The Divergence of the Transatlantic Relationship

The Divergence of the Transatlantic Relationship

Netherlands, 14.6.2004

The transatlantic relationship is currently diverging, reflecting differing views on the nature of a civilized and global society. This divergence is occurring as the United States grapples with unsustainable national and private debt, significant trade deficits, and struggling social programs, including healthcare and education. The recent budget has pushed the deficit to approximately $400 billion, around 4% of the GDP, exacerbating these issues.

Reflecting on recent events, we must question if this is the world we wish to inhabit: a world where might makes right, and the United States unilaterally decides the fate of other nations’ leaders. This approach fails to address critical global challenges such as poverty, environmental degradation, AIDS, barriers to economic development, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Alternatively, do we aspire to live in a world governed by international law and universal values?

The reality is that the US and its allies have occupied Iraq against the international community’s will, without clear aggression from Iraq against another sovereign state. This action has undermined the entire international system, which is based on mutual recognition of national sovereignty, by initiating the war against Iraq.

This unprecedented move defies the modern diplomatic principle of justifying wars and national self-determination through mutual recognition of sovereignty, a principle enshrined in the United Nations’ constitution. The last Gulf War was justified because Iraq invaded and annexed a sovereign state. Iraq was the aggressor, making the attack justifiable under international norms. Without such justification, as seen with the current situation in Iraq, UN support and coalition backing would not have been possible.

Domestic repression in Iraq does not justify a direct attack on a sovereign state, nor does the unproven possession of weapons of mass destruction or alleged support for international terrorism. The Bush administration’s actions contravene universal law and American democratic principles, which prioritize the rule of law over arbitrary power. This pre-emptive strategy resembles Wilhelm II’s pan-German expansionism before 1914, characterized by unrealistic geopolitical ambitions and a pre-emptive approach to opponents.

Bush’s policies are leading to a clash of civilizations, akin to the mentality that precipitated World War I in imperial Germany. In contrast, the social safety net in Germany of 1914, established by Bismarck, was far superior to that of present-day America. Bush can be likened to Bethmann Hollweg, who, through the Schlieffen Plan, created enemies faster than he could defeat them, a situation mirrored by the Bush administration’s actions in the Muslim world.

Historical examples from Rome, China, and the British Empire demonstrate that military dominance is not a prerequisite for national security.

The Bush administration’s strategy is troubling, as it undermines 50 years of treaty-based internationalism and coalitions grounded in institutions like the UN, which is built on a common set of values and international law. While the UN has had its shortcomings, the alternatives are far worse, as the US and its allies will soon discover.

The Bush administration’s assertion that the Security Council has failed in its responsibilities is disturbing, presenting the US as an independent judge above the international community. This arrogance threatens to dismantle the UN, the only global governance system we have. The neo-conservative vision is one where American power imposes its will on the world, disregarding international law and values.

The Bush administration envisions a world dominated by American primacy, reshaped in its image, and governed by the United States with minimal interference from allies. This world view dismisses the importance of legal and institutional opposition from international bodies, making the UN an obstacle to neo-conservative ambitions. The administration’s message is clear: might makes right, and everyone else must either comply or oppose.

This disastrous policy has damaged international institutions, legitimizing war as a state policy instrument, a concept society has fought against since the Treaty of Westphalia. By attacking Iraq, the US has abandoned principles guiding its foreign policy for over 50 years, breaking the rule that democracies do not wage preventive wars. This unprecedented shift has tarnished America’s reputation as a benevolent power, now seen as undermining the same rules, values, and institutions it helped establish.

Consequently, America is now viewed as a dangerous and unreliable partner, pursuing its agenda regardless of allies’ views and interests. UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw warned of the consequences if America isolates itself in a unipolar world, a fear that has already materialized under the Bush administration.

This trajectory will lead to a new global alignment, with more countries and terrorist organizations seeking weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent against US imperialism. In response, Europe must accelerate building its own strong union to promote values and better world governance based on multilateralism and international law.

Europe will need to reassess institutions like NATO, the EU, IMF, World Bank, and WTO, and leverage its economic power, including using the euro instead of the US dollar and reducing US treasury bill holdings. Despite current challenges, as long as the UN maintains universal membership and is recognized as the sole authority to legitimize state violence, it remains a significant problem for the Bush administration.

The US, having acted without international legitimacy in Iraq, must now cooperate with UN members, acknowledging the UN’s central role in Iraq. However, institutional reforms are necessary to address contemporary challenges, shaping our world for better or worse in the coming years and decades. Today, the US acts like a 19th-century power, embodying a liberal imperialist or nationalist stance once abhorred. My American friends must question if this is the world they wish to inhabit.

WJJH-14.6.2004

Diatribe: The transatlantic relationship is diverging as the US grapples with debt, trade deficits, and social program struggles. The occupation of Iraq undermines international sovereignty and the UN. The Bush administration’s aggressive actions risk a clash of civilizations, damaging international institutions and US reputation. This calls for Europe to strengthen its union and promote multilateralism