Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

March 9, 2011 |  9 comments |  Print  Your Opinion  

Mai'a K. Davis Cross

Transatlantic Misperceptions: American Views of Europe

Mai'a K. Davis Cross: In this multi-polar world, with rising and often unpredictable powers, the EU and the US must continue to work together to have a global impact and promote their shared values. This relationship will only be strengthened, if Americans overcome their misconceptions about a weak Europe.

Unfortunately, Euro-pessimism is on the rise in the United States. Large numbers of Americans think that the political, economic, and cultural foundations of Europe are crumbling, and there is widespread talk, even amongst "experts", of how the adoption of the common currency was a mistake. This has been reinforced by a seemingly endless string of news reports, opinion pieces, and books predicting the downfall of Europe, which has now become something of an article of faith amongst many on the American political right. The combined impact of this persistent negative media coverage has colored mainstream conventional wisdom, influencing the way Europe is discussed in almost every context, and has created a pattern of overstressing any difficulties experienced, while generally ignoring any of the successes. Consequently, even the best informed and most pro-European of Americans often refer to events on the other side of the Atlantic in a surprisingly pessimistic and skeptical way. For them, Europe may someday rise up to its potential, but for now they see Europe as an uninspiring power. President Obama has recently said that the 21st century will be shaped by the US and China. Indeed, American media gives far more credence to the rise of China, despite the fact that it lags far behind Europe on nearly every measure of power - the only exception being population size.

In light of all this, many Americans do not have any real hope that Europeans can be effective partners in tackling 21st century challenges. They see a Europe of declining defense budgets, a lack of willingness to use military force, and a perceived inability to speak with one voice in the face of international crises.

Many Americans are unaware of Europe's achievements. They tend not to know that the process of EU integration and enlargement has been the most successful experiment in international cooperation, democratization, and peace that has existed in modern times. They are generally unaware that the EU's economy, population, and combined troop numbers are all larger than those of the United States. They may not be aware of the signs of economic recovery that President Herman van Rompuy recently noted, of Europe's high level of innovation (Europe is second only to the US and Japan), and of the strength of the Euro as a major global currency (second only to the US dollar). Most are unaware that the Lisbon Treaty has introduced a much stronger foreign policy structure. Most Americans would be shocked to learn that combined EU defense spending is larger than the next six powers put together - Russia, China, India, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Japan - and that the EU has engaged in 24 civilian and military peace-keeping and relief operations across 3 continents in just 8 years.

Americans are somewhat more aware of Europe's status as a soft power. The EU' support for multilateralism as well as the example it sets in this regard give it a great deal of international legitimacy. Its strong tradition of support for human rights, the rule of law, development, environmental protection, and international cooperation is attractive to many foreign audiences. Some regions of the world are much more interested in Europe: Asia, Africa, and Latin America consciously model themselves after the EU. Of course the EU's biggest soft power impact has been in its own neighborhood through enlargement of the Central and Eastern European countries.

Europe is not a "perfect power". It is still a work-in-progress in terms of integration, and as an integrating region it is relatively young. Nonetheless, as Princeton Professor Andrew Moravcsik argues, by all major measures of power, Europe qualifies as the second superpower, after the US. The challenge is how to overcome serious mis-perceptions.

How should Europe present itself?

I suggest three images that Europe could strive to promote to foreign audiences, especially the US.

First, following from the EU motto, Europe's image should be "united in diversity". Europe is undoubtedly diverse, but its unity under the EU is under-appreciated and far too often not a part of public diplomacy efforts. For several decades now, European leaders have acknowledged that Europe is stronger when it works together, and they have made real progress in following through with this idea through literally thousands of policy initiatives. But this reality is not promoted enough to outsiders.

The second image Europe needs to project is that it does not just talk, it acts. The EU should promote the areas where its values and actions coincide, and where it has an autonomous impact, such as humanitarianism, environmentalism, democratization, crisis management, and development. For example, more people in the world should be readily aware of the fact that the EU is the biggest donor of development aid by some measure, and has a robust and growing Common Security and Defense Policy.

Third, Europe's image should be one of a smart power. It effectively combines both hard and soft power through its comprehensive approach to crisis management, access to its single market, and processes of enlargement, among other things. Military power matters less than it once did, and Europe has a wide range of means to exercise power and influence, stemming from a host of diplomatic, economic, normative, military, and civilian policy instruments. As a result, Europe is far better positioned to play a leading role in the 21st century than any other actor in the international system.

In this multi-polar world, with rising and often unpredictable powers, Europe and the US must now work together to have a global impact and promote their shared values. If Americans come to understand Europeans better they too can promote Europe, as they should. After all, as former European Commission President Romano Prodi recently said, "Promoting Europe is promoting also the American interests." But for its part, Europe can take the lead in promoting itself, and mutuality will likely follow. Indeed, Europeans must realize that they are not only capable of leading the 21st century, they have a responsibility to do so. 

Dr. Mai'a K. Davis Cross is Assistant Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California. She is the author of two books: The European Diplomatic Corps (Palgrave, 2007) and Security Integration in Europe (University of Michigan Press, 2011)

 

Read related articles from atlantic-community.org members:

 

This article was submitted for the atlantic-community.org's competition: "Empowering Women in International Relations." It coincides with the 10th Anniversary of UN resolution 1325 calling for an increased influence of women in all aspects of peace and security. The contest is sponsored by the U.S. Mission to NATO and the NATO Public Diplomacy Division.

You can find more information about the competition here.

 

  • 14
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Stanley R. Sloan

March 10, 2011

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
You have presented a good argument why Americans should not underestimate Europe. The EU is an important reality and player in today's international system.

However, there is also the danger of overestimating Europe. The EU is not a sovereign international actor, as the key member states still reserve the most important decisions about foreign and defense policy to themselves. Some Americans, including some "experts," have excessive faith in the capabilities of "Europe" to act autonomously on these issues, and therefore have expectations regarding the EU that only lead to disappointment.

Another shortcoming of the EU as a foreign and defense policy actor is that the differences between the governments of Greece and Cyprus on the one hand and non-EU member Turkey on the other make it impossible for NATO and the EU to collaborate in shaping truly comprehensive approaches to security issues. I understand your not including any references to NATO in your essay, because the relationship between the two organizations raises important questions that complicate one's appreciation of the EU.

Finally, on this short list, the US cannot deal simply with the EU on important issues, particularly in all aspects of security policy. The EU does not include key transatlantic partners (for example, Norway, Canada, Turkey) that need to be involved in developing cooperation on such questions.
 
Niklas  Anzinger

March 10, 2011

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Ms. Cross,

your well-written paper is hopefully a good opener for an insightful discussion on this topic.

You make an argument that the US is underestimating Europe. Your observation that Europe´s failures are highlighted are among the political right and therefore ignoring successes is indeed true. I think you make the mistake to highlight the "successess" of Europe in an inappropriate way that leaves room for the criticism of your counter-claimants for accurate criticism of Europe. Though, I am very aware that it would be unfair to judge your assessment of Europe as mainly positive and naive, because you didn´t have the opportunity (and space) to explicitly name the critical aspects.

The criticism of the inability of coordinating political will to consistent European policy is a European topic. The rejection of Europe as a consultant in special for security policy is indeed more a result of seeing Europe as an "uninspiring power" as you said. Therefore, the Europe-skeptics are not attached by arguments regarding better compliance and coordination or peaceful coexistance, but more in concrete successes regarding security policy.

"Most Americans would be shocked to learn that combined EU defense spending is larger than the next six powers put together - Russia, China, India, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Japan - and that the EU has engaged in 24 civilian and military peace-keeping and relief operations across 3 continents in just 8 years."

Seen in that way this is the only argument you provide against the Euro-skeptics. The question is: is Europe really able to make a difference for a safer and more peaceful world? At this stage the arguments of the Euro-skeptics are highly true and important. Europe seems regressing in terms of security policy to me and even if these issues are raised they completely lack the experience of historical involvement of the US in world power calculus and at the same time assuming moral superiority towards the US.

You have to keep in mind that the exspectancies of the Americans towards Afghanistan and Iraq were higher and I think there is indeed some truth in it that European hypocrisy and ignorance towards these were a major factor of the burdens and losses of this engagement. The US is disappointed of Europe for that, while Iraq and Afghanistan are seen as US mistakes by the Europeans. You can see some truth behind that in the discussion among European thinkers where Iraq and Afghanistan are overwhelmingly seen as mistakes before it is accurate to judge - I think - and before questioning the own role.

The Americans think that in most events in the history of the last decades, the Europeans were there when there is nothing to loose and no hand to get dirty. Isn´t there some truth behind it as the European leaders are now considering sanctions and measurements against the Middle East dictators in Libya and Egypt at a time, when they are almost fallen? Honestly, I have never observed any discussion among German and English-speakers in Europe that questions the support of these despots, while I have read endless debates among US thinkers questioning the status-quo policy in the region.

Hopefully, I could bring some critical aspects into discussion and I would be delighted if you strenghten your arguments at these points.
 
Mike  McCormack

March 10, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Certainly a lot of American criticism toward Europe is surrounded by glib themes related to America's strategic investment on the continent over the last 70 years. As Niklas pointed out, however, the spirit behind this criticism is nonetheless valid in some cases (the valid points often aren't articulated as they should be, however).

I also think that some of the more recent criticism of Europe stems from a championing of the continent as a rising global power during the first part of this decade. Not only was the Euro talked about as the next international standard due to a weakened US dollar, but other diplomatic hits to the US during that period (War on Terror, Iraq, Guantanamo, etc) made Europe look like the true champion of democracy and liberty in the 21st century. Yet with the Greek economic collapse and some recent black marks on Europe's international status on social issues (i.e. the re-emergence of nationalist anti-immigrant parties in some countries and recent comments about the "failure" of multiculturalism) the continent is falling back to parity with the US. So if anything the recent rhetoric was sort of a "told you so" to supposedly enlightened perceptions of a few years ago.

Perhaps you said it best with, "The second image Europe needs to project is that it does not just talk, it acts." I don't think anyone doubts that Europe is very powerful as a collective, but it has yet to prove itself as the outright global leader up to now.
 
Jeremy   Wysakowski-Walters

March 11, 2011

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Maia, firstly that was a very interesting piece.

It is worth nothing reference your comment concerning th US's frustration with a lack of a single voice for Europe that this was a thing aptly taken advantage of by the Bush administration with regards Iraq. Morover, the US seems split in its imaging of Europe. You highlighted the fact that many US politicians have an unrealistic view of the EU as a soverign state and us such expect to much. I agree this is an important problem in the relationship. Although as you mentioned the EU does conduct military operations these cannot be compared with those of a single nation; they are more comparable to NATO in that each operation mustbe suppported on a volunteer basis when it comes to troop levels. It will be a long time before we see a true European Army.

Niklas, you talk of US experience as oposed to Europeans. While you are correct about the EU as a collective, don't forget that many EU countries have a long history offoriegn operations which pre-date the US's existence
 
Member deleted

March 12, 2011

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Link to the above EU Declaration :

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec...

Mr. Herman Van Rompuy is indeed a great consensus builder, knowing French stance on this.

Maybe something can be learned from him and the document in this part of the world, as well.
 
John  Hadjisky

March 13, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The question of the American view of Europe is a huge, multi-faceted question that is hard to address in a short essay. Ms. Cross does a good job of starting this conversation. Maintaining the peace of Europe (so far), and expanding it eastward, is indeed a fantastic accomplishment.

Perhaps there could be a follow-up piece focusing on Herman Van Rompuy. The thesis might be to analyze his Presidency as a microcosm of a) how US views the EU, and b) how EU judges success on its own terms.

We are, of course, used to our Presidential system, in which the people are directly represented via their votes; our electoral college represents only a slight dilution of direct democracy, and the people's choice is understood, more than any other branch of government, to speak on their behalf. In contrast, the process that led to Van Rompuy's selection remains utterly, hopelessly opaque, even more than a year after the selection. Naturally, we don't expect this process to be exactly like our process. The problem is, we lack the metaphor to understand it. Even those of us who are familiar with the Parliament/Prime Minister process, see only superficial similarities to the process that produced Van Rompuy.

To this American, at best, Van Rompuy looks less like a leader, representative, or personification of Europe, and more like a bureaucrat-in-chief. This is a huge problem for many reasons, including: bureaucrats do not speak using normal language. Regardless of what formal language (English, French, etc) they employ, they invent their own, specialized vocabulary and idiom. Ordinary people cannot make sense of it, unless it is translated into the vernacular mode of whatever language they expect. But we see no signs of van Rompuy providing this translation (in any language).

At worst, he looks like merely the EC spokesperson, whose main role (so far unfulfilled, in my opinion) is to provide this translation. He appears to have no personal authority, and appears to be replaceable should it ever emerge that his personal vision differs from the EC vision. Even if he is able to translate EU-bureau-speak into a sort of EU vernacular, the question is, is this translation his raison d'ętre? Or, does he have real power to speak for Europe?

Has the Kissinger Question been answered? This recent blog post (http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2010/05/17/who-do-you-call-to-speak...) says, not yet. The Guardian, hardly a Euroskeptic, printed the perfect phrase in 2004:

"the unbearable lightness of Europe's being"
(Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/dec/17/eu.turkey1)

This is a reference to Milan Kundera's the famous 1984 novel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unbearable_Lightness_of_Being) that had quite a following in the US. We see it as a tragedy, not a positive vision for how life should be. How do Europeans view this massive, bureaucratic state they've built?

I couldn't help noting the ending of the film L'Auberge Espagnole (The Spanish Apartment, also translated as Euro Pudding or Pot Luck) (2002) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_Luck_%282002_film%29. The purpose of this enjoyable film was clearly, to promote the EU to the youth and young adults, almost to the point of being a feature-length advertisement or, dare I say, propaganda. Nevertheless, at the end, the protagonist Xavier, an Erasmus student, fled in horror from the life that was laid out for him as a bureaucrat with lifetime tenure. This is not a good sign for Europe, is it?

Are there books, or movies, that provide a better metaphor for the new Europe?
 
Member deleted

March 14, 2011

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
There are some similarities between Premier of China Wen Jiabao and EU Permanent President Herman Van Rompuy, they both like poems and they are themselves poets, albeit in eastern and western styles of poems, besides they even look somewhat alike in pictures.
 
Mai'a K. Davis Cross

March 16, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Thank you for all of these responses! I will try to respond to each eventually.
To Stanley: I agree with you that there could possibly come a time when people over-estimate Europe, but that is really not at all a danger at this point. Thus, I chose to focus on an element of misperceptions - underestimating Europe. I believe that other experts (Andrew Moravcsik, John McCormick, Jolyon Howorth, Steven Hill and others) who write about Europe's potential are also trying to correct the overwhelmingly negative perceptions out there. But they also have real evidence to support the idea that Europe is a major, coherent actor in the international system - a second superpower. The reason to emphasize this is that Europe, especially through the EU, can really help to stabilize the international system through its support of democracy, peace, multilateralism, crisis management, and so on. Although it cannot always speak with one voice (especially in the wake of unprecedented crises) it's default is to speak with one voice. Member states and European citizens wholeheartedly agree that this is the goal. CFSP is new, but it is increasingly coming together. Negativity about Europe's role can make it into a self-fulfilling prophecy, and there's just no value in that. At this point, what Europe needs is more recognition.
 
Mai'a K. Davis Cross

March 16, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
To Niklas: I could write in much more depth about Europe's successes (see my forthcoming book, "Security Integration in Europe"), but in this short piece, I actually chose to focus more on its resources for power and influence (this is admittedly a more simplistic perspective).

I do think that a general problem in academia and the policy world is that optimism is equated with being naive. Those that are constantly critical always seem to have the upper hand because it is assumed that they are being realistic and wise. Meanwhile, they don't actually have to back up their points as rigorously as those that are more optimistic. This is especially true in the debate between constructivists and rationalists in the field of international relations theory.

I did not only point to Europe's military power as a reason why Euroskeptics are wrong. Europe has the biggest economy in the world, its population is larger than that of the US, it is second only to the US in terms of innovation, its currency is second only to the dollar. It is a normative and civilian power as well, and in this area it is stronger than the military side. Again, these are just power resources. I would argue that the real strength of Europe is its processes through the EU. It is, in effect, a superb consensus-making machine. If it were just left up to the Brussels diplomats, bureaucrats, and experts it would be virtually unproblematic for the EU to speak with one voice - they are socialized into each other cultures and define their interests with that of the group. Member-state capitals do have more trouble but even as we saw recently with the summit on Libya, they entered the negotiation room with totally different perspectives and left the room with a single statement. Libya is a hard test for EU foreign policy. In more medium or long term areas, the EU has no trouble acting as a coherent actor.

On your other points, Europeans have contributed tremendously to ISAF both in terms of troops and in terms of money. Is Europe really able to make a difference for a safer and more peaceful world? Absolutely. The process of EU integration and enlargement has been the most successful experiment in international cooperation, democratization, and peace that has existed in modern times. CSDP is so young and yet it is also contributing in significant ways to making the world safer. The EU is the biggest humanitarian and development aid donor in the world. Europeans aim to address global problems early on, rather than choosing the most pressing issues as they become major crises. They take a preventive approach.
 

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