June 11, 2007

Despite Bush Visit, Eastern Europe Needs to Look Out for No. 1

It is a long distance from the ranch to the Carpathian Mountains, but that did not stop President Bush this past week. As his tour of Europe culminated in Bulgaria on Sunday, it was clear that the president has come to recognize the potential importance of Eastern Europe to American foreign policy strategery.

While “veni, vidi, vici” is not an accurate description of Bush’s visit to Rome, where he managed to inspire a whole new edition of Bush-ism desk calendars by referring to the Pope as “sir,” the president captured the hearts of new allies in other places.

For example, his one-day stay in Poland was described as successful and meaningful for diplomatic relations between the countries. While there was a lot of back patting and routine “thanks for standing with us” talk, our innovative leader was probably thinking “Baghdad Shmagdad” as he tried to entice Poland into participating in the new U.S. missile shield.

Yeah, infuriating the Russians seems like a great policy for Poland. It has worked so well in the past. Not.

Whereas it is understandable that Polish, Albanian, Bulgarian and Kosov leaders are excited to be recognized by the U.S., the interest is self-serving. In the short run, the newly admitted European Union members are cast into the world arena as part of a great international event. “Yay!” they are thinking, “we’re no longer just chips off the old block, ignored by the world community. We’re special!”

No, you’re not. Being pushed around by the Kremlin and then by Western European powers had its effect. Why would another superpower be any different? Although hope for a better future often leads to tunnel vision, hindsight confirms that history repeats itself.

There is no easy way to go about this. When you are the underdog, whether geographically (would you want to be sandwiched between Russia and Germany?), economically or militarily, being used as a pawn is inevitable.

However, it is unfair to judge less powerful countries’ choice of allegiance without applying equal scrutiny to the intent of the powerful players. Thus, perhaps the more important question is whether those who hold the cards are acting fairly.

As President Bush made his rounds of Eastern Europe, where the political sentiment is considerably different from that of Western Europe, it was evident that there was a sharp contrast between the subject matter discussed in each of the regions.

It is as if the president knew that proposing support in Iraq and the missile system as the key components in relations with France and Germany was ludicrous, so he turned to the “other” Europe. It is undeniable that it would be equally ludicrous to ignore the stark differences between, say, Sweden and Albania. Nonetheless, there is a latent message in this approach: The Eastern European countries are not a part of the strong, independent Europe.

Eastern European states are in a difficult position, between Iraq and a hard place, if you will. There is no blanket solution to this problem. However, striking a more delicate balance and remaining more moderate when declaring ideological allegiance may best serve Eastern Europe in the end.