John Kerry's Advance on Europe: Indispensable — and Absent?

The U.S.’ new secretary of state is coming to Germany. His predecessor traveled primarily to Asia. Whether the visit heralds a steering toward Europe by the Obama administration must be seen. Be that as it may, it is the wrong time for a withdrawal from the world.

It is among the habits of international politics to want to discern political intentions, initiatives and/or preferences from the first visits of new — major — players. So now the new U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, is going to arrive in Berlin tonight and immediately the word is in the capitol: After the U.S.’ “steering toward Asia,” the “steering toward Europe” is next up on the agenda of the second term.* In particular, Obama will direct his attention toward Germany as the U.S.’ most important partner. What part of this thinking is wishful and what meets reality remains to be seen. Regarding international economic policy, Americans and Germans haven’t read from the same book for some time. Regarding Afghanistan policy, the current U.S. secretary of defense and his German counterpart recently staged a confusing little game concerning the strength of the remaining Western soldiers after the withdrawal of the main contingents.

But even so, Kerry visits Germany while his predecessor Clinton accumulated miles primarily in Asia. And at least President Obama lately has expressed the intention to found a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the Europeans. After all, this is something — this would be something, if it were to be tackled energetically. The U.S. and the states of the European Union would bind themselves together more closely and would actually create an Atlantic domestic market that would be without equal globally. This would indeed be an unmistakable sign to the fast climbers of the world economy that the biggest market still is and also will continue to be under Western management.

Kerry, in advance of his visit to Europe, has said a sentence that would have passed for a matter of obviousness only a few years ago, but stands out even more today. In his first big speech Kerry said that the U.S. will “continue to lead as the indispensable nation, not because we seek this role, but because the world needs us to fill it.” Indispensable! But did the core of Obama’s foreign policy not consist out of a selective retreat so far? Does he not want to lead out of the second row, such as in Libya? Or not at all? In any case, this is what his critics on the domestic front blame him for with an eye toward Syria.

This country “is dying,” according to a recently published article by The Economist.** The situation is disastrous, unclear. As a matter of fact, Assad’s regime utilizes heavy weaponry against population centers; on the side of the rebels, jihadists are the most powerful force. How the nation and its many ethnic and religious groups can get together after the end of Assad’s regime — without major massacres of revenge — is a matter of speculation. Therefore, U.S. leadership is necessary; therefore the “indispensable nation” is needed very much. Naturally, there is no ideal path for Syria; one should only bear in mind the Russian tactics of stonewalling in the United Nations Security Council or the unilateral politics of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. But he who declares himself indispensable cannot simply surrender to an undoubtedly precarious situation. Now is truly not the time for neo-isolationism.

*Translator’s Note: These quotes are used for accentuation rather than to directly reference the “pivot to Asia.”

**Editor’s Note: This quotation appears to be used for effect rather than as a literal quotation from The Economist.