Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

December 5, 2008 |  14 comments |  Print  Your Opinion  

Matthew Yglesias

How to Repair Our Relationship with Europe

Matthew Yglesias: US relationships with EU countries have been marred not only by our disastrous military engagements but also by a lack of actual diplomacy from the Bush administration. A return to the hallmarks of a liberal society coupled with the simple measure of common courtesy would go a long way.

It’s not as scary as the Middle East or as sexy as rising powers like China and India (and, sometimes, Russia, Brazil, and South Africa), but in many respects, the most important region for US foreign policy in 2008 is the same as it was in 1908 or 1808 -- Europe. After all, the European Union’s almost $17 trillion gross domestic product is the largest in the world by a healthy margin. Alternatively, counted as individual countries, EU members make up five of the 10 largest economies in the world.

What's more, though, to some pundits like Robert Kagan, Europe is defined primarily by its military weakness. But the reality is that two of the top five, and four of the top 10 military spenders in the world are in Western Europe. By the same token, two of the world's eight nuclear powers and two of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are in Europe. To be sure, these two are, in both cases, the United Kingdom and France. Still, that reflects that, aside from the United States itself, the only countries with real capacity to project military power at a distance are not erstwhile rivals like Russia and China or pseudo-menaces like Iran but are the UK and France. This, combined with America's historic ties to these powers, makes our position in the world secure. Plus, the sheer weight of the US and the EU means that the US-European relationship sets the tone for our bilateral relationships with other advanced democracies, including Japan, Canada, South Korea, and Australia

Over the past eight years, it has, of course, been a relationship that's deteriorated. It's become fashionable in certain pseudo-sophisticated circles to argue, counterintuitively, that the mere end of Republican rule won't turn that around. But based on discussions I had with political officials and business leaders during a recent trip to Switzerland, plus contacts stateside and abroad with officials from several different European countries over the past year, I think this is dead wrong. The reality is that things are more or less as they appear -- Europeans are genuinely and massively enthusiastic about the election of Barack Obama, and there's a tremendous opportunity to improve the relationship.

Part of the story here is that the depredations of the Bush years, far from being continuous with sources of US-European friction in the past, have demonstrated how relatively minor past disagreements have been. This realization, combined with the increasing assertiveness of Russia and China and the growing influence of autocratic petrostates, has created a renewed appreciation for how nice it is for the two richest and most powerful blocs on the planet to share a basic set of values. Unfortunately, however, just as this was unfolding, the Bush administration implemented policies that called into question whether we really do share those values. That's part of the reason it's so crucial that an Obama administration move swiftly and decisively to implement the president-elect's pledges to close down the Guantánamo Bay detention facility and end torture. The absence of torture and arbitrary detention are the hallmarks of a liberal society, and disavowing them would draw a clear line in the sand between the American future and both the Bush years and the world's tyrannies.

Beyond that, a simple measure of common courtesy would go a long way. Most Americans don't realize the sheer volume of petty bullshit (no other word is adequate) to which European governments and publics have been subjected over the past eight years. Bush, for example, declined to send Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero a congratulatory message upon his election in 2004 (Zapatero did get one after his re-election in March 2008) and has perversely refused to hold a one-on-one meeting with him out of pique at Zapatero's opposition to the Iraq War. Donald Rumsfeld pointlessly deepened US-European divisions over Iraq by dismissing the governments that opposed the war as "Old Europe."

Turning this sort of thing around will require little more than common sense and basic decency. Friends disagree but do so in a friendly manner. US ambassadors to Europe are normally donors and political supporters of the president rather than professional diplomats. But it shouldn't take a career in the foreign service to realize that bringing up the virtues of the Iraq War, as I saw Ambassador Peter Conway do at a dinner in Switzerland two weeks ago, in irrelevant contexts isn't going to win you any friends.

It's true, as the skeptics say, that none of this guarantees progress on what's probably the key American "ask" at this point -- our desire for European governments to send more forces to Afghanistan and/or relax restrictions on the activities of forces currently in the field. But what improved US standing in Europe will do is transform the politics of the situation. At the moment, even those European political leaders who agree on the merits of the American perspective are terrified to say so. The combination of Bush's toxic unpopularity and the sense that help given to the US in Afghanistan would, in effect, be assistance for what's widely viewed as a criminal enterprise in Iraq makes it a nonstarter. A new administration and a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq would clear the air. And steps to show that Europe's high hopes for Obama in terms of basic human rights, diplomatic courtesy, and engagement with issues like climate change would allow Obama to make his case to Europe's people and turn public opinion around. At a time when the United States is militarily and financially exhausted, but also desperate for a renewed approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan, that's change we need.

Matthew Yglesias is a senior editor at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and a former Prospect staff writer.

This article was first published here and has been republished with kind permission from the author.

Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:

 

  • 6
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Unregistered User

December 8, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The problem is that the Americans have been bred with the motto, they are the winners, for more than 60 years, while they were getting out of their "depression" at the same time. The Europeans are still their best card that they remnently expose. We are still a bunch of loosers that embraced "socialism" and health care. They are the good guis, that sacrify they life for democraty, while we were only colonialists...

They think that their system is the best, free markets, that brings them freedom and responsability. They are paternalist, both side, left and right, what did the Clintons in the Balkans ? the job that silly Europeans couldn't, but only talks... The new administration has been bred with the same ideas, they'll have a polite way to tell us that we do not count, unless the dollar will completly collapse.
 
Francisco J. Ruiz

December 9, 2008

  • 5
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I totally agree withy the main thesis of the article, as expressed in the first paragraph: “the most important region for US foreign policy in 2008 is the same as it was in 1908 or 1808 – Europe”. I do think that most of our energies should be focused on restoring the broken bridges between both sides of the Atlantic, but the question is not so easy, even with a new administration in Washington and some sinister incumbents, like Mr. Chirac and Mr. Schroeder, enjoying their retirement in Europe. I have to say that the Marie Claude's comments seem to be more based on anti-American "cliches" than in real facts.

One of the keys for the divergences was that the American pragmatism after the 9/11 shock led its government to take some wrong decisions. One of them was to consider that “as well as the terrorists came from the Middle East, let’s focus on these countries (mainly the Gulf Cooperation Council, GCC) our main effort, to prevent them from funding the extremist networks”. The GCC countries were, for the Americans, a mix of a scary thing (as terrorism promoters) and loyal collaborators when conducting the GWOT (Global War on Terror), as their incumbents used to endorse all the Washington actions.

Suddenly, the US felt more comfortable dealing with these countries (disregarding the basic liberal principles of the “Founding Fathers”), in the framework of the “Coalitions of the willing”, than coping with critical (sometimes) European allies in the framework of more permanent alliances, as NATO. There was a childish attitude of “if you are not with me, you are my enemy”; it is well know the conversation between Cheney and the French ambassador, in the eve of the invasion of Iraq, when the vice-president said that he was not sure that France still was a friend or an ally (?).

The resentment against Europe was something really present in the American society as a whole, especially at the time of the Bush’s “mission accomplished” in 2003 and the beginning of the occupation of Iraq, but that has (in general) disappeared at the same pace that the situation in that country got worse and worse. In any case, in 2005 (when the unilateral euphoria was almost gone and the US armed forces were already overstretched), being a student in the US Naval War College I could check that the officers in charge of the international students were completely obsessed with the Arab students, always paying attention to them and almost ignoring the students from other parts of the globe. That was a part of the military-to-military contacts component of the CIST (Combating ideology that Supports Terrorism), but the outcome was not very successful, as these guys went back to the Gulf scorning democracy more than before living in the US.

On the other hand, there is a clear evidence of the evolution of Robert Kagan's ideas from the publication in 2003 of the book "Power and Weakness." Now, he doesn't consider that Americans and Europeans belong to different planets, affirming on his book "The return of history" that our differences must be disregarded in order to face the challenges posed by the resurgent autocracies and the radical Islamism.

Guantanamo Bay is just a symbol and we should not consider it one of the main reasons for the disagreement; it is, by far, more important to recover a little bit of common courtesy for the transatlantic relation, as the author highlights. The example of the Spanish president is very adequate. Whether you agree or not with his decisions (obviously, I can’t give my opinion), retiring the troops from Iraq was in accordance with his electoral program, and the sovereign people voted democratically for that on the elections, so it doesn’t make any sense to ignore him for more than five years, being Spain the 8th world economy, and a NATO member present in Afghanistan.

So let's wait for the first decisions of president Obama and his Secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton, in order to evaluate the future of the US-EU relations.

 
Donald  Stadler

December 9, 2008

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"it is, by far, more important to recover a little bit of common courtesy for the transatlantic relation, as the author highlights. The example of the Spanish president is very adequate. Whether you agree or not with his decisions (obviously, I can’t give my opinion), retiring the troops from Iraq was in accordance with his electoral program, and the sovereign people voted democratically for that on the elections, so it doesn’t make any sense to ignore him for more than five years, being Spain the 8th world economy, and a NATO member present in Afghanistan."

Senor Ruiz, since you bering it up let's return to that election and the first days of Senor Zapatero's premiership.

Zapatero ran on the promise to withdraw Spanish forces from Iraq within two weeks. When he was elected he fulfilled his campaign promise. You present this as 'democracy' and indeed it was. Unfortunately it was several other things also.

It was a precedent. A NATO member withdrew from a military committment to another NATO ally in order to fulfill a political campaign promise, not for more solid reasons.

It was an insult. Withdrawing with two weeks notice was intended as a direct insult to George Bush. It was perhaps NOT intended as a direct insult to the people of the United States, but nevertheless was widely interpreted as such. I certainly took it that way at the time and have seen no compelling reasons to alter that opinion. An apology would provide a reason but no apology has been made that I am aware of. In Zapatero's view pulling out Spanish troops in a miniscule time frame for domestic political reasons was the correct action then and he seems to continue to believe that is true.

Then almost immediately after promising a direct insult to the President of the United States, Senor Zapatero proposes to resume normal relations, making a telephone call and apparently a visit to Washington. This is of course normal procedure for nations allied to the US, but very rarely do new heads of government begin their relationship with the President of the US with a direct insult.

Bush declined to do business as usual under the circumstance; one suspects he felt an apology was appropriate first (at very least). Zapatero seems to believe that playing politics with alliance relations is appropriate; I do not agree.

How could Zapatero (and Spain) behaved otherwise? You might look to the way Italy handled it's withdrawal from Iraq as an example. That was a different circumstance to be sure, with PM Berlusconi giving formal notice to the US of intent to withdraw and PM Prodi actually carring it out. But Prodi acted correctly. He did not make it personal, and did not withdraw troops two weeks after the election!
 
Donald  Stadler

December 9, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Pardon, Zapatero did not visit Washington. What I meant to write is that he was angling for an invatation to visit Washington, which was not forthcoming by the Bush administration. Bush has been polite to Zapatero in alliance meetings but has not sought a social relationship with PM Zapatero in any way. Correctly, I think.
 
Eimear  O'Casey

December 10, 2008

  • 7
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Certainly, the signs are positive for a renewed amicability between the EU and US under the Obama administration. The near hero-worship of the President-elect which his campaign elicited upon some Western European youth, however, threatens to bring about unjustified accusations of broken promises once Obama starts implementing policy. There was a discernable perception upon many British students, for example, that Obama’s policies belonged to a firmly left wing agenda which they would welcome in Europe. A debate even raged about why Obama couldn’t be elected in Britain – people speculated about a subtler form of engrained racism. But I think a closer analysis of much of Obama’s policy platform provokes a different answer: he belongs to a solid centre-right Democrat tradition, the kind of political position that the European student contingent generally rejects from its own politicians. The break with the past which Obama undoubtedly offers in US politics and transatlantic relations shouldn’t be confused with anything resembling pacifism or dare I say it, socialism!
 
Unregistered User

December 11, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Francisco
"even with a new administration in Washington and some sinister incumbents, like Mr. Chirac and Mr. Schroeder, enjoying their retirement in Europe. I have to say that the Marie Claude's comments seem to be more based on anti-American "cliches" than in real facts."

Not at all that's my every-day experience while surfing on right wing blogs, where I am often ridiculised as a French, though where I keep on going, trying to explain our difference of perspectives ; it gives me an "aperçu" of what the Americans really think of us

As far as Chirac's position, you can't blame him for not knowing the Arab world ; Also that the real motives of Irak war weren't for searching WMD (that the Americans sold to Saddam during the Iran vs Irak war), but at the request of the Waabite Saudi oil empire that complained to Mr Bush's sympathetic ears that Saddam was ruining their former successful business with the "oil for food" trades. Um, also not for removing a bloody monster, when so many others live peacefully in wide world (or have been installed by America)

As far as "true" terrorist threats, Chirac was among the firsts to participate into the war against them along the Americans, ie Afghanistan... though Bush administration denied him to be among the "operative troops at the beginning, but allowed the french troops in Kabul for training Afghanis and make "renseignments" spying

I have no clichés, I am realist. If I were you I would ask myself the origin from where you stated so
 
Donald  Stadler

December 11, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"WMD (that the Americans sold to Saddam during the Iran vs Irak war), "

Marie, what are you talking about? The Americans sold no nerve gas or any other WMD to Iraq. They sold a small quantity of pesticide. That is small when considered on an agricultural scale.

I have seen people accuse the US of massive arms sales to Iraq many times over the years, but the data doesn't support that conclusion. The US sold very little to Iraq. Russia sold the most, followed by France and China. Even Germany sold more weaponry than the US did to Iraq.

But when people wish to criitcize the US they don't let brutal fact slay their beautiful theory, do they?

Wishing does not make it so, and basing your critique upon fiction - makes it into propoganda, not fact.

Just the facts, Ma'am, Please.....
 
Unregistered User

December 11, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
um, that's not what your congress said in 2002

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html

for your info France only sold planes to Saddam and it was before the first Irak war, and there was no supply of new piece for worn out ones, so, then I learnt that some US politicians had interest to daemonise France for any good reason, MSM and the net were the effective relays
 
Unregistered User

December 11, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/040.html

OK Saddam did ask for a nuclear reactor, yeah, may-be with the idea to make a bomb, though it's not knowing that you can't make a bomb out of the french system, which enriched uranium is far too complicated to tranform it into an arm

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDIwMjVjMTIyZTQ1NTJhNjM1YzFmZm...

 
Donald  Stadler

December 12, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"um, that's not what your congress said in 2002"

Marie, did you actually READ what was in that link? I suspect not, or if you did you certainly didn't understand it,.

The most damning thing in that entire piece was the fact that an Iraqi scientist obtained and carried cultures of certain dieases from the Center for Disease Control to Irq after working there for 3 months, and that Irq was permitted to purchase certain bacteria and funghi cultures at a time when Iraq was not obviously a hostile power to the US.

Look as far as you will in the evidence that Senator Byrd cited and you won't find anything wich contributed to the production of the Iraqi WMD's, which were poison gase and nerve agents. The US did sell Iraq some helicopters. Civilian helicopters, which later may have been used to deliver poison gas.

Question: If Airbus sells a civilian aircraft to Iraq or Iran which is later used to drop bombs or nerve gas - is that use the fault of Airbus, the government or France, or the EU?

The US Pentagon did put a stop to sales of certain 'dual use' equipment to Iraq, some machinery which could be used in nuclear production and certain injectors useful in combatting the effects of chemical weapons. Both kinds of equipment were later obtained by Iraq, I believe.

From European sources.....

QED.
 
Unregistered User

December 12, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
.Yes Don, but you couldn't expect that the Responsable would acknoledge the truth

An American company, Pfaulder Corporation of Rochester, New York, supplied the Iraqis with a blueprint in 1975, enabling them to construct their first chemical warfare plant. The plant was purchased in sections from Italy, West Germany and East Germany and assembled in Iraq. It was located at Akhashat in north-western Iraq, and the cost was around $50 million for the plant and $30 million for the safety equipment.

5. British, French and German multinationals turned the request down on moral grounds or because the Iraqi delivery schedule couldn't be met—not because their governments objected.

6. The United States took other steps to ensure that Saddam's rule was strengthened. Mobile phone systems were mainly in the military domain at the time, but the United States government approved the 1975 sale by the Karkar Corporation of San Francisco of a complete mobile telephone system. The system was to be used by the Ba'ath Party loyalists to protect the regime against any attempts to overthrow it.

7. The United States also supplied Saddam with satellite pictures of Iranian positions during the Iran-Iraq war.

8. France provided Saddam with extended-range Super Etendard aircraft capable of hitting Iranian oil facilities in the lower Gulf.

9. While Britain's Margaret Thatcher mouthed platitudes about not supplying either Iran or Iraq with lethal weapons, Britain's Plessey Electronics supplied Saddam with an electronic command center.

 
Donald  Stadler

December 12, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
According to a paper published by MIT, Pfaudler Corporation did no such thing. The initial contract was for a small plant which would mix imported concentrates to produce pesticides. Iraq later sought to expand the project to build a large pesticides plant to produce aminton, a pesticide similar chemically to VX, the nerve gas.

Pfaulder didn't think that was wise for safety reasons because the Iraqi technicians needed to be trained on the dangers of running such a plant,and proposed instead a small pilot plant be constructed to give the technicians the experience they needed without the dangers of running a large plant.

Iraq rejected that plan and pressed for the large project, so Pfaudler withdrew from the project. Those Americans, such an unethical nation!

Iraq then approached ICI, a large British chemicals firm, who also declined.

Finally they found a supplier - the German firm Karl Kolb, who built several large laboratories and "the first Iraqi production facilities for tabun and sarin, two important
nerve agents".

http://mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/TandC_essay_on_WMD.pdf

It appears that Pfaulder had no idea that the plant was for chemical weaponry, but nevertheless withdrew from the project for ethical reasons concerning worker safety. They at no time sold plans for 'a chemical warfare plant'.

Writing that they did do these things is a flat lie.
 
Unregistered User

December 12, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
naive those Americans !!!! LMAO

though they were'nt shy to press on the french button for Writing that they did do such things, also a flat lie.
 
Unregistered User

June 10, 2010

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The problem is that there is no-one to negotiate WITH. No, stop that, I'm not talking about that famouse 'single phone number'.

I'm talking about the fact that you can negotiate for years to seek some kind of participation with Europeans on anything real and risky, and they will not, ever, EVER, come through. It's a pointless task, and the only way to MAKE Europe what it says it wants to be, is to make it actually act on something that it babbles continuously to be its' values.
 

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org


Community

You are in the archive of all articles published on atlantic-community.org from 2007 to 2012. To read the latest articles from our open think tank and network with community members, please go to our new website