You are here: Home 
Forum The Future of US-Europe Relations
|
The Europaeum Forum  The Future of US-Europe RelationsThe following essays and transcripts were prepared as part of an international conference held in Washington, DC on February 22nd - 24th, 2007, organised by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the Weidenfeld Institute of Strategic Dialogue, and the Europaeum.
Papers
Sir Stephen Wall, former Head of the European Secretariat in the Cabinet Office in London and EU adviser to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, writes on Europe without America?.
"Yes, the West still exists for all the reasons that have always made the Transatlantic relationship an extremely difficult one. Europeans routinely worry about the propensity of the United States to overreach in its impatience to solve global problems; they also worry about its urge to withdraw and shrug off those same problems when its efforts end in frustration. In other words, to veer from interventionism to isolationism.
Americans complain about European unwillingness to take the lead in solving problems – right up until they attempt to take the lead, when Washington becomes nervous that it may be marginalized. Each side wants and needs to keep the other in check, doing enough but not too much. It's far from an elegant arrangement and, with each crisis, the jockeying for position-and the mutual recriminations-begin anew. This is not just the beginning, but the continuation 'of a beautiful friendship.'"
"In “If the West Collapses,” Goldgeier presents a sober and sobering assessment of the likely causes and consequences of the erosion of the transatlantic partnership. Below are a few reflections on his analysis.
Muddling Through. Goldgeier suggests that the EU may well muddle through – it will neither unravel nor develop into a full-service center of power, but remain a decentralized union whose economic capacity substantially outweighs its geopolitical weight. The same could be said about the transatlantic relationship. It may well be that America and Europe neither recover the close alliance of the Cold War era nor permit their relationship to lapse into irrelevance. They may remain one another’s best partners, but nonetheless cooperate one day and disagree the next. They may represent an economic dynamo, but face a loss of geopolitical solidarity. If a pattern of contingent and sporadic cooperation proves to be the new normalcy, both sides may be better off making the most of it rather than accusing the other of backing away from partnership.
Neo-isolationism here and there. The Iraq war may well precipitate a turning inward in the United States. NATO’s troubled operation in Afghanistan and the weakness of EU institutions and EU governments could have the same effect in Europe. Theorizing about the future of the West has to take into consideration the possibility for diminishing internationalism on both sides of the Atlantic. The West may continue to exist, but it may not matter, as it looses its appetite got providing global leadership.
Populism. Populist politics seem to be on the rise across the Western democracies. This trend is resulting in nationalist instincts that are hardening sovereignty and making institutionalized cooperation more difficult to come by. Is this surge in populism a product of globalization – and likely to persist? How can it be factored into efforts to sustain a coherent Western community?
"
Professor Ryszard Stemplowski, Professor of International Relations, and former Director of The Polish Institute of International Affairs, Warsaw, contributes his insights in Towards a Union, aspiring to unity.
In the United States, many heaved a sigh of relief that they need no longer bother about European sensibilities. European economic weakness was exaggerated, just as Chinese economic strength is over-estimated. Ancient resentments of Europe, and America “exceptionalism”, revived. It was not only Donald Rumsfeld who played with the idea of splitting the new European countries from the old: folly, to prefer the fringe of Europe to its heart.
In Europe, too, there was folly and insensitivity. Folly, not to grasp the need for vigorous European action to prevent the catastrophe in the Balkans. Folly, not to modernize European military capability. Insensitivity, to dismiss the conservative ascendancy in America as mere boorish reaction. Insensitivity, in not realizing the depth of endemic anti-European feeling in America; most Americans, after all, are descended from people who left Europe because they had a bad time here.
America, for politicians and press, was now the “lone superpower”, as if the United States had just won the final of a tennis tournament. But the United States is the only country aspiring to global military dominance: Europeans have learned from their own history not to want that. Both Democrats and Republicans adopted neo-Wilsonian policies of “liberal intervention”, in aid now not just of democracy but of capitalism too. Yet the superpower’s military, financial and political resources have been dangerously tested even by a middle-sized war in Iraq and its aftermath. A war against Iran, let alone China, would be beyond them. More important, as Henry Kissinger spotted, the willingness of Americans to pay the price for world hegemony is in serious doubt.
I do not foresee an open break between Europe and America. Both have too great an economic and political investment in each other. Europe needs America, and America needs Europe. Nor do I think the disappearance of the Bush administration in 2009 will erase all problems. There will still be as much need as ever for Europe and America to work together with mutual respect to address the threats enumerated by Sir Stephen Wall. They now hang ominously over the world, and Europe and America must work together to face them. An end to folly and insensitivity."
Please send your comment to
|
