Columns & Articles

Articles by Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman

GlobalThink.com. Friday, March 04, 2005

At the time of this writing, President Bush is in Europe mending fences with all of the European powers that had been alienated by his first term’s policies. The irritation was not one sided; the Europeans (particularly the French, Germans, and Russians) were hostile to the US initiative in Iraq—seemingly for less than honorable reasons. Economic self-interests were involved, and the Bush Administration resented this. But now, all sides seem to have become sufficiently frightened by the rift and are trying to use diplomacy to mend the long-time relationship. We all have the same enemy among us, wishing us ill.

While diplomacy can certainly pour oil on troubled waters, there are real differences between the Europeans and the US in how each side sees the world. It would be a service to the voters on both sides of the Atlantic to better understand these differences. The gulf is not unbridgeable.

Unilateralism vs Cooperation. The United States is the sole military superpower in the world, and this alarms many Europeans, who fear what seems to them unopposed muscle. Because European countries know what military might and poisoned nationalism did to them—creating centuries of devastating warfare---they see the United States through this prism. The US, however, sees its military might as having been used with amazing generosity. Our power saved Europe twice from living under dreadful dictatorships—Hitler’s and Stalin’s—and our intervention in World War I was done in the name of “making the world safe for democracy.” This is idealism not seen in the European wars of the 20th century. Furthermore, the US has not taken one acre of land as the result of prevailing militarily. We even spent our money to rebuild Europe through a Marshall Plan—which included transforming our former enemies, Germany and Japan, into viable democracies.

Modes of Power. According to Walter Russell Mead (Power, Terror, Peace, and War), there are three modes of power used by influential nations: sharp, sticky, and sweet. Sharp power is military might; sticky power is persuasiveness (getting others involved in such multilateral actions as NATO or the World Trade Organization); and sweet power is one’s cultural appeal to others around the world (such as American music, dress, and cinema). The US has all three modes of power, but Europe has only the latter two. It was a European choice to stop investing in military might and invest instead into bettering their quality of life. During the Cold War, they had the United States to protect them. Now they are alarmed by what they perceive as the monster this created.

The Americans, on the other hand, see the Europeans as ungrateful and selfish—and they see European protests about American unilateral power as projections of what Europe would do if they had such power themselves. And an even more serious issue is Europe’s unwillingness to respond to real horrors—even in their own neighborhood—with anything more than words. Had it not been for the United States and its influence over NATO, the Serbs would have completed their genocide against their former fellow countrymen, the Bosnians. The Europeans were unwilling to intervene; we were not. Furthermore, in areas of the world where Europe has more influence than we have (such as Rwanda, the Congo, and the Ivory Coast), they have performed very badly in the face of genocidal warfare. The UN, which has made statements about Sudan’s horrible treatment of their people, has shown itself toothless when it comes to using sharp power to stop the slaughter. The US is frustrated by European—and UN’s toothlessness.

Religion. Europeans, who have a history of religion bathed in blood, have resolved to give religion no power over governance. The horrors of the Spanish Inquisition and the Catholic/Protestant wars filled thinking people in the 18th century with disgust over what religion, combined with state power, can make people do. America’s Founding Fathers had these memories in mind when they deliberately created their new nation with a strict prohibition against a state religion. Government was to be free of religious pressure, and religions were to be free of government interference (within limits). While both Europeans and Americans support secular governance, there are differences in their cultural expressions regarding religion. Most sophisticated Europeans regard Christianity as their cultural heritage and their governments support the maintenance of their historic cathedrals as national treasures. The fact that the churches and cathedrals are largely empty does not matter to them.

In America, however, religion and religiosity play an important cultural role in our society. It almost seems that new religious sects emerge from the fevered brains of our less sophisticated every day—and people are free to join a sect, leave it, or reinvent themselves altogether as atheists. And although there is no state support for any particular sect or cult, religious issues regularly cause conflict in our society. Such issues as a woman’s right to abortion or a dying person’s right to assisted suicide, issues that are considered on their face in Europe, become battles in America. To make matters worse for Europeans, America now has a president who wears his religion on his sleeve. European sophisticates are horrified and think we should be embarrassed. Many of our own elite are indeed embarrassed, particularly when his religious values color such issues as support for stem cell research or fixation on the sin of abortion. What we all need to remember is that no president remains in power more than eight years, nor is his power absolute.

Critics of Europe’s secular society claim that secularism is an intolerant religion itself. These critics claim that there is a total scorn of Christianity and an in-your-face opposition to any recognition of spirituality. In defense of European secularists, it seems to me that they have adopted all the best features of Christianity into their culture: compassion for the weak and the poor, St. Francis’s reverence for animals and the ecology, and the brotherhood of equality. This is also true for many American secularists as well. What secularists have rejected are the most negative aspects of religion: compulsion of belief, misogyny, homophobia, and support for autocratic rule.

I believe that what currently alienates us from our European allies is much less important than what unites us. In history, it often takes an enemy to make us forget our own petty differences. We are all under siege by a form of religion that we had thought was only a remnant of history. Islam has given birth to a fanatical and murderous cult that should remind us of our own dreadful religious history. Eventually, when Jihadist Islam has been defeated or discredited, Islam can enjoy existence in secular states. People will be free to select the benefits and discard the outmoded horrors of history’s religious past. ------------------- 1,151 words Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian, writer, and lecturer, She is author of Strange Birds from Zoroaster’s Nest and God’s Law or Man’s Law. You may contact her at: Lfarhat102@aol.com or www.globalthink.net.