| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Raw Meat for Rantburgers |
| 2006-03-12 |
Finding Unity On Terrorism By Wolfgang Ischinger [German ambassador to the U.S.] When I presented my credentials to President Bush in the summer of 2001, the Atlantic was quiet. The risks confronting the transatlantic community appeared to be few, well defined and manageable. As a new ambassador in Washington, I expected to find enough time to refresh my pilot's license. Then came Sept. 11. At first the traumatic events of that day appeared to bring the West together. NATO took the initiative to invoke Article 5, the defense clause of the North Atlantic Treaty, for the first time in the 50-year history of the alliance. Shortly thereafter, the German government took a step unprecedented in postwar history by dispatching troops abroad, to Afghanistan. The transatlantic community defined our shared objectives as pursuing international terrorism, and denying terrorists safe haven in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Today, as we continue to pursue these objectives, an even more complex challenge confronts us: radical Islam and the likelihood of even greater terrorist threats and a potential for escalating political, cultural and religious tension between the West on the one hand and the Muslim world on the other. The situation is particularly serious because security threats and instability in the greater Middle East have continued to grow. In Iraq, terrorist violence remains widespread, along with civil strife and sectarian political division, with no good end in sight. In Iran, hope for a negotiated settlement regarding that country's nuclear ambitions has become uncertain. The future of the international nonproliferation regime is at risk; a Shiite nuclear capability might lead to Sunni nuclear ambitions. At the same time, Iran appears to be the principal beneficiary of growing Shiite influence in the region, adding a new element of regional instability. The dream of transforming the entire region by getting rid of Saddam Hussein and creating democracy through elections has turned out to be elusive. In Iraq, Iran, Egypt and the Palestinian territories, recent elections have actually tended to strengthen radical political groups. While the very holding of elections in Iraq and the Palestinian territories is a success, these developments have so far not contributed to regional stability -- on the contrary. Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is difficult, after the Hamas victory, to imagine how a negotiating process leading to the proposed two-state solution can be conducted and concluded in the near term. In short, there is more than enough fuel available in the region to further stoke the radical fire. What is new is that the battleground of this emerging larger conflict will most likely not be in the continental United States, as was the case on Sept. 11, but rather in the European-Mediterranean space: Europe, or Europe's back yard. What is also new is the element of personal fear beginning to descend upon Europeans -- as it descended upon Americans on Sept. 11. This is the fear inspired not only by terrorist train bombings in London and Madrid but by political assassinations in the Netherlands and, more recently, the dramatic escalation of the cartoon controversy in Denmark. It is the fear of being personally threatened. Europe would cease to be the Europe we know, love and admire, if its people came to fear that insisting on their values and their way of life might put their safety and lives at risk. Will Europeans and Americans find a common answer to this challenge? Some appear all too willing to speak of the "clash of civilizations" as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some in Europe might wish to go so far as to identify America's war in Iraq as the source of all problems, and some might prefer to dissociate themselves from a common transatlantic position, believing that the battlefield would then shift away from Europe. In America, the old prejudice against a weak Europe with inefficient leadership, unable or unwilling to defend itself and to deal with the issue of Muslim integration, might be reinforced. How, then, should we move forward? Here are three simple thoughts: · First, no serious effort has been undertaken to create a security structure for the Middle East -- the most volatile and, because of its oil resources, most important of all regions. Incorporating Israel into NATO, as has recently been proposed, would satisfy neither Israel's security needs nor those of the West. It would only exacerbate tension between NATO and the Arab world. Instead, an effective regional security arrangement would need to take into account the interests of Israel as well as those of Iran and the Arab countries, and it would need to be led and supported by the United States, Europe and Russia. As has recently been suggested, the U.N. Security Council might provide a framework for the elaboration of such an arrangement. · Second, as repeatedly suggested by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, NATO's role as the central forum for discussing and deciding transatlantic security issues should be strengthened. Europeans should make clear their desire for America to remain a European power. Those in Europe who believe that the European Union would be in a better position to develop its own defense policy if it were weaned from American military support are unwittingly playing into the hands of American isolationists -- to the detriment of European security. And those in Europe who continue to believe Europe should define its security policy independently from the United States have failed to understand that such an approach would inevitably divide the European Union. · Third, the West -- as a political and moral concept -- must remain united. This is about more than just NATO, the European Union and free trade -- it is about the legacy of the European Enlightenment. Opposing absolutism, and believing in people's ability to create self-balancing and self-regulating, just, relativist and secular political systems: That is the Enlightenment's gift to the world, and it continues to be the West's promise. But the West can lead only if it in turn is led responsibly by the United States as the only superpower, and if it can reoccupy the Many people in other parts of the world doubt whether our struggle against terrorism and for freedom, democracy and human rights is a struggle worth joining, a struggle with which they can or should identify. If we, the Western countries, are being measured by a higher standard than others, we should accept that and lead by example. This is therefore the central challenge for the West in 2006: how to regain the moral high ground. Not winning the war - heavens no! The pursuit of post-Enlightenment ideals requires us to demonstrate that even as we fight terrorism we are prepared to take into account the interests of the global community, of all those whose cooperation we seek, whose values and culture we respect, and whose development and prosperity we support. We must refuse to see that as a false choice As I prepare to leave Washington for London, one thing is clear: There will be even less time in the future to take flying lessons. We're too busy studying shari'a law now. The writer ended his tour as Germany's ambassador to the United States yesterday. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #12 As O'REILLY and other Conservative commentators have argued, America power is economic i.e. we want your money and business, NOT your God(s) or your identity. However, imperfect or defective, this precept of Americana/Americanism ican serve as a valid basis for globalism and even for idealist Utopianism. However, as OR, etal. also state, in paraphrase, THE RADICAL- OR ULTRA/HARD-LEFT THAT CURR CONTROLS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ULTIMATELY WANTS AMERICA TO GIVE UP ITS SOVEREIGNTY AND BE GOVERNED BY A GROUP OF WORLD STATES, A GROUP WHICH IN ALL LIKELIHOOD WILL BE ANTI-AMERICAN IN NATURE, AND END UP BEING DOMINATED BY RUSSIA-CHINA BY VIRTUE OF THE LATTER TWO NATIONS' MILITARY-GEOPOL CAPABILITIES VV THE USA-NATO/WEST. This means that in the LT any US-achieved, post-WOT world order is to be modified and handed over to nations whom will only give, at best, some but not great or substantive, consideration to the desires of the American people, AND THAT POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS, POLICRATS AND GOVERNMENTISTS - LOCAL, STATE, NATIONAL, and EXTRA-NATIOHAL - WILL INEVITABLY DECIDE AMERICA'S POLICIES AND DESTINY, NOT ITS PEOPLE NOR ITS VOTERS. Americans can fight and die for an Empire America is not allowed to govern in its own right. Lefties = Radical Muslims = want to destroy the good/best things in life they have in return for what is worse or hated, and as long as someone else, not they, gets the blame and the bills. Rather than understand why it didn't work, or work to change, their answer to make everything in the world as defective whether necessary or not. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-03-12 23:37 |
| #11 All those polysybillic words strung together make me wanna puke. Can you spell puke? BBh |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2006-03-12 22:26 |
| #10 Thanks for your kind service, gnadige Herr. (Yes, I know enough Deutsch to realize I am not being nice.....) |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2006-03-12 22:22 |
| #9 "The pursuit of post-Enlightenment ideals " Like the French Revolution, Napoleonism, communism, fascism, modern day suicidal soft-core socialism, multiculturalism, evangelical atheism, fundamentalist humanism, and post-modernism? The real ideals of the Enlightenment have rested here in the U. S. (with some notable exceptions) for more than two centuries now. Who is this Euro trying to kid? Moral high ground my ass - this guy and his fellow travellers wouldn't know what the moral high ground was if it reached out and bit them on their noses. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2006-03-12 18:29 |
| #8 I was okay with it until he got to his "three simple thoughts". I much prefer Bush and Cheney's simple thoughts to his drivel. "...the legacy of the European Enlightenment..." A look at European history since their 18th century enlightenment is not comforting, especially German history. I prefer the legacy of American enlightenment myself, thank you very much. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-03-12 16:04 |
| #7 Is this the same Germ Amb who hosted a dinner and lectured the reporter on eeevil Americans? Or is this a different arrogant gutless Germ Amb? |
| Posted by: Cloth Snatch4013 2006-03-12 15:41 |
| #6 Well, being able to say nothing with thousands of words is the essential diplomatic skill. As far as that goes this fellow is a complete professional. |
| Posted by: buwaya 2006-03-12 13:20 |
| #5 Stockholm syndrome |
| Posted by: DMFD 2006-03-12 12:16 |
| #4 actually if you take out the prescriptions that depend on wishful thinking, the moral preening and the diplospeak weaseling, this man has said essentially nothing at all and took several hundred words to do it |
| Posted by: mhw 2006-03-12 11:16 |
| #3 There is so much rubbish and outrage in this piece that one hardly knows where to start. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-03-12 11:13 |
| #2 This is therefore the central challenge for the West in 2006: how to regain the moral high ground. Yeah, that critical moral high ground. Can't act all sanctimonious and shit unless you ocuppy it. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-03-12 10:40 |
| #1 The writer ended his tour as Germany's ambassador to the United States yesterday Not a day too soon.... thanks for the heaping helping of dripping condescension, Ambassador. Don't let the doorknob hit you on the ass on the way out. |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2006-03-12 09:18 |