The EU

Timothy Garton Ash has written a thought provoking op-ed on the European Union, and it's strengths. This bit here is interesting, although I am not sure I fully agree with it:

The most immediate challenge, of course, is terrorism. And one could make a strong case that the European Union's agreement to open membership negotiations with Turkey will be a bigger contribution to winning the war on terrorism than the American-led occupation of Iraq. Iraq is now a bloody playground for existing groups of Islamist terrorists - and probably a breeding ground for new ones. The European Union's offer to Turkey, by contrast, sends a clear signal that Europe is not an exclusive 'Christian club,' that the West is engaged in no crusade, and that a largely Islamic society can be reconciled not only with a secular state but also with the rules and customs of modern liberal democracy.

I applaud the decision of the E.U. to include Turkey, although I am unsure that in the long run it will benefit that country. This simple fact though, is that Turkey wanted to join and the E.U. was right to accept them. Time will tell whether that will have a greater effect than Iraq in reforming the Arab nations though. Turkey has been somewhat democratic and pro-West for a long time and that has had only limited effect on it's Arab co-religionists. We can't say yet what effect Iraq will have, I personally am very hopefull that it's effect will be huge. This bit here though I think misses a few points:

Robert Kagan describes the difference between America and Europe as the difference between power and weakness - American power, that is, and European weakness. This description is sustainable only if power is measured in terms of military strength. In the way that some American conservatives talk about the European Union, I hear an echo of Stalin's famous question about the Vatican's power: how many divisions does the pope have? But the pope defeated Stalin in the end. This attitude overlooks the dimensions of European power that are not to be found on the battlefield.

I will never discount the role of the Pope in the fall of communism. Truely that was one of the Catholic Church's finest hours, and the effect of it cannot be overstated. Nevertheless, to say that the Pope won and Stalin lost is a distortion. Without the willingness of the West, the United States in particular, to defend Europe against aggression the collapse of communism might have never happened. American militarism working with the Pope's morality ended communism in a historically unprecidented manner. Either alone would have probably caused a far worse outcome. The second question on dealing with this issue is does the EU, which admittedly has little military power, possess a moral force that is the equivilent of the Pope? In certain areas, I think that this may in fact be true. The EU has demonstrated that nation states can reach agreements even difficult ones, without the need for force of arms. This can indeed be a useful example to the world. I would caution though that ignoring the role of the U.S. as the primary defender of the West over the last half-century in analyzing this phenomenon would be a mistake. As to the equivilence in dealing with the Arab world with the way the Pope confronted the Soviet Union I find the EU sorely lacking. Too often it seems that the EU is prepared to coddle dictators and make excuses for them. While they have certainly condemned terror they seem to have little interest in advancing freedom. Of course, America is not free from this fault either.