|
by Kyle Atwell
This article was originally published by Kyle Atwell at Atlantic Review, a website providing news updates and commentary covering transatlantic relations.
There has been speculation on both sides of the Atlantic about whether America's next president will be able to revitalize the acidulated transatlantic partnership. Con Coughlin has captured a common sentiment in an op-ed published by the Telegraph:
Whether it is a Republican... or one of the two remaining Democrat contenders... none of them will arouse anything approaching the level of controversy and hostility that has been caused by President George W Bush's seven-year tenure. President Bush has certainly been a divisive figure, both in policy and style. However, it is hardly a foregone conclusion that there will be a panacea in transatlantic relations once Bush decamps. As suggested by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in a recent interview with Spiegel Online, transatlantic differences run deeper than one administration:
SPIEGEL: Isn't German and European opposition to a greater military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq also a result of deep distrust of American power? Kissinger brings to mind a good question: has European hostility toward the US been solely the response to poor leadership by Bush, or is there a more fundamental schism in the Alliance?
Crispin Williams weighs in at Social Europe Blog, arguing that Bush has left a scar on transatlantic relations that will not easily heal:
... for all the commentary on the advocated changes to US foreign policy by Senators Obama and Clinton, one crucial point seems to have been at best massively understated and at worse, disregarded. This point regards the changes to the world that have occurred during the tenure of Bush and the limits that they will impose to creating a new style and substance to US foreign policy. Two changes in particular, the loss of the US's moral legitimacy and the rise of the emerging superpower China will have the greatest impact. This argument sounds fair enough, but then William's loses credibility by continuing with this revisionist view of history:
It may seem like a distant memory, but at the beginning of the 21st century before Bush, many looked to America to fulfill the role of a global policeman. Such arguments would forward that although no country was purely altruistic, when America acted it would be from a position of moral legitimacy because of the principles which underpin the country. High moral and ethical values such as the protection and promotion of individual freedoms, human rights and democracy meant that when there was a global crisis, e.g., Kosovo, people looked to America to lead the world's response. Did Europe really look toward America with glowing eyes to fulfill the role of global policeman? At best this is an overstatement; Europe has never been comfortable with the idea of complete dependence on the US, and indeed has long desired (and to a lesser degree, achieved) greater autonomy. Williams' use of Kosovo as an example suggests a lack historical understanding: Europe did not want America involved when the Balkans first began to dismember, and even ill-fatedly declared that bringing stability to the Balkans would be "the hour of Europe." It is true Bush has decreased US moral legitimacy, but one should be careful to not view Bush as the sole cause of transatlantic tensions. There have always been disagreements among the Allies, just as there always will be, regardless of whom the leadership is. Tension is intrinsic to any relationship. While accepting there will be perennial disagreements, it is also important to understand that disagreements do not mean the Alliance does not have value. Just because a husband and wife fight, it does not mean they should divorce. The next president will be able to minimize and even reverse some of the transatlantic drift seen in the Bush years. This is partly because the three major candidates have all argued for a more multilateral foreign policy approach, but also because they all support policies closer to Europe on issues such as improving US human rights records and environmental standards. For example, see McCain's response when asked if he would get along better with Europe than Bush in an interview with Spiegel Online:
Yes. I would announce that we are not ever going to torture anyone held in American custody. I would announce that we were closing Guantanamo Bay and moving those prisoners to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and I would announce a commitment to addressing climate change and my dedication to a global agreement. And if many Europeans agree with former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt that, "We want to be able to love America again," then rapprochement efforts by the next US president will be well received in Europe (Die Zeit op-ed, in German). |
Menu
. Home
. About . Contact . New User Guide . FAQ . Search . Search (Google) . Archives (Wiki) Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country Login
|
|||||||
Are Europeans Hiding in the Bush, or is Transatlantic Panacea to Come? | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Are Europeans Hiding in the Bush, or is Transatlantic Panacea to Come? | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
