QandO

July 14, 2004

Sovereignty for allies?
Posted by McQ

Tom Blankley of the Washington Times has a excellent article on the basis of our differences with Europe. He quotes extensively from an article by Henry Kissinger which distills the essence of those differences, and as Blankley notes, makes Kerry's claim he'd bridge the rift appear to be so much political hot air.

Henry Kissinger deftly destroys Kerry's claim with some good points. But to put the argument in context he first observes:

Mr. Kissinger argues that: (1) the global scene is more fluid than it has been for centuries, (2) the center of gravity of world affairs is moving to the Pacific, (3) the major actors are defining new roles for themselves, and (4) the transformation is about basic concepts rather than tactical issues.

Kissinger notes that power in the world is fluid and always shifting. In this case center of gravity is shifting away from the European/American axis and toward the giant nation-state of China. Consequently, much in the way of differing issues begin to emerge in the wake of that shift.

"Differences between America and Europe are serious and substantive. But the reason the results of recent U.S.-European diplomatic encounters have proved so disappointing — despite serious efforts from both sides — is that the historical evolutions underway on the two sides of the Atlantic are different."

Or, in other words, nations each have differing views of how the world is evolving. They also have differing priorities as a result.

To put this further in context Blankley quotes Britian's Lord Palmerton's famous diplomatic maxim:

As Lord Palmerston explained the classic British foreign policy maxim: Britain has no permanent friends, only permanent interests. And so it has been for all nations and alliances.

That's simply reality, and as Kissinger points out and Blankley underscores, the permanent interests of Europe and America are in the process of diverging, possibly for good. For instance:

He goes on to argue that "the most important event in Europe is the progressive erosion of the nation-state," which is leading them to reject, as a matter of principle, the right of any nation to exercise national sovereignty, particularly when resorting to the use of military force.

This goes to the root of the problem and belies the claim Kerry and company make that if they had been in charge, those who opposed the "alliance of the willing" would have been happy to have lent their support. The problem isn't personalities, its priorities. Certainly nothing Kissinger points too would lead one to believe the power of personality would have helped at all.

Rather, as they spend most of their time on issues of European unification, "these non-state attitudes toward international relations are becoming deeply embedded in European public opinion." Mr. Kissinger doubts whether these building attitudes "can ever be again fully reconciled with the experience of a country driven by state concepts or with the notion of alliance as traditionally conceived." Meanwhile, "By contrast, America remains [with such other countries as Russia, China, Japan and India] a traditional nation-state, insistent on sovereign freedom of action."

So we have a group of nations (which includes Britian who sees themselves as largely sovereign) in which the "traditional nation-state" still exists and who demand the right of sovereign action when necessary. That group is opposed by a group of "nations" in which the sovereign nation-state is at best in a state of flux, and for all practical purposes has ceased to exist (the EU) and reject the "rights" of sovereignty.

Its not hard then to understand the insistance of the latter group on the supremacy of world bodies such as the UN and International Criminal Court. Nor is it difficult, on the other hand, to understand the rejection of that supremacy concept by the group nation-states which demand sovereign rights. The result? Diplomatic conflict.

Mr. Kerry is only playing into the public's (and the popular media's) belief that personalities and "chemistry" between world leaders determines the success of diplomatic engagements.

If Kissinger's thesis is correct, and it certainly seems logical, then Kerry's concept as described by Blankley is very naive and points to someone who really doesn't have a grasp on the new reality of global politics. Its a glib tossoff which plays to the uneducated belief that personalities decide alliances and not interests. As history teaches us, that's patently untrue.

Blankley concludes:

The only coin of the realm — so to speak — which the continental Europeans will accept will be American concession of some of our sovereign rights to the international order that the French-led Europeans are trying to bring to life. Assuming Mr. Kerry is as smart, informed and nuanced of mind as he claims to be, he well understands this deeper reality.

Based on Kerry's purported belief that its a personality problem, its not at all evident he does understand this deeper reality.

And that is the point. Every move France, and to a lesser extent Germany, make highlight this difference in priorities. They're nations who are submitting their sovereignty to the EU. They recognize the danger in this which is why they insist through their diplomatic actions that other nation-states, such as the US, submit their sovereignty as well (in this case to the UN). It explains why any attempt by the US to exercise their sovereign rights is met with hostility as well as diplomatic efforts to block such an exercise by the likes of France and Germany.

As for Kerry?

He should level with the electorate and discuss just how much of our sovereignty and national interest he is prepared to barter away in the interest of regaining European friendship and cooperation. It has become a matter of principle with the Europeans that they will not diplomatically barter with us in the traditional sovereign manner. What they want is our acquiescence in the new international, de-sovereigned order they are trying to bring into being. Where does Mr. Kerry stand on this central international challenge?

Those are the questions he must answer. Because in the interest of "alliance" with the nations of France and Germany, our right to sovereign action becomes the price, our submission to the will of the UN and ICC will be their demand. Kerry should make it clear whether he believes giving up a portion of our sovereignty is worth the price of alliance with France and Germany.

Is "alliance" of a higher priority to Kerry than retaining the sovereign right of the US to act in its own self defense? Based on Kissinger's analysis, there is a choice to be made.

TrackBack