US, EU military spending reveals cultural divide

As the US embarks on an effort to recruit European soldiers into a broader international peacekeeping force in Iraq, the Bush administration needs to understand why scepticism among the allies runs so deep.

Even within European countries that have already dispatched troops to Iraq, there's a smug sense of vindication among those who opposed the war and who object to what they believe is a dangerous American habit - to hastily launch military campaigns and then call on its friends to help clean up the mess.

While there may be many reasons behind the frequent displays of discord across the Atlantic these days, America's dismay with its major allies can be explained by the reluctance of France, Germany and other European nations to join in projecting military power in defence of what the US sees as vital Western interests.

After providing the security umbrella that shielded Western Europe from the covetous aims of the Soviet Union for nearly half a century, Americans think the allies are badly letting them down with their lukewarm backing for the global war against terror. Europeans are frequently castigated by many Washington policy makers and pundits as appeasing wimps, unable or unwilling to confront sources of genuine evil.

But many Europeans have believed, ever since the fateful events two years ago this week, that America has been waging the wrong kind of war. Europeans often ridicule what they perceive as the Bush administration's proclivity to use a sledgehammer to kill a fly. They tend to think of America as a muscle-bound superpower that is too quick to resolve conflicts by trying to annihilate its enemies - and failing to consider how to cope with the chaotic aftermath.

Like many stereotypes, these images often fall short of the truth. Americans have tried patient diplomacy in many conflicts, notably Kosovo and Iraq, before resorting to the use of force. And Europeans have signed up for difficult combat peacekeeping missions, as in Congo and Sierra Leone, even when the US refused to embrace what the rest of the world viewed as causes worthy of military intervention.

But just as the nasty turn of events in Iraq has demonstrated the importance of maintaining a broad coalition of democracies, it has reinforced the sharp split between Americans and Europeans over how to use military force in dealing with the security challenges of the 21st century.

While Americans feel acutely vulnerable in the global war against terrorism and no longer enjoy the sense of protection once afforded by two oceans and a vast land mass, Europeans feel perhaps more secure than at any time in their history.

For four centuries, every generation of young Germans and French prepared to wage war against each other. That prospect is now unthinkable. With the waning of the Balkan wars and rapid integration of Russia with the West, Europeans generally believe they face no serious security threat - unless they're dragged into conflict elsewhere by the US.

The results of a new survey conducted in the US and seven European countries show just how differently Europe and America view the world. It vividly illustrates the yawning gap between the ways Americans and Europeans perceive the value and purpose of military force.

The Transatlantic Trends 2003 poll of 8,000 Europeans and Americans, sponsored by the German Marshall Fund of the US and the Italian foundation Compagnia di San Paolo, shows that strong majorities in Europe - as high as 81 per cent in Germany and 84 per cent in France - believe the Iraq war wasn't worth the financial and human costs.

Having pacified their nationalist demons and recovered from two devastating world wars in the past century, Europeans understandably wish to wrap themselves in a womb of peaceful prosperity.

As a result, the disparity in military spending across the Atlantic has grown to enormous proportions. Some military analysts contend that the US and Europe are no longer able to fight a co-ordinated military campaign on the same battlefield.

The US defence budget, now running at $380 billion a year (not even counting the cost of the war in Iraq) is greater than the combined military budgets of all other 18 member states of Nato. US officials shake their heads in exasperation.

But when it comes to fighting a global war against terrorism, many Europeans believe the Bush administration is placing too much emphasis on firepower. "We learned the hard way in Algeria how hopeless it can be to subdue terrorism through brute force," observed a senior French official.

Other Europeans stress the importance of development and education aid in Third World countries and say this support may be more effective in combating the future growth of global terrorism. The EU and its 15 member states account for more than half of the $54 billion in development aid each year.

Europeans have also managed to deploy effective international police monitoring units and peacekeeping forces that have helped prevent further hostilities throughout the Balkans.

And just as Europeans are urging America to balance its enormous arsenal with more clever applications of soft power, Europe needs to recognise that the outside world will only take it seriously as a global superpower when it can back up its prescriptions for peace with the ability to enforce them.

The writer is executive director of the Transatlantic Centre, a Brussels-based policy institute sponsored by the German Marshall Fund of the US for the study of US-European relations. He was previously a senior journalist with The Washington Post.