COVER -> DAY ONE
 |
Mr. Clinton's swan song in Europe has been ruined by a crack-pot scheme hatched in Congress, largely but not entirely by Republicans for the pure and simple purpose of maintaining the health of the armaments industry. Whether this is for the benefit of their plutocratic friends who make campaign contributions or whether to preserve them from the wrath of constituents in places where arms are made is a matter for another day.
A short but sharp lesson, often drawn but never acted on, is that any political clique which faces re-election as often as the House of Representatives is bound to live in a perpetual ferment of pork barrelling and paranoid nanocracy.
The President was on a tour whose high point was to be the receipt of the, as they always say, "much coveted" Aachen prize for his contribution to peace in Europe. There are some on the Eastern side of the Atlantic who do not appreciate the compliment he has been paid, thinking him rather lukewarm in the matter but compared with his predecessors and in the context of his powerful and persistent opponents he has done remarkably well.
What spoiled the party was the proposal that the United States should be allowed, under treaty, to construct a defence system against in-coming nuclear weapons from 'rogue states'.
Let us, for the sake of argument, tick off these rogues. Top of the list must be North Korea, on the verge of bankruptcy, showing signs of entering talks with South Korea; its ultimate capitulation and implosion will make the fall of the Berlin wall look like a piece of British regal pageantry.
Then there is Iraq with the infamous Saddam Hussein which has played an irritating cat-and-mouse game with UN weapons inspectors. A case, surely, for the occasional pre-emptive strike which could be delivered under the current "No fly zone" rules of engagement.
Then there are those naughty fellows in India and Pakistan who will just not settle their trivial differences over Kashmir. The only circumstances in which catastrophe might occur is a mammoth blunder which prompts China to turn nasty, triggering an arms race between Beijing and New Delhi which, in turn, inflames Islamabad. Since when was nuclear expenditure a sound alternative to simple, competent diplomacy?
Finally, there is Israel. I cannot imagine, for the present, any circumstances in which it might want to launch a nuclear attack on the East Coast of the United States (though the intensity of anti Semitic paranoia is such that I am bound to receive at least one fire sermon in my e-mail).
The centrepiece, if there ever was such a tidy thing in Clinton's two terms as a centrepiece, was his final, reluctant agreement to allow the US Air Force to test all its latest weapons and procedures in the legitimised theatre of war of Kosovo with just about zero chance of retaliation. This is hardly the stuff of statesmanship but at least it was better than hiding after the humiliation of Somalia and the absolute negation of responsibility in Rwanda.
No business that started as long ago as 1389 can be finished in the space of a year but the signs in Kosovo and Serbia are ominous and not susceptible to stratospheric warfare. Milosevic is still in power, the opposition is still divided, the student movement, which is the best chance of change, is being throttled through mass arrest. In Kosovo there is brooding, low level violence, the cold fury of impotent enemies rather than any sign of incipient peace-making. Worst of all, Milosevic still has his eyes on Montenegro as his nationalist card if things at home get even tougher. As the cease fire was agreed there were promises of economic aid which brought Marshall to mind but the funding has only trickled in.
Our concerns are elsewhere.
In more general terms, Clinton's support for a more cohesive Europe has been sensible. It might just result in lower American involvement in the European military theatre; it might save some money. Nonetheless, we have gained the impression that he understands the broader point, that only Western Europe can absorb former Soviet Bloc states and make them prosperous enough to be stable. Again, this might not be much to be thankful for but compared with Republican behaviour over post-Communist Russia anything is a relief.
One only hopes that 'Clinton's reputation does not shine more than it might because it comes to be seen in the light of future events as a period of relative sanity, much in the same way as the short spell of the Carter administration now looks sane in the context of its Ford/Nixon predecessor and Reagan/Bush successor.
It is simply cheap politics to poke fun at George Bush Jr. because he doesn't instantly know where certain countries are located but it isn't cheap politics to enquire why he might support this policy rather than that. We have no way of knowing. Following the American Presidential campaign you would think you were watching a municipal election in a third rate power rather than the election of President of the world's only superpower.
Personally, I have always had the sneaking suspicion that Clinton has often contributed to his own foreign policy stance, that he actually has some understanding of the history of countries he has dealt with.
For all his faults (and they are fewer than most would admit) Clinton is in the tradition of Democrat clever Presidents.
The American electorate tends to prefer Republican populism to cleverness but people living outside the United States find the presence of grey matter located between Presidential ears a comfort, particularly if tension rises between old enemies.
The purist in me sometimes makes me wish, childishly, that the United States would do what it threatens and simply look after its selfish self but in the real world we have to put up with a good deal of imperfection. That is why it would be ungenerous and unrealistic not to celebrate Clinton's European achievements; in a land of midgets there is a lot to be said for a pygmy.
