Dear Mr. Sharkansky,

I have recently discovered your blog and find it mostly very interesting to read. Thus, I would like to reciprocate today by commenting on the one-picture entry showing a part of the Omaha beach military cemitary.

I don't know if you have ever been to Omaha beach. I have. Even though I was 12 when I saw the thousands of graves in Normandy, it left an indelible imprint. The graves demonstrate more clearly than any history book could the price ordinary people have to pay for the policies conducted by their leaders. Sometimes, these policies are just and sometimes it is therefore unavoidable to pay the price. I assume there are not too many people on the planet who would argue with the thesis that the price paid on D-Day was necessary in order to remove what clearly was an "axis of evil". No V-days without a D-Day.

However, I fear the picture you put on your blog today signals a confusion apparently common in the US these days. As a German, I would like to point out that the fundamental German sentiment towards the United States is one of gratefulness. But being grateful is different from being subservient.

If you think about D-Day as an investment into eternal subservience, I am sorry the return on investment is not what you expected. But if you think about it as giving a torn and helpless Europe a hand in finding back to its enlightenment roots, then the return on investment is clearly far beyond what I think most people would have expected back in 1944. European opposition to what we perceive as American militarism is one important part og this return.

It is the black & white rethoric imlicitly employed by posting the Omaha picture that creates the tensions between Rumsfeld's "old" Europe and US today.

It is the William Safires and Donald Rumsfelds of this world who seem not to care at all about how their words are perceived by anyone not sharing their opinion.

It is them who create the impression in Europe that it is important to contain the American administration's intention to dissolve the sometimes problematic concept of national sovereignty not through negotiations but throgh violence.

It is them who lead to the perception that the US today are no longer the good guys but those who have to be stopped.

It is them who are responsible for the fact that people in Europe care less about the serious arguments in favour of actually going into Iraq than about the way they are presented.

Again, don't be surprised if the results are not what you expect if you confuse greatfulness with subservience.

The former is a strong, fundamental current of European, certainly German sentiment, which will not be disrupted by policy quarrels.

The latter will always remain a question of usefulness in day-to-day politics. The "new" Europe, Rumsfeld was so proud to announce two days ago is an excellent example: Situated between two prior imperial powers, Russia and Germany, they still have to come to understand the real new Europe, represented by multilateral decision making and, yes, more than even many Europeans believe, by the way the Brussels policy machine works. Quietly, and rather effective, while being scapegoated by national politicians.

Europe and the US need to develop a new discourse. America may be a torn country, as the Economist recently reported. The "Texan-style" black & white is going to remain an important element in the US, even if the next presidential elections should produce a democratic president. Likewise, the more nuanced European discourse will remain.

We have to bridge the gap. It will not be helpful to continue exchanging notes confirming mutual alligations of arrogance or perceived tresaon.

Yours,
Tobias Schwarz

(PS. there is also a significant number of posts in my (English) blog which deal with the apparent rift between the US and Europe).

Posted by: Tobias Schwarz on January 24, 2003 11:52 AM

"But being grateful is different from being subservient."

Right. And totally off-point.

France is being deceitful. In effect, it said, we'll back you if you go through the UN; and now, with the moment of truth at hand, it says, No way, under no circumstances.

France is being hypocritical. It complains to high heaven about US unilateralism, but doesn't bother to obtain international approval for its own intervention in the Ivory Coast. Granted, a small matter in its own right, but it's merely one of any number of such examples. Add them up and they become meaningful: when European countries -- France in particular -- discern self-interest, the last place they vet their intentions is the UN.

But that's hardly the worst of it. The French (not to say the Germans and Russians) are invested in Iraq up to their eyeballs. Yeah, it's about oil -- European oil-financed contracts.

So, you're right: no one wants France to be subservient. We just want them to be more straightforward. And a sense of appreciation for American sacrifice in keeping France free wouldn't hurt.

But since you brought it up: subservience does seem to be a strong part of French national culture at this point anyway; "surrender monkeys," as they're known in some quarters. It would be nice if the French did stiffen their spine a bit. They might start by themselves standing up to the threat aganst the West, instead of relying wholly -- yet again -- on the US to keep them free.

Posted by: wm. tyroler on January 24, 2003 07:28 PM

Dear Mr Tyroler,

>>"But being grateful is different from being >>subservient."
>
>Right. And totally off-point.

Why would it be off-point?

I was talking about differences in public discourse which are evident in large parts of the published and unpublished opinion on both sides of the pond. I was talking about the "Bush-Junta" perception that John Le Carre wrote about last week. I don't remember who reviewed his article for the Washington Post yesterday, but I remember the correct gist - LeCarre wrote nothing new and not even particularly well. BUT - there must be a reason when large parts of the Western world which he claims to defend are getting more scared of Bush than of Saddam Hussein. As I don't think - and I assume you do neither - that there is any truth to that argument, the problem must reside in communication.

You are talking about shifts in the French position concerning an intervention. I (somewhat) agree with you, although I would like to add two points.

a) If the world changes, it is legitimate to change one's opinion. There is rising oposition against a US led invasion on European (as well as American)streets - which is to a significant extent caused by the American neglect of discourse differences. Also, the weapon inspectors are in Iraq and the US administration has not yet found an effectual argument to convince the rest of the world to go in. Saddam may not play by each and every rule imposed by the UN. Fair enough. But to many, this does not yet justify a war. There is a significant number of people who favour an intervention but say as well that it was a problematic move to base the public argument on "WMDs".

>France is being deceitful. In effect, it said,
>we'll back you if you go through the UN; and
>now, with the moment of truth at hand, it
says, >No way, under no circumstances.

b) France's stance has never been too clear, I agree - and I still have doubts France will actually vote against a military intervention if it comes down to it. But to interprete the French position in a way that they agreed to a war if only the weapon inspectors were sent to Iraq for a while to appease a hesitant public is actually misrepresenting the French position, in my opinion.

>France is being hypocritical. It complains to
>high heaven about US unilateralism, but doesn't
>bother to obtain international approval for its
>own intervention in the Ivory Coast. Granted, a
>small matter in its own right, but it's merely
>one of any number of such examples. Add them up
>and they become meaningful: when European
>countries -- France in particular -- discern
>self-interest, the last place they vet their
>intentions is the UN.

I agree. There are questions of national interests which France and Britain deal with without a lot of UN control. But so are the US. There comes a point when differences in quantity do actually change the quality of an act. And the fact there are some acts that only a superpower can attempt, it seems obvious to me that they are treated differently. Not because they are attempted by the US. But because they ARE different.

>But that's hardly the worst of it. The French

>(not to say the Germans and Russians) are
>invested in Iraq up to their eyeballs. Yeah,
>it's about oil -- European oil-financed
>contracts.

Well, I would not say it's only about oil. William Nordhaus of the University of Chicago has recently published a report concerning the economic viability of the enterprise. His conclusion is that for the US as well as for the West as a whole, negative consequences are likely to be more important than positive ones. Only the end of the OPEC could lead to a reduction in oil prices that could, according to him, offset the costs of war - and he is talking money, not lives on either side. Invading Iraq will not enhance any economy in the short run and it likely won't in the medium run. The oil argument is a dangerous one because it leaves the Bush administration open to allegations of favoring private interests (which will clearly benefit) versus public interests.

You can come to the conclusion that it is necessary to go into Iraq - even if big oil benefits. But it would be difficult to build a case only based on oil.

It would also be based on actually liberating the Iraqi people and stirring up the corrupt regimes on the Arab peninsula. To arrive with a pax Americana that would allow a real peace deal for Israel-Palestine. In the end, it's all a matter of a very difficult cost-benefit calculation. The costs are the easier part - certainly the monetary ones. It gets more difficult if one includes the loss of life - the lax American attitude to publicly toss casualty figueres around and talk about acceptable losses is actually an unacceptable way for many on this side of the Atlantic. Especially, since the relatively secular Iraq is not considered a real target in the fight against Al Quaeda over here but will provide a useful strategic American base for the Caspian new great game with Russia and China. That's the problem with strategy. One has to anticipate gains and invest right now. If war is concerned, the loss of live should be the most important cost category involved. But it is not in the current American discourse, at least not to European ears.

However, I agree with the free rider argument to some extent (and I have written about it in my blog a few days ago). Europe will benefit if things go well in Iraq and Europe will not lose too much if the US fail. It is a comfortable position, and one which the US is understandably unhappy about. But again, for the overwhelming part of Europeans these arguments are covered by Donald Rumsfeld's "axis of weasels" talk.

TotalElfFina does have some oil interests in Iraq but the French government has been blocking investment plans for ages now, due to UN sanctions. There are no real German oil interests, as there is no "German" oil company actually involved in any great game. That's obviously making it easier for Germany to remain on the moral high ground. Russia, of course, is heavily involved and scared to death. But they also see a chance to actually get some of their loans back once the Iraq can again legally export significant quota's of oil.

>So, you're right: no one wants France to be
>subservient. We just want them to be more
>straightforward. And a sense of appreciation for
>American sacrifice in keeping France free
>wouldn't hurt.

In which way? Again, being grateful ("a sense of appreciation for American sacrifice") is different from being subservient - how do you feel the appreciation should be expressed in deeds. By simply following? Seriously, it's a fine line.

>But since you brought it up: subservience does
>seem to be a strong part of French national
>culture at this point anyway; "surrender
>monkeys," as they're known in some quarters. It
>would be nice if the French did stiffen their
>spine a bit. They might start by themselves
>standing up to the threat aganst the West,
>instead of relying wholly -- yet again -- on the
>US to keep them free.

As much as I love France, i have to admit that some people say of Jaques Chirac that he has never held an opinion of his own in decades of what must be described as a succesful political career... and they have proof.

Posted by: Tobias Schwarz on January 24, 2003 10:26 PM

Well, I'm not sure how much we disagree after all. But what the hell, let's try this:

"there must be a reason when large parts of the Western world which he claims to defend are getting more scared of Bush than of Saddam Hussein."

I guess I'd say to those parts of the Western world: go screw yourself. Can't say, that is, I give a slice of Brie for those holding such a ludicrous opinion, and I certainly don't care to examine their "reason." However, outside the rarified precincts of the Guardian and Le Monde I don't know how large those parts really are. And there's another side to this coin: large parts of the Western world are tired to death of worldly French cynicism, sophisticated French double-dealing, counter-productive French posturing.

This is what I think it gets down to: by placing their parochial interests above all else the French may well bring about the dissolution of NATO and the neutering of the UN. To which I say, Great! They need us a lot more than we need them. So, maybe this is the French way of expressing gratitude after all. Merci and au revoir, mes amis.

Posted by: wm. tyroler on January 25, 2003 10:19 AM

"If you think about D-Day as an investment into eternal subservience, I am sorry the return on investment is not what you expected."

I think of D-Day as an investment in the moral education of the German- and French-speaking peoples of Europe. And not a very successful investment at that. World War II was caused by a systemic moral failure of the Continental nations. And that failure is still manifest today, albeit in an attenuated form.

I know you don't agree with this, but do you at least understand that what is being asked of you is not to be subservient to America, but to be moral! You should support America not because she is powerful but because she is right! If Continental culture were not so pathologically amoral, it would appreciate and honour Bush the way the civilized world appreciate and honoured Churchill. Oh ... but Germany and France never did. I wonder why that was? Probably because he, too, was just another warmonger who brought the world to the brink of disaster.

Posted by: Kolya on January 25, 2003 03:51 PM