by Jerome a Paris
Mon Feb 25th, 2008 at 06:40:28 AM EST
A former senior US government official, reacting to some of the sentiments I expressed in a previous essay for the Atlantic Community, said I was too pessimistic in my assessments. Europeans, I was told, always loudly disagree with US proposals but, in the end, whether it be expanding NATO or recognizing an independent Kosovo, will acquiesce to what America insists upon. At the same time, the US can continue to have fundamental disagreements with its European partners over matters such as climate change policy or international law without causing any major damage to the relationship.
With Democrats on the other hand, the expectations are going to be very high, at least on the American side. They're gonna turn towards Europe and expect to be back in the game as if nothing happened. Delusions of American Exceptionalism are very strong and in my opinion resurgent among Democrats. I can already picture Obama flying in European capitals, all proud and shining of his brand new "historical" victory, the "New JFK" and the second coming of Holy Ronald Reagan all rolled in one, and explaining in grand rhetorical flourishes how everything is going to get better thanks to American Leadership (TM). They really believe that shit.
he first paragraph is from Time for Frank Talk on US-EU Relations, by Nikolas K. Gvosdev, Editor-in-Chief of The National Interest, and describes the traditional view of Europe from Washington: that of slightly noisy, but basically good kids, occasionally rude but easy to brign back in line - members of the family, which you head and in whose name you can speak.
The second, less diplomatic one, comes from a comment by Francois in Paris a California-based Frenchman, reflects what is probably the majority view in europe outisde the traditional circles of power. He continues as follows:
With Obama, well, we have a situation. The potential for a complete misunderstanding is pretty phenomenal. His style and the expectations he's setting in his campaign are going to be a big liability in relations with Europe. And then there is this little business with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs where he just spent the last year broadcasting that he doesn't give a shit about Europe.
There is plenty of nasty business to sort out: the Euro/Dollar relation, the contagion of the US financial meltdown in Europe, military cooperation in Afghanistan, the mess in Iraq (if the US thinks they are going to be able to just walk away ...), global warming, trade with China, oil supply security, Israel, etc., etc., etc.
(...)
But if a Dem is elected, no more forlorn longings of sweet hope. It's show-time. All the shit is going to come out, with a severe misperception of the respective positions. The US is going to need very active help from Europe to clean up the shit. On the other hand, Europe can perfectly do nothing - out of disorganization or out of sheer passive-aggressive spite - and watch the US take the brunt of the crap while keeping the upper hand by default. No European unity is needed. It doesn't even need to be deliberate. All that Europe needs to do to gain relative power and influence against the US and in the world is to sit on its hands. No one will win. But in the mess, Europe will take its lump and still come up on top of a hugely diminished US. A lot of Europeans would be very content with that.
I'm not sure there is anyone who fully understand that last point in Washington DC. They still don't realize that the world has changed and that they don't have the luxury of taking anything for granted anymore. Yet, from what I see with the Democrats, they still waxing lyricals on American Leadership(TM) and the Natural, God Ordained and Self-Evident Goodness of America. After 8 years of Bush, they still don't have a clue and they are supposed to be to the good guys.
I mostly agree with Francois, with the added "bonus" that Europe currently has a number of leaders (starting with Sarkozy and Brown) who are going to be keen to look as perfect little allies and friendly pro-American freedom-loving "reformers", and who will be happy to wax lyrical with Obama and even make spectacular symbolic gestures (such as Sarkozy's intention to come back into NATO). But behind these posturing political leaders, the reality is quite different, both in the general population and, more importantly, in the top and medium levels of each European country's administration.
"Passive-aggressive spite" is likely to be an excellent description of European policy towards the US, as resentment over climate change inaction and international law decredibilisation finally overcomes Europeans' inertia and cowardice in confronting the US. What they could not do, or dared not do against Bush, they will do against the new president if that new president dares ask the Europeans for their unconditional support simply because Bush is gone without taking into account all that's happened in the past few years.
And with the global economy in a tailspin, protectionism is likely to become a major force again, both the simplistic kind (protecting a special interest with the ear of power) or the new kind (preventing imports of carbon-rich goods or labor-standard-evading goods), and Europe and the US will not necessarily be on the same side of these arguments - and trade is the one topic where Europe actually can outmuscle the US.
Some of you might remember my critical diaries on Obama's foreign policy last year (here and here), and my worrying about Obama's focus on strengthening the US military (alongside better bits about stopping torture, closing Guantanamo and listening to allies). Well, I still see the same problem this year: the combination of (i) the argument that the Bush years are over and (ii) the conviction that the US has a natural right to lead the "free world" is going to create a huge conflict of expectations. To be very clear, this is not just a problem with Obama, because this will apply just as well to Clinton or, God forbid, McCain, but it will be worse in a way with Obama for a simple reason: as he embodies change, he will not even actually need to do anything to have a claim to ask for supposedly symmetrical efforts from Europeans: he will just say: 'my election is proof positive that we Americans are ready to listen to our allies again, now you need to move on too and give signs of goodwill in return', and any reticence from Europeans will be used as proof that the problem is European anti-Americanism, not America's past or present behavior. The pressure will be tremendous, and misunderstandings are bound to come in fast and, with them, and resentment (on both sides).
Francois adds in the discussion:
The US have great assets and, correctly managed, it has all the potential to restore itself as the top superpower by far. It has space, material resources, an extensive infrastructure in poor shape but that can be fixed, a lot of nice left-overs from its industrial glory days, and, above all, it has a great demography, very balanced compared to the rest of the world.
But I don't see the US military "strength" as an asset but rather as a severe liability. It's a parasite on the economy and the government and, by maintaining the illusion of strength, it's a major roadblock obstacle on the USA #1 priority : reconnection with reality.
To a large extent, the US could actually care very little about Europeans, because it does have the internal resources to do something about the current mess, provided that these are marshalled properly. But I don't see that happening, yet, as that would mean renouncing both the international "blessing" that Europe provides (we do lead the world community - see how all the real democracies in Europe support our policies) and the special role of a country pretending to care as much about others as about its own interests.
I expect that Europe's probable dithering and foot-dragging will justify Washington neglecting and despising further Europe and provide Washington with a ready excuse to blame the rest of the world for its growing woes. And like François, I believe that Europe will be dragged down less than the US by the combination of Iraq, peak oil, climate change and the financial crisis.
And I'd add that Europe also has the internal resources to go it alone, should it ever find the nerve and the leadership to do so. It looks pretty unlikely right now, but a meltdown of the dollar (should the hyperinflation route to reduce the debt burden be chosen) might propel the Europeans in the hotseat almost agianst their will...
In a nutshell, Atlanticism might still have a future if both continents had serious leaders willing to listen to the other side. Unfortunately, I see that on neither side.
