It's not about Iraq anymore at the UN. Oh, sure, all of the discussion is about Iraq, but the die is already cast - the "Coalition of the Willing" will attack Saddam with or without UN support. All of the current activity is either for the domestic benefit of one of the participants, or jockeying for position in the post-war diplomatic and political landscape.

In the end, all politics are local. Tony Blair and leaders of other Coalition nations must turn public opinion in their favor before they face next have to face elections, which means that they have to consider not just the results but how they're perceived by voters. That makes it absolutely necessary for them to exhaust every opportunity at the UN and to make it absolutely unmistakably clear that the UNSC is at fault. The new resolution does exactly that.

The actual content of the resolution is lost in the press reports (which incorrectly describe it as a resolution to authorize war on Iraq) right now, but it lays the groundwork for a coordinated campaign to reclaim the moral high ground after the war, when the voters will hopefully be a bit more receptive. An active PR campaign will be absolutely necessary because those who opposed the war will pounce on every opportunity to declare it a failure. This also means that the effort to reconstruct Iraq must committed, sincere and scrupulously ethical (no sweetheart deals for old oil buddies) or cynical voters will buy into every oddball conspiracy theory.

I originally had a lot more to say on this topic, but work intruded long enough that pretty much everybody else beat me to it.

See the Opinion Journal, Porphyrogenitus or Arkat Kingtroll for more on the resolution itself and the situation at the UN. Steven Den Beste's latest has a ton of links and an analysis that contradicts his gloomy tone.

Andrew Sullivan emphasizes the importance of winning hearts and minds after the war and the importance of commitment to and good conduct in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Perhaps I'm not as cynical as should be, but I have no real problem with Angela Merkel's WaPo op-ed piece or her upcoming visit to Washington.

Fellow blogger Amiland sees it as a cynical ploy for domestic consumption. I can sympathize with that position to some extent, but it seems to be a curious choice for a self-serving political move since, as the Spiegel Online hit piece ("Angela Merkel: Kow-tow before the US administration") and (admittedly predictable) SPD attacks demonstrate, it is hardly without risk.

In fact, it looks to me like a relatively courageous attempt at damage control. Merkel might just have sacrificed herself to clean up some of Schr�der's mess.

The reality is that somebody has to tend to the German-American relationship or the ever widening rift will become permanent. Somehow, I don't see Schr�der leaping into action and newspaper ads by trade groups just aren't enough. That leaves Angela Merkel.

Nor do I think she's out of line to do it (at least not much). The unfortunate fact is that German domestic politics are intertwined with German-American relations in a very visible way right now. It's hardly fair to blame the Union for the current state of affairs -- the true "crass break in the local political culture" happened on the campaign trail last year.

We'll see pretty soon what the domestic political fallout of Merkel's article and visit turns out to be, but I'm guessing that it won't be a huge boost for her domestically and that it could even be a liability (especially in the short term). If she survives and her agenda shapes up as rumored, the trip won't be wasted.

Saddam suddenly less cooperative. I'm sure that this will come as a shock to the people who marched last weekend.

The Wages of Sin and Stupidity. Dilacerator gets it right, as usual, when he attributes Germany's role in the ongoing Iraq melodrama to stupidity rather than malice. Schr�der is a politician rather than a statesman, and it shows.

Faced with trouble, Schr�der chooses the easiest and safest course out of whatever predicament he's in, with little apparent regard for the big picture or the long-term consequences of his actions. That's also true for his domestic politics, and is one of the reasons he's been lurching from crisis to crisis for years.
Sadly, much of the damage to German-American relations won't be easy to repair, and Germany will likely pay the economic price for years to come.

And it's not all petty payback, despite reports to the contrary. American military planners have been forced to face the fact that a populist politician could deny them the use of troops and materials based in Germany, and no sane planner would put very many eggs in such a fragile basket. Some further base closures were inevitable, but Schr�der's recklessness will accelerate and deepen the cuts.

I share Dilacerator's opinion that France is the villain in this little set piece and that Germany has played the hapless assistant -- Schr�der cast as Igor to Chirac's Frankenstein -- but the consequences for France aren't so obvious or immediately dire. Direct action (e.g. tariffs) would come across as heavyhanded and/or petty and would almost certainly backfire.

That argues for isolating France through indirect means -- by strengthening US ties to the rest of Europe (both old and new), Turkey and probably to the German opposition. The message should be "partnership, not payoffs" and the policy should be to build or expand on concrete and enduring ties (e.g. trade and mutual defense pacts) rather than handing out one time payoffs such as aid or loan guarantees. Reliable partners are always preferable to well-paid lackeys, especially in difficult times. Witness Turkey, which is currently demanding a raise.

The administration's focus is clearly (and properly) on the impending war and its immediate aftermath right now, but I sincerely hope that they're also thinking about what comes next. A new Cold War is looming but can still be avoided. The slow and careful work of tending friendships and building alliances isn't as exciting as smiting the evildoer, but it is every bit as important. Let's all hope the administration understands that.

Cold War II Redux.
It looks like new Europe sees another cold war brewing, too.

Dilacerator cites a Czech newspaper editorial which sees the danger of a new cold war, with France and Germany leading the ideological successor of the Warsaw Pact. InstaPundit then turned up a Romanian editorial that very bluntly says pretty much the same thing.

The idea that a new Cold War is brewing has been rattling around the blogosphere for some time, see this post and this one for some of my earlier thoughts on the topic and links to other bloggers who were thinking along the same lines.

Ironically, I'm now less worried about a new Cold War than I was in January or even last week. We're not out of the woods yet, but the Monday's EU meeting was a watershed moment -- most of the rest of Europe made an emphatic choice not to fall into line behind France. Chirac's diatribe served only to underline the wisdom of that decision.

The current situation in Europe is favorable but it isn't stable for the long term -- popular pressure is strong and it will continue to build as long as the cloud of impending war hangs over the continent. President Bush and the leaders of Europe still have time to act deliberately, but they can't let it drag on forever.

If the war against Saddam gets underway fairly soon and is successful, the worst danger is probably past. The US and her allies will have to stay vigilant, but they should be able to prevail. That assumes a US policy of active and positive engagement with allies -- trade pacts, defensive alliances, etc. to hem in and weaken those who favor opposition for its own sake. If the war against Saddam goes badly (gets bogged down or results in heavy civilian casualties) or if the US doesn't follow through with support for her allies, all bets are off.

Did anyone notice that this New York Times article somehow manages to avoid mentioning Chirac's outburst at the EU meeting? I haven't seen the print edition, so maybe it was in another article.

The Seattle PI ran the Times article and not much else. The Seattle Times ran an article (not online but credited to Reuters and the Christian Science Monitor) which ignored Chirac's tantrum and left the impression that the EU joint statement was a blow to Bush and his allies.

Just to add a bit of irony, the Seattle Times also ran an opinion piece (also not online) which talked about the Blogosphere's ability to cover stories that are ignored by the print media.

If I can find a copy (I was reading someone else's paper) I'll post some excerpts from all of the above.

I'm with Glenn on this one. Inviting "new" Europe, Turkey and other allies into a free trade alliance with the US would be a good strategic move, geopolitically speaking. And it's good policy, to boot.

Jacques Chirac was on a roll last weekend. Flush from a tour de force at the UN Security council and basking in the glow of a weekend just packed with anti-American protests, he dispensed nuggets of wisdom upon the hapless President Bush and even magnanimously him a slightly face-saving way to climb down. Monday's emergency meeting of the EU would be his victory lap, where the wayward children of Europe fell into line behind the wise and benevolent leadership of France. Except maybe that Blair kid - he's trouble.

Oops.

Chirac's outrageous temper tantrum is not the act of a sophisticated and wise world leader at the pinnacle of his powers. This is the act of a man who is way off-balance and incredibly angry. Clearly, Chirac was taken completely by surprise by the resistance he faced at the meeting. Even Kofi Annan warned Chirac that the charade couldn't go on much longer.

So what happened? I keep coming back to the theory that Chirac was blinded by his world view. He believed that he had won the UN game and honestly couldn't imagine that Bush would act without UN approval. He was expecting to coast to the finish line, as Bush backed away from war, the rest of the world sang the praises of France and the European fence sitters disappeared quietly into the night. If he was in a good mood, he might even let those upstart peasants in the East off the hook -- at least for long enough to drag them out of the American orbit.

The other European leaders understand just what's at stake in the game that Chirac is playing, and they aren't willing to sacrifice the UN, NATO and the whole transatlantic partnership. They made it clear that the Gang of 8 letter wasn't a one time event and that they wouldn't just hand over the keys to Europe without a struggle. Even Schr�der went along in the end, which shows that the message has finally gotten through that he has to worry about more than staying in office.

Speaking of Schr�der: The German press reports I've seen have him loudly patting himself on the back for removing the words "time is running out" from the final joint declaration. That suggests that he'll now go along quietly with the rest, as long as he gets to crow about what a committed pacifist he is.

I think we're through the worst of the diplomatic strife now. Unless Chirac has another trick up his sleeve, is truly clueless or is willing to bet everything (and I mean everything) on going another round against the rest of Europe and the US, the rhetoric should subside and the diplomats will get together to draft a new resolution that gives everyone enough cover to claim they stood by their principles. Germany will be more-or-less forgiven, but Schr�der is probably doomed. NATO will survive, but with an updated charter and possibly without France. The new Iraqi government will throw out the TotalFinaElf deal, but I'm not sure what else will happen to France.

So that's what I see in my crystal ball. Comments?

Steven den Beste is puzzled by a TIME magazine interview with Chirac, in which he praises the American military buildup in the Persian Gulf. Some excerpts:

And if we do that, there can be no doubt that it will be due in large part to the presence of American forces on the spot. If there hadn't been U.S. soldiers present, Saddam might not have agreed to play the game.
...

If Iraq is stripped of its weapons of mass destruction and that's been verified by the inspectors, then Mr. Bush can say two things: first, "Thanks to my intervention, Iraq has been disarmed," and second, "I achieved all that without spilling any blood." In the life of a statesman, that counts�no blood spilled.

I was puzzled too, at first, but that puzzlement has been percolating long enough that a hypothesis is emerging:
Chirac thinks that he has won the struggle in the Security Council and that the demonstrations this weekend clinched the deal. By praising Bush in an interview, Chirac thinks he's offering the President an honorable way to climb down.

Seen in this light, France's actions over the past few weeks are a bit less incomprehensible. Chirac wasn't worried about damaging the UN because he was confident that he could manage the situation to play out pretty much as it has. Now Bush is in the box and Chirac has racked up the points, so he can magnanimously offer a (somewhat) face-saving exit.

After all, that's how the game is played, isn't it? Sorry you lost this round, old chap. Better luck next time.

I fear that Chirac has made a fatal miscalculation. Bush isn't playing a game; he sincerely believes that Saddam has to go and he won't flinch if he has to damage or even destroy the UN in the process of removing him. For all the rhetoric about cowboys and simplistic Americans, Chirac didn't truly believe that he was facing one.

The consequences of that mistake will be staggering.

Update: Steven responds that he doesn't think Chirac could be that stupid. I agree that Chirac is no idiot, but I'm starting to wonder about how his view of the world differs from America's (see the previous two posts for more no the topic of world views). I no longer completely discount the notion that Chirac's world-view simply doesn't accomodate the notion that Bush will go ahead anyway. I'm far from certain of this hypothesis myself, but it should become obvious fairly soon. If this is what's going on, look for Chirac to change tone and direction sharply the second he realizes that he's not playing for Monopoly money.

Update: Does Chirac's tirade count as a change in tone and direction?

Update: Welcome InstaPundit readers -- come on in and have a look around. Here is another post with further thoughts about the EU meeting and what comes next.

If you haven't seen it yet, go read Vinod's excellent analysis of some of the major differences between the American and European points-of-view.

I suggest that we just drop the whole "gratitude for WW II" thing. It's not that the sentiment is wrong, but it's an off-topic rathole that can only lead to further anger and hardening of attitudes. That's the last thing we need right now. Please read to the end before you flame me.

Americans, please try to understand that most Europeans don't see a direct connection between the World War II and US policy today. From their standpoint, talk about gratitude is a non-sequitur, at best. To many, it seems like a demand for slavish obedience to US whims. Even those who are genuinely and deeply grateful to the United States get their hackles up when gratitude is obligatory and seems to be equated with obedience.

A more insidious and destructive consequence is that introducing "gratitude" into a discussion comes across as changing the topic, because they don't see the connection in the first place. It leaves the impression that you've given up on arguing the merits and have been reduced to calling in old favors to get your way. It ends up seeming petulant, manipulative and insulting. In short, it polarizes the discussion and eliminates any chance of finding common ground.

That doesn't make it wrong, just ... unhelpful.

Europeans, please try to understand that most Americans do see a direct connection between World War II and the present day. Americans travelled halfway around the globe, to fight and die in Europe's war, and they paid the butchers bill for Europe's failure to act before crisis grew into tragedy. And they stayed -- to nurse weary Europe back to health, at first, and later to defend their allies both old and new against the danger that arose in the east.

Now America is under attack and some of those "allies" won't even stand clear and allow her to defend herself, conspiring to deny America the use of her own armies - the very armies that have stood guard over Europe for more than half a century. That is the thread that binds World War II to the present for Americans, and the reason that they talk about gratitude. When you deny that link from yesterday's tyrants to the present, you seem - to American ears - to be disregarding and dishonoring more than fifty years of steadfast support from America. You seem ... ungrateful.

One side won't win over the other on the question of gratitude, but gratitude itself is a side issue. Let's focus the discussion on the real issues and avoid diving into this emotional and divisive rathole. Hopefully, a better understanding of what the other is thinking will make it easier to take a deep breath, take a step back, and turn the discussion to more productive topics.

Vladimir Putin, please call your office. Richard Perle has informed France that TotalFinaElf can kiss those lucrative Iraqi oil contracts goodbye. He's actually sending a message to Russia; we'll see if anybody picks up the phone.

The Blogosphere and even some of the mainstream media are coming around to the notion that we're facing Cold War II, as predicted here last month. Steven Den Beste, Andrew Sullivan, Mark Steyn and others are taking a look at the consequences of the new divide and how it should affect American policy from here on out.

I'm relieved that most of the commentary is sober and thoughtful rather than triumphalist or overtly belligerent, but I worry about the bitterness I see from some toward French and Germans in general (as opposed to the governments of France and Germany). Nations on both sides of the new divide are at least nominally democratic, which means that public opinion is a much more potent weapon than in the first cold war. Open hostility and disdain will only turn people away.

I also depart a bit from the conventional wisdom that France and Germany have isolated themselves hopelessly within Europe. They're isolated at the moment, but many of the pro-American leaders (including Tony Blair) are sitting on the powder keg of negative public opinion and won't be able to hold out forever. France and Germany want to drag this pre-war period out as long as possible because every day weakens their opponents within Europe; as I've said elsewhere, the threat of war is much more damaging to public opinion than the fact of war, unless the war goes badly.

That's all I have time for now. Next up, why "gratitude" is both irrelevant and utterly important.

Sorry for the dearth of postings lately. I'm growing more worried about the long term as the tone of the discussion (in the blogosphere, at least) takes on an even nastier edge, but I haven't had a long enough break to properly organize my thoughts. I should have more on the topic later today or tomorrow. Some advice to President Bush has also been percolating and I'll blog that as well, time permitting.

In the meantime, have a look at these:

Always reliable Dilacerator explains why the collapse of NATO was inevitable. He's probably right, though I can imagine (could have imagined) a shift in NATO's role. Even if the end was unavoidable, it didn't have to be this ugly and destructive.

Amiland cites a Spiegel Online interview and worries about the corresponding online poll. The article is horrible but I'm the poll doesn't concern me -- it's an online poll and is unlikely to be even remotely representative of the population as a whole.

Cinderella Bloggerfeller covers an interesting debate between intellectuals from "old" and "new" Europe in a Polish daily paper.

A nice Andrew Sullivan piece on the moral arguments in favor of war in Iraq.

This Prague Post article does a nice job, too.

If North Korea wasn't horrifying, it would be hilarious. It's pretty much impossible to parody the KCNA (Korean Central News Service). In the midst of famine and nuclear brinksmanship, the DPRK takes time out for the "7th Kimjongilia Show" (a flower show) in honor of dear leader Kim Jong Il.

Yasser and Kim, sittin' in a tree... From the today's entry at KCNA:

Floral basket to Kim Jong Il from Palestinian President
Pyongyang, February 11 (KCNA) - General Secretary Kim Jong Il
received a floral basket from Palestinian President Yasser Arafat to
mark his birthday. ...

Something to Hide? In an update way at the end of this post, Steven Den Beste wonders:

The governments of France and Germany must know that Americans are starting to wonder whether they're trying to prevent revelation of collaboration. They have to know that because it was on the WSJ's web site on Monday. Why aren't they saying anything about this? If they really were innocent you'd think they'd have issued denials and demanded retractions and apologies.

Nah. In their shoes, I'd just ignore the claim and hope it goes away. If they're actually guilty, they might start quietly shredding documents and a few witnesses might have "accidents," just in case, but commenting at this point would just draw unwanted attention.

What's one more weasel amongst friends?: I haven't seen this in the English language press yet, but Focus magazine is reporting that China has joined the Axis of Weasels. They didn't phrase it exactly like that, of course.

This might lead to a shift to the "Embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy for dealing with the Weasel-Bloc's "Mirage" plan. It certainly increases the cost of the "discredit and ignore" approach, unless President Bush has one hell of an ace up his sleeve.

Update: The various US news outlets are now reporting this, too.

Such Consistency

Now this pisses me off (Hat tip: Merde in France). France is opposing NATO involvement in the rebuilding of Afghanistan. Why?:

Nato diplomats said France's main objection to going out of area was that it meant letting the US use Nato beyond its traditional role of providing collective defence on its own territory.

Didn't France veto an attempt by NATO to "provide collective defense on its own territory" just yesterday?

What's the procedure for booting a member country out of NATO?

One Step Too Far

Interesting. Standing against the US on Iraq and roughing up the UN went over pretty well, but sabotaging NATO might just have been one step too far. I'm back in the states so I don't know what the man in the street thinks, but the tone of press reports about the French/German/Belgian betrayal of Turkey is surprisingly negative.

I'll translate (somewhat liberally) this one, by ex-General Klaus Naumann, because it's relatively short and to the point:

Germany, Belgium and France have taken an axe to the roots of NATO. For no comprehensible reason they have blocked preventative preparation to protect alliance partner Turkey.

This was about planning -- paper -- not about sending troops. Agreeing to plan brings no further obligations.

Germany's security depended for 40 years on the fact that NATO planned the defense of Germany against Soviet attack.

What would we German's have said, if Iceland had vetoed that planning? We would have felt betrayed.

The Turks can now expect that of the Germans. Turkey was one of the three NATO countries that supported the reunification of Germany without hesitation. France and Belgium did not.

Does planning make a war in Iraq more likely? No. Precisely the opposite.

Whoever reduces pressure on the dictator, removes the last chance for peace. These three have done that.

Whoever then damages NATO, splits America from Europe. That will lead to to instability (insecurity) in Europe, long after Saddam.

Is fear of responsibility and risk in Berlin worth that? Berlin could become the gravedigger for NATO. The EU and UN could be the next victims.

Some thanks for 50 years of security.

If you read German, you might also want to look at these (some links might be valid for a limited time):

A Rubble Heap

No Good Friends Left

Has Schr�der destroyed NATO?

The Spike-Helmeted Pacifist

This is just a sampling - the actual outcry is broad and deep, with hardly a voice in support of Schr�der.

All in all, reading this has made me a bit more optimistic about the longer term prospects for the German-American relationship. A lot depends on how this is playing with the "German Street", but the political establishment clearly understands the importance of the transatlantic link and is genuinely horrified at the damage that Schr�der is doing. It's too late to undo all of Schr�der's damage and trust will be last to return, but some kind of rapprochement might be possible, if the government falls or if Schr�der is reined in in time.

So here's the 50,000 Euro question: What are the odds that the Schr�der government will fall soon enough to do any good?

Update: Thanks to PapaScott for the translation for "Pickelhaube"

Update: Amiland is reporting efforts to get Schr�der to resign and wondering if we're about to see the collapse of the government.

Update: Here is a link to an (English langugage) BBC roundup of European press statements on the NATO debacle, including the S�ddeutsche Zeitung article cited above.

Something is rotten just south of Denmark

Steven Den Beste is chewing over the behavior of Germany and France at the UN and in NATO and the sheer destructive nature of it is bringing him back to the "something to hide" theory. James Taranto is starting to wonder again, too.

I vacillate a bit on this one, but I don't think treachery on its own is an adequate or likely explanation. I think we're seeing a tragic confluence of motives.

For Chirac and France, I still believe that simple anti-American posturing and delusions of relevance explain most of the resistance. The government of France, though constrained during the first Cold War by fear of the Soviets, has been institutionally anti-American for decades. The French political classes view themselves as the natural leaders of Europe and only grudgingly suffer the Germans (not to mention the British). NATO has been a positive annoyance, but they cherish their seat on the UNSC, which allows them to punch way above their weight on the world stage.

It isn't too much of a stretch to think that the French political classes believe that they can rally the world to their banner and lead the opposition to the odious hyperpower. This is their glorious resurgance onto the world scene, and the fact that Germany is (temporarily, at least) willing to follow their lead only makes it sweeter. Now even Russia seems to be on board. In fact, I'm moderately concerned about Russia joining the French -- a French/Russian/German Weasel-Bloc is more of a threat than a purely Franco-German one, and the fact that Putin, who is a survivor himself, seems willing to commit to France indicates that he thinks their odds are good.

Schr�der's behavior makes less sense to me, and this is where I think treachery might be a factor. Germany is not institutionally anti-American, and Schr�der's sudden swing is a shock to the career bureaucrats (witness this denunciation by a retired general). The fact that Fischer himself was reportedly left in the dark leads to the conclusion that Schr�der is personally running the show.

What if Schr�der himself has something to hide? If the government as a whole were implicated, Fischer and the whole machinery of government would be engaged, but if the risk is to Schr�der himself the picture suddenly clarifies. A lot. Recall that Helmut Kohl was humiliated and ostracized for corruption and that assorted other ministers and politicians (including Schr�der's ex-defense minister Scharping) have fallen for those and lesser sins.

What if Schr�der has been taking money from somebody who has shady dealings with Iraq? This is a man who is willing to sue over reports that he dyes his hair -- what would he be willing to risk to hide evidence that he's on the take to a hideous dictator? A possibly fatal wound to the UN, where Germany already has little influence? No problem at all. The end of NATO? The EU? Who can say?