CLARK: It’s worse. We’re seeing the same institutional infighting as in the past, with the Pentagon pushing its own interests and no clear vision of where it is going in terms of U.S. leadership in the world.
We hear a lot of talk of preparing for the “next threat,” whether that’s rogue missiles or new enemies. The cold war is over. But we haven’t come to terms with this. Our new world is not dominated by one hostile ideology that seeks, as Khrushchev put it, to “bury us.” It’s about democracy, individuality, choice. Our new challenges involve cooperation more than confrontation. The strategic problem the U.S. faces is how to help its friends, strengthen its allies, reinforce those who share its values. We haven’t thought this through, articulated our goals. Our policies will therefore be haphazard and episodic.
Europe. The rivalry between the United States and the European Union is worse than during Kosovo. Yes, our allies in Latin America and Asia are important. But I look first to Europe. It’s our natural base–with 400 to 500 million people, depending on how you define its borders, and a GDP as big as our own. We share a history and culture. Europe has two votes on the U.N. Security Council. Together with us, they’re the force that can move and shape diplomacy to promote peace and progress in the world. We are a de facto member of Europe, and the Balkans is therefore a vital U.S. interest.
The easy military tasks have been accomplished–the return of territory, separating the warring forces, patrolling flash points. But peace has not been achieved. Neither have the Dayton accords, in part because of pusillanimous… that’s too strong a word… because of hesitant, excessively cautious international civilian leadership. It takes a combination of strong, forceful, determined civilian leadership and forward, active military engagement on the ground to ensure success. The military mission is not finished.
Much of the violence is impelled by our failure to address the issue of “final status.” In 1999, when the fighting began, we knew it would be difficult, if not impossible, to reintegrate Kosovo into Yugoslavia. Humpty Dumpty had fallen off the wall. Independence may or may not ultimately be the best solution for Kosovo, but it has to be an option. The West is going to have to sponsor a process by which that will be determined. It can’t happen without active U.S. participation and possibly U.S. leadership.
Because of the varying and often conflicting interests of many European nations, not only Yugoslavia’s neighbors but also countries farther removed that might be dealing with their own separatist movements. They are going to need reassurance, shoring up, firm commitments of support on many different dimensions.
Yes. Macedonia needs urgent NATO assistance.
Absolutely. It’s time to act.
We need a new Atlantic Charter. Europeans have always questioned the real strength of America’s commitment, but never so deeply. On our side, there’s talk of “differing interests,” worries about a separate European defense force. We need to tell Europe, in clear and certain terms, that the United States will be there to help meet any security challenge, whether it requires a company of U.S. Marines or three divisions and all our air assets, as in Kosovo. And we need assurance that Europe will always turn first to NATO.
Yes, but the important thing is a new charter. Then second-level discussions, like missile defense, will take their rightful place, to be decided in consultation with our allies.
