Is a Strategic Partnership between the E.U. and the U.S. Possible?
If the E.U. fails to strengthen its unity, the U.S. might turn toward other entities in order to form strategic alliances. Before leaving the recent NATO summit in Lisbon, President Barack Obama attended a two-hour meeting with the leaders of the European Union. International political commentators were keen to see if an E.U.-U.S. summit would actually take place, or if, as it happened last year in Madrid, the American president would not show up. Therefore, one could say that the agenda of the E.U.-U.S. summit held on Nov. 20, 2010 was less important than the fact that the E.U. and U.S. presidents could finally meet.
The joint statement of the summit begins with a pompous sentence that paraphrases the preamble of the American Constitution: “We, the leaders of the European Union and the United States, met today in Lisbon to re-affirm our close partnership.” In order to reduce extremely high expectations, President Obama provided an explanation as to why the recent bilateral summit was not particularly spectacular: American and European leaders agreed upon all the items discussed. Which raised another question: Why did they not discuss an issue that is divergent, but extremely important for both parties and the entire world, such as economic policies in the context of the current crisis?
“A Cornerstone Relationship”
To be frank, it is European leaders who are pushing for an E.U.-U.S. strategic partnership. The White House leader declared during the recent summit: “[America’s] relationship with our European allies and partners is the cornerstone of our engagement with the world, and a catalyst for global cooperation.” The statement is an almost verbatim repetition of an affirmation in the U.S. National Security Strategy (May 2010). In the Strategy, the “European allies” are NATO, whereas, by “partnering with a stronger European Union,” the U.S. aims to promote democracy and prosperity in regions such as Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Caucasus.
In other words, in order to become a strategic partner to the U.S., the E.U. should be able to exert real power and influence in the international system. If leaders in Brussels and other European capitals only claim that the Lisbon Treaty gives the E.U. the legal characteristics of an international player and do nothing to strengthen the organization so that the Union can efficiently tackle major global issues, Washington will turn to other entities, and even emerging nations, in order to form strategic partnerships in international politics.
The Transatlantic Relationship
The severe crisis does not affect only the European Union. The U.S. is also experiencing a decline in power and influence internationally, although it has maintained global supremacy in some fields. At the same time, it is obvious that both American and European leaders are trying to develop strategic partnerships in various regions of the world in order to reposition themselves within the post-crisis global architecture. This creates growing expectations for the transatlantic relationship as well, which could evolve into a new type of strategic partnership that generates not only a power factor, but also, most importantly, a model for restructuring the international system.
Although a “strategic partnership” may be the current powers’ favorite means of overcoming the transition period in the international system, we must emphasize that this partnership is, above all, a manifestation of the Western institutional logic governing international relations. For this reason, the expectations for an E.U.-U.S. strategic partnership are high, as this partnership must not only promote mutual understanding but also strengthen the system for managing global issues that are based on observing the law, maintain interest for regional and international security and produce sustainable socioeconomic growth and development. If they take into account the lessons learned from the current economic and financial crisis, which showed the strong interdependency of global economy and the fact that the transatlantic area is highly interconnected, the E.U. and the U.S. should advance together toward the future world of complex interdependencies by employing a new type of management in international relations. This new management must aim not only to produce immediate results but also to deal with the basic issues of the world of tomorrow.
At the beginning of President Obama's mandate, a few centers for international politics analyses developed a proposition that showed that the current partnership between the E.U. and the U.S. is not a strategic one yet, and that, in the contemporary international climate, a strategic partnership between the two entities is nevertheless critical.
Re-thinking Transatlanticism
They showed that it was necessary not only to renew existing processes, but also to adopt “new types of policies.” In their turn, European analysts anticipated that it was possible to reach a “convergence of European and American strategic thinking,” if President Obama renounces the “hard” approach in favor of a “soft” one when dealing with international politics.
Such convergence goes beyond a “transatlantic security partnership,” as it aims to consolidate cooperation and even to rethink the "New Transatlantic Agenda.” It will be little wonder then if the recent E.U.-U.S. summit proves that the American and European political media are still oscillating between the options offered by strategic partnership as compared to strategic competition. This should be enough reason for the supporters of an E.U.-U.S. strategic partnership to reinvigorate their actions. Before it is too late.
Romania’s Former Chief-Negotiator with the E.U.
Vasile Puşcaş, an international relations professor and author of over 20 volumes, acted as Romania’s chief negotiator with the E.U. (2000-2004); all negotiating chapters were closed and the negotiation of the Accession Treaty was finalized during his mandate. From December 2008 to October 2009, he was the minister for European Affairs.
The joint statement of the summit begins with a pompous sentence that paraphrases the preamble of the American Constitution: “We, the leaders of the European Union and the United States, met today in Lisbon to re-affirm our close partnership.” In order to reduce extremely high expectations, President Obama provided an explanation as to why the recent bilateral summit was not particularly spectacular: American and European leaders agreed upon all the items discussed. Which raised another question: Why did they not discuss an issue that is divergent, but extremely important for both parties and the entire world, such as economic policies in the context of the current crisis?
“A Cornerstone Relationship”
To be frank, it is European leaders who are pushing for an E.U.-U.S. strategic partnership. The White House leader declared during the recent summit: “[America’s] relationship with our European allies and partners is the cornerstone of our engagement with the world, and a catalyst for global cooperation.” The statement is an almost verbatim repetition of an affirmation in the U.S. National Security Strategy (May 2010). In the Strategy, the “European allies” are NATO, whereas, by “partnering with a stronger European Union,” the U.S. aims to promote democracy and prosperity in regions such as Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Caucasus.
In other words, in order to become a strategic partner to the U.S., the E.U. should be able to exert real power and influence in the international system. If leaders in Brussels and other European capitals only claim that the Lisbon Treaty gives the E.U. the legal characteristics of an international player and do nothing to strengthen the organization so that the Union can efficiently tackle major global issues, Washington will turn to other entities, and even emerging nations, in order to form strategic partnerships in international politics.
The Transatlantic Relationship
The severe crisis does not affect only the European Union. The U.S. is also experiencing a decline in power and influence internationally, although it has maintained global supremacy in some fields. At the same time, it is obvious that both American and European leaders are trying to develop strategic partnerships in various regions of the world in order to reposition themselves within the post-crisis global architecture. This creates growing expectations for the transatlantic relationship as well, which could evolve into a new type of strategic partnership that generates not only a power factor, but also, most importantly, a model for restructuring the international system.
Although a “strategic partnership” may be the current powers’ favorite means of overcoming the transition period in the international system, we must emphasize that this partnership is, above all, a manifestation of the Western institutional logic governing international relations. For this reason, the expectations for an E.U.-U.S. strategic partnership are high, as this partnership must not only promote mutual understanding but also strengthen the system for managing global issues that are based on observing the law, maintain interest for regional and international security and produce sustainable socioeconomic growth and development. If they take into account the lessons learned from the current economic and financial crisis, which showed the strong interdependency of global economy and the fact that the transatlantic area is highly interconnected, the E.U. and the U.S. should advance together toward the future world of complex interdependencies by employing a new type of management in international relations. This new management must aim not only to produce immediate results but also to deal with the basic issues of the world of tomorrow.
At the beginning of President Obama's mandate, a few centers for international politics analyses developed a proposition that showed that the current partnership between the E.U. and the U.S. is not a strategic one yet, and that, in the contemporary international climate, a strategic partnership between the two entities is nevertheless critical.
Re-thinking Transatlanticism
They showed that it was necessary not only to renew existing processes, but also to adopt “new types of policies.” In their turn, European analysts anticipated that it was possible to reach a “convergence of European and American strategic thinking,” if President Obama renounces the “hard” approach in favor of a “soft” one when dealing with international politics.
Such convergence goes beyond a “transatlantic security partnership,” as it aims to consolidate cooperation and even to rethink the "New Transatlantic Agenda.” It will be little wonder then if the recent E.U.-U.S. summit proves that the American and European political media are still oscillating between the options offered by strategic partnership as compared to strategic competition. This should be enough reason for the supporters of an E.U.-U.S. strategic partnership to reinvigorate their actions. Before it is too late.
Romania’s Former Chief-Negotiator with the E.U.
Vasile Puşcaş, an international relations professor and author of over 20 volumes, acted as Romania’s chief negotiator with the E.U. (2000-2004); all negotiating chapters were closed and the negotiation of the Accession Treaty was finalized during his mandate. From December 2008 to October 2009, he was the minister for European Affairs.