» This Story:Read +| Comments
» This Story:Read +| Comments
Archive   |   Biography   |   RSS Feed   |   Opinions Home   |   Post Global

Will Obama Harness His Potential in Europe?

Network News

X Profile
View More Activity
By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Let's be brutally frank: The 60th anniversary of the NATO alliance, celebrated in April, was a bore. The American president was visibly uninterested. His European counterparts, though more accustomed to "celebrations" consisting of somnolent speeches delivered in multilingual bureaucratese, were no more enthusiastic. The affair closed with a limp American request for more troops in Afghanistan that had almost no echo.

This Story
This Story

Let's be even franker: President Obama's decision to attend the 65th anniversary observance of the D-Day landings in France in June was mystifying. Why 65th? It's not even a round number. He was not originally expected to come and, indeed, his presence meant that the guest list -- the queen of England wasn't even on it -- had to be rapidly expanded at the last minute. It was nice for the veterans that he was there, particularly as he gave a terrific speech, lauding the ordinary men who, "At an hour of maximum danger, amid the bleakest of circumstances . . . found within themselves the ability to do something extraordinary." But the political impact was limited, and no more troops for Afghanistan materialized then, either.

Let's be franker still: It is impossible to escape the impression that, at least in its relations with Europe, the Obama administration is following directly in the footsteps of the Bush administration. For the past decade, the old continent has been treated as a great photo opportunity -- the Obama campaign even used the Brandenburg Gate as a backdrop for a speech last summer -- and as an excellent place to talk about stirring deeds of the past. But neither Republicans nor Democrats seem to consider Europe worthy of experienced ambassadors -- Obama, like Bush, has sent a notable number of campaign donors -- or of serious diplomacy.

As for Central Europe, it isn't considered worthy of any diplomacy at all. Last week, the Czech prime minister was roused from his bed after midnight to be informed by the White House of a non-urgent decision many months in the making: the cancellation of the missile defense program. The Polish prime minister refused to take a similar call (and the foreign minister, to whom -- full disclosure -- I am married, was asleep). But this is nothing new, either: The Bush White House's original decision to place the missile shield and radar in Central Europe was made before any Central Europeans were consulted -- not at midnight and not at mid-day. The official letter from the Pentagon in 2007 arrived with a suggested "response": The governments in Prague and Warsaw were supposed to sign on the dotted line and send it back.

In fact, missile defense was unpopular then and is unpopular now, all across Europe. Poles and Czechs favored the American bases only because they would bring American troops to their territory. But they favor American troops on their territory only because two successive American presidents have refused to invest in NATO's presence in Central Europe and haven't seemed much interested in doing anything else in Europe. This has led some to fear that Americans aren't as committed to the basic precepts of the NATO Treaty -- an attack on one member state is an attack on all -- as they used to be. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has gone out of her way to deny that this is the case, but at a time when Russia and others are making heavy military investments, it is a widespread perception all the same.

All of which makes for a paradox: In Europe, President Obama is still the most popular American leader in recent memory. Yet he has failed to capitalize on this popularity, in part because he has failed to use it. His only message in Europe so far -- "send more troops to Afghanistan" -- has been clouded by his own ambivalence about the Afghan mission. He has not tried to convince anyone that he's rethought Afghanistan, and he hasn't come up with any other joint security tasks for the world's largest and most powerful democracies. Just for starters, he could tell his European friends that he won't appear in any more photographs with them unless they agree to talk about the contingency plans and NATO joint exercises that the alliance abandoned years ago.

Europeans are to blame, too. The beginning of a new administration was a chance for them to make a fresh start, to bring ideas to the White House instead of waiting for the White House to speak first. Poleaxed by recession and still unable to speak with anything resembling a unified voice, though, Europeans remain as placid and passive about their defense as always. Yes, it is possible that even the most popular U.S. president in living memory can't make them sit up and pay attention to the potential threats of energy blackmail from Russia, of a nuclear Iran or of international terrorism in their own back yards. But it would be far more reassuring if he were at least trying.

applebaumletters@washpost.com


» This Story:Read +| Comments
» This Story:Read +| Comments

More Washington Post Opinions

PostPartisan

Post Partisan

Quick takes from The Post's opinion writers.

Washington Sketch

Washington Sketch

Dana Milbank writes about political theater in the capital.

Tom Toles

Tom Toles

See his latest editorial cartoon.

© 2009 The Washington Post Company

Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity