Is There Strong Trans-Atlantic Melancholia?
Published in Le Monde
(France) on 12 November 2010
by Alain Frachon (link to original)
(France) on 12 November 2010
by Alain Frachon (link to original)
Translated from
by Mylène Perdreau.
Edited by Celeste Hansen.
Do we still love each other? On both sides of the Atlantic, now is the time to engage in soul-searching. Like an old couple, Europe and America are having doubts about their common future. No domestic rows — questions instead: Does this trans-Atlantic relationship still matter as much? Is the privileged partnership (on military, economic and political affairs) between Europeans and Americans still a priority in Washington?
Europe, a lady of a certain age, fears she will be cheated upon . She wonders: What if the United States contracts elsewhere, with younger and more exotic partners, forming unions that would marginalize during the 21st century that same Euro-American alliance that dominated the 20th century? There will be the beginnings of an answer on Nov. 18 in Lisbon, the Portuguese capital, at the Europe-United States annual summit.
For the first time, Barack Obama will meet the triumvirate who represent the European Union abroad: the Belgian Herman Van Rompuy, permanent president of the European Council; the Portuguese José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission; and lastly, the British Catherine Ashton, the high representative for foreign affairs.
The early stages of the relationship between the Europeans and the 44th president of the United States have been arduous — if not disappointing. The Bush era was characterized by a tendency toward "unilateralism," a dirty word meaning that the United Stated did not care about its allies. When he was elected in 2008, Barack Obama promised to work closer with them again.
However, the democrat started to skip some meetings with the European Union. He led us to believe that he had little patience for the Brussels institution’s eccentricities and even less liking for summits where he cannot make decisions on most things. The Europeans, who love summits, felt snubbed.
It was whispered on the Old Continent that this man, whose father was Kenyan and who partially grew up in Asia, had no affinity with Europe. During his first year in the White House, Obama found a way to meet with Chinese leaders twice, and not once did he meet the Europeans within the institutional framework of the Union! Psychodrama in Brussels: The United States was moving away from its traditional allies — it only had eyes for Asia — and it was the end of an old alliance based on history, culture and common "values."
Reality was not such a caricature. The Obama administration and the Europeans have worked closely together on many international matters of the utmost importance from the beginning. "However, we can clearly feel that something has changed regarding trans-Atlantic relations," French Pierre Vimont said on Monday, Nov. 8 in Washington.
He has been the ambassador from France to the United States for three years and he will become Lady Ashton's number two in Brussels in a few weeks. Why isn't it the same as before? Because new global players have appeared on the international scene. These are emerging powers and natural partners of the U.S.
Pierre Vimont explained that the trans-Atlantic relationship "is taking place in an absolutely new environment" and that it "has to change to fit the G-20 world." It is a world in which the "biggest" nations matter not only to the United States, the Europeans and the Russians, but also to the Chinese, the Indians, the Indonesians, the Brazilians, the Turkish, etc. In other words, to any country that intends to transform its economic power into political clout.
The ambassador spoke during the opening of the Institute of the European Union for Security Studies conference, which was dedicated to the future of the trans-Atlantic relationship on Monday, Nov. 8 and Tuesday, Nov. 9. As if to confirm the French diplomat's words, the American president declared at the same time while on a state visit in New Delhi that the relationship between India and the United States would become the "defining partnership of the 21st century." Nothing less.
If we looked long enough, we would probably find that Obama said pretty much the same thing in Beijing about Chinese-American relations. And he could repeat the same words in Brazil or in any other capital of these powers that he calls "emerged" — as opposed to "emerging" — to emphasize that they already are today's "biggest."
Do the Europeans have to worry? "No," the American leaders said at the ISS conference to which they came in great numbers. It did not matter whether the message came from Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, who is in charge of European Affairs in the White House, or Nancy McEldowney, who is number two in the Bureau of European Affairs for the Department of State. It was the same: We still love you. More than ever, the U.S. considers Europe an essential partner. Obama's United States wants "more" Europe, not "less." It would like Europe to appear more as a singular entity.
The U.S. has to be taken at its word. What more could it mean? Europeans often behave in a whiny way toward Washington. That consists of making Americans in part responsible for the fact that the Union — which is a commercial power — is not a political and military power on the international scene, or [at least] not strong enough.
That is Europe's problem and no one else's. It is its own business if it always votes for reducing its military budgets, which will take it to the rank of strategic dwarf. It is its own business to find the way — inevitably slow and hard to find with 27 nations debating — and, above all, the willingness to show a more determined and autonomous diplomacy. It is its own business — and not the Americans' — to decide whether it wants to appear among the "emerged" powers of the 21st century, or if it wants to remain in the eternal state of emerging political power.
Europe, a lady of a certain age, fears she will be cheated upon . She wonders: What if the United States contracts elsewhere, with younger and more exotic partners, forming unions that would marginalize during the 21st century that same Euro-American alliance that dominated the 20th century? There will be the beginnings of an answer on Nov. 18 in Lisbon, the Portuguese capital, at the Europe-United States annual summit.
For the first time, Barack Obama will meet the triumvirate who represent the European Union abroad: the Belgian Herman Van Rompuy, permanent president of the European Council; the Portuguese José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission; and lastly, the British Catherine Ashton, the high representative for foreign affairs.
The early stages of the relationship between the Europeans and the 44th president of the United States have been arduous — if not disappointing. The Bush era was characterized by a tendency toward "unilateralism," a dirty word meaning that the United Stated did not care about its allies. When he was elected in 2008, Barack Obama promised to work closer with them again.
However, the democrat started to skip some meetings with the European Union. He led us to believe that he had little patience for the Brussels institution’s eccentricities and even less liking for summits where he cannot make decisions on most things. The Europeans, who love summits, felt snubbed.
It was whispered on the Old Continent that this man, whose father was Kenyan and who partially grew up in Asia, had no affinity with Europe. During his first year in the White House, Obama found a way to meet with Chinese leaders twice, and not once did he meet the Europeans within the institutional framework of the Union! Psychodrama in Brussels: The United States was moving away from its traditional allies — it only had eyes for Asia — and it was the end of an old alliance based on history, culture and common "values."
Reality was not such a caricature. The Obama administration and the Europeans have worked closely together on many international matters of the utmost importance from the beginning. "However, we can clearly feel that something has changed regarding trans-Atlantic relations," French Pierre Vimont said on Monday, Nov. 8 in Washington.
He has been the ambassador from France to the United States for three years and he will become Lady Ashton's number two in Brussels in a few weeks. Why isn't it the same as before? Because new global players have appeared on the international scene. These are emerging powers and natural partners of the U.S.
Pierre Vimont explained that the trans-Atlantic relationship "is taking place in an absolutely new environment" and that it "has to change to fit the G-20 world." It is a world in which the "biggest" nations matter not only to the United States, the Europeans and the Russians, but also to the Chinese, the Indians, the Indonesians, the Brazilians, the Turkish, etc. In other words, to any country that intends to transform its economic power into political clout.
The ambassador spoke during the opening of the Institute of the European Union for Security Studies conference, which was dedicated to the future of the trans-Atlantic relationship on Monday, Nov. 8 and Tuesday, Nov. 9. As if to confirm the French diplomat's words, the American president declared at the same time while on a state visit in New Delhi that the relationship between India and the United States would become the "defining partnership of the 21st century." Nothing less.
If we looked long enough, we would probably find that Obama said pretty much the same thing in Beijing about Chinese-American relations. And he could repeat the same words in Brazil or in any other capital of these powers that he calls "emerged" — as opposed to "emerging" — to emphasize that they already are today's "biggest."
Do the Europeans have to worry? "No," the American leaders said at the ISS conference to which they came in great numbers. It did not matter whether the message came from Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, who is in charge of European Affairs in the White House, or Nancy McEldowney, who is number two in the Bureau of European Affairs for the Department of State. It was the same: We still love you. More than ever, the U.S. considers Europe an essential partner. Obama's United States wants "more" Europe, not "less." It would like Europe to appear more as a singular entity.
The U.S. has to be taken at its word. What more could it mean? Europeans often behave in a whiny way toward Washington. That consists of making Americans in part responsible for the fact that the Union — which is a commercial power — is not a political and military power on the international scene, or [at least] not strong enough.
That is Europe's problem and no one else's. It is its own business if it always votes for reducing its military budgets, which will take it to the rank of strategic dwarf. It is its own business to find the way — inevitably slow and hard to find with 27 nations debating — and, above all, the willingness to show a more determined and autonomous diplomacy. It is its own business — and not the Americans' — to decide whether it wants to appear among the "emerged" powers of the 21st century, or if it wants to remain in the eternal state of emerging political power.
Previous article![]( "Waiting for Superman")