What Next: The State of the Transatlantic Relationship
Petra Holtrup
by Pauline Hilmy
The United States/ European relationship has travelled a bumpy road since the end of World War II, facing Cold War tensions, diminishing NATO significance, German reunification, and EU formation. Yet Europe and the United States seem bound together by a number of factors. Both children of the enlightenment, they share a relatively common culture, many of the same historical roots, a huge interdependent economic network, and now, as U.S. officials unceasingly stress, the common threat of terrorism. To forecast the future of the transatlantic relationship is no easy task. The number of hidden intricacies ranging from differing national interests to dissimilar political ideologies have produced a variety of interpretations, ranging from the pessimistic downward spiral to a more optimistic vision of a deep lake troubled by surface ripples. It seems, when one sees the incredible number of conferences and papers presented in recent months on both sides of the Atlantic which address the very theme of this forum, that there is agreement on one fact: the transatlantic relationship finds itself in troubled waters, threatened by a number of political, ideological, and economic factors, and it merits to be reexamined. Public opinions have soured, politicians have publicly criticized one another, and economic relations are slowing down and becoming more precarious. Each side of the Atlantic is willing to repair relations, but to varying degrees and to somewhat different ends.
The most recent and perhaps most severe point of friction revolves around the Iraq crisis and the U.S. decision to unilaterally forego any UN or other international legitimisation for its preventative war. The United States seems to have set out on the battle against the "axis of evil" alone, due largely to the unilateralist policies which the U.S. seems to have adopted, but also due in part to the highly uneven balance of military power from one side of the Atlantic to the other. After 9/11, transatlantic solidarity glowed promisingly as both European governments and citizens offered their condolences and sympathies, but with the U.S. decision to bypass the UN and send troops to Iraq to dismantle the Hussein regime (among other decisions such as rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, decision not to ratify the ICC…), salt was sprinkled on the sore. The number of, what are considered in Europe to be political faux pas of the Bush administration, have led many to hope that the current transatlantic discord is but a passing phase, and the frighteningly unilateral and hegemonic US foreign policy but a temporary trend. One of the key questions revolving around European conference tables is that of the temporariness /permanence of U.S. foreign policy. The Clinton administration (policy in Iraq, failure to ratify ICC) seemed to warn of a deeper trend, yet one must be conscious of American domestic political divergences between Democrats and Republicans. The eastern side of the Atlantic is evolving as well, growing yearly in both economic and political weight (despite discord regarding the Iraq question), not to mention the ever changing political generations. Are the current American foreign policy and European defiance passing phases, or they evidence of growing trends which will increasingly widen the transatlantic divide?
Points of disagreement:
- How much has the transatlantic relationship changed and in what way. To what degree has the relationship been altered.
- Should we face the question of repairing the relationship or do we need to view the current problem as one of building a new relationship.
- Toward what kind of relationship should we work?
- What kind of future (or for that matter current) world order are we looking at?
There have been quite a number of statements published quite recently concerning the options for the future. For purposes of repairing or rebuilding the relationship, it is most useful to concentrate on the points of discord and then to work towards finding solutions. Yet there is a wide spectrum of such points of friction, each bearing more or less weight on the relationship, and each more or less easy to try to resolve.
- Unilateralism v. multilateralism
- Unipolarity v. Mulitpolarity
- Defense spending
- EU as a legitimate political entity
- EU as a military entity
- NATO strengthen- Counterpart to EU? New members (Russia, EU members)?
It is also important to remember the influential role of public opinion in the transatlantic relationship, for the two sides of the Atlantic are populated by democracies. With the daily reports of more American casualties in Iraq, there lies the possibility that Iraq will become another Vietnam. The American public quickly loses interest in interventions abroad which become too costly, and the US eventually reverts to more actively isolationist and internationally peaceful and cooperative measures. There is also pressure, especially from the business community, to revive full transatlantic cooperation, as well as the power and influence of the intellectuals on both sides to revert to more multilateral measures concerning foreign policy. Yet there is also the danger that public opinion will negatively affect the relationship. Germany’s Chancellor Schroeder has been accused of playing the anti-American heart strings of the public as a tactic for gaining popularity at election time, while George W. Bush has been criticized for playing up 9/11 and strategically using fear as a means to build support for his foreign policy choices.
Unfortunately it is too simplistic to simply agree on both sides of the Atlantic that the relationship must improve, for there are inevitably varying interpretations of the term “bettered” as are there for “national interest” or even “Western interest.” What kind of Europe will the United States be looking at in the future? In other words, will US/European relations consist of bilateral and multilateral policies between the US and individual European states, a method described by John C. Hulsman as “cherry-picking,” or will Europe as a unit gain political legitimacy?. It is certain that the disagreement among EU members concerning the Iraq crisis was a step back in the process of creating a Europe which would act as a single political unit, the recent enlargement and prospective further enlargement of the EU is sure to further complicate this task.
Perhaps much of the solution lies in cooperation regarding the problems which are not directly transatlantic. Finding common goals abroad, such as regarding the Israeli/Palestinian issue, or event he broad fight against terrorism can help shrink the differences into the background. The reconstruction of Iraq and the recent American requests for French and German assistance has brought about much talk of "the West" and "us democracies" and fostered hope for cooperation. Dealing with the greater global problems will force the US and Europe to work together and bypass differences.
In highlighting these commonalities, however, comes a new problem. Pitting democracy against tyranny, Christianity against Islam, West against East (first and third world) may be used as a political strategy to refuel the relationship or build public support, but it is widening the divide between West and East. One need only look at political rhetoric, the surges of nationalism or “westernalism” that surface in the public, to see that despite frequent European criticism of an American Imperialism, a rising feeling of Western solidarity is building up. It is upon the American and European common past, upon common ideals and principles, the glowing torches of liberty and democracy, which many politicians and intellectuals call to reunite the two sides of the Atlantic. Perhaps it is this pitting of West against East, good against evil (as Bush would say) which will help reshape this relationship, but it is certainly not good in terms of other international relations.
In the short term, it may suffice to simply concentrate on “better,” and work step be step, addressing points of discord in their individuality, turning a problem which at first glance may seem frustratingly complex, into a series of simpler, almost technical tasks (a technique pretty much perfected by the European Union when considering the enormous amount of progress and cooperation witnessed among European states). Yet behind these individual points of discord, which may be worked on and at least partially resolved or mediated, lies their source, one which is unfortunately not discussed frequently enough, and one for which little if no attempt is made at compromise or even understanding. This fundamental difference lies in ideology, in world view, in understandings of the future within these concepts of global order, which are fuelled by different pasts (world wars at home or abroad), different presents (9/11, EU formation), different ambitions, different cultures.... There are necessarily varying levels and layers of such “mentalities” within the US and Europe, but it may be fairly said that in general, the US tends to lean more towards the principles of a machtpolitik within an anarchic world in which state actions are driven be fear while Europe is more bent on diplomacy and cooperation in a world in which state actors can act with rationality toward shared long term interests, and can be fuelled by political and economic incentives. These differing mentalities are the source of most friction between the US and Europe, and are certainly the most difficult problem to solve.
The purpose of this policy forum is to initiate a dialogue and debate between both sides of the Atlantic. We present you with analyses of the state of the relationship, options for the future, and the varying European and American understandings of the current state within the wider political and ideological discrepancies.
Druckversion
Seite empfehlenbookmarken bei...
