Clark offers 'right of first refusal' to Europeans on US security concerns

[Lil Kim]

Sorry if this has been covered before, but am interested in thoughtful explanations, refutations, etc. as undoubtedly it'll be made a campaign issue if it hasn't already.

Well, if I were president right now, I would be doing things that George Bush can’t do right now, because he’s already compromised those international bridges. I would go to Europe and I would build a new Atlantic charter. I would say to the Europeans, you know, we’ve had our differences over the years, but we need you. The real foundation for peace and stability in the world is the transatlantic alliance. And I would say to the Europeans, I pledge to you as the American president that we’ll consult with you first. You get the right of first refusal on the security concerns that we have. We’ll bring you in.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660578

[Gore1FL]

1. This is inherently inteliigent policy

One need only look at what not bringing Europe, or the UN as a whole in the Iraq fiasco. 1: If we did, we probably wouldn't have gone, or B: we wouldn't be looking at a potentail 2005 draft even if we did.

Obviiously though, the right is going to spin this as turning our security to the evil French or some such bullshit.

[katusha]

2. would this be similar

to the security arangement we had with NATO when fighting the communists? if it is then this is just return to idealogical warfooting(replace soviets with al-qaeda).

[mouse7]

3. I, personally, have a problem with a "right of first refusal"

Just when you think the world stabilizes, a Silvio Berlesconi happens in another European country. Suddenly, a neo-con has a right of first refusal on our policies.

There's better ways. I'm sure something can be created that engages us with Europe in security issues and non-military concerns that doesn't make our foreign policy subject to an off-the-wall election return in another country.

[SahaleArm]

6. First right of refusal doesn't eliminate the US from...

acting on imminent threats. The idea is reciprocation will allow the minimization of global threats. Don't fall for the (R) sovreignity talking point that leads to preventative war. The days of being all things to all people around the globe are over, alliances are key to minimizing risk.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Right to first refusal....

means we consult with our Allies before making a move......

They have the right to refuse.....

after that we have the right to determine what comes next...
meaning going to congress, unlike what Bush did.

I think that has always been the policy of the US.

The only time that changed was when Bush decided to invade Iraq and only faked like they were making a real case.....Bush didn't even wait for the Allies to refuse...BushCo. just went for it.

[NV1962]

5. Brief interpretation / explanation

I think the key lies in the paragraph that immediately follows your quote:

And in return, we want the same right on your security concerns. And that would reinvigorate NATO. We then put the foundation in place to have a real transatlantic agreement. And working with our allies in Europe, we could move the world. We’re 600, 700 million people, we’re three permanent seats on the Security Council, we’re half the world’s GDP. We can do it. Whether it’s dealing with North Korea, the value of Chinese currency, or the problems of nuclear developments in Iran.

As I understand it, the idea is to provide a platform for consultation before, not during or after taking big steps - but solidly framed in a square reciprocal deal.

That is a pretty rational interpretation of trust building among solid partners and economic siblings; it's also a move straight away from the ridiculous concept of unilateralism, in a world where might follows money, across borders and continents. As he poignantly put it: that'd be half the world's GDP talking.

Interestingly, he mentions the Chinese currency and the Iranian-nuclear issues as cases for his thesis: both would undoubtedly benefit from multi-lateral leverage.

In this context, I'm really looking forward to his ideas concerning NAFTA, WTO, IMF, and the World Bank, and in how far he sees limits to what I'd call "the sovereignty of free trade interests." I put that in quotes, because "free trade" is one thing, but the last decade or so has shown a different pursuit of said organizations.

The reason I'm connecting that issue with Clark's proposal toward trans-Atlantic security co-ordination is because that's where I believe his ideas most likely will meet the tarmac: a more skeptical / cynical part in myself sees a paradox, where trans-Atlantic (West-East) security might very well end up tilting the already unbalanced North-South situation off the charts. And in the longer run, that could become a bigger problem, if one assumes the Chinese / Korean (and Indian / Pakistani) hot-spots remain unsolved.

But returning to the premise, I think there's another point in favor of Clark's trans-Atlantic charter idea. The explicit acknowledgment that security is a mutual problem, certainly on a global stage defined more by unpredictable hyper-terrorism than by static opposing blocs, almost naturally invites the traditionally reluctant Europeans to take a bigger stake in international security matters - beyond the European continent, that is.

That'd be not only good news for the US taxpayer; it'd be a nicely motivating test for the European resolve to "arm" the EU with a more independent strategic (and tactical) dimension, plus a politically welcome opportunity to share the burden (in "blame" or "guilt") of the North-South hot potato.

From my approach sketched above, it's probably evident that I'm a follower of the "linking" approach. To me, the areas of global security, development, stability, and trade are intrinsically linked.

That plays a big part in my support for a candidate who not only abhors the certainly disdainful reliance on advisers we see in the current President, but also understands from first-hand experience that the most productive alliances, well, give the allies a meaningful voice and vote in the process. That is what I admire most in the intelligent, understanding and wise leadership that Wes Clark can give not only to the US, but to a world that is too much shaken already by un-knowing buccaneers on a gung-ho rampage.

Alliances are more effective when they're built on mutual trust and respect; the people of the US have most to gain with that approach.

Well, that's my .02 on a "big issue"... Look forward to reading more / other ideas here. :)