 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 The Invasion
Interactive feature of the most complex attack ever conceived
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
E-mail your letter to the editor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BROOKS KRAFT/CORBIS FOR TIME
|
|
OLD FRIENDS: U.S. President George W. Bush arrives to hold a joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair |
 |
| Where's The Old Magic? |
 |
|
|
|
|
How the Atlantic allies, as they meet to remember D-day, can rekindle a once powerful friendship |
|
|
|
|
|
By J.F.O. MCALLISTER/LONDON |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, May 23, 2004
George W. Bush arrives in Europe next week to commemorate the glorious victory over fascism that began with D-day, but let's face it: this doesn't feel like a time for celebration. The 60th anniversary of the Atlantic alliance's greatest triumph comes at the lowest point in its history. The inevitable comparison—between the righteous, successful American-led invasion and occupation of Europe and the divisive, troubled American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq—will surely launch a thousand newspaper columns.
When Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair gather in Normandy with the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Russia and 10 other countries, all will praise the achievements of history's most durable alliance. But Iraq will never be far from their minds. Bush and Blair saw Iraq as a key battle in the defining struggle of our times—the war on terrorism—but failed to persuade most of their principal allies or the European public. And as most Europeans see it now, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction and the chaos in Iraq have only confirmed the wisdom of their opposition to the war. President Bush does not accept a single element of this critique. Yet his Administration, which originally disdained help from countries that doubted him, now would welcome their soldiers and money. But help is not on the way. France and Germany have made it clear that they won't send troops, and last week German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said he had "doubts" about whether any NATO forces should go. Britain is reluctant to send more soldiers.
All this leaves the alliance in need of medicine much stronger than the bromides likely to be doled out on June 6. If the grand partnership that beat the Nazis and the U.S.S.R. is going to last, it must find its way to common ground. There's no better place to start the search than Normandy, and no better time than now. The allies meet three times in the next month, not only for mood music in France but also for substance at a G-8 summit on Sea Island, Ga., and again at a NATO meeting in Istanbul. George Robertson, the British former NATO Secretary-General, says that "with everyone in the same room at the same time, they won't be able to run away from the problems." Don't expect a Marshall Plan for the Middle East by the end of June, but if leaders want to begin healing the alliance, here are a few things they should try.
Get Past the Anger
If the ceremonies in Normandy achieve anything, it will be to help stem the rage that continues to poison both sides of the alliance. Iraq isn't the only problem issue; differences have been building since the collapse of the Soviet Union removed the focus of a common threat. And since Bush became President, divergent views on global warming, deference to international law, the "axis of evil" and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have widened the gulf. Christopher Meyer, former British ambassador to Washington, says the alliance "has lost a lot of the frequency and intimacy of consultation we had during the cold war. There have always been tensions, but in the past it tended to be a creative tension, and now it's become destructive." Some attribute the trouble to a fundamental cultural divide. With its huge military power, can-do tradition and tremendous determination to hunt down terrorists since Sept. 11, the U.S. has a different strategic outlook from the European Union, which spends around half of what the U.S. does on defense and wants the U.N. and international law to have a bigger role in responding to the world's dangers.
Europe bears its share of the blame for the current angry impasse. Resentment toward Bush has closed European ears to important arguments. Says Pierre Hassner of the Center for International Studies and Research in Paris: "The idea seems to be broadening in Europe that everything is the fault of America. I'm very afraid of the damage done when the ugly American becomes once again such a convenient excuse." Both sides need to cool it. Remembering how things were 60 years ago might help.
Take a Look Back
The truth is that the alliance has never enjoyed a Golden Age, not even when fighting Adolf Hitler. Britain stood nearly alone for two years before the U.S. declared war; as Winston Churchill famously said, "You can always rely on America to do the right thing—once it has exhausted the alternatives." Churchill and F.D.R. loathed Free French leader Charles de Gaulle, and he loathed them in return. Wartime politicians and officials had volcanic fights about how to handle Joseph Stalin, whether to turn postwar Germany into an agricultural backwater, and whether to put the atom bomb under international control. And things weren't always warm and fuzzy during the cold war either. In 1966 De Gaulle quit the NATO command and kicked out U.S. troops. It took five years of messy improvisation to get the basic structures of containment in place and four decades before they bore fruit. So if al-Qaeda seems to be gaining and Iraq is on the edge of a quagmire, it doesn't mean the alliance is doomed. It could mean the stage is set for a great comeback, just as in 1944.
|
|
