Time for a New Alliance between Europe and the U.S.?
Published in Östran Lokaltidningen
(Sweden) on 30 May 2011
by Torsten Nilsson (link to original)
(Sweden) on 30 May 2011
by Torsten Nilsson (link to original)
Translated from
by Kamil Yakubov.
Edited by Gillian Palmer
.
An American president has not devoted a whole week to Europe in a long time. Bush preferred to sleep with his head against his own pillow; he was never away from home for more than a couple of days at a time.
Besides, the gang around him did everything they could to contribute to division on our continent by speaking about the old and the new Europe. They did not hide their preferences for the former communist countries in the East, which, in their fear of Russians, stood by everything the U.S. asked for. Economically, the U.S. considered their interests to be located in Asia rather than in Europe.
Obama’s European visit takes place in a different atmosphere. These are the two weakened giants who meet. Half of Europe is in economic crisis; the EU is in the middle of constructing a system in order to support a number of countries weighed down by debt and to prevent state bankruptcies. Social unrest reigns in Europe, and national leaders, whose hands Obama shook this week, are politically weakened. The mistrust against EU leadership, if one can consider it as such, is even bigger.
Obama’s own position has become stronger lately, and the Republicans’ attacks against social welfare have stopped short.
After a defeat in Congress on the question of cuts in elderly healthcare (Medicare), they are now simply on the defensive. Several well-known Republicans have withdrawn from the nomination struggle before the presidential elections next year; those who remain do not seem to represent any major threat to Obama in today’s situation.
However, the American economy does not really want to accelerate after the financial crisis, and the debt burden continues to grow. The cap on borrowing must be raised, and the U.S. can consider itself lucky that the world has not yet found some currency other than the dollar to turn to. The Obama administration continues to carry out, via the central bank (Federal Reserve), an expansive economic policy in the hope of seeing the growth pick up speed and reduce the deficit.
How to get the economy going is a common concern for the U.S. and Europe, and this question obviously came up at the old rich men’s club, G-8 (with Japan but not with China, for example) when they held a meeting in France.
Another common concern is how the U.S. and Europe will react to the uprisings in the Arab world. After a certain hesitation, there is now a consensus that the democratic powers should be supported, if not militarily, then at least politically and economically.
However, the U.S. still hesitates when it comes to countries such as Bahrain (where it has a large naval base), Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
The worst headache for the U.S. and Europe is Israel, which arrogantly adheres to its policy of occupation despite the fact that the country’s isolation increases every month. Egypt opened Gaza’s border crossings the other day; Hamas and Fatah entered into an alliance at the same time.
The dictators who directly or indirectly helped Israel oppress the Palestinians will be gone soon. Obama has made it clear that Israel must accept the borders of 1967 as a starting point for negotiations. The question of the Palestinian state will come up at the U.N. General Assembly this fall; there is a big majority there in support of the idea.
Obama said in London that the U.S. and Europe will continue to lead the world, even if China, India and other developing countries become more self-confident.
A new alliance between the U.S. and Europe is welcome; however, if we are going to exercise leadership in the world, we have to prioritize something other than just our economy.
A moral leadership is what’s needed; certain nations and regimes should not be favored. Human rights are universal and indivisible. It is high time for Arabs, including Palestinians, to get their rights.
Besides, the gang around him did everything they could to contribute to division on our continent by speaking about the old and the new Europe. They did not hide their preferences for the former communist countries in the East, which, in their fear of Russians, stood by everything the U.S. asked for. Economically, the U.S. considered their interests to be located in Asia rather than in Europe.
Obama’s European visit takes place in a different atmosphere. These are the two weakened giants who meet. Half of Europe is in economic crisis; the EU is in the middle of constructing a system in order to support a number of countries weighed down by debt and to prevent state bankruptcies. Social unrest reigns in Europe, and national leaders, whose hands Obama shook this week, are politically weakened. The mistrust against EU leadership, if one can consider it as such, is even bigger.
Obama’s own position has become stronger lately, and the Republicans’ attacks against social welfare have stopped short.
After a defeat in Congress on the question of cuts in elderly healthcare (Medicare), they are now simply on the defensive. Several well-known Republicans have withdrawn from the nomination struggle before the presidential elections next year; those who remain do not seem to represent any major threat to Obama in today’s situation.
However, the American economy does not really want to accelerate after the financial crisis, and the debt burden continues to grow. The cap on borrowing must be raised, and the U.S. can consider itself lucky that the world has not yet found some currency other than the dollar to turn to. The Obama administration continues to carry out, via the central bank (Federal Reserve), an expansive economic policy in the hope of seeing the growth pick up speed and reduce the deficit.
How to get the economy going is a common concern for the U.S. and Europe, and this question obviously came up at the old rich men’s club, G-8 (with Japan but not with China, for example) when they held a meeting in France.
Another common concern is how the U.S. and Europe will react to the uprisings in the Arab world. After a certain hesitation, there is now a consensus that the democratic powers should be supported, if not militarily, then at least politically and economically.
However, the U.S. still hesitates when it comes to countries such as Bahrain (where it has a large naval base), Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
The worst headache for the U.S. and Europe is Israel, which arrogantly adheres to its policy of occupation despite the fact that the country’s isolation increases every month. Egypt opened Gaza’s border crossings the other day; Hamas and Fatah entered into an alliance at the same time.
The dictators who directly or indirectly helped Israel oppress the Palestinians will be gone soon. Obama has made it clear that Israel must accept the borders of 1967 as a starting point for negotiations. The question of the Palestinian state will come up at the U.N. General Assembly this fall; there is a big majority there in support of the idea.
Obama said in London that the U.S. and Europe will continue to lead the world, even if China, India and other developing countries become more self-confident.
A new alliance between the U.S. and Europe is welcome; however, if we are going to exercise leadership in the world, we have to prioritize something other than just our economy.
A moral leadership is what’s needed; certain nations and regimes should not be favored. Human rights are universal and indivisible. It is high time for Arabs, including Palestinians, to get their rights.