The conclusion seems sadly evident that the Bush administration is pragmatic rather than doctrinal when it comes to multilateral and unilateral options. It has proceeded without closer consultation with Germany and France because it has simply concluded that Germany and France demand more attention and consultation than their support is worth.Despite Mead's questionable assessment of "red state" political convictions, the point he raises strikes me as being critical to the discussion on how the transatlantic relationship functions or will function. The collapse of the USSR meant the loss of Europe's importance as the major theatre of a potential world war. European powers by and large lack the capacity to project significant military power. So militarily Europe is, relative to the US, weak.
Although Europe is important to the US economy, it is not the primary concern. In terms of imports and exports our immediate neighbors Canada and Mexico along with China and Japan all are bigger partners. (source: CIA World Factbook) Domestic problems within the EU complicate efforts to build an economic block that can compete with the US. The European economy is certainly a major player, but it doesn't seem like the EU has much economic leverage on the US.
All this leaves Europe looking somewhat less important to the US, especially at a time when its attention is being drawn by oil, terror, and the specter of a rising Iran in the Middle East as well as everyone's favorite East Asian boogeyman, China.
For the time being at least Europe still seems to need the US more than the US needs Europe. To reassert the importance of the transatlantic relationship the EU or some other collection of European states must gain enough power to offer meaningful opposition to US efforts outside of Europe. Until then, there are less incentives for the US to exert itself to please European allies.
-Fletcher F
5 comments:
Don't you love words like meaningful? They can mean anything! I'll work on clarifying that language sometime when it isn't so late.
you make many good points but you should note that the EU is the US's largest trading partner (the statistics you used are for US trade with individual states). nearly 500 billion Euro in goods (more than with any other single market), over 200 billlion Euro in services, 12-14 million jobs, and 1.5 trillion in investment. this does not include the non-EU states of Europe or factor in that Canada is part of the Trans-Atlantic relationship. Many american make this mistake because they look across the atlantic and still see states.
--Sam Hicks
thanks EU commision for stats.
There is little more that I can add in economic terms, given Sam's response (though it should be pointed out that as we stand, the EU with its 27 members accounts for a little over 25% of the world's GDP, slightly above the US), but I feel compelled to bring up NATO, and the cultural ties between North America and Europe. I believe Karen Donfried today pointed out a number of important issues. I also believe that she is a good example of how everyone outside the secretive (at least in terms of Bush's circle) circles of foreign policy does not seem to know what exactly is going on. This is to say, as Dr. Donfried said, Bush probably never meant to ignore "Old Europe"; which by the way I feel sick every time I hear that, though with Rummy gone I've been feeling better lately.
Without NATO (ie UK, Germany, France, others, and of course Canada) Afghanistan would have already failed, and maybe Iraq would not have been so quickly invaded. This is pure speculation I know, but a possibility, though I question the strategic capabilities of anyone in this administration.
Also, I don't think anyone (except the French, as is typical of them) really want to oppose the US, as much as be a stronger player, thus a stronger ally (maybe that's what you meant, and I'm just repeating). I feel like I am only pointing out what's wrong in your posting, but you are more than welcome to comment on my posts! I believe the first and major step that Americans and Europeans should take is to talk in the first place. Communication is the most important factor in the transatlantic relationship.
it seems that one of the division in class discussion is simply that some see power in real quantifiable terms like tanks and others see it in more abstract terms. I would not say that one is right and the other is wrong--though i seem to fall into the latter group.
i also agree that the most important thing in transatlantic relations is dialogue--not simply talking mind you--but discussion, consultation, and engagement.
the worst of the trans-Atlantic relationship is the name calling. though it is of course two ways the French bashing by the extreme right was not and is not helpful. the problem that i see with the current administration's policy is that they are lecturing. for instance, Bush called on the Europeans to do more in Afghanistan when he was at the Riga summit, he did not listen to real European concerns. the Europeans for their part lecture back about that Bush is a dangerous cowboy--something he feeds on.
i know that you didn't mean the negative types of talking when you posted but i thought i should highlight the differences.
I'll take this last bit to defend mead--though i, and i think he, agree that his characterizations are faulty--I'm home from after a few weeks in the red part of the map where many people still view the Germans and French with suspicion and mistrust.
--Sam
Both Sam and Paulo make good points but there is one thing I want to add. When looking at the transatlantic relationship I think it is important to look at the economic and political spheres in different ways, although they do intersect. The economic relationship between the EU and the US is strong and will continue to be strong simply because the economies are so intertwined now. We are mutually dependent on each other for all sorts of goods, services and markets. We manage to solve trade disputes because there are few other options. Cutting off trade would be horribly damaging for both sides, and prolonged fighting over issues is also bad for both sides.
But in the international political sphere of transatlantic relations things are different. As Mead points out the US doesn’t see Europe as all that important. The benefits from cooperation don’t out way the costs. Weather or not this is true is irrelevant, the current administration has decided it isn't worth the cost and thus that is the way the relationship is functioning.
Thus we have a healthy economic relationship and a deteriorating political relationship, and they both can continue to exist together. Just look at China. The US and China have huge amounts of trade, but the political relationship is far from friendly. And that might be the future of the transatlantic relationship. A large level of economic interdependency and cooperation, with political disagreements and fights.
Matt Bank
Post a Comment