The year 2009 started on an optimistic note. The election of President
Obama and a more receptive Europe revived hopes that the transatlantic relationship
could re-flourish and regain its former status. In this spirit,
atlantic-community.org published the poll "Which Topics Should be Prioritized
on the 2009 Transatlantic Agenda?" The results of the poll reveal a change
(small but still present) in traditional patterns of thinking about
international politics.
While Russia and NATO are still prioritized, the results reveal a shift
from an exclusive focus on security issues -only 27.6% of the people
participating in the poll thought that "burden-sharing" in Iraq and Afghanistan
should be made a priority- towards the importance of the international trade
order and the environment. In the same way, the voting pattern-emphasizing
Russia over Iran and the reform of the international order over non-proliferation
attempts- reveals that participants voted for the choices which are likely to
impact them more directly. The commentary section revealed that while the
voting limited priorities to three, the rest of the options are not "remote."
Rather Atlantic Community members think that in the current globalized and
interdependent world, the rest of the issues remain equally important and
demand international cooperation.
The poll registered 304 voters and received 17 comments. According to your
vote, the suggested priorities, which Europe and North America should
prioritize are:
1. Define NATO's security role for the 21st century (43.8%).
1. Turn Russia into a strategic partner (43.8%).
3. Modernize the international trade order (43.1%).
4. Reduce carbon-emissions (36.5%).
5. Integrate China into the international trade
order (30.3%).
6. Improve "burden sharing" in Iraq and Afghanistan (27.6%).
7. Strengthen
counter-proliferation efforts (25.3%).
8. End Iran's nuclear program (18.8%).
43.8% of the people who participated in the vote thought that defining NATO's security
role for the 21st century and turning Russia into a strategic partner should be
jointly prioritized. 43.1% and 36.5% of the people who participated in the vote
thought that modernizing the international trade order and reducing
carbon-emissions should be the second and third priorities respectively.
A lot of emphasis was placed on the need to define NATO's security role for the
21st century. The preferences of our members reveal that while NATO is still
considered to be relevant in European security, its exact meaning as a security
alliance is blurred. Whether NATO should focus more on civilian projects -post
war reconstruction or the provision of humanitarian aid- or become more
militarily active is undecided. Further, comments from our members reveal a
preference for higher cooperation between the EU and NATO. Russia emerged as an
equally important issue area. Motives behind this preference might vary. For
European readers, it may be due to geographical proximity. For instance, the
latest energy crisis was directly felt in Europe in terms of gas dependency on
Russia. For American readers it could be that Cold War memories encouraged
voters to choose a policy of engagement with Russia. Indeed, it is surprising
to see that the Russia option is prioritized over the Iranian option. Only
18.8% of the people who participated in the poll think that ending Iran's
nuclear program should be a priority. The reason for this difference might not
necessarily lie with the gravity of the threat but rather with the economic
benefits involved, historical ties and memories.
Modernizing the international trade order emerged as the second issue to be
prioritized. The commentary on the potential for reform was rather pessimistic,
arguing that while the idea of reform has been around for some time in the GATT
rounds and the WTO, the lack of trust among states serves to make most attempts
redundant. At the same time, an awareness of, and anxiety towards the
possibility of protectionism was expressed. In this respect, while an analysis
of the voting revealed that 30.3% of the people who participated in the vote
thought that the integration of China in the international order should be
prioritized, the commentary section revealed that this preference was linked to
the current crisis and interpreted as necessary for keeping markets open and
exports flowing.
The tie between the Russia and NATO options led to the environment option
emerging as the third topic that Europe and the US should prioritize in their
cooperation. The commentary section revealed that our readers link the
modernizing of the international financial system to the environment option
(reduce carbon-emissions), to support the wider held belief that the success
and sustainability of the global economy will depend on the incorporation of a
green growth plan.
The results of the poll demonstrate that Atlantic-Community is on the right
path in terms of its focus and debate. Your choices confirm that the
transatlantic agenda is currently made up of global issues, which neither the
US nor Europe can tackle alone. We would like to encourage you to provide us
with more of your comments and help us continue the dialogue you started. In
the face of global challenges, the demand for transatlantic cooperation becomes
even greater.
To view the original article and poll, please click here.
Photo © European Communities, 1995-2009
Written by Christia Flourentzou
- 9
March 18, 2009
Lawrence Efana
PREAMBLE
Happy to be a part of this! I have also learned a great deal, because of my membership of the community. The hope is through ongoing internet endeavors to popularize its activities. That way passive interests and commitments would give way to more serious ones. This opening statement has to be seen in the context of three dimensions of the community organization's agenda and priorities:
(i) shown under its "DOMESTIC DEBATES" - made of a) European-based issues], b) North American-partnership driven interest/concerns, and c) the actual TRANSATLANTIC: shared issues and concerns;
(ii) shown under its "STRATEGIC REGIONS", in which the following are featured: a) Greater Middle East, b) China, c) India, d) Eastern Europe and Central Asia, e) Asia - Pacific, f) Africa, g) Focus Afghanistan, h) Military and Police Forces, i) Civil society, j) Diplomacy, and k) Reconstruction; and
(iii) shown under "GLOBAL CHALLENGES", in which the problem-issues featured include: a) Wars and Conflicts, b) Climate change, (c) Energy security, d) Terrorism, e) Proliferation, f) Development and Aid, g) Trade, Economics and Finance, h) Technology, i) [Ad-hoc processes dealing with "World Economic Forum" carry with it, and j) Global economy.
Grappling with these item by item is a starting point for appreciating involvement as a key concept transcending (i) internet out -reach endeavors and (ii) the rationale for arguing in favor of a more serious and committed public - which must be well fished. The locus of the three dimensions - if one can address them so], is the first: marked by those under "domestic debates". These are made-up of variables, but their statuses as such are a bit more stable - directly relevant and important to the community organization, assessed in relative terms of those variables found in the 2nd and 3rd dimensions. Deductively, what is conveyed to all here is a sense of "inevitable interdependence" hence the elastic lenses with which one might be compelled to loosen-up to the caution of analytically appreciating transatlantic organization also partly as a function of the 'particular' as well as the 'general'.
Planning internet "out-reach" stands to benefit from both mutually inclusive and exclusive statuses of the organization's priorities as agenda items. Interpreted as constituents of the respective dimensions, they are 'generative' and specifically 'navigable' items for news and think-thank; that is, the "objects" and the "subjects".
APPRECIATING RATIONALE OF THE POLLS CONTEXTUALLY
Importance of opinion polls, many people know and agree, is never to be underestimated. Transatlantic community organization does well to embark on using it as one of the tools partly to: (i) set and strengthen its agenda-priority concept and (ii) top commentaries and edited news. As a method it shows complementary role of investigative journalism: arm of modern proof of respect for role of "scientific" methods. Information management and or design as well as dissemination through various media available in recent decades - all gather momentum among recipients in relation to the type of approach in mind. Looked at thus the poll reported, though statistically weak - if you have to weigh results in particular terms of burdens at level of the three dimensions transcended directly and indirectly, even within the European population context] is helpful. That is to say that registered total voters is relatively small: only 304. Again compared to the total comments, it leaves to wonder if and or how far those assumed to care about transatlantic community organization agenda really feel well informed, hence stimulated to give their views: comment! What it proves is the infancy of the process so far, which then calls for augmentation: what the challenges of internet imply for agenda-priority as a focus.
"Opinion poll" in this context is rather special in many established technical senses so its strategy must be reworked! Soliciting for improvement of the website section-list contains: 1) top press commentary, 2) best of think tanks, 3) Atlantic faces, 4) your opinion, 5) your research, 6) Atlantic memos, 7) Community functions, 8) Jobs/internships, 9) call for papers and 10) Atlantic events. The extent that opinion poll applies here is confusing: it signifies "request" to rank individual priorities. "Poll" idea is "superfluous", because the sections are relatively disparate: their contents and focuses - all important thought, still would in the minds of some people be better-off if differentiated, separated - even if that would take series of specifically targeted but defined ideas of polling them. In other words, all are important shown by your "portal" set-up. Still to attract the seriousness needed for each as 'poll' object, a different approach would help than lumping all. One might suspect that either the quality or number of comments might suffer as a result of this too general approach. What deserves to be done well, must always be done well no matter the pains and scarcities or other problems likely to be faced: a key argument for "our" internet age. Having raised these views in the ongoing comment, as you decided to do all at "one-go", idea of "the top three picks", showing the following: (A) Define NATO's security role for the 21st century; (B) Turn Russia into a strategic partner; and (C) Modernize the international trade order] is important all the same; but aren't they elements of the result from the poll preceding that mentioned above? If I am mistaken here excuse me! Note however that in spite of all, the three 'picks' are immediate [center-pieces] for the community, at the same time as the idea that the "follow-up" ranked less: remote though they are - by no means no less important, thinking especially about the totality of what would be awaited as the result.
1. BRIEF HISTORICAL, THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL OVERVIEW
The purpose here is to organize and connect, hence create "verifiable" stories by way of analysis, upon which issues interwoven as parts of the three abstracted dimensions are better appreciated in terms of: (1) their particular, and (2) general status-contexts in the frame of transatlantic community: (a) prioritized agenda, and (b) ongoing internet plan to reach-out actively to especially the sleeping publics in Europe and beyond. Papers to date show that NATO will be better understood thus, parallel to the possibility that many more valuable contributions to improve and make it more effective beyond war and peace might consequently also increase.
1.1 APPRECIATING THE NEW PERSPECTIVE OF THE EDITORIAL TEAM
The question is: what is that new perspective? Answer: optimism with the newly set-up US administration and chief executive! If the editorial team feel thus along with others about this sense of optimism a case is well made and we may be seeing the band-wagon effect building, which is much about the hope many lost thinking about where and how things tended to have gone wrong with the previous administration. The community editorial team foresees 'realizable' transatlantic agenda: (i) that in which the Cold-War-era will not be back; (ii) that in which a relatively unfair and pretentious "New world economic and political order" and partnership values and practices no more operate; but (iii) that in which a "New New-era of CHANGE is born to shape and weld strong. A difference has been spotted, which came during phases of the tough run-up elections giving President Obama to the world. Change idea was much under attack - aspects of democratic elections and campaign rights in countries that truly respect democracy. Those attacks showed many faces but the most prominent or noticeable was "pinpointing" and "defining" the contents or programs to make-up the change. Besides the obvious, many felt such contents would be complex and diplomatically sensitive.
It is yet less than 100 days since the birth of the new administration and yet it does not seem the resolve on several fronts are not matching election promise, even in the face of serious economic and financial meltdown lessons - the legacy of previous administration] the efforts are unrelenting. We are seeing pinpointing gradually pinning-down definitions of both the obvious and complex in the "change idea". For sake of the quality of diplomacy to work for, silence on the contents was necessary. That created a needed space for more rational but flexible approaches in the formation of change-contents. All is well that begins well and surely can and will end well: a foundation for transatlantic community organization and its hope. Never allow hope die or be killed!
1.2. USEFUL INTERCONNECTED HISTORICAL ARMS: KNOW YOUR TRANSATLANTIC COMMUNITY IN ITS PROPER LIGHT
This is relevant for abstracting - Dimension 1: "Domestic debates: in other words, stuffs of contemporary Europe and North America as "defense" allies. When concentrating on each or both, what is/are discerned, worth interest and concern?- question. History of European sphere: older it is, but complex and so dwarfs North American history. It dwarfs but with the complexity a living dilemma obviously manageable with the growing image and impact of the European Union - touched on slightly later]. In the mean time, as episode, that history is beautifully taken-up in one of the Community's "Book Reviews" related-article title: "The European Union for Beginners" by Elizabeth Pond. From two lovely comments about the review: by Amarjyot Acharya and Ilyas M. Mohsin, respectively, one would guess right, that it was published some time in May 2008. It is highly reflexive, contemporary and educative, confirmed in words of the reviewer "Two US scholars lend clarity to the complexity of the EU story".
It is not necessary to further review the reviewer. The work was perfectly done, but there are some "quotes" of interest and relevance for "broadly-driven" discourses - such that would enable us gain deeper insights to the world of politics and history as theoretical and also empirical stepping-stones for greater understanding and appreciation of Europe: a special object! The quotes are: (a) "The historian who teaches a survey course in European integration to bewildered American undergrads must smuggle in enough political theory to show just how unique the European Union is"; (b) Neither history nor political science-nor economics nor law, the other two disciplines that grapple with the EU phenomenon in American colleges-offers a fully satisfactory explanation of the European Union's startling evolution within its own framework"; and (c) "Both textbooks are exemplary in providing the simple analytical building block-supranationalism, intergovernmentalism ...... multispeed Europe, outputs, comitology, and the like and then showing how blurred these concepts become as political clashes and pragmatic compromises unpredictably mix bits of each approach". Understanding Europe and particularly the Union, is a matter of strides in the field of political science. The quotes pip through a tunnel but tell still much, including what might spur internet planners to contribute to the learning craves and challenges implicit.
Because of the short course I ran with students on EU, I also have a book of great interest to cite: Tallberg, J. 2004. The same exceptional attributes are found in this book in addition to phases of models to show stages of its development as a Union. Treaty dates given are: Parish (1952), Rome-1 (1958), Rome-2 (1958), Luxemburg (1987), Maastricht (1993), Amsterdam (1999), Nice (2003) and Brussels begun 2004 and ongoing. Similarly after the initial membership defined when the treaty took effect in 1952, new phases of expansion followed with newer member states starting from 1973, 1983, 1986, 1990, 1995 and lately 2004, etc. Elizabeth Pond raises the case of periods of stagnation in history of its progress as a Union, noting particularly 1960s through 1970s (when Cold-War era challenges were relatively worst in Europe and the world at this time - my emphasis]. One then appreciates when she points out also that renewed activism began in the 1980 upward. EU progress idea is also well constructed in these and other senses. Contextually for those keen about theory, Tallberg points that there are pedagogical advantages in looking at the EU from the political system vantage point: taking into account the following: (a) idea of political interest as system input functions; (b) EU's institutions as "transforming" mechanisms, (c) political decisions as output in the transforming processes.
Central in this reasoning is the theoretical strife to draw attention to input and output hence a special need to lift-up feedback couplings and the problems thereof, which in this unique case are observed in the speed or differentiated demands not unconnected with member state institutions. This theoretical description weighs on how the Union is appreciated in terms of its overall differentiated institutions or structural functional perspectives: consider, for example: a) the Commission; b) the Parliament, c) the Council, d) the Ministerial Council, and e) the Court. Other theoretical perspectives - there are surely many of them], Tallberg tells cut across "neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism". Both perspectives have regional, local and global implications. Integration theory feeds relatively on the first in many troubling manners, simultaneously as the second underlies other more or less specific clusters of theories - local and international by structure], which rest on rather key assumptions: i) as an actor the EU is definitely not independent as such; ii) its other actors (states and institutions) are hands-tight too politically; iii) as many of them as possible are somewhat mere tools in the hands of layers of settings - that decide what to do in most cases. By extension: the notion above of: a) transnational actors and overarching national institutions - all of which when added together project among others special characteristic nature of EU as a tough bureaucratic case. NATO and non-NATO member states in the EU framework find themselves here. Something for transatlantic community organization to reason seriously as information is collated and disseminated for one reason or the other based or not on (opinion) polls.
These perspectives might lead to attempt to assess Elizabeth Pond's review of her two authors, focusing on making sense of "demystification" thesis as elastic path-way to what can be put-up to promote modes of understanding about the EU. It cannot be whatever, but just that helping the "neophyte" and the "[well] embedded" alike to learn something cogent.
Tallberg is important for explaining and interpreting what are likely to be discovered either as "micro" and or "macro" aspects in the process. Let us return to abstractions making for the 2nd and 3rd Dimensions above: Strategic regions and Global challenges, respectively. The place of Europe in overall transatlantic community organization agenda priority setting, is concrete simultaneously as it is ambiguous, solely because of intervening issues, most of which tie-up with the latter dimensions. The simplest deduction leads to see more clearly the overwhelming weights of the micro and macro aspects and the protruding need or call for awareness about our MUTUAL INTERDEPENDENCE - not necessarily for 'knock out' of the center-piece: 1st Dimension - Domestic Debates.
Integration theory, alongside realities behind neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism, all work to bolster disparately, to the extent that if balance is not worked out the possibility of greater chaos grows: feasible in context of the three dimensions. Given these concepts, theoretical relevance reveals immediate and remote logic of interdependence, allowing to see a thread that passes the NATIONAL, REGIONAL and GLOBAL. That is, partly a result of the inevitability of the "INTERACTIVE PROCESSES" in meeting both the micro and the macro challenges. The sense made thus reveals itself through the realities of institutions such as the United Nations, IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization, and no-less also NATO - irrespective of whether one or the other is in the class of INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (IGOs), or NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, and or whether it is one kind or the other of "philanthropic" organization. for example, the Green Peace and or OXFAM. All operate parallel to regional the organs, for example, EU itself, APEC, ASEAN, and NAFTA. It is difficult to say that Dimensions 1, 2, and 3 "faces" are not seen in one form or the other through these.
1.2.1. WHAT THEN MUST BE DONE? CONCISE POLITICAL/DIPLOMATIC GESTURES
There is no ultimate answer, but by putting heads together: what the new US President is likely to be good and conscientious at doing, the way to finding out will not be 'a one-man' thing. Here democracy is at play, but it has to be with responsibility and good moral even if flexibility and pragmatism have to be parts. Regional organs: EU and NATO as well as the global: UN, etc.; even if "World forum" steps need to be taken, will according to the chosen phases of arrangement, have roles to play. One can argue that similar steps have failed before so what is the guarantee now? Our memory must not be too short on the hope that we have a new US administration and a competent team: one that sees and distastes the grounds for past failures. At the same time the new administration will not be able to do it alone if others refuse to follow suite or remain inflexible and recalcitrant on their power and positions. All must give a little to take a little! Sharing burden is important "mindset-arm" of the solution! Trust building has to be one of the primary steps out of which the harvest will certainly be peace and progress.
In specific interest of transatlantic community organization vis-a-vis Dimension 1, on what the above are likely to mean or imply, let me go back to Elizabeth Pond, but with rudiments of Dr. Stefanie Babst "Public Diplomacy" theory in mind] to draw attention to the following: (a) "..... European community's timid steps toward a common foreign policy in the 1970s - does a yeoman's job tracing that particular evolution". The result is manifestation. The EU has now Foreign Minister. The conundrums of President De Gaul's years are soon a thing of the past. France under President Sarkozy is back in NATO. France and Germany are now closer than ever before, and Britain: the other European heavy weight is in the EU, not anymore on its sideline. The wind is blowing and change is at the door step.
Russia and some former countries of her empire have problems. European diplomacy is the first thing to test here. As a continent she has been the host to two terrible wars. It does not mean that Russia has to be feared, definitely that is far-fetched and absolutely out of context. Instead the OSCE added to European diplomacy could rather than endanger US involvement, understand the need to have her as a last resort factor. In spite of Georgian war, Ukrainian and Polish perceptions, Europe under NATO umbrella can peacefully take care, advance economic collaboration, thin-off or diffuse the outstanding psychological burdens of a one-time big 'matching' big power history. With patience, mutual respect and understanding, informed by narrow-perceptions of political and economic values, Europe will find Russia a partner and even an EU-member: a painstaking assumption that good diplomacy and patience can bear fruits. Europe can definitely turn Russia into a strategic partner, just as we are learning to see and construct of China. In the same token, various regional problems and conflicts can be managed or even overcome. One doesn't have to be simplistic thinking "estimate" of the prospects thus.
1.2.2. TRANSATLANTIC INTERNET GESTURE OF WHAT ELSE TO ORGANIZE
Transatlantic community organization's agenda draw-up and priorities are essential for all efforts to promote NATO and the complex interrelated issues found directly and indirectly capable of leading its success and progress in positive or negative directions. A mention of the word "INTELLIGENCE" unduly stares and frightens people. For a number of reasons I stop being frightened! That is, partly because I was fortunate to attend a course titled at that time "Social Intelligence", offered at the Research Policy Program, Lund University in Sweden. You hear and or learn now and then about: 1) Economic intelligence, 2) Political intelligence, 3) Military intelligence , 4) Science and technology intelligence, 5) Geography and Cartography intelligence, 6) Current intelligence, and 7) Strategic intelligence. Some have even developed new brands, for example, "Emotional intelligence". That is to say that there are several brands and levels. To a large extent "Social intelligence" cuts across all. Unfortunately taboo limits its seriously taking it up as sub-disciplinary university study or course theme. I took the pain to research into nearly 40 hard/thick sources (old and new) and came out with the knowledge that "information" is a key function of the intelligence definitions we may see near or remotely. With information at center, collation, collection, evaluation, integration, analysis, utilization, dissemination, etc., are parts and parcels of the keywords conveying and confirming its chief function.
While information may be processed for a number of objectives, planning collection is always a problem. Internet is one of the new machines for the job. Some experts use it rightly and some use it wrongly, in which case the idea of goodness is aborted. If the community editors and planners organize themselves and share tasks: 'desking' every working colleague, a sense of compartmentalization created this way would allow the chance to focus. That means people are charged with specific challenging tasks, either that of planning, collecting, analyzing, and or disseminating - the purpose of which is to create tension, hence a higher sense of accountability and input/output - results] in ways promoting general objective. The intelligence dimension will be demanding contextually, but must be kept in mind, because of quality of output. NATO is a "strategic" organ and it would do no less better thus in terms of information collected, collated or disseminated covering the three abstract dimensions - two of which remind of a process!
2. CONCLUSION
Transatlantic community organization is important. Europe is at the heart of the interests shown at the same time as agenda is broad and elastic. One of the relieving trends is the increased hope and faith in the Obama administration. The other is Europe's renewed demonstration of the willingness to reassess events and actively work for trust, diplomacy, peace and shared progress. The EU is a mini example for the UN parallel to the services of NATO in various ways beyond Europe. Keeping the hope afloat will save the global and strengthen resolves to battle with climate change and poverty.