RTWT; covers the whole world, but this section stuck out.
... The real problem was Germany. It is interesting that the Kerry people have not made U.S.-German relations more of a focus, because, in fact, what has changed is that Germany sided with Paris rather than with Washington in this latest round. There are a lot of factors there, but I think the reality is that even before the invasion of Iraq, when Gerhard Schroeder was re-elected chancellor on a pledge to oppose Bush's policies no matter what, the die was cast. Bush at that point had not taken a lot of the steps seen as so provocative later.
Another factor is that Europe, in the last 10 years, believed it was strong and getting stronger and more important [as a result of] the euro and the development of European institutions. The United States was going to have to pay more attention to Europe. And in the United States, very quietly, I think both Democrats and Republicans were thinking maybe in the future we'll pay less attention to them. The Europeans are not spending money on their military. They are not a source of threat, but they are also not particularly willing to do a lot to help us beyond their own immediate interests. And on probably our biggest long-term issue, the future of Asia, Europe has no real interest. You could look at a country like India, which is concerned about the Middle East and about the future of China, and argue that the connections between American and Indian interests are greater than the connection between American and European interests in the future.
This is a tectonic shift. I blame the Bush people for rubbing salt in wounds and being unnecessarily provocative. But I think the structural changes in U.S.-European relations are probably something no administration could control. |