There just
ain't no quick fix!
By
Martina Law
Published March 2005
In the face of the Madrid and
London bombings; in the face of
the many lost lives of European
civilians that tried to help
rebuild a battled region;
in the face of all this, it almost
seems disrespectful if not
outrages to claim that Europe is
content to sit out the war, hoping
that violence never finds a way
within its borders. To set the
record straight, many European
nations already have had a long
history of violence and terrorism,
such as Spain’s Basque Fatherland
and Liberty (ETA), Northern
Ireland’s Irish Republican Army
(IRA), Germany’s once Rote
Armee Fraktion (RAF), or
Italy’s
Brigate Rosse
(BR). But with the attacks in
Spain’s and Britain’s capitals,
a different wave of
terrorism has reached Europe’s
core,
adding a new
dynamic. This one stirs up
populations, politics, and
strategy about the best way to
meet the terrorism threat. And
Europe’s “best” way may not be
compatible with the U.S.’.
Almost
two years after the war first
started in Iraq, European
discontent with America and its
policies intensified rather than
diminished. Particularly since
doubts about the motives behind
the U.S.-led war on terrorism
abound an increasing number of
European nations have wanted
foreign policy and security
arrangements independent from the
U.S. Across Europe, perceptions of
American unilateralism are
spreading, and the majority of
European countries even believe
the conflict in Iraq would
undermine the war on terrorism.
It is
difficult to determine why the
U.S. decided to attack Iraq with
such minimal international support
and without waiting for the final
conclusion
to be reached by UN inspectors.
To many European nations, as well
as to the UN, this decision was a
slap in the face. According to an
interview with British broadcaster
BBC, UN general secretary Kofi
Annan declared the war on Iraq
“not in conformity
with the
UN Charter from my point, and from
the
Charter point of view it was
illegal.”
Does
it mean that the majority of
Europe not joining the U.S. in its
“march for freedom” is oblivious
to the situation? Not at all
because Europe cares. But the
minute it wanted to sit down for
talks, the U.S. turned its back on
it to pursue its own strategy.
Now, it’s not Europe that whines;
it’s the U.S. But instead of
admitting that its decision might
have been rushed and not well
thought through, the U.S.
administration becomes more
defiant and less open to
criticism.
I’m
not saying that Europe has a
better way to fight terrorism. In
fact, it does not and is still in
search of one. But I argue that it
may have a better understanding of
the situation. Looking back at its
own history, no European would
have ever thought that the former
Eastern block countries would one
day be free democracies. But
democracy in these countries was
not something imposed by an
outsider, it was a process that
had to start inside the minds of
the many peoples.
In my
opinion, the U.S. administration
lacks a great deal of diplomacy
and understanding. Seriously,
what did this administration
expect? To march into Iraq with
its weapons, blow everything up,
impose their Western ideals onto a
society deeply rooted in Islamic
religion and traditions, and
eventually be hailed as heroes?
This
is no Hollywood Rambo version but
a real life situation. And
particularly this situation
requires more diplomacy than the
U.S. president can obviously
handle. Mr. President, there just
ain’t no quick fix!
©
2006 All content property of European Weekly unless where otherwise
accredited
