| 摘要 | During my time at NATO, when I got to know and respect George W. Bush, I found that mine was a lonely voice in telling people that this president was quite different from the European stereotypes of him. He was surer and more self-confident than he projected and a whole lot smarter than his many critics portrayed. I also saw a president interested in listening, in questioning and in paying attention to the replies — and a man who shouldn’t be underestimated. After last week’s U.S. elections, I’m not nearly so alone.
* * *
The president, and his new team, must now turn their attention back to the world outside the election bubble. After the difficulties in trans-Atlantic relations over the past three years, the time is right for the U.S. to sharply query especially its European allies, and listen carefully to the answers. Iraq remains the world’s most urgent problem. If it is to be sorted, Mr. Bush needs to get more Europeans on board.
So the first question, both to those like the Hungarians and Spaniards who are pulling troops out of Iraq and those who never sent any, must be: “What is your plan if Iraq fails?” Follow that up with this one: “Won’t the shock waves of a failure in Iraq hit Berlin and Paris before Wisconsin or Iowa?” The predictable answer to the first question will be, “Not our problem, mate, you broke it, so you own it.” But the U.S. should be persistent, since the second question hits closer to home for the Europeans. Smart-ass glibness from some European leaders won’t protect them, and their countries, from any implosion in Iraq. They know that better than they publicly admit.
The U.S. could strike a deal with Europe. Washington must recognize that the holdouts on Iraq are in a politically difficult position. There’s now an aversion to casualties in Europe that Europeans used to deride when, in the pre-9/11 era, it was American. Terrorists in Iraq can kidnap a nurse or a driver or murder a soldier and play the European media like a symphony. So any help to the coalition, despite a clear U.N. mandate, will be unpopular in the short-term. European politicians want to be re-elected, too.
The model for Iraq should be the NATO’s successful deployments in Bosnia and Kosovo, its biggest military interventions before Afghanistan and Iraq. A lot of troops from a lot of nations joined up under the aegis of NATO. We had soldiers from some 36 states including the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Morocco; no forces from a Muslim, not to mention Arab, country are in Iraq today. We also had unnatural NATO mates like Russia and Ukraine on the ground. We had a lot of money, focused diplomacy and a shared determination to stop the killing and build a nation. We were occupiers but nobody said it, never mind killed us for it. Nine years after the first deployment, Bosnia is a functioning state and five-sixths of the troops have gone home. We must do the same for Iraq.
What can the U.S. do in return for Europe? The priority, above all others, is the blood-soaked stalemate between the Israelis and the Palestinians. If the next Bush administration addresses that, it will show that peace and stability in the Middle East region means more than just getting quickly out of Iraq. Second, it will remove the principal paraffin pump from the flames of discontent among the young in the Arab street. The passing of Yasser Arafat gives the U.S. president a unique opportunity to act.
Intelligent thinking is rare in global security dialogues today, but Germany’s foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, or France’s, Michel Barnier, can use the new situation to win justice for the Palestinians that they’ve so long passionately advocated. All they have to do in return is take a serious, grown-up, and self-interested look at how their great nations can help tame the violent minority in the Sunni triangle.
The divisive debate over Iraq sundered the Atlantic alliance, and could now bring it back together. Contrary to another European stereotype, President Bush, in my experience, never wavered in his belief in and support for NATO. It wasn’t just Bush family sentimentality for the half-century old alliance. NATO is a practical asset for its members. The radical modernization of the alliance after 9/11, with the creation of the NATO Response Force and the new Transformation Command, simply wouldn’t have happened without a strong push from the U.S.
The belief in the effectiveness of multilateral alliances must not stop with NATO. More difficult, but no less rewarding, will be to modernize the U.N. Throwing rocks at the U.N. was good electoral fun, tapping into a (mostly healthy) heartland prejudice against soft diplomacy and bloated bureaucracy. But there is only one world body, and it is essential to make the global neighborhood safer. Just as at NATO, no reform of the U.N. will be possible without U.S. muscle and money. Today, absurdly, 19 separate, rival U.N. agencies have offices in Afghanistan. To sort out Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. in its own interest needs a slimmer, faster United Nations.
* * *
President Bush said that he will use his electoral mandate for the benefit of all. He is a man of his word and that simple “what you see is what you get” philosophy helped him back to the White House. The president should get his people out of the electoral, and Washington, bubble and into the world — to explain, to listen, and to consult. There’s a raging debate about American policy out there, and for the past six months of electioneering, the U.S. voice has been mostly absent. American policymakers need to take part in the debate, as emissaries not missionaries.
In a second term, President Bush can secure the place in the history books denied his father by bringing real security to a better world — a world where freedom, pluralist democracy, and the rule of law make sure that Americans are not threatened at home or abroad. It’s only possible with true and engaged allies and friends on board. |
