inspiration of social justice alone. Gonernwould be the loathsome forces of capitalistrngreed, tribal and family ties, simplisticrnreligious faith, and private prosperity’, allrnreplaced by the equality of the Utopianrnsocialist state.rnWhat is far more likely to happen isrnwhat has occurred repeatedly to civilizationsrnthroughout history; The excessiverntaxation of the productive classes for thernbenefit of the unproductive, as governmentrnconfiscates the productive surplusrnand squanders it, will undcnnine first thernculture and then the prosperit}- of our socieh’.rnThe rule of law will be replaced byrnthe rule of the lawless. Wliat inevitablvrnwill follow is a return to a primitiverndespotic socictv’ and an equalit)- of miseryrn—the only realistic way to achieve anrnequalitv’ of outcomes.rnDavid A. Hartman is the chairman ofrnthe hoard of The Rockford Institute.rnFOREIGN AFFAIRSrnA European Defense?rnby Doug BandowrnBe careful what you wish for, goes thernold adage. You just might get it. Sornit is with America’s desire that the Europeansrndo more for their own defense.rnThe E.U. has proposed the developmentrnof a European rapid reaction forcernof 60,000 men. Although it will be somerntime before such a unit takes to thernfield —2003, under current plans —thernE.U. conducted war games in Eebruarvrnwithout tiie United States.rnThere’s no doubt that Europe’s militaryrncapabilities should be enhanced.rnDespite possessing a smaller GDP andrnpopulation than the E.U., Americarnspeirds 40 percent more on its militar’.rnBy almost every measure —total outlays,rnpercentage of GDP, spending perrncapita —Europe lags far behind the UnitedrnStates. Because of Europe’s postwarrnweakness, U.S. dominance was inevitablernwhen NATO was created inrn1949. But some American officialsrnwarned against excessive European dependencernon the United States. “Permanentrntroop establishments abroad,” observedrnDwight Eisenhower in 1961,rn”discourage the developnrent of the necessaryrnmilitary strength Western Europeanrncountries should provide for themselves.”rnThroughout the 1980’s, the Europeansrnroutinely failed to honor theirrnpromises to increase defense spending.rnAnd the gap beh’een U.S. and Europeanrnmilitar)- contributions increased after thernfall of the Berlin Wall, since Europe cutrndefense spending faster than America.rnA recent audit by the Western EuropeanrnUnion (WEU), Europe’s formal defensernorganization, concluded that Europe’srnmilitaries are largely ill equipped,rnoutmoded, and unable to fulfill post-rnGold War missions. Europe has onetenthrnof America’s practical military capabilities.rnI’his was evident in the Kosovo war.rnThe United States provided virtually allrnprecision-guided missiles, intelligence,rnairlift resomces, and 80 percent of aircraft.rnThree months of bloodless (on thernallied side) bombing was possible oirlyrnbecause of sophisticated U.S. militaryrntechnology, developed through massivernspending on research and development.rnIndeed, NATO is not an alliance. FormerrnNational Securih’ Advisor ZbigiriewrnBrzezinski more accuratel}’ termed WesternrnEurope “largely an American protectorate,rnwith its allied states reminiscent ofrnancient vassals and tributaries.” Despiternperiodic U.S. complaints about burdensharing,rnthis arrangement has long satisfiedrnboth sides.rnAfter the war against Serbia, however,rnDepuh’ Seeretarv of State Strobe Talbottrnchided an English audience, “AlanvrnAmericans are saying: Never againrnshould the United Stales ha’e to fly the lion’srnshare of tire risk}’ missions in a NATOrnoperation and foot by far the biggestrnbill.” hi early Februar, Defense Sccretan’rnWilliam Gohen criticized the Europeansrnfor failing to modernize their militar)rnarsenals, relying too heavily onrnAmerica. GOP presidential candidaternGeorge W. Bush has cited “Europe’srnneed to invest more in defense capabilities.”rnThe Europeans, too, seem appalled bvrntheir pitiful performance. As JavierrnSolana, who last October shifted fromrnNATO to WEU secretar’-general, put it:rn”To have a good and solid partnership, itrnhas to be more among equals.”rnPublicly, the Glinton administrationrnprofesses to be pleased with Europe’srngreater interest in building effective militar’rnforces. One U.S. official told the FinancialrnTimes that “This is burden-sharing,rnbig time.”rnIn October, the U.S. Senate passed arnresolution advocating that the E.U. undertakernan “autonomous” interventionrn”only after NATO had declined to takernon that mission.” At the end of last year.rnSecretary Gohen made the same point,rnadvocating that NATO have “first option”rnon any proposed military action.rnWashington’s oft-expressed fear is thatrnthe European Security and DefensernIdentih’ (ESDI) will, at best, distract attentionrnfrom NATO. At worst, it will leadrnEurope to end its military reliance onrnAmerica.rnNaturally, the Europeans say therernis nothing to fear. French PresidentrnJacques Ghirac explains that Europe’srninitiatives “reinforce NATO, in realit).”rnBritish Prime Miirister Tony Blair adds,rn”It is not an attempt in arry shape or formrnto supplant or compete with NATO.”rnAlthough European embarrassmentrnover its relative weakness is real, it is stillrnnot clear whether Europe is willing tornspend what it will take to end its reliancernon America. For instance, Germany hasrnonly half the number of soldiers underrnarms today as it did in 1991. It would costrnBerlin an additional hvo billion dollars arnyear to fulfill the new E.U. mandate. YetrnGhancellor Gerhard Schroeder has proposedrnto cut more than one billion dollars,rnor four percent, in militar)’ spendingrnthis year, and almost ten billion dollarsrnmore over the next four years. France’srndefense budget is also down from lastrnyear.rnIn early December, Secretar’ Gohenrncomplained that Berlin’s miserly militar)’rnefforts were sending a bad message tornnew NATO members. In fact, recentrninitiates such as Flungary say the)’ can’trnafford to fulfill their commitments tornmodernize their forces and achieve intercooperation.rnThe French, at least, recognize thernconflict between ends and means.rnFrench Gen. Pierre Gallois (ret.) obsenes,rn’You can’t want a European militarv’rnorganization that can get along withoutrnthe Americans and reduce militar’rnbudgets.” Similarly, French DefensernMinister Alain Richard says, “I think it’srnnot realistic to say we are spendingrnenough and that all we need to do is creaternmore synerg)’ and achieve more efficientrncooperation.”rnEurope must decide: How much isrnpride worth?rnIt should be worth a lot, given the likelihoodrnthat America will eventually growrn46/CHRONICLESrnrnrn