The Billiken's Bluff

Western civilization faces a point in history where its future, bound tightly to our great war with terrorism and its allies, hinges on America’s ability to engage and lead world powers in that international struggle. But the eminent philosophical disparity that exists between us and a number of European leaders has our nation stuck between a Chirac and a hard place.

Let me first say this. While the election’s questionable exit polling suggested a “moral values” divide among red and blue states and underscored the cultural war over issues like stem cell research and gay marriage, the more relevant questions for Americans today almost surely revolve around principles of foreign policy and international relations. Even a closer look at the dubious polling reveals that Americans understand this; when added up, the number of people who responded that the most important issue to them was the war in Iraq or the war on terrorism far outweighs the number of people who, en masse, cited moral issues as a reason for their vote.

This is a crucial point for our northeast liberal friends to grasp. Since the election, one salient complaint amongst their litany has been that Americans would vote based on “moral issues” when the presidential candidates presented such divergent views on a preferable approach to foreign policy and our relations with other countries, and when in fact these are issues which should be at the forefront of our national conscience. I could not agree more with this frustration. But inasmuch as blue-state liberals inarguably see themselves as the moral and intellectual superiors of Bush supporters, they have become dangerously comfortable with the notion that they lost their electoral struggle to people who, when it comes to our relations with foreign powers and allies, are either woefully misinformed or entirely ambivalent.

In their own minds, November’s discontents care ever so much more about our international alliances and relations abroad than do their simple-minded, bigoted neighbors in the red states. In fact, insofar as John Kerry and John Edwards had a resonating message at all, it was this suggestion that they wouldn’t “push allies aside,” and that they knew how to “bring them to the table.” Our relations with nations like France and Germany, we were told, could be expected to benefit enormously from a “fresh start.” (The seemingly unexpected announcement from the German Foreign Ministry that their non-involvement in Iraq would not change regardless of the election outcome, amusingly, did nothing to change the tune of this campaign theme song.)

But enough about the Johns – let’s talk about Jacques. I was compelled to strike up this Billiken post several days ago when I read about the French president’s statements after the reelection of George Bush. Understandably, perhaps, Chirac was a little malheureux with this development. One presumes that Mr. Chirac, himself an avid Anti-Bushocrat of the Parisian flavor, subscribed to the Kerry/Edwards dictum that a “fresh start” was just what the doctor ordered for a case American foreign policy malaise. Chirac certainly remained bitter that the Bush administration had been somewhat successful in dividing European opinion on the subject of the Iraq war, having enlisted the support of leaders like Tony Blair and Billiken’s Bluff hero Vaclav Havel.

As Chirac sniffed:

“Well, Britain gave its support, but I did not see much in return. I am not sure that it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favors systematically."

When I read this, I was stunned at how perfectly the statement encapsulated the aforementioned “philosophical disparity” when it comes the European and American approach to foreign policy. It is, to me, a flawless expression of a misunderstanding of international relations that stains the prevalent American liberal views on foreign and continues to hinder progress in transatlantic relations. Absolument parfait, you might say.

This talk of “unreturned favors” reminded me immediately of one my favorite passages in early American political discourse, from George Washington’s farewell address to the nation in 1796. (I beg you to read it in its entirety when you a chance). In it, he famously warns of “entangling alliances” during another time in history when Britain and France stood (more violently) in opposition with each other and America’s two prominent parties, the Federalists and Jefferson’s then-developing opposition party the Democratic Republicans (the Arlen Specter party?), were determined to remain neutral but were at odds themselves over which foreign power to favor.

I have always valued Washington’s insight into the foundations of effective relations with foreign powers when he rejects the idea of exchanging “favors” as a means of conducting foreign policy and set the country he served as president on a different course:

“There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.”

Presciently, perhaps, Washington also suggests that an effort to employ favors in foreign relations will invariably be met with “ingratitude for not giving more” (ah, he did know the French).

As I believe Washington understood, true cooperation among nations is built on an understanding of common interests, and most effectively on long-term common goals. In Europe, at the time, the practice of trying to ensure cooperation largely involved promising and exchanging favors through an interminable series of treaties, accords and royal pinky-ring kisses. It was a practice that was to persist with devastating results through much of their history. Signed oaths and pledges, often hurriedly or secretly completed for the sake of short-term goals and flimsy “alliances,” were at the heart of a painful history that had seen centuries of war and had yet to witness the break-out of World War I and the appeasement of Hitler, who only had to sign a dotted line to convince Europe of innocent intentions.

There’s a reason, then, why Rumsfeld disparaged a Chirac-led western coalition against U.S. interest as “Old Europe.” Chirac still lives in a world where agreements are brokered on gentleman’s promises, shady deals and returned promises. Contrast the despicable oil deals struck between France and Saddam Hussein with the embrace of a common dream of spreading freedom and democracy that was behind someone like Vaclav Havel’s support of George Bush. Read this letter signed by eight European leaders from January 30, 2003. No really, read it. That is what real international cooperation looks like.

Chirac, as one can read from his quote, cannot fathom why Tony Blair would support the U.S., when he does not have “favors” coming to him. He simply does not understand that in the world, real favors are the support of a country that will fight alongside you – wholeheartedly – for the same interests as yourself. For Tony, the payoff wasn’t seeing some unrelated benefits handed to him down the line, it was being able to offer his courageous backing of something he actually believed in. It was his fight, too.

When it comes to Europe, we need to make our foreign policy initiatives – whether in Iraq or North Korean or wherever – their fight. Real cooperation in international relations is developed when separate parties are able to recognize long-term mutual goals and their interactions are brought under the “shadow of the future.” Bribery and coercion will not achieve this. Leadership that has a strong and clear vision for the future can.

Do Americans understand this? On November 2nd our electorate narrowly avoided placing an American version of Jacques Chirac in office. John Kerry amazingly claimed that he could improve our transatlantic relations and be more effective at including allies in the mission, despite the fact that he himself did not believe in what we were doing in Iraq, contradicting himself unendingly and – when not referring to it as part of the war on terrorism – calling it the “wrong war,” and a “grand diversion.” His opponent, in a debate he “lost,” asked the world how we could send someone like John Kerry – himself not a believer - to ask allies to “join us is a grand diversion.” Indeed we could not.

This month Americans embraced George Bush’s leadership and his policies. That this includes not only opposition to gay marriage and limits to stem cell research is something New York liberals will choke on but have to swallow. I for one voted for Bush largely because I prefer the Washingtonian and Havellian view of foreign policy, not the Chirac version. In our international struggle we have an absolute responsibility to encourage other national leaders to truly embrace our goals such as the spread of democracy and freedom in the Middle East, and understand why it is in their people's interest, the way the world’s Blairs or Howards or Havels have. In doing so we cannot rely on the promise of favors.

Bush announced last week that he planned to visit Europe after he is sworn in for a second term in January. "In my second term, I will work to deepen our trans-Atlantic ties with the nations of Europe," the president said. We can be assured by the president’s past statements (even in debates he lost), by his relationships with people like Blair, and by the strength of his convictions that he will do so with a true understanding of what builds real and effective alliances.

Liberals, as is their nature, will continue to sneer that Bush and his supporters do not care about these relationships, and are too stupid or ignorant anyway to make them work. But they are the ones, we can be sure, who have a lot to learn.
_