West Versus West

PARIS -- Europe is paralyzed. The diplomatic catastrophe of the Iraq conflict has left it uncertain which way to turn, which demons to exorcise. It would be futile to conceal this identity crisis. Even the marvelous success of monetary unification cannot make us forget the intellectual breakdown of the largest economic union in the world. In order to speak with a single voice, Europe soon plans to inaugurate a sort of Minister of Foreign Affairs for Europe. And what exactly could such a figure accomplish in this conceptual desert?

The altercation that enraged European ministers and mobilized the street created two "camps", of the "peace" and of the "war". On the side of "peace" stood a minority of governments and the majority of public opinion; for those who proclaim themselves pacifist and advocate the creation of a powerful Europe, George W. Bush became the principal enemy. On the side of "war" were a majority of governments and a handful of intellectuals, loyal to the Atlantic alliance or standing in solidarity with the Western democracies: Their principal enemy was Saddam Hussein.

Far from being minor, this disagreement promises to be long-lasting; what France's Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin calls "two visions of the world" are facing off against each other. Put more directly, these camps diverge in their evaluation of the great threats and challenges in the world today.

France and Germany propose what amounts to a declaration of independence for Europe. In their view, the Europeans must break with the American empire and become the harbingers of a "multi-polarity" that balances this superpower. Russia, China, the mythical "Arab World", India and Latin American would join this anti-hegemonic coalition. One finds here a familiar analytical grid: this "multi-polar" balance echoes the old European balance of powers that brought good and evil both between 1648 and 1914.

The credo of this European power unites the slogans of anti-imperialism and the Communist International of old with the hostile rivalry that the Quai d'Orsay diligently nurtures toward perfidious Albion and the all-pervasive Uncle Sam. Old caricatures of Wall Street and Hollywood are refreshed with slanders against CNN, McDonald's or the IMF. Academics curse the Yankees' lack of culture while the poor are called on to demonstrate against the "system," capitalism, imperialism and globalization. The old world and its tired ideas are with us again!

So what is new under the sun of the 21st Century? Nothing for the pacifists. Nothing for the partisans of a powerful Europe. All reject the arguments of Washington. For them, the challenge of terrorism requires, when they consider the problem, the kinds of means used to fight organized crime. In the short term, Interpol and cooperation among national police forces can eradicate the supporters of suicide attacks. For them, the collapse of the Twin Towers passed merely as a news item, albeit inflated in importance by the images broadcast world-wide. To call this event, nearly two years later, a major turning point in world politics reveals the hallucinations of a deranged country.

But if the more horrific terrorist attack in history has revealed an essential change in the use of force by terrorists, the very notion of who wields power in the world has changed as well. By intuition, we immediately baptized Manhattan's devastated area "Ground Zero." Spontaneously one made a parallel between the use of kamikaze planes and the last atomic test before Hiroshima (the desert of New Mexico, an area designated "ground zero.") September 11, 2001 raised the possibility of a second Hiroshima, dangerous and perilous like nuclear energy.

During the past half-century, apocalyptic weapons stayed the monopoly of a handful of great and super-great; the American umbrella protected our bit of Europe. From now on devastating power has "democraticized" itself. With a box cutter and a couple of airplane tickets, the destruction of the world is within the realm of capability of the world's innumerable deviants.

"Time is not on our side." George W. Bush dared to unveil that sacrilegious formula in his State of the Union speech on the "Axis of Evil". Destiny is not in our hands. Before September 11, the United States advanced "with God on our side," as Bob Dylan sang ironically. Modern sanctuaries of piracy, these rogue states cultivate, without law or limits, unbridled terrorism, a do-it-yourself arsenal of annihilation, and the totalitarian science of massacres. Often rivals, sometimes associates, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il are at the head of the newly "possessed". Their networks cross borders, ideologies, religions. Between fundamentalism, narco-Marxism, the arms traffic, money laundering exist footbridges and viaducts. There's nothing there that permits the return to the kind of balance of power of the classical European type, where each state affirms its sovereignty based on inviolable frontiers.

More ominiously, a gray-zone is spreading, as Godfather countries discreetly comfort the rogue regimes and the various terrorist cells. Behind Iran, North Korea and the old Iraq of Saddam stand Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The holy alliance of all the states engaged in the fight against terrorism is a naive myth: Russia terrorizes the Chechen population and its army gives free rein to its genocidal impulses. In Tibet, as in the land of the Uighirs, China is out of control. Gradually, it is the very notion of force that changes meaning. The balance of power has become the balance of nuisance.

The "camps" that divide Europe aren't at all "of peace" and "of war." The real camps group those stuck in the world of September 10 and those awakened by the events of the 11th. The first camp, France-Germany-Russia, dreams of a "multi-polarity" of sovereign powers: an Englishman's home is his castle, the shepherd leads his own flock, and to Saddam Hussein are left his people. On the other side, with Britain at its head, stands the group that understands that a tyranny far away can strike at the heart of New York, with the power to do great harm and with no respect for frontiers or limits. The question of questions is not multilaterality or unilaterality, but nihilism or civilization.

Mr. Glucksmann, a philosopher, is the author of "Dostoievsky a Manhattan" (Robert Laffont, 2002).

Updated April 28, 2003