Europe is angry with the USA after the Afghanistan debacle.
The anger is real.
But desperate humanitarianism is only part of the answer, says expert Stephen M. Walt.
The failure of the western states in Afghanistan is having an impact: In Europe in particular, displeasure with the USA is being expressed.
In the United States, the sometimes harsh tone of voice causes astonishment in some places - it could even put a strain on transatlantic relations.
In this column, political scientist Stephen M. Walt examines Europe's motives for this criticism.
He suspects (also) selfishness.
This article is available in German for the first time - it was first published by
Foreign Policy
magazine on August 27, 2021
.
Washington, DC - In a previous column, I spoke out against the chorus of black painters who claim that the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, including the chaotic manner in which it took place, has caused great and lasting damage to America's international position . There is no doubt that some of these commentators really believe in their gloomy utterances, and the Islamic State attack on Kabul airport * is likely to have exacerbated these feelings. Still, their exaggerations and excessive rhetoric are remarkable to me. I would like to ask why so many people - especially observers in Europe - see this event as a crucial moment.
In some cases, their way of analyzing the worst is easy to explain.
It is completely predictable that the Republicans - who oppose everything US President Joe Biden * wants to achieve - will try to take full advantage of the chaotic endgame for political capital.
Nor is it surprising that stubborn hardliners and the many people directly involved in the pursuit (and defeat) of the war in Afghanistan are now defending their efforts and trying to blame Biden for the outcome alone.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate for those who have repeatedly erred in this conflict to remain silent in dignity, but that is clearly too much to ask for most VIP egos.
Afghanistan: Laschet sees "NATO's greatest debacle" - US expert finds statement unmasking
Most interesting and a little harder to explain to me are the comments from others, especially America's NATO allies. I understand their annoyance that they have not been consulted (or that their advice has not been heeded), although such complaints have been recurring in Alliance relations since the beginning of time. I can also understand those who are seriously concerned about the humanitarian consequences, even if that result was to be expected, no matter when or how the United States eventually withdrew. It's the tone of concern that borders on hysteria at times that puzzles me more. British MP Tom Tugendhat said the end of the war was a "tragedy" that would only lead to more wars, sayingthe problem is the lack of patience - after 20 years - and not the lack of significant progress. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair didn't want to miss out either, saying the decision to end the war was "tragic, dangerous, unnecessary" - a phrase that is more appropriate for the 2003 Iraq war that he helped bring about Has.
And you are not alone. The CDU chancellor candidate Armin Laschet * describes the withdrawal as "the greatest debacle that NATO has suffered since it was founded," which suggests that he has not read much about the Suez affair of 1956 or the Kosovo war of 1999.
The Economist
magazine
has indulged in an atypical orgy of blame with headlines declaring the "fiasco" a "heavy blow to America's reputation" and a "turning point".
French President Emmanuel Macron reportedly called on Biden to show more “moral responsibility”, noting the fact that France withdrew its own forces from Afghanistan back in 2014 - not to mention his mid-August speech in which he said, France must "protect itself from a wave of [Afghan] migrants" - comfortably displaced.
I have more examples, but you can see what I mean.
Afghanistan debacle a failure of the US?
Expert amazes at reaction from Europe
As mentioned earlier, part of this wringing of hands is appropriate in that the outcome in Afghanistan brings with it great human tragedies. However, this also applies to the war itself, in which around a quarter of a million Afghans and Pakistanis (including 71,000 civilians) died. I suspect these reactions also reflect Europeans' frustration that there is not much they can do now to influence events in Afghanistan, as well as their disappointment that the well-intentioned but unrealistic nation-building efforts in Afghanistan are being made have now come to an unfortunate end. But public officials are expected not only to feel but also to think, and sober thinking seems to be in short supply right now.
If Europe's political elites were as concerned about Russia's military power and political interference as they often claim, then one would expect them to be happy to see the United States finally break out of the dilemma in Afghanistan and gain more resources (and time) can spend to protect Europe.
Or you might see the fact that America has shouldered most of the burden in Afghanistan for twenty years not as evidence of impatience, but rather as a sign of perseverance and willingness to get involved even when the prospects are poor.
Instead, they treat this unfortunate event as if it were the Battle of France in 1940.
So what's going on here?
Afghanistan: Europe has long been the focus of US foreign policy - but that's over
I cannot say for sure, but I suspect that the concern of many Europeans stems from the uncomfortable realization that they are no longer as important to the United States as they once were. It should be noted that I am not saying that America's European allies are of no value, nor that they may not be of significant value to the United States in the future. I just point out that the
relative
Europe's importance has declined sharply since the collapse of the Soviet Union. For much of the 20th century, and especially during the Cold War, Europe was the focus of US foreign policy, but the collapse of communism, the rise of China * and Asia, and the wars and counter-terrorism measures after September 11, 2001 are US priorities relocated to other areas. Donald Trump was the first president to openly express these thoughts, and now European elites fear that this may not have been just a slip of the tongue.
And despite all the rhetoric about the “common democratic values” that supposedly bind both sides of the Atlantic together, the real driving force behind the United States' intense engagement in European security issues has always been the balance of powers. Concerns about the balance of power led the United States into World Wars I and II, and it also explains why Washington maintained large and powerful ground, air, and naval forces in Europe throughout the Cold War. The United States did this to prevent Europe's industrial power from being controlled by a single power, a European hegemon - a result that would have placed the United States in a much less favorable position.
There is no potential hegemon in Europe today, and the only reason Russia poses a threat that may require an American response is Europe's collective unwillingness to turn its financial and numerical superiority into effective military might. And as some European heads of state and government have indicated, they are concerned about the US withdrawal from Afghanistan * above all because it could shed light on US willingness to continue to support allies who do not contribute. And before anyone accuses me of emulating Trump's bombast, I suggest that former President Barack Obama, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and countless other US officials have said similar things on many previous occasions.
Afghanistan anger "possibly deliberately exaggerated"?
Strategic reasons seem conceivable
In addition, some Europeans know that the concept of “shared values” is harder to sell when some NATO members take a downright illiberal course and when there are serious doubts about the health of American democracy.
Conclusion: Smart Europeans know that NATO is on a fragile foundation, and that makes them very nervous.
Out of longstanding habit, they reflexively resort to the “credibility card” in the hope that Uncle Sam will provide symbolic and tangible assurances out of shame.
There is another reason why Europeans may be deliberately exaggerating the importance of what is happening in Afghanistan. If Europeans advocate greater "strategic autonomy," then highlighting America's alleged unreliability is another useful card to play. In the words of former NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the outcome in Afghanistan means that Europe “must develop the ability to stand militarily and politically on its own two feet” and “think seriously about what can be done for its own defense and has to spend the money to do that. ”The danger, however, isthat this trick is not working and that the whining about America's alleged volatility is adding even more resentment to transatlantic relations and hindering urgently needed efforts to better divide labor between Europe and the United States.
Europeans are concerned that the instability at their external borders (including Afghanistan) exposes them to new flows of refugees and a somewhat increased risk of terrorism (dangers from which the US is partially protected).
That is a legitimate concern, but this problem also threatens to expose the tension (a cynic would say the hypocrisy) at the heart of the European political project.
Merkel as an example: Europe is “less committed to universal ideals” than to the protection of national idiosyncrasies
Since its inception, the European Union * and its predecessors have justified the pursuit of an “ever deeper union” with the need to overcome nationalism. Its founding principles are an expression of a deep and comprehensive commitment to the universal liberal values of human rights. Although the EU is made up of member states where nationalism is still very strong, most of Europe's ruling elites are deeply committed to the liberal principles on which the EU was founded. These commitments explain, among other things, why the European elites supported the decision to transform Afghanistan into a democracy based on the Western model.
When the going gets tough, however, European nations are less committed to universal ideals than to protecting their national idiosyncrasies and ways of life. The refugee crisis of 2014 triggered a wave of right-wing populism and forced really liberal politicians like German Chancellor Angela Merkel * to abandon their original humanitarian impulses. I don't want to judge this: America's own commitment to these supposedly universal liberal values evaporates whenever refugees appear in large numbers on its shores or when a strategic ally commits human rights abuses. What I mean by that is that for established European politicians an instability that could push more migrants to their borders exposes inconsistencies,which they would rather keep quiet. Hence the desperate desire to convince Uncle Sam to take action again.
I suspect that once most of the foreigners and the most vulnerable Afghans are evacuated, we will not be so tormented. While there is no happy ending to this story anytime soon, I hope the US and other countries will do everything in their power to make the situation less dire than one might fear. But if everyone who was involved in this 20-year-old company goes their own way, there will be a disadvantage. The downside, of course, is that once again we will not learn any meaningful lessons from this experience. Like Mr. Bennet in
pride and prejudice
remorsefully to his daughter Elizabeth, reflecting on some of his own follies, says, “I am ashamed with all my heart, Lizzy.
But do not despair, it will pass, and faster than it should. "
by Stephen M. Walt
Stephen M. Walt
is a columnist for
Foreign Policy
and holds the Robert and Renée Belfer Professorship in International Relations at Harvard University.
This article was first published in English on August 27, 2021 in the magazine “ForeignPolicy.com” - as part of a cooperation, it is now also available in translation to readers of the IPPEN.MEDIA portals. * Merkur.de is an offer from IPPEN.MEDIA.
+
Foreign Policy Logo
© ForeignPolicy.com