European Perceptions,
Tactics and Strategy
-By Josef Janning, Germany
When the present decade comes to an end and
years have passed since the 2002/2003Iraq crisis, analyses and case studies on the
American, European and international policies pursued during this crises could well take
on the same status as the literature on the 1962 Cuba missile crisis. No other crisis of
that period illustrated the conditions and conflicts of the Cold War between than the
standoff over the stationing of Soviet nuclear missiles on Cuba. The Cuba crisis was the
climax of the confrontation between the superpowers, yet at the same time it became the
starting point for a new epoch. The experience gathered in that crisis laid the foundation
for the search for a modus vivendi under the heading of arms control and later détente.
As in those dramatic weeks in October 1962,
the way foreign policy is currently unfolding in the Iraq crisis feels like a film that
has been speeded up. The months since the summer of 2002 have brought a shift in the
constellation of international politics. The structures, power relations, interests and
strategies of the players in the world of nation states have become clearly visible coming
into focus as though under a magnifying glass. The crisis seems to have overcome time,
bringing simultaneity to things we thought were not simultaneous; younger forms of
multilateral crisis diplomacy have been eclipsed by traditional forms of superpower
politics, power and counter-power, realpolitik and the "balance of power". In
the conflicts of the 21st century and triumphing over those of the 19th century are
triumphing over those of the 20th.
In his book "Bush at War," Bob
Wood-ward has presented a detailed account of President George W. Bush’s
deliberations and decisions in the weeks following September 11, 2001. Regime change in
Iraq has been on the agenda of decisions since the US president’s first crisis
meeting with his group of advisers on September 12, 2001- this issue is among the Bush
administration’s central responses to the challenges of international terrorism. Most
Europeans have a markedly different perception, potential and strategy from Americans.
Europeans’ historical experience includes not only the lessons of terrorism and
fundamentalism, but also an insight into the limits of their power. Influenced by these
experiences, European policy avoids going it alone, mistrusts quick fixes and prefers
compromise to a trial of strength.
The Europeans are still familiar with the
"civilizing" effect of international agreements and institutions from the days
of the East-West conflict; this seems to have been almost forgotten in America in the
meantime. The characteristic feature of diplomacy in the "old world" is not its
idealism, but a sense of reality that sometimes borders on cynicism. Modern
multilateralism is not a European invention, but owes its emergence to US foreign policy-
European policy’s clinging to its contents and structures is largely determined by
the benefits of multilateral action. The foreign policy of the Europeans certainly does
not see the world of the Middle East with the eyes of Immanuel Kant, as the US political
scientist Robert Kagan believes. What separates Europe and the US is not the assessment of
the regime in Iraq, but the question as to how to deal with it.
Even in less tense circumstance, Europe, with
its many different perspectives, cannot summon up the clarity and firmness of American
policy in a crisis. Yet Europe’s weakness, its lack of strategic unity, is
simultaneously a feature of its strength. Intense deliberations on international issues,
which are the rule today in the European Union in the process of the "Common Foreign
and Security Policy," moderate the reactions of the European states in a crisis. This
excludes neither solidarity, for example with the UK in the conflict over the Falkland
Islands, nor joint action – as in the support for Western policy on the Balkans in
the Kosovo conflict. Furthermore, the EU’s joint vote in the dispute over Kosovo
strengthened the legitimacy of NATO’s actions and in this way politically
counteracted the weakness of the UN mandate. However, even more things become visible
under the magnifying glass of the Iraq crisis than these differences of tradition and
political mentality. The ways in which the various countries come to terms with
America’s claim to – and insistence on – leadership in the crisis also
reveal otherwise hidden power structures and perception patterns in the relations between
the EU states themselves.
The more pointed the differences on both
sides of the Atlantic become, the more clearly the factors that determine solidarity among
Europeans are revealed. The first thing that emerges is the inter-linkage between domestic
and foreign policy. This can be observed in Germany, where foreign policy used to take
priority up until the nineties. Second, the continuation of an old rivalry for leadership
in
Europe is becoming increasingly palpable- in the policies and diplomacy of the UK and
France. And third and finally, there is also a deep-seated unease about the power-divide
within both the present and the future European Union. Beneath the façade of the
treaties, the institutions and the pathos of European politics, behind the single market
and the monetary union, there remain lines of conflict that have historical, cultural and
material roots. Hence, the position and tactics of Spanish foreign policy and elements of
Italian and Danish reactions to the crisis can also be seen as a reflex reaction to the
position of the French-German tandem in the EU.
This reflex has always had something to do
with the role of America, ever since the early years of European integration: in the
perception of the smaller and medium-sized states in Europe, the United States have the
role of a counterweight power vis-a vis the heavyweights in the EU. An added factor for
the new democracies in centr4al and Eastern Europe is the United States’ symbolic
value. They seek to be close to the US for reasons of security policy- all the more so,
the more economically dependent they are on Western Europe. In the light of the Iraq
crisis it becomes easier to understand where the difficulties of the Nice reform summit
were – in the unsettled, indeed unspoken issues of power in Europe’s world of
states, which have been sublimated but not resolved in the course of integration.
All this is coming to light at a time when
the EU is preparing to complete the project of uniting the continent, write a new
constitution at the Convention and shift the geographical reach of integration of long way
to the east. So far, the momentum behind these strands of action seems to have remained
unaffected by the different stances on foreign and security policy. However, the inherent
tension of this simultaneity cannot be maintained politically for ever. The EU needs to
bolster its foreign-policy unity in order to be able to respond to the risks of its
exposed position in world politics. This will not be possible without a restriction of the
tactical room for maneuver in national foreign policy. And the leading players will in
turn only consent to this if they see that the power structure is in equilibrium. The
struggle for a political union, of which foreign and security policy is one of the core
elements, will be critical in deciding whether the EU progresses to more profound
political integration- or is reined in a restricted to a purely economic union.
Josef Janning is deputy director of the
Centre for Applied Policy Research at the University of Munich. Text courtesy: Deutschland
N2/2003 April/May. Embassy of Germany in Kathmandu.
Culture is the Answer
Sensual approach for feminism’s
future
If feminism in the 1970s and 1980s was about
proving that women are equal to men, the movement today should highlight the differences
between the two genders and celebrate women independently, a leading women’s movement
activist said.
"Feminists of the pre-1990s period
conjure up images of short haired women in jeans and tennis shoes who wanted to prove they
were just as strong as men. But today, the toughest feminists dress in miniskirts and
flaunt their beauty as a way of showcasing all the aspects of their worth," said Lee
Hyae-kyong, president of Feminist Artist Network.
Lee is one of the two women to win the 15th
"Feminist Activist of the Year", given by Korea Women’s Associations
United, a group created in 1987 to unite the organizations working for women’s
rights. The other recipient is Lee Hye-ran, former head of culture society Orum. The
awards ceremony was held on March 8 in Dachangno.
"The award is a recognition of the past
10 years’ work", Lee said in an interview with the Korea Herald in her office in
Seocho-dong. "It is also a new starting point".
According to Lee, an advocate of what’s
called the "cultural feminist movement," the change in the feminist movement
today can basically be described as the shift from the old goal of advocating alterations
in law and society to changing the way one communicates humanism in daily living.
"Regulations and systems are important but more crucial are the ways women look at
themselves and act in everyday life. Accepting who they are and their value is crucial to
the New Age movement".
This is why the cultural feminist movement is
ideal, said Lee, who is also a theater producer. Conveying true feminism through art
works—such as film, theater, art and music—helps women, and men, adapt their
thoughts and behavior about women’s issues.
"Hardcore feminism is too philosophical,
with too much abstract theory. But cultural feminism relates its messages through all the
different senses—sight, hearing, touch—making understanding easier and
delivering more powerful impact," Lee explained. "For example, art can show that
femininity, as is symbolized by such things as miniskirts, is something that should be
appreciated, not hidden."
Such thoughts have always been at the
fundamental of the feminist Artist Network’s activities. Founded by Lee in 1992 to
promote greater communication between female artists, the organization in the past 10
years has offered a great number of high-profile cultural works, particularly in theater
and film.
In theater, the network produced its first
play, "A Room of Her Own", 1992-93, that argued a woman should have money and a
room of her own to be truly independent. The work was sold out for eight months. The
second work, "Go Alone Like the Horn of a Rhinoceros". 1993-94, later made into
a movie, was also a hit. The story showed how the most seemingly progressive women of the
1980s were in reality despondent.
"When we put "Room" on, we
were very proud, but looking back, I think the play had a major weakness. It was too
concerned with material things like money and the room, when what’s really important
is what’s on the inside, like a woman’s identity", said Lee, who studied
social studies at Ewha Woman University and the Berlin Free University.
In Film, the network created
"Women’s film festival in Seoul" in 1995, providing Korean women directors
a place to show their works, given that the film industry has always been dominated by men
here. The festival proved to be a tremendous success, drawing 38 applicants to participate
in the first year, and then 68, 130 and 160 in the following years. Jung Jae-eum, director
of the artistically acclaimed "Take Care of My Cat," got her start at the
festival. The group is now preparing their fifth annual event, slated for April 11-18.
"The film sector is the most advanced in
terms of cultural feminism. Movies have become very open about treating women’s
sexuality, for instance, whereas before sex was something that belonged to men," Lee
noted.
Meanwhile, theater and music has been slower
to adapt the movement, as the commercial risks are greater than those of art and film, and
the genres have to appeal to the widest group of people as possible, she said.
Lee now stresses that the new government must
take a leading role to move the cultural feminist action forward. She is concerned that is
seems to put a priority on peace and economy while relegating culture and women’s
democracy to the backburner.
"We need some kind of an institutional
framework for ensuring continued advancement of the cultural movement, including feminism.
I recommend placing a few cultural feminism professionals in the Ministry of Gender
Equality and adding diversity to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism," she said.
Lee also stressed the need for a public space
in which cultural artists can meet freely to exchange ideas, pointing out that currently,
artists stick to cliques in their own respective industries.
"I harbor some hope, though, as director
Lee Chang-dong is now the Minister of Culture and Tourism. As an artist, he knows the
importance of culture and art, and as a director, he has the leadership, training and
experience to orchestrate a number of different aspects of culture," she said.
"But we are still not sure about where he stands on women’s issues."
By Kim Mi-hui |
