Europeans were jubilant at the election of Barack Obama. Finally, here was a president who would finally listen to Europe and treat them as a true and equal partner in international relations. Gone was the disdainful and primitive "cowboy unilateralism" of George Bush, now replaced by the 'internationalism" represented by Obama. The Europeans are right about one thing: Obama is a fellow traveler in the sense that he wants to adopt the European welfare state model to the United States.
But amidst all the hype, promises and hope of Europeans for a new trans-Atlantic era with the ascension of Barack Obama, given the pre- G20 summit posture of the major participants, exactly what substantive changes in terms of the fundamental relationship can we expect? The rebuff President Obama has already received from some European states for his calls for a global "New Deal" prior to the meeting in London illustrates the continuing tension between the Continent and the worlds superpower.
First, does Obama arrive to discuss policy matters with a unified Europe that speaks with one voice? It should be noted that the attempts by transnational political elites to impose a top-heavy European Constitution laden with regulatory minutiae ended in failure when many European nations failed to ratify that document's onerous provisions. Thus, despite the attempts of many transnational bureaucrats to draft an instrument that would allow Europe to present a coherent and unified position on political, economic and foreign policy issues, Europe still, very much remains Europe: a Continent with unique sovereign nation-states with diverse, and at times, divergent interests.
In addition, when one examines the specific nature of the Trans-Atlantic relationship, one finds a host of paradoxes and intractable solutions that, although Obama promises to be a different president in his relations with Europe, exactly what does Europe plan to offer in return in terms of shared sacrifice?
As the Financial Times notes:
Naturally, the Obama administration wants something in return from the Europeans. A few months ago the Americans were hoping that their allies might come up with more troops for Afghanistan, and relax some of the notorious “caveats” that restrict what German soldiers, in particular, can do. That hope has proved largely vain. The British might send a couple of thousand more troops. The Poles and Italians could also chip in. But any new European contribution will be feeble compared with the 21,000 extra troops that the US is committing.
For many in the U.S. who have grown weary of European anti-Americanism, there's the rub. If the U.S. is supposed to be more receptive to the Continental stance on issues of global warming, Guantanamo prison and respect for the Europeans beloved trans-national institutions of soft-power, is it asking too much for Europe to help with the terrorist threat in Afghanistan?
Thus, the G20 summit demonstrates that on many issues, there is a gap between what Europe wants from the U.S. and what it professes it can deliver in return. President Obama's personal appeal and magnetism counts for little in terms of changing this reality. Obama intimated weeks ago, that he would make it clear to Europeans that any new relationship would require a more balanced and equitable sharing arrangement on issues of common security, specifically a greater European contribution of combat troops to Afghanistan. But Europe seems as reluctant as ever to assist with common defense matters. For the moment, Obama has chosen not to bring this issue to the fore.
An American president less wedded to the efficacy of the instruments of "soft power" or the ideals of European Socialism might view the inherent inequities of the current and disproportionate cost-sharing arrangement on military matters and conclude a sober reassessment of the relationship is in order.
For, despite all the anti-American drivel that emanates from the Continent, to whom does Europe ultimately look to as the guarantor of European security? An examination of the painful lessons of history prompts a question: which would prove more effective in deterring a militarily resurgent China or in checking the rapacious foreign policy of Russia? The entreaties of international jurists in Brussels seeking to impose "universal jurisdiction" of their domestic courts on renegade international actors or American military muscle?
The answer remains the same: Europeans will rely on the United States to maintain the peace and to thwart any aggression that threatens their security.
Plus ca change, c'est plus la meme chose…
Comments