RSS

As EU leaders head to Washington for their transatlantic summit tomorrow, an unsentimental President Obama has already lost patience with Europe. In a post-American world, the United States knows it needs effective partners. At present, Europe lacks coherence and purpose. If Europe cannot step up, the US will look for other partners to do business with.

The US no longer dominates the world as the sole superpower. It knows it must turn to China on the economy and Russia on nuclear disarmament. Yet Europeans remain in denial about how the world is changing. They make a fetish out of the transatlantic relationship, anxiously pursuing harmony for harmony's sake without questioning what it is good for.

The mistaken belief of most European nations - not just the obvious Atlanticists like the UK and the Netherlands - that they have a ‘special relationship' with the US further distorts the transatlantic dialogue. These member states deploy different strategies to ingratiate themselves with Washington in a competition for American favour, believing that this works better for them than any collective European approach. The result is a frustrated US and an impotent Europe: Europe has 30,000 troops in Afghanistan yet virtually no say in strategy.

The truth is, the US would prefer a more united EU, but expects so little that it cannot bring itself to greatly care. When the EU is hard-headed, as with trade negotiations, the US listens. When it is not, Europeans are asking to be divided and ruled.

For Europe to become a credible and strategic partner for the US, Europeans need to shift their political psychology away from fetishising the transatlantic relationship. European governments need to get over the mistaken belief that their individual ‘special relationships' matter in Washington, and learn instead to act together and speak to the US with one voice.

Europeans will have to discuss big strategic issues - like Afghanistan, Russia and the Middle East - as Europeans, in relation to European interests, within the EU. Instead of merely attempting to persuade the Americans, Europeans need to approach their political differences with the US by negotiating strategic compromises.

The transatlantic relationship is not what it once was. What it becomes is largely up to Europe.

Download the full report "Towards a post-American Europe: a power audit of EU-US relations" by Shapiro and Witney on the European Council on Foreign Relations website.

Jeremy Shapiro is Director of Research at the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC and a Visiting Policy Fellow specialising in transatlantic relations at the ECFR since February 2009. Nick Witney is a Senior Policy Fellow at ECFR Paris office.

Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:

• Vilborg Ása Guðjónsdóttir: The Future of Transatlantic Relations
• Greg Randolph Lawson: Obama Abandoning Eastern Europe?
• Christoph Suess: American Success in Iraq Shuts Europe Up

November 2, 2009

Jakob Schirmer, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Gold Contributor (134)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

The crucial issue is that "Europe" is not a state. Neither the EU. Therefore, it is useless to demand that Europe should act in international politics as a state with one voice like China or Russia. Europe still has no phone number. Lets see what the Lisbon Treaty will change. Possibly, it will co-ordinate "European foreign policy". However, as long as the EU Member States remain souvereign states, they maintain their own interests and voices in international politics. This should not be seen as deficiency but as a European characteristic and even strength!

November 3, 2009

Member deleted

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

One agrees totally with Jakob. Divide & Rule? When academia takes to the strident language of such rhetorics, it usually means ill for the social capital of the state of origin of the commentators - for the reading populace. Hence one wonders if academia may not be over-reaching itself in its ambitions here - as the desires of "changing shapes" of the inter-state state-relations. The story of Afghanistan is known to even a modest student of International Relations and hence such language does surprise one!

The EU remains unique and is still evolving as an entity. Perhaps it is to its success that some within the academia have begun to imagine the EU as a unit - which it is not. However, that does not mean that the US as a state holds such James Dean exclamatory views!

The reality of a multi-polar world and the notions of the partnerships of equals shall remain the dominant factors in inter-state relations of durable partnership and co-operation. Changing shapes that foster peace is more acceptable (as politics of imagination go - when looking at attempted discursive creations). One does wonder though about the Obama moment? What is it? Some new product?

Tags: | states | shape changing | realities | IR |

November 3, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1102)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

The world has got much more complicated and it is not enough to say that one side of the transatlantic link fails to stand up to the requirements. Looking from the European perspective it could be equally argued that the US does not yet comprehend the post-American world, neither has it adapted its policies to fit in. True, Obama is instrumental in re-shaping the world's order and Europe is no match in terms of leadership, also because there is no clear leader of Europe. But, while there is a leader on the US side, questions emerge when it comes to strategy, take Afghanistan and Pakistan for examples. Had Europe have any say on strategy before, maybe there wouldn't be Afghanistan as we're facing now. There surely wouldn't be Iraq and probably also Iran. The EU usually needs more time for adaptation because of its structure. It also can turn to Russia, Brazil and the Middle East for energy resources, to China and India for developing high-tech industries. The rivalry with the US in the long term is inevitable. At the end of century we may see Europe and the US facing each other as enemies, not only rivals. But then, neither Europe nor the US will truly shape the world's order.

Tags: | Europe | US | rivalry |

November 3, 2009

Brian McCarthy, independent consultant, Bronze Contributor (15)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

The "Obama moment" was very short-lived indeed. It passed in the first flush of the new administration when Obama selected Gates and other carefully chosen unilateralists to implement US foreign relation actions. Quickly, it became evident that the big change was going to be in the language applied to actions or the avoidance of actions on the world stage. Europe is embroiled in American created conflicts and seems to unable to address the root causes of these.
The authors of this article appear to believe that the US seeks a united Europe per se. This is patently not the case when one examines US actions within, and close to Europe. The US have specifically driven a wedge between those European countries which blindly support imperialist initiatives and those which challenge US hegemony. The surrounding of Russia with American supplied NATO weaponry sited in two EU Member States integrated with the NATO build-up in the Black Sea and Baltic Sea led, inevitably, to a tense situation with Russia .Buying the 'loyalty' of two member states secretly does not point to a desire for a fully united Europe.
What we must not miss is "the European moment". We will get only one real chance in this decade to establish a much more cohesive presence both within the EU and in foreign relations with the rest of the world. Europe must not repeat the same mistake of appointing an ex-NATO chief to represent us on the world stage as if the only aspect of foreign policy was directly related to waging war or threatening to do so - and particularly on behalf of situations destabilised by US actions or their intractable support to other regimes in flash-point regions.
If we can grasp our "moment", it could be a significant stabilising factor in finding the solution to coping with the new balances of power emerging.

Tags: | Obama Moment European Moment |

November 5, 2009

André Budick, Bernhard Kaster, MdB, Silver Contributor (53)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

The EU won't be able to do what the authors demand, as in the foreseeable future, it's not going to become a 'state' in the traditional meaning of international law. It's is and will continue to remain unique entity - not a single unitary state, not a confederation of states, but something in-between. The German Constitutional Court, in two landmark rulings on both the Maastricht treaty in 1993 and just recently, in June 2009, on the Lisbon treaty, coined the German-language term of "Staatenverbund": A hybrid between single state entity and loose trade confederation of sovereign states.

Will EU leaders as well as its peoples agree, on many issues, about the general direction, fundamental principle? Sure they will - they already do! Yet, this strange transnational entity called EU will have difficulties formulating those clear-cut, coherent, stringent positions on global issues which the authors are calling for. Call it the Eternal Compromise of 27 (or 28, 29, 30 member states - there are still countries on the Balkans and bordering Russia waiting in line to join!).

Should we delore that hybrid nature of EU foreign policy? I would put a different question: How clear-cut, coherent, stringent are those supposed sovereign world powers, like the U.S., in their approach to the hot-button international issues of the day, from the Global Balkans between Punjab and the Persian Gulf to transnational threats of terrorism, nuclear proliferation, or environmental degradation? Given domestic debates within the U.S. on foreign issues, pressure groups weighing in, as well as its often slow and contradictory way of decisionmaking, I'd turn Kissinger's question around and ask: Mr Obama, what phone number do I call to get a clear idea of where the U.S. stands, please?

Tags: | U.S. foreign policy | Lisbon Treaty | transatlantic relations | EU |

November 6, 2009

Hans Reuther-Fix

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Strategic/tactical partnership between Europe and the USA is as much an
oxymoron as the prospect of a intelligent democracy.
For Europe, history has shaped a subordinated dependency to the USA
with England as the mediator.
The Germans have a saying,"mitgefangen--mitgehangen",and
NATO is to the USA, what the French Legion is to France........
Europe's orientation for the future needs to be to the East, or to be
more specific at least the orientation of the French-German-Polish Axis.
England, which historically is not Europe, tried over and over again to
marginalize the EU and destroy the value of the Euro in its infancy.
With America's help, it is still promoting NATO-US military bases in Poland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Romania, as well as the Caucasus, just
to, while assisted by the Ukraine, discourage the East orientation for Europe.
The black hole of forced consumerism in the USA is holding almost all
export oriented countries hostage.
An American economist stated on BBC while discussing trade deficits with
China," we just give them paper and bonds, while receiving goods and services".
For President Obama Europe is not the answer or solution to the
debt ridden American Country.
China, Russia, India, Brazil, Malysia are already in the process of decoupling
from dollar denomination, while the Arab League, like Singapore, is in the process of switching to " currency basquets ".
Japan is now officially requesting an alternative currency replacing the dollar
dominence.
Will Europe be able to think on its own, let alone act as a worldpower
in partneship.


HRF

Tags: | Europe/USA |

November 10, 2009

Douglas - Eden, Institute for the Study of the Americas, School of Advanced Study, University of London, (9)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Jakob Schirmer's is the most apposite comment here. The EU revealed its inadequacy over the former Yugoslavia in the '90s. No solution was possible without the USA because of European weakness. Nothing has changed since then, other than continuing European irresolution and decline. Continental pacifism has now spread to Britain, the only EU country willing to project power. Witness the reaction of UK public opinion to the loss of 204 professional soldiers in Afghanistan in six years. More than that - most of them conscripts - were lost in the first 10 minutes at Passchendaele. In these circumstances, there is little in the way of power projection for the EU members to pool. In what region of the world can the US expect to any useful foreign policy from any European country, let alone the EU? There is not even any effective cooperation in financial or economic or trade policy, except within limits in the G20. The EU has debilitated the European political elite by creating a false sense of security and fear of offering leadership that might offend a 'partner'. National leaders in the EU are incapable of even addressing their own people with conviction. Consequently, they fall back on visions of climate change and look to blame others for their failures. From Washington's (or Beijing's, Tokyo's, Cairo's or Delhi's) standpoint, there is little point in seeking common ground with the Europeans who are incapable of agreeing a diet of anything but milk toast among themselves.

November 12, 2009

Colette Grace Mazzucelli, Hofstra University / New York University, Platinum Contributor (333)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Colleagues,

I believe that it will be important to assess if an EU strategic culture and strategic thinking can evolve as the new system comes into effect with the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. The posts of European President and Foreign Minister have the potential to change the system over time, which means in effect countering a reflex of dependence on the US for some of the MS in strategic questions. Will the world see more selective groupings to address specific foreign policy issues, like the E3 (Britain, France, Germany)/EU diplomacy vis-a-vis the Islamic Republic of Iran? How will the Trio Presidency interact with the new figures in the foreign policy system? These questions must be answered in practice before pre-judging transatlantic relations in critical issue areas on the global agenda. Successive and future enlargements suggest that divergent national interests in functional areas (nuclear energy, climate change), will likely be more pronounced and that an approach to different regions and/or the neighbours will be influenced considerably by geography as the Union's external borders continue to change. One wonders if the EU will be able to translate considerable 'soft power' into effective strategic policy making in crisis regions, like the Middle East and South Asia, as key countries in those areas engage more in balance of power politics than regional integration.

Sincerely, Colette

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