Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

February 2, 2009 |  25 comments |  Print  Your Opinion  

Making Europe's Relationship With Obama More Than a Flirt

Jordan Michael Smith: The unprecedented enthusiasm with which the election of President Obama has been received in Europe is destined to sink when European and American interests conflict. Measures can, however, be applied on both sides of the Atlantic to secure the positive development of the Euro-American relationship.

Barack Obama's accession to power has been unusually popular. He has the highest approval rating of any incoming president in a generation. But it is not just Americans who have fallen in love with their president. Canadians give the first black U.S. president a whopping 86 percent affirmation. Germans turned out in the hundreds of thousands to hear Obama speak in Berlin last June. The English, the French, the Spanish, the Italians- all love this magnificent orator who is now the most powerful man in the world.

But it will not last. It cannot last. Disillusionment will inevitably set in, as nations realize that Barack Obama is the president of the United States only. He's not president of the world. It is America's problems he will be consumed with, and America's interests he will be upholding. True, bolstering the American image abroad is crucial to waging a successful foreign policy. But ultimately, only Americans vote for their president and congresses, only Americans will cast ballots in the 2010 mid-term election and the 2012 presidential election.

That doesn't mean European countries won't get heard by the Obama administration. But it means their voices will naturally be drowned out by louder, more numerous and powerful American ones. Western Europeans want the U.S. to leave Afghanistan? That will conflict with the majority of Americans who say that war should be fought, and can be won. All European countries want the U.S. to develop stronger environmental standards and commit to fighting global warming? They'll have to muscle for elbow room with American voters whose overwhelming priority is the economy.

The reality is that America and European countries have different and sometimes conflicting interests, and they always will. Not even a politician as smooth and persuasive as Barack Obama can alter that fact. Once Europeans presently glowing with Obamamania recognize that, disillusionment will sink in. They will think that Obama is just another cynical, arrogant American politician, no less committed to maintaining American power than any other president.

But Obama never promised to be anything else. He never said that he would be representing the world in his decision-making. He famously claimed he was a "global citizen" in his speech in Germany, but this is little more than a meaningless cliché meant to ingratiate himself with international audiences. Because Obama is a conciliator, a liberal and critical of the Bush administration, many Europeans naturally like him. But he cannot be what they expect him to be.

Luckily, there are steps policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic can take to keep the Euro-American relationship running smoothly when the Obama honeymoon comes to an end. On the U.S. side, Obama and administration officials can be forthright about their limits in accommodating European nations' interests. Talking of common values and heritage is important, but so is being realistic. Obama has been masterful at preparing the American public for a difficult economic period. A New York Times/CBS poll published in the January 17th issue of the Times stated that Americans are "confident he can turn the economy around but prepared to give him years to deal with the crushes of problems he faces starting [inauguration day],"

That qualified optimism is the realistic tone the administration should be setting with Europeans. Yes, the US will listen more than it did in the Bush years. But the country will still have its own agenda, and that won't always fit with Europeans' desires.

From their side, European leaders would be wise to tell their publics the same thing. That Obama is as attractive a leader as Europeans are going to get, but he's still an American president. Expectations should be lowered.

If the European publics come to accept that Obama is not their leader, then the Bush years can be left behind, and a new phase of trans-Atlantic relations can begin.

Jordan Michael Smith is a Press Officer at the Project on National Security Reform (PNSR) in Washington, DC. His views are not necessarily representative of PNSR's.

Related materials from the Atlantic Community:

  • 11
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Marek  Swierczynski

February 2, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
On Afghanistan, most Europeans would like themselves out of there, not neccesarily the US and those who might be willing to help the US. If the "surge" is applied, many EU countries would be happy to withdraw or reduce their committments in ISAF - something that is a headache for NATO, not for the US as such, but there will be some, who'll maintain their troops there or slightly increase the numbers in expectation for something extra in bilateral relations (Poland for instance might send more troops to Afghanistan counting on lifting the US visa regime and by reducing the troops in UN and EU missions). That will certainly split NATO even deeper, but I don't think Obama cares about NATO any more. He would rather coin a new security framework with the EU as a partner, once the EU comes to terms with itself, and Russia, provided it's on a right path towards democracy and rule of law - something that Putin is aware of and will ultimately pursue. On climate, the world has a bit of a problem now, because there's money needed to save the world we live in - rather than to reduce the risk factors for the future. The crisis makes energy efficiency an utmost need but also makes heavy investments in clean economy or sector slashing unacceptable for governments. Both the US and the EU will have to re-define their climate policies to make them more realistic and politically doable.
 
Albert  Klamt

February 2, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Jordan,

I agree.

In fact, at the core of Obamania, in Europe and Germany -and hidden in eager media references across Europe -is the wake-up call for me to shape genuine Eruopean and German perspectives, strategies, blueprints, roadmaps and devlopment maps for Change and Transformation here.


How can this be done?

Moving the edge together. That means citizen power plus media collaboration plus poltical renewal . Cross-generational approaches. Integrated virtual and F2F momentum.

Developing a European future and dream and building European strengths. as described in publications from Jeremy Riffkin, Mark Leonard et al. already. As demanded by Founders and Associate Members of European Councul on Foreign Relations.

Beyond these transatlantic specifications it must be remembered we are living in a multipolar world. Where the Asia Pacific Region is developing tremendous momentum.

Old institutions, which were build after WW 2 loose relvance. new nations are knocking at the doors of G8. Even Forums, like World Economic Forum which radiated much more still in 2008 then this year, need to inspect new dimensions and perspectives. Focusing on core business in poltics, business and culture isnt enough any more.

Europeans especially must finally develop a strong vision. And global impact. This will be the best support and form of collaboration they can offer new Obama administration.

Next weekend we have the 45th Munich Security Conference. Lets see what Europe and USA have to say to each other.


Tags: | USA | Europe | Germany |
 
Andrey  Chubyk

February 2, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
It seems to be the same scenario as it was many times, if European leaders would hope of what their American "older" brother will suggest doing. Fortunately there are already strong enough leaders, I hope at least, as in Germany and French. They need only to believe them own and position the “old” Europe as power leading others and not only to be leaded by another.
 
Marie-Claude  Corneauster

February 3, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
well Obama isn't what we could expect as an experienced man in international relations, I expect that he'll make what he is told by the lobbies which set him in the office, then the american hubris first !!!
 
Donald  Stadler

February 3, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Marek,your concerns for the environment are misplaced. on two counts.

Firstly, it has long been known that the most efficient way to reduce the emissions of
a modern economy is to run a depression. Voila, the depression is here. This works on several levels. The most wasteful factories are shut down. Their wasteful workers are thrown onto the breadline, which they reach by healthy exercise (walking) or by only slightly less enegy-efficient public transportation. They reduce the temperature of their houses, move into smaller quarters, and eat FAR less meat and other wasteful foodstuffs, so many fewer wasteful cattle are raised to add to the 'caw fart' crisis.

Should they drop further into poverty, some of them may disappear into a snowdrift one wintery evening, to be discovered the next spring. From the 'green' POV this is of course a tragedy, but tragedy is tempered by the gain to Mother Gaia. One less wasteful modern human to be a continued plague on the planet.

Even for their slightly more prosperous counterprts the news is also good. They cannot afford new cars and so make do with their old ones. Highly wasteful car factories shut down, people drive less. And ultimately the old cars become the most efficient cars around when they cease moving,. They can then be converted into highly efficient residences for several humans at a time, heated by body heat.

Moreover, have you noticed that the phrase 'global warming' is seldom heard any more in lieu of the more descriptive 'climate change'. The latter is a far more flexible concept and helps promote the important goal of preventing any change to the climate at all. In the current circumstances where the scientific evidence is increasingly evident that the globe is actually cooling this is an important thing to keep in mind. And of course any cooling is a good thing, not only because it is green but because of the second order effects I noted above; the reduction of man's pressure on an innocent planet.
 
Francisco J. Ruiz

February 3, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
There are several questions debated here; related to the Afghan question, I perceive that even the most reluctant European Governments (including mine) wouldn't reject an Obama's claim for more boots on the ground, as the occupation of that country has been mentioned as an example of "fair war", when compared to the invasion of Iraq.

Related to the transatlantic link, I fully agree with the Marek's vision about the need for a strategic partnership between the US and the EU, overcoming the Cold War reminiscence represented by NATO; there are more and more voices claiming for that, and I hope that Mr. Obama could have that same vision for our relation.

In the economic realm, Mr. Obama proved to be a protectionist even during the electoral campaign, and one of his first initiatives (forgiving about the GITMO closing) has been the “Buy American” thing (influenced by the steel lobby), which threatens the free trade and can open a commercial war with the EU of unpredictable consequences.

Finally, and related to climate worries, it was really funny reading the Donald's comments. I remember one of my professors in the Naval War College saying "well, maybe we should live in smaller houses, drive less powerful cars, and use more public transportation...but, in that case, we would live as Europeans!” We don't want you guys to live as Europeans (actually I would like to live as an American in the US), but you must recognize that something else could be made to reduce the greenhouse emissions of your country to more acceptable levels.

In any case, and just for your information, this is being one of the coldest winters ever in Spain, so I am also fully sceptical about the Al Gore’s “global warming” messages. My best regards.
 
Marie-Claude  Corneauster

February 3, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Hi Francisco, I wanted to visit carthagena last automn, saw many newbees naval aspirants around there, though I couldn't stop there, no parking place for camping van !!!
though the architecture look interesting !!!
 
Donald  Stadler

February 4, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"In the economic realm, Mr. Obama proved to be a protectionist!"

This is true, Francisco, but it mght be better not to lose sight of the fact that the EU has been running what could be called a trade war against US farmers since 1999, preventing most US farm produce from entering EU markets.

There are of course 'good' trade wars, and bad trade wars. 'Good' countries wage 'good' trade wars, and 'bad' countries wage 'bad' trade wars, and after a decade of reading the EU press I think I can claim to know whom is 'good' and whom is 'bad'.... ;)

From the POV of international law such distinctions tend to fade away of course. So If Europe has been running a 'good' trade war for the very best of motives for a decade and the US decides to limit it's 'stimulus' spending to US employers (bad), can you tell me the difference, legally speaking? I know that 'public resistance' is often offered as sufficient reason for the ban on US foods, but the US public also has a lot of anger at the thought of
US stimulus funds going to fund European or Chinese jobs instead of putting Americans to work. Apart from the inherent evil to be found in everything the US does, it seems a muchness.....
 
Marie-Claude  Corneauster

February 4, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
your kidding Don, is there any parallel with the hormonal beaf and Roquefort ???

got to think that the repression was very focused on a very european product, "le Roquefort," (should I say, again ???= umm, not that damned german beer for example, that would have made the weight equilibrium : beer bauch vs hormonal Bauch !!!!
 
Member deleted

February 4, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Global CITIZEN?


What would be a global citizen? Would Obama's claims merely point out to his evolved approach - of a being a global citizen? That a global citizen is not the same as the Hippies or Gypsies or a refugee is a given thing and rather well understood. Of course, Europe, as and within the above author's comprehension of it, again needs to first clarify whether European States of the European Union represent the international audience and consequently if Europe is 'global' in the sense a 'global citizen' represents a certain evolution of the mind. A global citizen of course does not foreclose particular aspects of living in a world of state-systems along with a very small minority of it that can lay such claims: of evolution of the mind. It refers to someone who is an avowed liberal and cosmopolitan. He, of course, faces many challenges, from within the United States as would this "Europe" that Smith refers to - in the need of first defining it self. The challenges are similar: religious fanaticisms, ideological fanaticisms, amidst other pathologies. Trying to negotiate the United States away from its oft perceived views as a 'christian fanatic' state - to the first re-establishment of the notion of the United States as a modern state. Given what a modern state means, the onus may be upon a lot of European states to do the same. Perhaps here we come across common challenges that the modern state system faces. The notion of a movement away from the strait-jacketed views of the state-system limited to an equally strait-jacketed imaginations of 'belonging' and 'being' is what points out at a larger consciousness: of statespersonship. Something that Europe benefitted greatly from - in its post-World War II journey from a Europe of War to the notion of the European Union. Something that Europe is experiencing in its re-imagination of seamless borders and 'being' and 'belonging'. That it helps expand and deepen democracy - is always the proferred idea, including mechanisms for its (the expanded geographical and equally - the exercise to expand the human imagination of 'being' and 'belonging' vis-a-vis the requirements of the state. Putting the state as the only available notion of 'identity' - in this sense, is putting the horse in front of the cart.
A global citizen represents a certain awareness of this expansion - as a natural first sense of 'being' and belonging' - as being equally at home and the ability to look at humans and humanity that has been divided into particular categories and classifications. It obviously is not a religious notion of sense and being, for it immediately symbolizes an inclusiveness, that however is never blind.
Now, the common challenges that both the US of A faces along with the European Union perhaps do call for a combined effort - at countering the rise of religious nationalism as a rival world order, along with its networks that are global, without making this movement as even remotely 'religious internationalism' by its very logic of exclusions - save perhaps as the nightmare of the global dominance of one religion, in a throw back to the medieval dark ages.
The notion of a postmodern world, outside academia and its hair-splitting salons, generally refer to this expanded notion of being and belonging as 'postmodern' - in its movement away from such strait-jackets of the modern state-system that stifle human freedom. One can, then, very well imagine the strangulation that religious nationalism can mean - for such movements and people who have an expanded consciousness - in its avowed pre-modern nightmares! Perhaps, the "not-blind" liberal cosmopolitanism that gives birth to the idea of a 'global citizen' is a promise that is more than useful and necessary. Perhaps, if both Europe and the North America can take cognizance of this need for a leadership with such views, it bodes much more than a mere flirtation of the new administration with the European Union, as well as the world at large. One is optimistic here: about both Barack Obama's capacity to perhaps face such challenges as well as the capacity of the leadership(s) of the European Union and NATO states. That looks like a possibility of a enriching partnership here that also may be durable. Non-Blind liberal internationalism, i.e.
 
Donald  Stadler

February 4, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"your kidding Don, is there any parallel with the hormonal beaf and Roquefort ???"

No, not really, Marie. Roquefort cheese is allowed to be sold in the US, just with a high tariff.

American beerf is not allowed to be sold (at any price, or for any purpose) in the EU.

Conclusion: The EU has been running a draconian trade war against US agriculture for a decade, the US has recently responded with a minor trade sanction against certain products.

To equal what the EU has done the US would have to do something far more drastic - like forbidding Airbus aircraft from flying in US airspace, or the import of European cars to the US....

So you're correct - the actions aren't comparable at all!
 
Marek  Swierczynski

February 4, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Don, just that you've touched on the aircraft manufacturers; let me point on the air tanker case: the Airbus has won the tender with the US Air Force, but the lobbyists for Boeing just couldnt stand that... At least that's how it looks from a distance. Is that a fair trade the US does with the EU? That's just one case, perhaps a unique one, I'm far from claiming the Airbus or the EU do it fair elsewhere...
 
Francisco J. Ruiz

February 4, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I think that it is a useless debate to try to establish who has attacked more the free trade during the last years, the US or the EU, as for every European protectionist example (for instance, agriculture, and more specifically, French agriculture, which subsidies represent a huge load for the common budget), it is easy to counterattack with an American one (for instance, steel for years or the tanker bid for the Air Force). So I would suggest to forget the childish "you more!"

Bottomline is that protectionist barriers and subsidies to some sectors are the main obstacles for the underdeveolped countries to get out from the hole, as they are unable to sell their products to our rich countries, and the final result is that thousand of Africans or Caribeans risk their lives trying to arrive in small boats to the Canary Islands or to Florida, as they have not future down there.

In addition to that, there was a research (sponsored by a conservative think-tank here in Spain) some years ago about a greater integration of the US and EU economies, and the amazing result was that the experts considered that the GDP for both entities would be immediately increased a 20% with a full integration in a single market, and that sounds great to me. So the trend should be towards eliminating barriers, and that's why the first Obama's initiatives are disappointing.

Best regards.
 
Donald  Stadler

February 4, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Marek, I am not defending the tanker contract. Nor do I defend the 'buy American' clauses in the stimulus bill as a free-trading (mostly) GOPer I think both are indefensible.

I will point out that the Democrats are the protectionists in the US, and most of Europe have been hoping with great fervor that the Democrats would be elected. Now you have your wish, and find some of the fruits unpalatable. I am sorry to see it, but not surprised.
 
Donald  Stadler

February 4, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Francisco, I agree that the debate may be useless, but I find that reiterating certain facts to freshen memories on this board to be useful exercise. The EU ban on most US agricultural imports is not merely 'ancient history', and you can be very sure that many Americans find certain portions of the political line taken by many Europeans highly ironic if not personally offensive. Two particular counts of the EU indictment against the US come to mind currently: That the US is an international 'scofflaw' and that Obama is waging 'trade war'.

I might respond that the EU bans on US imports represent a decade's worth of 'scofflaw', and one which most n the EU are actually proud of and have no intention to end. Very well, but please look in the mirror before pointing a condemning finger across the Atlantic, neh?

Second; that largely unremarked, a 'trade war' has been raging accross the Atlantic for more than a decade. Neither Clinton, Bush, or Obama started it, but instead have behaved with restraint. The EU governments ranting about 'frankenfoods' - have not.

I don't defend the US congress for writing those provisions of that bill, but will merely point out that Europewanted Democrat control of the US government very badly - and things like this find strong support within the Democratic Party.....
 
Marek  Swierczynski

February 4, 2009

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Disappointment in trade policies may only mark the beginning of a series. For many people, including myself, disappointments started a good two months ago, when Obama chose Mrs Clinton for his secretary of state. This meant he washed his hands clean from foreign policy and left it to those, who failed on many counts before. But the greatest disappointment of all may come, when the Change he was pleading for, never happens. Because there will be no Change, there could be no Change, only minor adjustments, as we see in trade.
 
Eimear  O'Casey

February 5, 2009

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
There are already several signs emerging that the extent to which many Europeans will be included in Obama’s much discussed multilateral approach may not live up to expectations. As today’s Top Press Commentary from The Independent discusses, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s decision to make her first foreign visits to Asia is a clear manifestation of Europe’s secondary place in US international concerns.

But Europe’s fondness for Obama is not quite as self-absorbed as the author suggests. It is as much about the kind of America he will preside over, or at any rate present, as it is about the amount of weight he will attribute to the rest of the world. The measured, subtle, cosmopolitan image which he presents makes his America more palatable, more sympathetic and much easier to digest for many Europeans. The fact that US domestic policies, at least for the short term, will take priority will certainly disgruntle many European leaders but the elegant rhetoric with which Obama can defend his policies will go a long way in reassuring them that at least this is a man with whom they can discuss and negotiate.
 
Christia  Flourentzou

February 5, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I agree that the President Obama has enjoyed unprecedent levels of support and approval rates which almost noone else has enjoyed before. Europe has indeed acted as if it has fallen in love with Obama. Bit I do not agree that this “will not last.” The relation between Europe and the US seems to move in cycles, growing under Democrat administrations and weakening under Republican administrations. Even if the new President has not been Barack Obama - and the hope he seems to personify- the transatlantic relation would still improve with any Democrat President in office. Democrats speak multilateralism, international institutions and cooperation; words which Europe is very attracted to.

Of course “Obama is the president of the United States only” and it is only to be expected that national interests will diverge and attitudes will conflict on issues ranging from the environment to the economy. Yet, this will not translate to a fall out. If both parties in the transatlantic relationship act upon their rhetoric on cooperation and multilateralism there is little reason why the optimism should halt. Europe did welcome Obama, but it welcomed him as the new US President and not a world saviour.

 
Marie  Grunert

February 5, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I believe people are a bit overstating the "Obamania" phenomenon in Europe. Yes, after the « disastrous » Bush years Europe is indeed welcoming Obama’s image of change and entry into office. It makes me difficult to isolate the "Bush successor element" and understand the amount to which Obama is popular as the man per se and the amount to which he is liked because he is the opposite of Bush. I belive the article is a bit "exaggerated" who has ever said that Europe want s Obama to be “the President of the world”?

 
Marek  Swierczynski

February 5, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Christina. With the US Democrats and Europe it's not that obvious. One of the strongest US-European partnerships one can recall was under the Republicans in Ronald Reagan times. Reagan wasn't particularily popular among Europe's left-wing to say the least, but he appealed to some of the values both ends of the pond shared at the time. It might have been just due to the fact that center-right governments in Great Britain and Germany had warmer feelings towards the GOP after the leftist disaster of the late 1970's, but still, he demonstrated that not only Democrats can do it together with Europe. I would argue that GW Bush wasn't a total disaster on that either. He just overdid.
 
Marie-Claude  Corneauster

February 5, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Ruiz, "(for instance, agriculture, and more specifically, French agriculture, which subsidies represent a huge load for the common budget),"

funny how the rumors have long life !!! I wonder who had interest to launch them !!! though Spain got her lot , (uh, orange, lemons olives, strawberries, wines business), while contribuating less than France, Italy UK, and Germany the biggest contribuator to the big cheat

about the cheating market rules :

"If you are wondering as to how much subsidy an American or an European farmer receives, just hold your breath: last year, the average net income for a commercial soyabean grower in the United States was US $ 47,000 a hectare. Of which, the payment from the federal government was US $ 37,000. In England, I know of farmers who get a subsidy of one million pounds a year for not growing anything!"

http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/Farm-Subsidies-AgBioIndia15oct02.htm

So, this is a "war" of papers tigers !!!

yeah, some clear explanations, but ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4407792.stm#products

who gets the biggest subsidies ?

http://hei.unige.ch/~baldwin/PapersBooks/LeTempInEnglish_QueensCAP.pdf
contrary to what is commonly admitted, these are not the average Frenchs, but some Dutch or Italian properties owners in France, or Prince de Monaco...

"A permanent Bailout" :

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122755917999454051.html

Pac was supposed to help small agriculture to develop its own means as diversity and hygiene, yeah, the princes and the dukes of the finance managed to cheat the rules

Etc, etc, etc,...

now, Don, seems that is also biased in the fair US, and your hormonal beef is a big cheat :

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?10+Duke+J.+Comp.+&+Int'l+L.+345

Umm, I am giving you an idea, cut the heir heads off !!!
 
Christia  Flourentzou

February 6, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?


Dear Marek,

I did not mean to sound too determined on the position. It is just a general observation which of course can be proven wrong. But ti does seem that as a general trend Democrat Administrations and Europeans tend to have more similar outlooks on policy and use similar rhetoric to phrase such positions emphasizing ideas like multilateralism, the importance of international institutions, human rights promotion etc.
 
Jordan Michael Smith

February 6, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Thanks very much for the thoughtful responses. Let me address some of them.

Eimear makes a good point--some of the Euro-love of Obama is love of what Obama says about America. "It is as much about the kind of America he will preside over, or at any rate present, as it is about the amount of weight he will attribute to the rest of the world," as she puts it. This is undoubtedly true; Obama signifies progress in American racial relations, and illustrates to the world that racial reconciliation, and immigrant integration, is possible in even the most divided countries.

And yet, as with the hopes that Obama will usher in a drastically new American foreign policy, there is something unrealistic about this view as well. The America that Obama presides over is not radically different than the country that reelected in 2004 the worst president since James Buchanan. The nation is more circumspect about using force to promote democracy, perhaps, and more humbled about the limits of its military power, but it is not starkly transformed. Nobody should mistake it for a deeply different country. That country held secret CIA prisons across the globe; tortured detainees; and lumped Iran, Iran and North Korea into an axis of evil.

Obviously those policies did not define America. But that's just the point. America has always been a complex, multifaceted, self-contradictory society. The US wasn't as terrible as most Europeans thought it was in the Age of Bush, and its not as enlightened as they think it will be in the Age of Obama. The "kind of America" Obama leads is very similar to the kind of America Bush led. It just has some better people in power.
 
Francisco J. Ruiz

February 7, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Marie Claude

What is funny is to see that when I criticize some aspect of the American policy you agree, calling me Francisco, but when somebody makes any uncomfortable reference to your country, then I’m Mr. Ruiz and you sharply reply. Yes, it’s really funny to check how easy is to provoke a change like that.

Focusing on your comments, you are right pointing out that Spain also benefits from the Common Agrarian Policy, but that doesn’t make any difference, as it seems to me shameful too, I would accept any reasonable critic against what we do wrong, that’s problably the difference between you and me. But facts are that:

- France is by far the main beneficiary of the CAP (isn’t this true?).
- Agriculture represents only a 0,8% of your country’s GDP (isn’t it relevant?)
- In France (and the same for the other beneficiaries), 1% of the farmers (the ones with big terrains) get the same amount of money that the 40% of the farmers having the smallest farms (isn’t that unfair?).
- Up to 45% of the EU budget is now used to subsidize agriculture, 80% in the eighties (isn’t that illogical?)

Then you can look around to find some other examples of subsidies, but that doesn’t make any sense, as the debate is if these attacks against free trade are justified or not. For the liberal guys the answer is not, and in the long term it generates some other problems as illegal immigration from underdeveloped countries.

Lastly, in the EU every country contributes in accordance with its economy, as all the members agree that the contribution is worth of the returned benefits, and it has worked very well for decades, I don’t think that even the main contributors to the common budget, as Germany, have any doubt about it, as well as they could leave the Union if desired to do that.
 
Marie-Claude  Corneauster

February 9, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
sorry for your name, I wasn't at home (and a bit in hurry between 2 baby's bottles) when I wrote my rant ; OK, then it's Francisco !!!!

I hope you read french,

"La politique agricole :
nous aussi, citadins, nous sommes concernés

(réunion publique du 9 novembre 2005, texte préparé par Jean-Paul Allétru, ATTAC Montrouge)

La subvention européenne par vache est d’environ 2 $ par jour, alors que trois milliards d’hommes disposent de moins de cette somme. Les subventions représentent 90 % du revenu moyen des agriculteurs français. Ces subventions sont inégalement réparties : 10% des agriculteurs (les plus riches) touchent 80% des subventions.
Les subventions des agricultures les plus « compétitives ruinent la majorité des paysans des pays du Sud.
La suppression des subventions est l’un des enjeux de la prochaine négociation à l’OMC.

Mais une concurrence libérée de toute entrave est-elle la solution ? N’y a-t-il pas place pour un droit à la « souveraineté alimentaire » ?

Et faut-il encourager une agriculture productiviste, polluante et forte consommatrice d’eau et d’engrais ? Quelle alimentation souhaitons-nous ?

La PAC (politique agricole commune, de l’Union européenne)

En 1920, il n’y avait, en aucun pays, de politique agricole. La crise mondiale de surproduction agricole de 1925 amène la misère en de nombreux pays. En 1933, les Etats-Unis d’Amérique se dotent d’une politique agricole, sous la forme d’aides directes aux agriculteurs (payées par le contribuable), cependant qu’en Europe, on cherche une solution du côté du maintien de prix élevés (payés par le consommateur). En 1936, en France, le Front populaire institue l’Office du blé (et jusqu’en 1974, le prix du pain sera fixé par le gouvernement).

En 1962, la Communauté européenne (qui ne satisfaisait que 80 % de ses besoins agricoles) institue, afin d’assurer sa sécurité alimentaire, la Politique Agricole commune, qui protège les agriculteurs européens par des droits de douane, en leur garantissant des prix plus élevés que sur le marché mondial. La PAC était donc censée assurer son autosuffisance à la CEE, et non de jouer un rôle de distribution sociale.
La PAC avait été acceptée par l’Allemagne, en échange de l’ouverture à ses produits industriels.

Dans les années 1980, l’Europe devient 2ème exportateur mondial. Bruxelles subventionne les exportations (versant aux agriculteurs la différence entre le prix mondial et le prix intérieur). Les subventions aux exportations, qui ne représentaient que 4,5 milliards d’euros en 1979, avaient plus que doublé dix ans plus tard.
Le budget de la PAC est passé de 3,1 milliards d’euros en 1970 à 263 milliards d’euros en 1988.
La PAC connaît une première réforme en 1993, par l’introduction d’aides directes aux agriculteurs ; et une deuxième en 2003, qui devrait entrer en vigueur en 2006.

La PAC est caractérisée par de très fortes inégalités dans la répartition des subventions.
A noter d’abord que le porc, la volaille, les fruits et légumes ne sont pas aidés.

L’aide aux productions favorise les grandes, voire les très grandes, exploitations : elle représente 400 ¤/hectare, et 200¤ par tête de bétail.
L’aide à l’exploitation (qui peut être modulée différemment selon les Etats - ce que d’aucuns critiquent, comme source possible de nivellement par le bas), est fondée sur le développement rural.
Elle représente en moyenne 12 456 ¤ par exploitation en France, contre 4 757 ¤ dans l’ensemble de l’Union. Les écarts sont sensibles d’un pays à l’autre : 1433 E :exploitation au Portugal, 17 433 au danemark.

En France, la distribution est très inégale : 18 % des exploitations ne touchent aucune aide directe, 10 % touchent plus de 50 000 E, 1% touche plus de 100 000 ¤.
65% des aides vont à 20 % des exploitations.
Certains reçoivent plus de 300 000 ¤ : ils sont 30 de ce cas en France, et 330 en Grande Bretagne (parmi lesquels ... la reine d’Angleterre, qui reçoit 800 000 ¤). La famille Rainier de Monaco figure aussi parmi les très gros bénéficiaires.
Certains pays offrent une aide au maintien en agriculture biologique, mais pas la France.

Sans les aides, les exploitations spécialisées en viande bovine ne subsisteraient pas (selon Pierre Chevalier, éleveur, président de la fédération nationale bovine).

L’Union européenne a versé 9,2 milliards d’euros aux agriculteurs français, soit près du quart du budget agricole européen. Ces subventions représentent 90% de leur revenu moyen (mais 10 % des exploitations reçoivent 50 % des aides directes ; 20 % se partagent 73 % des aides).
Ces 9,2 milliards d’euros se répartissent en 7,54 milliards d’euros pour l’aide aux productions (57 % pour les grandes cultures céréalières, 27 % pour la viande bovine), et 1,7 milliard d’euros pour les aides directes à l’exploitation."

http://www.local.attac.org/attac92/article.php3?id_article=907

"- France is by far the main beneficiary of the CAP (isn’t this true?)"
"- Agriculture represents only a 0,8% of your country’s GDP (isn’t it relevant?)"

France 2,2%, Ireland 5%, Spain 3,6%, Italy 2%, Austria 1,6%, Belgium 1,1%, Germany 0,9%, UK 0,9%, European union 2,1%...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_com_by_sec_agr-economy-gd...

also "le Royaume-Uni reçoit plus de crédits européens qu'il n'y contribue (+ 2.76% du PIB), alors que la France, qui contribue pour 15.1 milliards d'¤ (en 2003) au budget européen en reçoit 13.1 en retour (-1.90%du PIB). Le solde est donc négatif.
Les agriculteurs et éleveurs Français bénéficient de 20 % des crédits européens, représentent 1/3 des terres agricoles, et 24 % du cheptel bovin"

while

"The Queen received £545,897 for farming interests on her Sandringham House and Windsor Castle estates, and the Prince of Wales received £134,938 for his Duchy of Cornwall estate and £90,527 for the Duchy Home Farm on his Highgrove estate.

The Duke of Westminster, ranked second in The Sunday Times Rich List, was also paid £448,472 for his 6,000-acre estate through Grosvenor Farms Ltd.

The biggest individual beneficiary appears to be Sir Richard Sutton on behalf of his Settled Estate with more than £1 million. Sir Richard, 66, received £1,117,139 for his 7,000-acre Benham estate, in Berkshire, and farmland in Lincolnshire"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article434870.ece

I agree with you this is unfair, the money doesn't go to the real agricultors but to rich land owners and agro-alimentaire industrials ; that's what I was trying to say in my above post. which are not french for the biggests in France but Prince of Monaco, even the queen of England (in Normandy)...

Also that the American Agriculture is helped too, so the "war" on accepting or not an american agricultural product in EU, is a non-sense

"and in the long term it generates some other problems as illegal immigration from underdeveloped countries", Umm these countries don't have the same products, but they are pressed by the Wall street market prices, for cacao, sugar, café, fruits...
 

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