[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 71 (Tuesday, May 13, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6067-S6069]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      LETTER FROM DAVID A. HARRIS

 Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask that the following letter 
be printed in the Record. The letter follows.

   Letter From an Endangered Species, by David A. Harris, Executive 
         Director, American Jewish Committee, January 10, 2003

       Let me put my cards on the table right up front.
       I consider myself a potentially endangered species. I am--
     gasp!--a committed transatlanticist. Until just a short time 
     ago that was a rather unexceptional thing to be; most people 
     I knew on both sides of the Atlantic were, to varying 
     degrees, in the same club. Now, in some places, it could get 
     my picture on a ``Wanted'' poster.
       Seemingly overnight, significant swaths of European public 
     opinion--most strikingly in Germany, but in other countries 
     as well--appear to have concluded that the Bush 
     administration is hell-bent on imposing its ``imperialist'' 
     vision on the world, that the American ``infatuation'' with 
     the use of force as a solution to global challenges is 
     downright hazardous, and that America pays little more than 
     lip service to its European allies, with the possible 
     exception of Britain, while single-mindedly pursuing a 
     unilateralist agenda.
       According to this line of thinking--often promoted by 
     opinion molders, including, in the recent German elections, a 
     few leading politicians--America is run by a group of modern-
     day ``cowboys,'' with precious little sophistication in the 
     ways of the world, determined to use their unchallenged 
     superpower status to get their way on everything, be it Iraq, 
     global warming, the International Criminal Court, or 
     genetically modified foods, and let the rest of the world be 
     damned if they don't like it. In response, Europe must draw 
     appropriate conclusions and rise up essentially as a 
     counterweight to otherwise unchecked American global 
     domination.
       This disparaging and distrustful view extends beyond 
     politics. A new American Jewish Committee survey in Germany 
     found that only 36 percent of the respondents rated America's 
     cultural achievement as ``very substantial or substantial,'' 
     while 48 percent thought it either ``hardly substantial'' or 
     ``insubstantial,'' and 16 percent had no opinion.
       And a recent grisly case involving the Internet, 
     cannibalism, and homicide in Germany produced a telling 
     comment from the influential Munich newspaper Suddeutsche 
     Zeitung, as reported in the International Herald Tribune 
     (December 19): ``It is all so unreal. So haunting that one 
     thinks such a case would only happen in the movies, 
     perhaps in America, but not in Germany. . . .'' Yes, 
     America, of course, is capable of such bestial violence, 
     but Germany never, we are led to believe.
       Meanwhile, new generations of Europeans, increasingly fed 
     this diet of overtly or subtly anti-American thinking, too 
     often lose sight of the larger picture. They cannot relate 
     easily to the backdrop of history.
       That America came to Europe's rescue in two world wars of 
     Europe's making, that America became history's most benign 
     occupier in postwar Germany, that the U.S.-funded Marshall 
     Plan was a key to Western Europe's astonishing reconstruction 
     efforts, that American-led resolve and strength prevailed in 
     the Cold War and contributed to the unification not only of 
     Germany but of all Europe, and that America prodded a largely 
     paralyzed Europe into decisive action against ethnic 
     cleansing (on European soil) in the Balkans, may at best have 
     an abstract hold on younger people's thinking, but little 
     more.
       Like their American counterparts, younger Europeans are 
     largely focused on the here and now. They may relate to 
     American music, fashion, idiom, or, heaven forbid, fast food, 
     but have an increasingly jaundiced view of America's larger 
     place in global affairs.
       At the same time, on too many levels, America largely 
     ignores Europe, even as some voices emphasize the oceanic 
     divide.
       Perhaps the most talked-about recent essay on the subject 
     was Robert Kagan's ``Power and Weakness,'' which appeared in 
     the June & July 2002 issue of Policy Review. It is a 
     provocative piece well worth reading. Here's a brief excerpt:
       ``It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and 
     Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they 
     occupy the same world. On the all-important question of 
     power--the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the 
     desirability of power--American and European perspectives are 
     diverging. Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a 
     little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-
     contained world of laws and rules and transnational 
     negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical 
     paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of 
     Kant's `Perpetual Peace.'
       ``The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, 
     exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where 
     international laws and rules are unreliable and where true 
     security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order 
     still depend on the possession and use of military might.
       ``That is why on major strategic and international 
     questions today, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are 
     from Venus.''
       And noting the wide gap in perceptions of America between 
     Eastern and Western Europe, columnist Charles Krauthammer 
     suggested jokingly--I think--in the Weekly Standard (August 
     26) that had America let Western Europe fall under the sway 
     of the Kremlin for a few decades, perhaps, like the nations 
     of Eastern Europe today, it would be far more appreciative of 
     America's world role.
       In essence, the caricatured image of America in Europe has 
     its counterpart here.
       Europeans are seen as sanctimonious, self-adulatory, and 
     wobbly at the knees. Rather than display a willingness to 
     confront evil--that is, if they can even recognize it these 
     days--they all too frequently seek to engage it through 
     rationalization, negotiation, and, if necessary, appeasement 
     via one Faustian bargain or another, all in the name, however 
     it may be packaged, of realpolitik.
       Look, the critics point out, at the European Union's so-
     called ``critical dialogue'' with Iran, which has been much 
     longer on dialogue than on criticism.
       Or the French flirtation with Iraq, going back to the 1970s 
     when Jacques Chirac, as prime minister, negotiated the Osirak 
     nuclear deal with Baghdad. Apropos, according to the Wall 
     Street Journal, the last foreign country Saddam Hussein 
     visited was France, in 1979.
       Or the quiet deals several European countries, most notably 
     France and Italy, sought to make with Palestinian terrorist 
     groups to avoid being targeted by them.
       Or the EU's unwillingness, even post-9/11, to agree on 
     classifying Hizballah as a terrorist organization on the 
     ostensible grounds that the group is also a ``legitimate'' 
     political party in Lebanon, but actually motivated by a 
     desire to avoid offending Syria and its satellite, Lebanon.
       Or the state visits accorded to the Syrian president in 
     London last month, complete with an audience with Queen 
     Elizabeth, no less, or previously in Paris, Madrid, and other 
     European capitals, while Syria illegally occupies neighboring 
     Lebanon and cossets terrorist groups bent on Israel's total 
     destruction.

[[Page S6068]]

       Or the EU's stance on Israel-related UN resolutions, almost 
     always opting to work out ``acceptable'' final language with 
     the Arab bloc rather than joining the United States in 
     opposing outright those objectionable texts that inevitably 
     end up condemning Israel, regardless of the facts on the 
     ground.
       Some Americans believe that, left to their own devices, 
     many Europeans would, in Churchill's memorable words, be 
     ``resolved to be irresolute'' when faced with the likes of 
     Saddam Hussein, the mullahs of Tehran, or, for the matter, 
     Slobodan Milosevic. And, ironically, the Europeans can get 
     away with it because they know that, at the end of the day, 
     there is an America that has both the will and capacity to 
     lead the fight when no other option is available.
       Observing these issues being played out from both sides of 
     the Atlantic, I wouldn't for a moment underestimate the 
     current chasm. It is real, if not always as wide as it may 
     seem at first glance. Still, we can't ever afford to lose 
     sight of what unites us.
       Call me hopelessly, irredeemably naive, but I remain 
     convinced that Americans and Europeans are umbillically bound 
     by common foundational values and common existential threats, 
     and thus, ipso facto, a common agenda.
       Those common values emanate from the very essence of our 
     respective societies: democracy, the rule of law, and respect 
     for the dignity of the individual.
       Even a brief glance at international socio-economic indices 
     reveals the striking fact that the democratic nations, as a 
     group, rank highest in personal freedoms, per capita income, 
     life expectancy, levels of educational attainment, and 
     overall standards of living, and lowest in infant mortality 
     and corruption rates.
       No less importantly, the democratic nations have renounced 
     war as an instrument of resolving policy disputes among 
     themselves.
       The ties that link this precious fraternity of kindred 
     nations must never be permitted to fray, for they represent 
     the best--indeed, I would argue that only--hope for the 
     ultimate realization of a peaceful and prosperous world.
       And the threats are transnational.
       Just as democratic nations were at risk during World War II 
     and again during the Cold War, today those democratic nations 
     are in the crosshairs of the radical Islamic terrorist 
     network.
       True, some European countries initially convinced 
     themselves that this threat was about America and not them.
       But as Islamic terrorist cells have been uncovered in 
     Britain, Spain, Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, 
     Germany, and elsewhere in Europe, there is a growing 
     realization that we are all in this together. The targets are 
     not just specific countries, but the overarching values of 
     freedom, secularism, religious tolerance, pluralism, women's 
     rights, and openness that are enshrined in every democratic 
     society.
       The threat from terrorist groups and their supporters 
     operating in just about every Western country is heightened 
     by the prospect of increasingly available weapons of mass 
     destruction.
       Even at the risk of stating the obvious, the United States 
     and Europe need each other, as much now as ever, in the face 
     of this worldwide, long-term menace.
       We must maintain full cooperation in the gathering and 
     sharing of intelligence and a hundred other fields if we are 
     to emerge on tops in this daunting conflict.
       We have to do a better job of coordinating policy, not only 
     on terrorist groups, but also on those nations that help and 
     harbor these groups. Can we afford to let such nations 
     continue to play us off one against the other, as they so 
     often have in the past?
       And if I could be permitted to dream for just a moment, 
     imagine our collaborating on developing alternative energy 
     sources that would eventually wean us all off Middle East oil 
     and gas--and, perhaps way down the road, fossil fuels in 
     general--and do something good for Planet Earth in the 
     process.
       In the final analysis, this struggle against the radicals 
     also entails strengthening the moderates in the Islamic 
     world, and, here again, the United States and Europe, working 
     together, increase the odds of success.
       Put another way, we must win two epic battles, not one. We 
     must win the war, and we must win the peace. Winning one 
     without the other will eventually prove a Pyrrhic victory. 
     The United States cannot go it alone on both fronts and hope 
     to prevail. Nor can Europe.
       Both of us have a profound stake in finding constructive 
     ways to encourage the forces of democratization, civil 
     society, and greater openness in countries that by and large 
     have been remarkably resistant to the political and economic 
     revolutions of recent times. Otherwise, further regression 
     will take place, with still greater division between their 
     world and ours, and all the attendant implications for 
     conflict, terrorism, and the spread of fundamentalism.
       Take, as an example, the case of Pakistan. Imagine for a 
     moment the catastrophic global consequences if it descended 
     into civil war or fell into the hands of the Islamists.
       Here's a turbulent country of 150 million, twice the size 
     of California, with 40 percent of its population under the 
     age of 15. Not only does Pakistan have weapons of mass 
     destruction, but the world was on edge recently when India 
     and Pakistan engaged in nuclear brinkmanship.
       Moreover, there are nearly one million youngsters studying 
     full-time in Muslim religious schools, where the Koran and 
     jihad, and not civics and biology, are the principal 
     educational fare, and Osama bin Laden could win his share of 
     popularity contests. What's the future for these young 
     people, and how will their future impact on us?
       The unraveling of Pakistan would hit the jackpot on the 
     political Richter scale and send massive shock waves through 
     its neighbors--Afghanistan, a country that has just been 
     brought back from the edge but remains far from secure, 
     China, India, and Iran. It would also have staggering 
     geopolitical, strategic, and economic implications for both 
     Europe and the United States.
       Once again, therefore, we have a common agenda.
       So, too, with Turkey.
       Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was one of the most influential 
     statesmen of the twentieth century. He established the modern 
     Turkish Republic on the rubble of the collapsed Ottoman 
     Empire, courageously separated religion from state, and 
     recognized that the nation's future belonged squarely with 
     Europe. Eighty years later, Turkey is closer to that goal 
     than ever before, but the outcome is by no means certain.
       Whether to admit Turkey to the European Union is a 
     European, not an American, decision. While the United States 
     has a profound interest in seeing this happen, it must exert 
     its influence without overplaying its hand and infuriating 
     the Europeans, as it managed to do last month in the run-up 
     to the Copenhagen summit of EU leaders. Close cooperation 
     between the United States and Europe can encourage Turkey to 
     take the additional steps necessary to persuade Brussels that 
     Ankara is a truly viable candidate for EU membership, and 
     thereby outflank its European opponents.
       (Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president, 
     expressed this opposition most bluntly when, in November, he 
     declared in the French daily Le Monde that Turkey ``is not a 
     European country'' and inviting it into the EU would mean 
     ``the end of Europe.'')
       The challenges of integrating Turkey into the EU should not 
     be minimized. At the time of accession, a decade or more from 
     now, it would almost certainly be the single most populous--
     and, by far, poorest--EU member country. Further, it would 
     extend the EU's boundaries to the turbulent Middle East. 
     Turkey shares borders with, among others, Syria, Iran, and 
     Iraq. And, in the process, Europe would inherit an unknown 
     percentage of the Turkish population that is Muslim 
     fundamentalist, adding to Europe's already considerable 
     challenges in this regard.
       Even so, the successful integration of Turkey into the 
     European Union could create a powerful and perhaps contagious 
     role model for other Muslim countries, beginning with those 
     Central Asian nations in the Turkish sphere of interest, such 
     as Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, and extending far beyond.
       The United States and Europe should have a similar interest 
     in extending the reach of genuine democracy, especially in 
     the Arab world, much of which is located practically at 
     Europe's doorstep. Here, too, there's room for collaboration 
     driven by the common overall objective of stabilizing the 
     region and increasing prospects for peace and regional 
     cooperation.
       The United States, by dint of its size, influence, and 
     global reach, has a great deal to offer. So does the European 
     Union.
       Let me digress for a moment. I am a long-time admirer of 
     the European Union. The more I understand the inventive 
     genius of Jean Monnet, the Frenchman called upon by Robert 
     Schuman, the postwar French foreign minister, to 
     conceptualize a structure that would prevent future wars with 
     Germany, the more in awe I am and the more I appreciate the 
     need for similarly bold thinking today.
       (And it should be pointed out that such a structure, 
     envisioned to fully integrate a rebuilding Germany, was a far 
     cry from 1944 Morgenthau Plan, named after President 
     Roosevelt's secretary of the treasury, which would have 
     converted a defeated Germany into a primarily pastoral 
     country.)
       Indeed, following Monnet's recommendations, the six-nation 
     European Coal and Steel Community was formally established in 
     1952, once the member countries--Belgium, France, Italy, 
     Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany--ratified the 
     Treaty of Paris. Along the way, on May 9, 1950, Schuman 
     publicly declared:
       ``It is no longer a time for vain words, but for a bold, 
     constructive act. France has acted, and the consequences of 
     her action may be immense. We hope they will. She has acted 
     essentially in the cause of peace. For peace to have a 
     chance, there must first be a Europe. Nearly 5 years to the 
     day after the unconditional surrender of Germany, France is 
     now taking the first decisive step toward the construction of 
     Europe and is associating Germany in this venture. It is 
     something which must completely change things in Europe and 
     permit other joint actions which were hitherto impossible. 
     Out of all this will come forth Europe, a solid and united 
     Europe. A Europe in which the standard of living will rise. . 
     . .''
       The European Union's evolution over the past 50 years has 
     been nothing short of breathtaking.
       It is a remarkable case study in the emergence of a 
     democratic and ever-more prosperous grouping based on the 
     vision of political giants, with the core objective of 
     preventing future wars. A European Union of 15

[[Page S6069]]

     nations, soon to be 25, with Bulgaria and Romania poised to 
     join a few years hence, has much to teach other regions, most 
     notably the Arab world, about institution-building and 
     integration.
       This sounds, I realize, like the stuff of distant, perhaps 
     impossible, dreams. Many reasons can be offered why the 
     European experience cannot take root in the Arab world. There 
     are, needless to say, countless political, cultural, 
     historic, and economic differences between Europe and the 
     Arab bloc.
       Still, I refuse to abandon hope because there is no more 
     promising alternative, certainly not over the long term, and 
     I am unwilling to accept the proposition that the Arab people 
     have no choice for the future but to live under corrupt, 
     autocratic, stifling filial dynasties.
       Here, too, the United States and Europe, working in 
     concert, can help lead the way and reap the benefits of their 
     efforts.
       And while it may seem far-fetched today, it is entirely 
     conceivable that the United States and Europe could one day 
     be talking about Israel's entry into the European Union, and 
     perhaps even NATO, as part of a comprehensive solution to the 
     Arab-Israeli conflict.
       In short--and I've only skimmed the surface--leaders on 
     both sides of the Atlantic Ocean need to stress constantly 
     our common values, common threats, and common goals.
       To be sure, there are, and inevitably will always be, 
     differences between Europe and the United States rooted in 
     political rivalry, economic competition, divergent interests, 
     and the like. In the larger scheme of things, however, these 
     differences however, ought to be quite manageable and, in any 
     case, must never be permitted to overshadow the 
     commonalities.
       The American Jewish Committee has long been in the business 
     of building bridges between Europe and the United States, 
     precisely because it understands what is at stake. At 
     turbulent moments such as this, the work becomes only more 
     important.
       For us, it means recognizing that Europe, given its size 
     and significance, cannot easily be ignored or dismissed even 
     when we don't like what we see; rather, it must be engaged 
     with skill, sophistication, and sensitivity, with ever more 
     points of contact established.
       Moreover, it means never losing sight of the larger picture 
     of Europe and America as the likeliest of strategic allies, 
     even we raise tough issues with our European interlocutors, 
     as we at AJC do regularly in Berlin, Paris, Madrid, Brussels, 
     and other centers of power.
       Among these issues currently are: (a) the slow and 
     stumbling reaction of too many Europeans to the indisputable 
     rise in anti-Semitism during the past 2 years; (b) the 
     unacceptable moral equivalence (or worse) with which a number 
     of European governments view the Israeli-Palestinian 
     conflict; (c) the political expediency all too evident in 
     molding relations with dictatorial regimes in the Arab world 
     (and Iran); (d) the rapidly declining impact of the Shoah on 
     European attitudes toward Israel and the Jewish people; and 
     (e) the growing anti-Americanism that too often goes 
     unchecked.
       On a lighter but related note, I had a good laugh when I 
     saw a cartoon in the New Yorker (October 28, 2002) which 
     showed a hostess at a cocktail party introducing two men to 
     each other. The caption read: ``Francophobe, meet 
     Francophile.'' In my case, though, I sometimes feel that both 
     individuals are living within me. No European country 
     attracts me more culturally, or exasperates me more 
     diplomatically, than France.
       At the same time, I fully understand that generalizations 
     can be dangerous.
       Not all of Europe is anti-American, anti-Israel, or anti-
     Semitic, far from it. Britain, Denmark, Italy, and Spain are 
     today very close to Washington; Germany, Britain, and the 
     Netherlands are the EU countries most sympathetic to Israel; 
     and there are some European nations that have experienced 
     few, if any, anti-Semitic incidents in recent years.
       Even in France, described by proche-orient.info (the 
     principal French-language source for balanced Middle East 
     coverage) as the country that ``takes the lead in the 
     European Union's anti-Israel policies,'' roughly 20 percent 
     of the parliamentarians in the National Assembly belong to 
     the France-Israel Caucus. That may not be a sufficient 
     critical mass to sway a nation, but it's still a rather 
     impressive number to work with.
       Moreover, though often overlooked, the situation in Central 
     and Eastern Europe is actually quite encouraging. By and 
     large, these countries are pro-American--Poland, Bulgaria, 
     and Romania being three outstanding examples; they have close 
     links with Israel, and, for a variety of reasons, have 
     reached out to world Jewry in the past decade in a way that 
     offers real hope for the future.
       To sum it up, it would be well to revisit the eloquent 
     words expressed by President Bush at the NATO summit in 
     Prague 6 weeks ago. The American head of state said:
       ``The trans-Atlantic ties of Europe and America have met 
     every test of history, and we intend to again. U-boats could 
     not divide us. The threats and standoffs of the Cold War did 
     not make us weary. The commitment of my nation to Europe is 
     found in the carefully tended graves of young Americans who 
     died for this continent's freedom. That commitment is shown 
     by the thousands in uniforms still serving here, from the 
     Balkans to Bavaria, still willing to make the ultimate 
     sacrifice for this continent's future.
       ``For a hundred years, place names of Europe have often 
     stood for conflict and tragedy and loss. Single words evoke 
     sad and bitter experience--Verdun, Munich, Stalingrad, 
     Dresden, Nuremberg, and Yalta. We have no power to rewrite 
     history. We do have the power to write a different story for 
     our time. . . .
       ``In Prague, young democracies will gain new security, a 
     grand alliance will gather strength and find new purpose, and 
     America and Europe will renew the historic friendship that 
     still keeps the peace of the world.''
       These stirring words--and their policy implications--
     deserve a long life span, as well as permanent top-priority 
     status, on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. The question, of 
     course, is whether they will get it.
       Given the global challenges piling up one on top of 
     another, from Iraq to North Korea, it's safe to say that we 
     should have a pretty good idea quite soon.

                          ____________________