Visit to Europe
Published in ABC Internacional
(Spain) on 24 May 2011
by Florentino Portero (link to original)
(Spain) on 24 May 2011
by Florentino Portero (link to original)
Translated from
by Miken Trogdon.
Edited by Gheanna Emelia.
We decided that Obama was the first European president of the United States. It was not a question of arguing where he had been born, but categorically affirming that he thought and acted like one of us. I don’t know if it is for these or other reasons that Obama is the first U.S. president since Franklin D. Roosevelt that does not consider the Old World to be the preferential area, the ally in excellence, the inevitable partner. His opinion about Europe is perfectly describable and not friendly. In these parts, it took a while to accept reality, but now it’s a recognized fact.
The United States maintains ties with certain countries and tries to avoid finding itself tangled up in the communal chaos. With each state of reference, the U.S. maintains an agenda, which may or may not have shared points with others. In a globalized world, everything affects us; it’s imaginable that the Big Three will handle a wide range of topics, without waiting for reactions en bloc. Economic problems, the war in Afghanistan, the crisis in Pakistan and the Arab uprisings will be without a doubt among the topics that will require the most attention.
At a time when European states renationalize their foreign and defense policies upon seeing the failure of the Lisbon Treaty, the United States will find itself passing through a time of strategic confusion and lack of leadership. The latest speech from the U.S. president about the Middle East is so full of clichés and ambiguities due to a lack of substance. Since then it’s had to amend, revise and qualify in order to end up affirming that in reality it wanted to say the same thing as its predecessors.
Obama trusts too much in communication and forgets that in diplomacy, precision is essential. In this context, North Americans, Britons, Frenchmen and Germans will negotiate common actions, those from which very little is expected. Its leaders are more inclined to coordinate retreats and leave things to chance than to design and apply an authentic joint strategy.
The United States maintains ties with certain countries and tries to avoid finding itself tangled up in the communal chaos. With each state of reference, the U.S. maintains an agenda, which may or may not have shared points with others. In a globalized world, everything affects us; it’s imaginable that the Big Three will handle a wide range of topics, without waiting for reactions en bloc. Economic problems, the war in Afghanistan, the crisis in Pakistan and the Arab uprisings will be without a doubt among the topics that will require the most attention.
At a time when European states renationalize their foreign and defense policies upon seeing the failure of the Lisbon Treaty, the United States will find itself passing through a time of strategic confusion and lack of leadership. The latest speech from the U.S. president about the Middle East is so full of clichés and ambiguities due to a lack of substance. Since then it’s had to amend, revise and qualify in order to end up affirming that in reality it wanted to say the same thing as its predecessors.
Obama trusts too much in communication and forgets that in diplomacy, precision is essential. In this context, North Americans, Britons, Frenchmen and Germans will negotiate common actions, those from which very little is expected. Its leaders are more inclined to coordinate retreats and leave things to chance than to design and apply an authentic joint strategy.