented in right-of-center Le Figaro
(4/29): “The British Prime Minister is
quite clear: he does not want a Europe that rivals the U.S. … After the fall of Saddam Hussein Tony Blair
is taking advantage of his position to push forth his vision, particularly
since his vision is well founded. First,
he is being realistic: in matters of defense Europe has put itself in the hands
of the U.S. Second, he is being true to
British diplomacy: London has always
opposed a multipolar world and believes that the strength of the Western bloc
lies in a ‘strategic partnership’ between Europe and the U.S. We of course believe in the notion of
partnership. No one in Europe believes
that our future could be based on a confrontation with the U.S. But a partnership requires a certain balance. What would be the bases of this
partnership? What is the ambition of
each European capital? The Iraqi crisis
has created a situation that will force each nation to define its ambitions and
aspirations.... Fifteen years after the
fall of the Berlin Wall Europe’s results remain meager. Europe has been incapable of launching any
new project. Europe is only an economic
market, incapable of achieving real success.
Yet Europe has its own load of challenges, separate from those of the
U.S. This is why Tony Blair’s remarks
come at the right time. For all these
reasons we need to give him an answer.
Even if it means breaking a few taboos.
Who really believes there can be a powerful twenty-five member Europe?”
"Europe’s Defense"
Jean-Christophe Ploquin held in Catholic La Croix
(4/29): “In France, those who support
the idea of Europe’s construction are rudderless. The Iraqi crisis has injected a massive dose
of confusion in the minds of those who have campaigned for a political Europe
that would stand apart from the U.S. …
Yesterday, Tony Blair was exceedingly clear: Europe must be built with
the U.S., not against it.... France must
adapt its European policy to the reality revealed by the Iraqi crisis. Thierry de Montbrial of IFRI suggests that in
the short term France must keep a low profile in order to safeguard a long-term
project. It is paradoxical to note that
Europe’s defense may in fact develop in the years to come with the U.S., not
against it. In this regard, Chirac’s attitude at the mini European summit is
sure to be carefully scrutinized.”
GERMANY: "European
Defense Initiative"
Volker Herres judged in a commentary on ARD-TV's (national channel
one) late evening newscast "Tagesthemen" (4/29): “Following the bitter lesson of their
self-inflicted political impotence in the Iraq conflict, Europe now seems to
understand the significance of the military dimension. It is high time to push a common European
security policy. This is the good thing
of the initiative launched at the four-party summit in Brussels, even though
one flaw continues to stick to them. The
four hardliners against the war remained alone in Brussels and are exposed to
the suspicion of deepening Europe’s division with this summit that must be
understood as anti-atlanticist. But the
European quartet did not succumb to this temptation. To strengthen Europe’s
security policy role remains correct and important, even though the Europeans
want to emancipate themselves as independent partners, not as U.S.
rivals."
"Four-Party Summit"
Klaus-Dieter Frankenbergr contended in center-right Frankfurter
Allgemeine (4/30): "Schroeder,
Chirac, Verhofstadt, and Juncker cannot have had the best feelings. Too often they stressed their loyalty to the
Atlantic Alliance. And as if they stood
under pressure to justify their move, they reaffirmed that they are mainly
interested in strengthening the European pillar in NATO. This is indeed the great handicap from which
the Alliance is suffering. The military
imbalance is dramatic, and it is unhealthy for transatlantic relations. Everything that is strengthening this pillar
is a gain for the Alliance. The question
is whether the four worked in this respect or whether they were working with a
wrecking ball.”
"Filled Chocolate, Badly Wrapped"
Cornelia Bolesch opined in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung
of Munich (4/30): “If we ignore all the
disagreements on the war in the Gulf, the text of the communiqué is nothing but
a consistent continuation of the things the EU leaders have proclaimed again
and again at EU summits.... Of course,
this concept also includes a good deal of emancipation from the United
States. But it was U.S. governments who
have called upon the Europeans to make a credible military contributions to
defending common values and to stabilizing crisis regions. That is why it is so sad that this minor tour
de force war orchestrated so badly.”
"The Strength Of The
Four From Brussels"
Martin Winter noted in left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau
(4/30): “In Europe, a new defense policy
era is now beginning. It does not
develop with great pomp but as is usual in the EU, in a gentle and civilian
manner in portions that can easily be swallowed by sensitive stomachs. This could prompt people to assume falsely
that old things were newly wrapped at the meeting of Belgium, Luxembourg,
France, and Germany. But in Brussels, it
was not a meeting of the coalition of tough opposition forces to the Iraq war
in search for late justifications. It
was a meeting of a group of determined integrationists, who, under the
impression of the U.S. treatment of the war and the United Nations, have
understood that the often downgraded project of a European security and defense
union must now quickly take shape.”
ITALY: "Old Europe
Begins To Move And Challenges Bush"
Andrea Bonanni provided this analysis from Brussels in left-leaning,
influential La Repubblica (4/30):
“The anti-NATO will be born in Tervuren, on the residential outskirts of
Brussels, a few kilometers away from the Atlantic Alliance headquarters. And it will be another, unexpected
‘collateral damage’ of the British-American invasion in Iraq and of the crisis
it has prompted in relations with the United States. Once again the ‘old Europe’--the one that
U.S. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld cannot stand and that Washington ‘hawks’ would
like to ‘punish’ for not giving its blessing to the war--is surprising its
critics that already considered it done for, and politically weak and
isolated.... Since September 11, the
United States has shown that it does not want to tie its hands with the
obligations stemming from a predefined multilateral coalition. In Afghanistan first and then in Iraq, the
United States acted autonomously outside the NATO framework, while continuing
to expect the Alliance to be the only possible place to organize the Europeans’
military capabilities. In this way,
Washington can maintain its political control over European defense, while, at
the same time, keeping its hands free to pursue its own national interests in
an autonomous way. This is an asymmetry
that the recent news on the transfer or the dismantlement of U.S. bases in
Europe makes even more alarming since it reflects a growing lack of interest by
the U.S. administration towards the military aspect of the Alliance. The move by the ‘old Europe’ is aimed at
correcting this imbalance, which is political more than operational.”
RUSSIA: "Allies'
Interests Increasingly Diverge"
Sergey Strokan commented in reformist business-oriented Kommersant
(4/30): "The process of creating
non-NATO 'Euroforces' shows that the Allies' interests and defense doctrines
have been diverging inexorably. It also
means that hopes for continued unity inside the Alliance, in which the United
States would like to keep the Europeans as gofers, are getting ever dimmer. United Europe has taken the first step to
making a polite farewell to the GI's....
The idea of a 'Euroarmy' could not have failed to come about because
along with the ideas of economic integration, democracy and human rights, there
is one of security that underlies the concept of united Europe. Events in Afghanistan and particularly in
Iraq have merely added to Europe's doubts about the U.S.-controlled NATO as an
armed guardian of the Western world's interests. Building an army of its own is precisely the
idea to which the Old World can rally.
The values--motherland, nationality, class affiliation--that have served
nations for centuries, keeping them together, no longer make much sense. They have been replaced by new
values--ecologism, feminism, pacifism and nationalism interpreted as getting
over a nation-state--which can unite people irrespective of their
nationality."
AUSTRIA: "Nothing
Doing Without The Brits"
Security affairs writer Burkhard Bischof commented in centrist
daily Die Presse (4/30) : “The
plans for a new momentum in European defense policy presented by Germany,
France, Belgium and Luxembourg on Tuesday were not exactly convincing: A
European Security and Defense Union open to all EU states, the establishment of
common capacities for planning and operations, improved reactions--all this is
pretty old hat. The noble goals of the
Brussels Four are not made any more plausible by the fact that three of its
members are among those European states that spend the least money on military
purposes.... A common defense policy can
only be credible if the common European capacities are quickly modernized and
strengthened. And that costs money--even in times like this, when all are set
on tightening their belts. Also: In any
project involving a common EU defense policy, the participation of the British,
as the strongest, most professional and most experienced armed force in Europe,
is absolutely vital. They are also the
interface with the Americans, who--despite the unilateralism of their current
administration--are going to remain a European power for some time to come,
whether their critics like it or not.”
BELGIUM: "Getting
Beyond Nice Statements"
Christophe Lamfalussy wrote in independent La Libre Belgique
(4/30): “There is nothing more
boring--and, actually, more anti-European--than to keep on repeating old ideas
and setting up numerous committees to implement them. At the end, everybody is lost and nothing
concrete happens. That is the impression
that comes out of from yesterday’s declaration.
The idea of giving European defense a boost is noble and ambitious. No one will deny that Europe must at last
take its fate in hand and get over with this almost childish military
dependence on the United States. But the
method is odd.... The four countries did
not specify any precise objective--no specific numbers and no
timetable.... Europeans do not expect
their leaders to multiply nice statements.
What they want are concrete decisions.”
"An Unfortunate Initiative"
Olivier Gosset judged in financial L’Echo (4/30): “Although one can endlessly talk about the
legitimacy of the Freedom Iraq operation and on the need to topple Saddam
Hussein, the reality is that a very dangerous gap has been created between
Americans and Europeans and among European themselves as well. This Summit will in no way contribute to
removing these divisions. On the
contrary, based on the criticism coming from some EU member countries, this
meeting is likely to yield the opposite of what it was supposed to yield--the
reinforcement of the CFSP. Even worse,
this mini Summit might make the concept of the Old and the New Europe a very
concrete reality.... Besides, if the
objective was to make the Pentagon and the White House hawks understand that
their unilateralism and their arrogance were likely to transform some of their
partners in potential rivals, one can predict that the message is not likely to
be taken seriously. Because this
initiative is even less credible since two of the four countries--Belgium and
Germany--are constantly decreasing their military budget. And it is only recently that France decided
to increase its. It will be years before
it can close the gap on Great Britain.
Lastly, the fact of having decided to launch this initiative outside of
the EU Treaty will add to people’s uneasiness.... It is quite clumsy for a country like
Belgium--which claims to be in favor of the EU institutional framework--to take
this initiative, which, whether one likes it or not, has a strong taste of
anti-Americanism in the eyes of most EU member countries.”
"Needed: A Wider
Foundation"
Deputy chief editor Bart Sturtewagen commented in independent
Christian-Democrat De Standaard (4/30):
“Most of all, the four government leaders and heads of state...did their
best to stress what their initiative was not: it is not meant to be an
expression of distrust vis-à-vis America and its coalition partners. As victors in the war, it is obvious that the
latter view every gathering of the core of their opponents with maximum suspicion. The four (EU leaders) must make an effort to
take that (suspicion) away and to find supporters for their plans. That shows how regrettable it is that a wider
foundation was not found as of the beginning.
Of course, a larger effort is needed for a common European defense
policy. Without that, Europe has to
watch powerlessly how its member states operate incoherently when international
crises break out--after which the groaning about a lack of efficiency can start
again. And, of course, the failure and
the absence of a European Iraq policy was a perfect demonstration of how things
should not be done.”
"An Election Stunt"
The conservative Christian-Democrat Het Belang van Limburg
editorialized (4/30): “German
Chancellor Gerard Schroeder was right when he said that there is not too much America
but too little Europe in NATO. However,
yesterday’s defense summit will change little to that because the summit was
organized by the embittered losers in the Iraq war--who, for the time being, do
not have to count on much support from other pro-American EU countries for a
European army. In other words, this
shows how a good initiative--a European pillar in NATO--is jeopardized by
picking a bad moment. In short, yesterday’s
mini defense summit in Brussels is not much more than an election stunt by Guy
Verhofstadt. We must admit it: the Prime
Minister has succeeded. He got
international attention and he managed to engage Chirac and Schroeder in his
election campaign. Not everybody can say
that.”
"Initiative Full Of Dangers"
Foreign affairs writer Kris Van Haver maintained in financial
daily De Financieel-Economische Tijd (4/30): “While Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder
allowed their companion Guy Verhofstadt a nice election stunt, they are worried
about the possible negative consequences of their dissident action. Rightfully so, because the more
Atlantic-oriented European and NATO partners consider the mini summit an act of
despair in an attempt to control the middle thinking in Europe. It is a fact that Europe was left with a
hangover after the Iraq crisis. But, the
initiative is full of dangers--not in the least because (the four countries)
can see that their dissident standpoint is reinforced in NATO and the EU and
that they are isolating themselves from their partners. The new member states that will join the EU
in May, 2004 have already expressed their skepticism about the old European
Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis. They prefer by
far the safe protection of Washington to the uncertain European cacophony. For the European currency and the Europe
without internal borders, the French-German motor was decisive. But, a common European defense without the
British is unthinkable. And yet, the
four think that they can make the difference--at least psychologically. Voluntarism is a fine European virtue, but
realism is at least as important.”
HUNGARY: "In The
Shadow Of Suspicion"
Deputy editor Tamas Boronkay commented in prestigious
business/political Vilaggazdasag (4/30):
“The Iraq war has dramatically shed light on the lack of a common European
foreign policy. The European military
and arms producer giants are concerned...[that] their American counterparts are
going to put their hands on fat deals ahead of them.... The four countries that met for a summit in
Brussels...did not manage to resolve the basic dilemma within the EU. The leading military power of the EU, Great
Britain, still finds the recent cooperation of Berlin, Paris, Brussels and
Luxemburg suspicious. The cooperation
might appear to have an anti-American ‘tint’.
Without Great Britain though there is no common EU foreign and defense
policy.”
"Tempers Leashed"
Defense writer Gabor Zord argued in right-wing daily Magyar
Nemzet (4/30): "The (old-new)
question that brought together the four European countries...is the following:
should a Europe be built which is a rival of Washington or a Europe which
Washington respects? The participants to
the summit in the end avoided tearing apart transatlantic relations. One lesson of the summit is that first common
European military capabilities should be created. Than can come the task of defining the EU’s
common stance (and possible relationship) toward the United States.”
IRELAND: "EU Defense
Issue Highlighted"
The center-left Irish Times commented (4/30): "The initiative on European defense and
security taken by France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg yesterday usefully
emphasizes the importance of these issues and brings them center stage in the
debate on Europe's future. They were at
pains to emphasize that this complements NATO structures and is not
anti-American.... Much of what they
propose is already being implemented or under active consideration in the
EU. In that sense the four countries are
a vanguard group rather than a divisive one.
Many of the military tasks they identify are increasingly seen as
necessary if the EU is to play a credible and effective regional and
international role, irrespective of whether all member-states participate in
them. The principal issue of contention
is whether they are unnecessarily duplicating existing NATO structures.... The Iraq war has heightened public awareness
of these issues. Many Europeans are now
more convinced of the need to organize defense and security in such a way as to
service agreed EU values and objectives, which may increasingly diverge from
those of the United States. This will
require a lot more debate about how that can best be done. Britain, Spain and Italy have criticised
yesterday's meeting for jeopardising relations with the United States and NATO;
but they all have an interest in developing supplementary EU structures if the
EU is to be a credible player in international affairs."
KOSOVO: "Summit Of
Four Deepens Divisions Within European Union"
Ekrem Krasniqi commented in independent, mass
circulation daily Zeri (4/30):
“The political mess within the European Union has largely
escalated.... Even though the
conclusions from the summit speak continuously about the importance of NATO partnership,
the contents of the project could not hide the objective of the four countries
to gradually detach the European defense system from the one of the U.S.A.,
i.e. NATO. Although small by ability and
the number of the participating states, this meeting is big because of its
symbolism. France, Belgium and Germany
not only were the great opponents of the American-British war on Iraq but they
are also the countries that originally created, back in 1957, the first cell of
the today’s European Union.... At the summit
were proposed the creation of a joint general staff for European forces that
would be independent from NATO; then the creation of a European Command for
strategic transport and independent EU structures for military planning. Such
structures, as proposed in the summit, are creating confusion in and
complications for the current European defense projects and institutional
relations with NATO.”
NETHERLANDS:
"Non-Summit"
Influential liberal De Volkskrant judged (5/1): "The goal was good but not the
means. Everybody agrees that Europe
should strengthen its defense identity if it does not want to function as a
nonentity in the world's political arena.
But the mini summit by France, Germany, Luxembourg, and Belgium was not
the good way to shape these military ambitions.
The summit was held outside the European Union - eleven out of the
fifteen EU member states were not present and the countries which were present
were the core of the anti-American/anti-war camp.... The four mini summit countries agreed to
establish a European center for military planning and operation, but they
refused to commit to an annual increase of their defense budgets. So we will get something that would look like
a headquarters while funds are required for cargo airplanes, guided ammunition,
and integrated command and control systems.
The general is already there, now all we need is an army. One encouraging aspect of their decisions is
that they agreed that alliance with the United States should continue to be a
strategic priority for Europe.... German
Chancellor Schroeder said that European unification can only be reached in
partnership with the Americans.
Hopefully, the Belgians will take this lesson seriously... The fact that Belgium did not wish to support
the plans against Iraq is perfectly fine...but it is unacceptable that Belgium
tried to mobilize the critics of the war against the American-British
couple.... A country that is the seat of
both the EU and NATO should not be so reckless with such important institutions.... Europe should return to the spirit of St.
Malo where in 1998, the British and the
French tried to lay the foundation for European defense. The cooperation of these two countries is the
best guarantee that the efforts will not just be a declaration but that there
will actually be a European defense force which will be shaped in coordination
with, and not in competition with, the Americans."
"Mini-Summit In Brussels"
Left-of-center Trouw maintained (5/1): "In these times of insecurity and threats
it is always nice to hear that four European countries call on the rest of the
European Union to increase their efforts in the field of security and
defense. And in their statement talk
about European Union Security and Defense (EUSD)...nice, but not very credible
when it becomes clear that three of the four countries allowed their own armed
forces to fall into a decline, that they have the lowest defense budgets of all
NATO countries and have no plans to change this in the near future. Besides 'incredible,' 'redundant' would be
another good word to describe their mini summit.... We have reason to fear that EUSD will just be
another acronym that the European politicians use to cover up the lack of real
progress in the field of European defense."
NORWAY:
"What Is Happening With NATO Now?"
The independent Dagbladet
commented (4/30): "The U.S.
will go through all their connections with France to punish the country for the
resistance against the U.S. in the UNSC before the invasion in Iraq.... In the beginning the U.S. was positive to the
French-British initiative [a broader European defense and security
initiative]. After the breakthrough for
the neo-conservative foreign affairs politicians the U.S. has actively worked
against all European defense cooperation.
The U.S. now wants to redefine NATO as a military ‘tool box’ that can be
used by America’s military forces against different regimes around the
world. The isolation of France in the
NATO alliance is a part of this policy."
POLAND: "Defensive
Europe"
Robert Soltyk observed in liberal Gazeta Wyborcza
(4/30): “The defense summit of Germany,
France, Belgium, and Luxembourg proved that it is still too late or too early
for common European defense.... Building
a defensive Europe is still a project only in writing. Yesterday’s mini-summit in Brussels added
four more pages to it. If this project
should ever come to fruition, it certainly cannot be in defiance of the U.S.,
and certainly must include Poland.”
"Turning Their Back On The Atlantic"
Bronislaw Wildstein opined in centrist Rzeczpospolita
(4/30): “The calculation by France and
Germany ended in a fiasco as the U.S. won the war in Iraq with minimal
casualties in its ranks and among the Iraqis, creating a chance for stability
in the region at last. All the
organizers of the ‘losers’ summit’ [in Brussels] could now do was to make a
good face and claim that their initiative was to complement NATO. In fact, it is worrisome that this is another
attempt to build European identity around opposition toward the U.S.... On the part of France and Germany, the
Brussels initiative also manifests their continued effort to defend their
privileged position in the EU.... The
meeting in Brussels has no practical significance. Will it be, though, another step toward
Europe and America splitting apart?”
PORTUGAL: "European
Defense"
Foreign affairs editor Teresa de Sousa held influential
moderate-left daily Público
(5/2): "The wounds left by
the Iraq crisis remain open, just as different visions remain of what political
Europe and its relationship with the U.S. should be. But the spirit today is more one of
reconciliation than division. And
because of that, the four European leaders, beginning with French President
Jacques Chirac, took pains to produce a final declaration that tried not to
cross the 'red line.'... Some of the
ideas resulting from the summit are perfectly acceptable--and
indispensable--for those who believe Europe has to have an autonomous security
and defense policy in the framework of the [Atlantic] Alliance if it wants to
end up with a credible foreign policy....
But the reaction of the United Kingdom will be decisive in evaluating
the fate of the ideas of this 'pioneering group.' Because there will be no European defense
worthy of the name without the United Kingdom.... The ideas of the 'four' might be a good starting
point for a debate at Fifteen. At
'four', they will hardly get beyond being just good ideas."
"The Gang Of 4"
Portuguese wire service LUSA chief Luís Delgado wrote in respected
center-left daily Diário de Notícias (5/2): "Hasn't God given them a minimum of
common sense? Can it be that they still
don't see how ridiculous their plan is?
Don't they remember the tragic and inglorious 'end' of the 'gang of
4'? France, Germany, Belgium and
Luxemburg lost their self-control over Saddam, and--unhappy about that--are
insisting on a generalized joke of a wild plan to replace NATO, and the
non-existent European Defense and Security pillar, with five thousand soldiers
and a general. OK: so who plays Mao's
wife in this gang?"
"Playing At Realpolitik"
Lusiad University international relations Prof. João Marques de
Almeida observed in center-right weekly O Independente (5/2): "The
immediate reaction to the 'summit of four' in Brussels is amazement.... What good is an air command if the Europeans
depend on the aircraft of NATO and United States every time they need to
intervene outside their borders? In
other words, what is the command supposed to command?... Once again, Germany and France are defending
strategies without being prepared to pay the costs. But there are more reasons for us to be
incredulous. What's the point of
proposing new initiatives in the defense area if those proposed at Helsinki in
1999 and in the Treaty of Nice still haven't been concluded? Berlin and Paris seem to be like those
compulsive readers who are always starting to read books without ever finishing
them.... These initiatives do not
reinforce the construction of Europe, they only create alliances and divisions
inside the Union.... We cannot leave a
monopoly of Europe's defense to those who call for a multipolar world, the
heirs of a tradition of 'realpolitik'."
SPAIN: "European
Emancipation?"
Left-of-center El País commented (5/1): "The meeting would have been inoffensive
a couple of years ago. From the other
side of the Atlantic, it would have been seen as one more meeting among
European leaders in order to try to get rid of, with poor results, U.S.
military control. Now, in renewed Bush's
plans there is no place for disagreement and he plays at emphasizing
divisions. But the White House, which
since 9/11--and especially in the case of Iraq--has ignored all those points of
view different to its own, can not want at the same time to punish those who do
not share its planetary ideology and be surprised that some of its allies do
not want to follow the rhythm of imperial guidelines."
"The Divisions Continue"
Centrist La Vanguardia editorialized (4/30): "The mere celebration of the
mini-summit, is an image, again, of the division that has settled into European
chanceries because of the war in Iraq....
It's obvious that the European pillar of NATO can and must be
reinforced, above all taking into
consideration the expansion to the East of the organization. The consolidation of a European of rapid
reaction force is also perfectly feasible, and of course desirable. However, it's logical that, in these times an
initiative of this nature would arouse all kind of speculation because of the
susceptibility that is on the surface.
Chirac's clarification that this does not attempt to duplicate NATO's
Supreme Headquarters--SHAPE--turned out to be not only unnecessary, but a bit
forced."
"Foreign And Defense Policy In The EU"
Conservative La Razon judged (4/30): "Basically, what these four countries
decided yesterday is a challenge for the whole of Europe and for the very
existence of NATO, even if it was said that this agreement does not go against
the Atlantic Alliance but towards the internal reinforcement of Europe. And it is certain that the four are quite
right and that it could have been NATO itself, because it was so effective,
that has been the factor keeping the need for a purely continental military
policy in the background because it was not urgent. If their proposal succeeds, the EU would have
its own independent military force and NATO would keep being the expression of
the alliance with the United States. We
can only hope that the project succeeds in uniting the other eleven members of
the EU...instead of deepening a fracture that would only benefit the enemies of
a strong Europe."
"The Mini-Summit In Brussels: Toasting The Sun"
Conservative ABC observed (4/30): "The summit of Brussels...is a step
forward towards the weakening of transatlantic ties.... From the military point of view, the meeting
was only relatively important. Neither
the structures pledged by the attending countries, nor the strategic position
[of these countries] can be an alternative to NATO.... But from the political point of view it is
another thing. Persisting in their
mistake, French and Germans insist on trying to build a certain Continental
power which adapts the project to their interests.... Even if they say that the EU has the right to
boost the European defense arm, and it is true, and they emphasize that it is
not about creating an alternative to NATO, the way of calling the meeting
together, the disregard for British and U.S. suggestions and the rejection of
support [for the meeting] on the part of Spain, Italy and Portugal, among
others, proves that their objective was to not to look for a new
consensus."
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
CHINA: "An Important
Affair In European Integration Construction"
Mu Fangshun commented in the official intellectual publication Guangming
Daily (Guangming Ribao) (4/30):
“The four countries’ summit is the direct result of the Iraqi
war.... The summit is a challenge to the
U.S.’ unilateralism and hegemony, and adds to the deepening crisis with NATO as
well, a military organization that is becoming looser after Cold War. The media pointed out that the summit has
earned support from Russia, which further increased U.S. suspicions.... The summit also seems to have enhanced the
internal divergence of the EU members on the Iraqi issue to a further extent.”
PHILIPPINES: "Poles
Apart"
The independent Manila Times had this view (5/1): "It's a pity that the summit in Brussels
on April 29 ended in a whimper. The
meeting was the brainchild of Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt of Belgium. Invitations went out to all the members of
the European Union, but in the event only France, Germany and Luxembourg
accepted. The backdrop of the meeting
was the war in Iraq. It was perhaps
inescapable that it would be perceived as anti-U.S. This perception was not helped by Prime Minister
Verhofstadt's remark that the U.S. 'is a deeply wounded power that has become
very dangerous and thinks that it must take over the whole Arab world.' Somehow it became the subtext of the
summit.... President Chirac stressed
that the summit's aim was 'to strengthen NATO' and that European military
operations would be planned and carried out only where NATO was not
involved. This is a cop-out. This is nothing more than the Rapid
Deployment Force that the U.S. urged Europe to put together. We had hoped that Europe would be the
countervailing force to American power.
A unipolar world is as dangerous as one dominated by two
superpowers. For the time being, no
country can match the military might of the U.S.... The only check on the U.S. is the UN. But that institution, along with NATO and EU,
will all have to adjust to new realities....
The EU should not give up the idea of developing a credible military
capability that can project its influence.
Crises and upheavals in Asia and Africa need the steadying of both the
U.S. and Europe. As the exemplars of
democracy and economic freedom, the two richest regions of the world should not
be poles apart, even if once in a while they come to blows."
##
