[Opinion] A Time for Europe to Take the Lead

After the end of the cold war, the U.S. became the sole superpower in the international arena. They have assumed leadership in the areas of international politics and economy.

Even when we look back in history, there was no nation that had the kind of wealth and influence as the U.S. Unlike the British Empire in the 19th century, the U.S. does not have a strategic enemy nation. The economic rivals Europe and Japan are political partners for the U.S.

The U.S. does not have geographic ambitions like the Roman Empire, but it commands global power. The power of American technology and military might was clearly evident in Afghanistan.

The question is how to use that power which has no historical precedents. Some political commentators within the U.S. are stressing the need for an American supremacy in the 21st century, built more on power than cooperation.

These persons along with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and others in the Department of Defense are arguing that the war on terrorism in Afghanistan must expand into Iraq, Syria, and other Middle Eastern countries. The George W. Bush administration has played a principal role in pushing for an American unilateralism since its inception.

After September 11, many foreign observers hoped that the war on terrorism, which requires forming alliances and multilateral cooperation, would bring about a change in the U.S. government`s world perspective. The U.S. government, too, lowered its unilateral tone for several months. As the war in Afghanistan neared its end, however, and the U.S. no longer needed the partnership of its allies, American unilateralists began to raise their voice once again.

Most recently, the Bush administration has decided to withdraw from the Anit-Ballistic Missile Treaty which went into effect in 1972. It has also refused to accept the authorization agreement for the Biological Weapons Convention. Furthermore, the U.S. is trying to implement military trials, which disregards the order of the international criminal court. This cannot be justified by any standards whatsoever.

The decision to withdraw from the ABM is not sensible. It will only bring about unnecessary friction with Russia and China. Even if there is some imaginary threat, the argument that the U.S. needs facilities that can intercept ballistic missiles domestically is unpersuasive. What nation, even the so-called `Rogue States`, would fire a nuclear missile at the U.S. and bring about their own destruction?

It would be more efficient for terrorists to use small-sized nuclear weapons with radioactive material than firing actual nuclear missiles. A mechanism for intercepting anti-ballistic missiles will not be of any help in preventing this kind of threat.

Furthermore, the ABM treaty does not ban research on missile defense. The U.S. can form a plan for dealing with the nuclear missile threat without withdrawing from the treaty.

The decision on biological weapons is even more questionable. The BWC is not a panacea. This is why only a strict inspection system can lessen the threat of biological terrorism.

In spite of this, the Bush administration does not want an international body inspecting American bio-chemical weapon facilities. It is fine to inspect other nations, but the U.S. will not accept inspection of its own grounds.

Even though the anthrax virus used to spread the virus in the U.S. is a strain manufactured in a domestic lab, the U.S. will not change its attitude. To state it concisely, U.S. policy is not internationalist but merely nationalist.

This can be a dangerous precedent. If the U.S. does not want to abide by international regulations, systems, and inspections, what other nation will want to do so?

After the Second World War, American leaders understood that power and responsibility came together, and being a superpower nation meant a greater responsibility. Franklin D. Roosevelt and his successors established a multidimensional organized system to build security and bring prosperity, and effectively promoted national interests.

Today`s Bush administration is trying to bring back the broken dream of American supremacy and is shaking up that kind of system.

If the U.S. is neglecting its responsibility in leading the world, another nation needs to take its place. East and South Asian voices on sensitive areas such as the Middle East can only be limited. It is time for Europe to step up. If the European Union wants to have the leading hand in forming a new world system in the next 20 years, it will have to unite in action.

Philip Golub (University of Paris VIII, France)