Europe Must Adapt to U.S. View on Terror, NATO Chief Says
 

New York Times: Europe Must Adapt to U.S. View on Terror, NATO Chief Says

By WARREN HOGE

Published: November 11, 2004

UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 11 - The head of NATO said today that there was a critical "perception gap" between Europe and the United States on the subject of global terror and that Europeans must move closer to the American view of the seriousness of the threat.

"Your country focused very much on the fight against terror while in Europe we focused to a lesser extent on the consequences for the world," Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO's secretary general, said in an interview. "We looked at it from different angles, and that for me is one of the reasons you saw such frictions in the trans-Atlantic relationship."

As a result, he said, Europe was lagging behind the United States in merging external and internal security to combat terrorism, and Europe had to catch up.

"If the gap is to be bridged, it has to be done from the European side and not from the United States," he said, adding that the conflict in Iraq, the issue that helped divide the alliance, now provided an opportunity for uniting it.

"Where allies very much agree and must agree is the fact that whatever ways they have looked at the war in Iraq and the run-up to it and the split we saw, we cannot afford to see Iraq go up in flames," he said. "It is everyone's obligation that we get Iraq right."

Mr. de Hoop Scheffer is a former Dutch foreign minister who backed the Bush administration on the war in Iraq without alienating other European leaders and became NATO's head on Jan. 1. He said that a meeting he had with President Bush in Washington Wednesday should be taken as a sign that trans-Atlantic frictions had eased.

"It's not as if I came here with doubt and my meeting with the President washed it all away,'' he said. "I have never doubted that commitment, but whatever way you look at it, the fact that the secretary general of NATO is the first foreign visitor that President Bush has met since the election is a clear sign sign of the full commitment of this administration and of this president to the trans-Atlantic alliance."

NATO has been asked by the Iraqi government to train its security forces, and Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said that 10 of the 19 member states were contributing to that training, both within Iraq and in places outside Iraq, the preference of France, Germany and Spain - like Jordan and European military schools. He said he hoped to have the program fully operational by the end of the year.

The experience of Iraq had taught him two lessons as a European and an Atlanticist, he said.

"The first is that if Europe sees its integration process as one directed against the United States, it will not work because the result will be a split in Europe, and that is an ambition that no European should have,'' he said.

"The second is that if you want to have a trans-Atlantic dialogue between grownups, I know that any president and any American administration is willing to listen to the European voice as long as it is one European voice. If it is five different voices, they will not take the trouble to listen and they will wonder what is Europe."
...................
--------------------------------------------------------

A viewpoint that I didn't realize existed outside the US, and one that I'm glad to hear. One of the oldest and most successful military adages is, "Divide, and Conquer." It is to the terrorists' benefit alone that Europe and America remain divided. The sooner the 2 continents (historical allies who share the same values, after all) make amends and repair relations, the more effective will be the fight against the sworn enemy of both.

This is a day or two after the EU has stated it wants to be the military power of the future and move away from Nato.

And people don't think it was coincidence that Osama popped up on tv threatening the US just before the election? His worst enemy would have been Kerry. Kerry is the unknown and not as reviled by Europe as Bush. A lot of the non-cooperation between the US and Europe would have been dissolved, putting Osama in a more tenuous position.

As you say, divide and conquer.

Divide and Conquer?
This sounds more like "bunch 'em all together".

That's right. A concerted effort against terrorism is Osama's nightmare.

Glad to hear these thoughts coming from that side of the ocean. I don't know what an Atlanticist is, but I like the last two paragraphs of the article.

With all this getting along, is this the wrong to questions whether the U.S. should remain in NATO so long as so much anti-americanism exists in the governments of some of the member states? Yes, you France. Should we really be in any military alliance with France and Germany. I know that politics change, as do leaders, but do France and Germany really have our back?

NATO wants to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. in dealing with terror. And the U.S. has been following in the footsteps of Israel in dealing with terror.

And Israel has had zero success.

Brilliant idea. :rolleyes:


Go EU!

Maybe Israel has a problem b/c the terrorists that blow up its children are lauded as legitimate political leaders by much of the EU.

When push comes to shove I think they do, and vice-versa. Germany in fact is already quietly helping out in Iraq by allowing the US both a staging point and a emergency medical center where the US is taking its war casualties. Many European countries are also assisting in the training of Iraqi soldiers, outside of Iraq. Eastern Europe was a hugely important staging point at the onset of the war.

I think that, in private, the political leaders of Europe back this 'war on terror' just about to a country. The sensitive issue is how portray this support to its citizens. They do not want 100,000 anti-war protesters rioting in the streets. There is an enormous amount of quiet, low key diplomacy going on out of sight of the TV cameras and journalists. Everyone is aware of the growing problem, and steps are being taken, albeit quietly. The next step is to work on the public side of European-US relations.

Why not start by having our public stop calling their public dirty names and perjorative remarks?

Both sides are doing the same thing, so they should both stop it...

umm, yeah :rolleyes:

What do you mean with "have your back"? We did, and still do our part in Afghanistan and "enduring freedom"

We didn't agreed that Iraq was a legitimate target in the "war on terror" you still attacked, so it's your problem. AFAIK we still help the Iraq with training iraqi police forces (or we plan to do so, not sure). And, as powerclown said, german bases were used as a staging point. Which, if you are a nitpicker, violated our constitution.

So don't pretend that germany turn away completly from the USA, we disarge about some things, but we're not enemys.

Awfully lot of people seem to adapt to Bushs "either with us or against us" BS rethoric. :|

I don't think the Germany and France are enemies, but are we good enough friends to continue to be tied into NATO together, which is after all a military alliance, not just some trade treaty. I don't want to violate the German Constitution. I'd rather move our bases to a different country if it is going to be a problem. We can be friends, that's fine, but I would save military alliances for best friends--are we that or will we be that in the future? I don't pretend that Germany has turned its back completely on the US, but is anyone contending that there is not a strong anti-US trend in both France and Germany?

i dont think it is anti american, it is anti bush.
bush is too far on the right wing for europeans (in germany he would stood no chance in elections), I don't compare him to Hitler he is certanly not that extreme, but some of his viewpoints and decisions seem like a step in direction we tried some time ago, especially here in germany a lot of people are very suspicious about right wing tendencies.
we fail a bit to understand why half of america sees this guy as a good president.

a nice article about the difference between europe and the usa is here
Is God in the Bedroom?

Reconciliation would be a good thing, and it's good to suggest that Europe change it stance too, instead of expecting the US to just keel over

So, Germany is just anti-Bush. I think that's a convenient explanation, but I believe it goes deeper than that and it involves a resentment of American power and influence. Still, if it is only Bush you all are anti and, although not quite Hitler, his decisions seem like a step in the direction Germany tried some time ago (you mean as Nazi's right?) and you cannot see why over half of the country sees this guy as a good president, why don't we just be friends and see other people. Why do you want a military alliance with us? We'll do some trade and see each other around a little bit, but not every night. What do you think?

public opinion in france is overwhelmingly against the policies of george w bush
so what?

the us is an elephant in your living room.
despite the disparaging estimates you might make about the size of the elephants brain
the volume and frequency of your complaints about its decisions
because of your concern about the level of damage it could do,
if nothing else,
you still have get along with it.
because there is almost nothing more requiring of management than a huge and stupid beast in your living room
particularly when you suspect strongly that this particular elephant in your living room has tried to justify its actions internally by casting you as some kind of irrelevant force
an obstacle to the full deploying in space of the idiocy within
and so is inclined,
you think,
to view your living room with hostility



heh heh................nice fellow..........no no no dont do that.......um........peanut?


to defenders of elephants:
this tedious allegory requires a suspension of disbelief.
on the other hand, it does stage a relation:
this georgewbush elephant in your livingroom is to all elephants as this administration is to all americans.

NATO =! European Union and certainly not Europe.

--jaded