wean- of soK’ing Europe’s problems. ThernUnited States demonstrated in East Timorrnthat its wilhngness to intervene is notrninfinite. Australia had to take the lead inrnthe U.N. peacekeeping force to defendrnwhat were o’ervhelmingly Australian interests.rnCanberra is now discussing bolsteringrnits military for fear that it mightrnface similar situahons in the future.rnFor a w hile, Washington may continuernto look more fa’orably upon interventionrnin Europe. But that is likely tornchange, especialh’ if NATO’s Balkan adventuresrnturn sour. Bosnia offers little argumentrnfor a repeat experience: OnlyrnWestern military occupation holds togetherrnan artificial state where corruptionrndramatically outpaces reconciliation.rnKosoo could become even worse ifrnNATO is serious about preserving a multiethnicrnsociet)’ under formal Serbian authorit)’rn—a formula for permanent occupationrnand possibly a new war, this timernagainst the Kosovo Liberation Army.rnA serious European force would allowrnthe E.U. to act if the United States refusedrnand enable the Europeans to defendrnsecurib,’ interests that are not ital tornWashington. However, Europe could dornmucli more with its own militar)’. ChancellorrnSchroeder argues that “The Europernof the future must be able to defendrnits interests and values effectively worldwide.”rnWith the capabilit)’ to intervene,rnexplains President Chirac, the E.U. “willrnha’e at its disposal all the true means of arnforeign policv.” The outlines of an independentrnEuropean stance were evidentrnw hen European Commission PresidentrnRomano Prodi announced in Februarvrntliat “an attack or aggression against anrnE l ‘ member nation would be an attackrnor aggression against the whole EU.”rnThis is preciselv what bothers Washington.rnDespite public declarations ofrngood will, American officials have pri-rnateK’ lobbied again.st the European initiative,rnwith a heavy-handedness thatrnP’.SL^I advocates complain has beenrncounterproductive. “We know the Americans,”rnone anonvmous E.U. official toldrnthe Lo.s Angeles ‘limes. “They want thernEuropeans to do more in matters of defense,rnbut on the other hand, they’re worriedrnabout something being done behindrntheir backs.”rnThe devolution of defense responsibilitiesrnon Europe is desirable, because Europernno longer needs America. The Sovietrnthreat diat gave rise to NATO is dead.rnAmazinglv. Britain and France each nowrnspend more than Russia on defense; Germanv’srnoittlays are roughly equal. Europernhas a combined CDP of about ninerntimes that of Russia. Italy alone has a biggerrneconom}’ than Russia.rnIf the E.U. does create a rapid reactionrnforce, it is hard to imagine the Europeansrnremaining subordinate to America, hirnJune 1999, Guenter Verhcugen, Germany’srnE.U. ambassador and minister ofrnstate for foreign affairs, explained that thernpurpose of the ESDI “is to engage in activerncrisis management in Europe with itsrnown resources and under its own responsibilitv.”rnIf Europe acquires the abilitv’ torn”engage in active crisis management inrnEurope” and perhaps bevond, what rolernis there for the United States?rnGeoffrey Van Orden, the British ConservativernParh”s spokesman on foreign affairsrnand defense, warns that having thernEuropeans take first crack at Europeanrnproblems “will inevitably have a negativernimpact on NATO’s viability” and fearsrn”the weakening of trans-Atlantic bonds.”rnFormer U.S. Assistant Secretary of StaternJohn Bolton contends that, in a few years,rn”We might well face the prospect that it isrnthe WEU that is the real alliance, andrnNATO die appendage, rather tlian thernother wav’ around.” More bluntiv. DefensernSecretary Cohen warns against allowingrnthe Europeans to “simply fend forrnthemselves.”rnBut why is that such a bad idea? Wliilernit isn’t likely to occur soon, at least notrnwithout American encouragement, whyrnshouldn’t Europe take responsibilitv forrnits own affairs?rnAmerica’s vital interest is to prevent arnhegemonic power from dominating thernEuropean continent. Such a threat nornlonger exists: Russia can barely defeatrnChechnya; Germany possesses neitherrnthe will nor ability to threaten its neighborsrn(imagine an attack on nucleararmedrnFrance); Milosevic’s Serbia mavrnbe nast}’, but it is impoverished and pitiful;rnterrorists may lurk along the NorthrnAfrican coast, but America’s militaryrnpresence in Europe only makes the continentrna more attractive target.rnWhatever intra-European rivalriesrnmight eventuallv erupt, none are likely tornturn violent. The world of the E.U., therneuro, and pan-European cooperation is arndifferent world from that which gave risernto two world wars. What is left is thernmessy, unfinished business of the ColdrnWar, particularlv’ in the Balkans. Morerndistant are a potpourri of tribal conflictsrnin the Caucasus. Yet none of these arernimportant for the securih’ of Eiurope, letrnalone America. Modest improvementsrnin European military capabilities wouldrnallow the E.U. states to deal with fiirtherrninstabilit)-, should they believe the pricernof doing so to be worthwhile. Washingtonrncordd begin by letting the five-nationrnEuroeorps take over manning, as well asrncommanding, occupation forces in Kosovo,rnfor example.rnSecretary Cohen has argued tiiat “Arnstronger Europe means a stronger .Alliance,rnand a stronger Alliance is able torndeter the threats and maintain peace andrnstability.” But this applies as much to anrnalliance rim by Europe as one rim bv’rnAmerica. Although Britain’s Secretan- ofrnState for Defense Gcoffrev Hoon contendsrnthat “‘more Europe’ does not meanrn’less America,'” it should mean less America.rnWhen the world and the threats in itrnchange, so should alliances like NATO.rnEveryone seems to agree that the Europeansrnshould do more militarily. Now isrnthe time to a.sk: What should America’srnrole be?rnDoug Bandow is a senior fellow at thernCato Institute and a former specialrnassistant to President Ronald Reagan.rnHe is the author and editor of severalrnhooks, including’Vripw’nc: Korea andrnU.S. F’oreign Policv in a ChangedrnWorid.rnLooking for a good book?rnSupport Chronicles by purchasing books, CDs, and other itemsrnthrough the Amazon.com link and search engine on our website:rnwww.chroniclesmagazinc.orgrnChronicles will receive between 5 and 15 percent o n every purchase.rnSEPTEMBER 2000/47rnrnrn