Anyone familiar with Transatlantic relations knows that there has been a “crisis” since the early days of the European project. So one must ask, if there really is a crisis, and if the Atlantic Community really is on the brink of rupture; though the word divorce may seem to make more sense in this case. The simple answer is no. The end of the Cold War did not bring down NATO, or indeed the EC. It has now been over fifteen years since the fall of the Soviet Union. Not even de Gaulle brought down the European integration process (though he did change it fundamentaly) in the early second half of the twentieth century.
It would seem, however, that the majority of experts as well as the informed public are incapable of creating one realistic argument on what is happening. Furthermore, there is an excessive dependence on history. The truth is that works by experts such as Kupchan, Moravscik, Kagan, and others are well aimed at some of the current problems, but alone they cannot give a complete picture. There cannot be a single factor which will dictate the future of the relationship. Perhaps if one were to argue that political, demographic, and economic changes are created divergence, then there would be a better understanding of what could happen. Better yet, a clear and simple, though extensive, theory as to what is happening would help the average citizen to be able to understand how important the relationship is.
Also, by taking a point of view, and at times a rather obvious bias, those who write about the Transatlantic relation with such a slant that it becomes difficult for certain readers to accept it, are not helping in any way. Though some would prefer to see organizations like NATO disappear, it is important to realize that without it, the world would become much more dangerous for everyone. As incapable as NATO can be in certain cases (mostly due to a select number of member states who are unwilling to send more troops to important missions, especially Afghanistan) it is still the alliance which holds together the biggest block of democratic nations. This is of no small value. The United States may be a hegemon, but it is the most benevolent the world has ever, and will probably ever see. At the same time, Europe deserves a voice in the world, so that all continents in the world are able to reach minimal levels of life sustainability, as well as human rights, something which can, and should be done through diplomacy, and soft power, with hard power only ever being used in the case of real threats.
For the time being, there is yet no concrete answer to the question of whether there really is such an incoming divorce. One could even claim that elites are causing a rift in the relationship by paying so much attention to divergences, when there are enormous cultural, political, economic, and military links. Americans love Europe, and Europeans love the United States. It is the best friendship between nations and states that the world has ever seen. Even though it is human nature to take sides, perhaps it is time to take an eclectic approach to this issue. Only through innovative approaches, can one expect the US and EU to work together to spread the values of democracy, and human rights; if indeed that is the foreign policy both wish to pursue.
4 comments:
A lot of the arguments that there is the beginning of a real TA drift that I've seen so far in have been based off of a difference in strategic culture between the two (we talked about multilateral v. unilateral, soft power v. hard power), the idea is that the problem between the US and Europe is about the use of power in the world (the Kagan/Cooper argument) and not about diverging interests or goals between the two. If that is the basis of the TA drift it assumes that Europe has a unified strategic vision that is in conflict with the US's. What I was trying to say in class (not very articulately) is that a lot our readings even the ones who were completely apposed to each other like Kagan and Cooper defined the European strategic culture in the same way and they all seem to be describing EU foreign policy which is weak and not central to the TA relationship. That European strategic culture is only true for the EU institution and does not necessarily reflect the strategic cultures of the member states. I don't think the problem is a difference in strategic cultures but a difference in interests/goals. If France and Germany refused to support a war in Iraq it was not out of opposition to the use of hard power or to unilateralism but because it was not in their interests. The articles talked about democracy promotion and human rights etc as common interests but those are not interests or the basis of anyone’s FP, at least not central ones. Those are the goals of the EU because they don't have enough political unity for any others and they are the goals of the US insofar as they can be used to justify other actions for their real interests. I've come to the very tentative conclusion that there is no beginning of a TA drift, at least not on the basis of diverging strategic cultures or attitudes toward power in the world.
Claire
Who is it who would like to see NATO disappear? I know some people would like to see some institutonal change but who wants to get rid of it?
-Fletcher Fernau
checkout Sean Kay. aside from him people like miresheimer (sp?) in general have been foretelling the end of NATO for almost 20 years now with some glee.
Post a Comment