The Thing About Friendship

You would laugh loudly if this were a comedy sketch: Victoria Nuland suggests on the phone, “Fuck the EU.” The lady is not just a diplomat. She is the assistant secretary of state for European affairs at the United States Department of State. Just a second ago she advocated a “transatlantic renaissance”—based on common values or something like that. Nobody really knows, and, to be quite frank, it doesn’t really matter. Because you don’t really buy the transatlantic relationship renewal attempts from someone like Nuland who thinks, to hell with the EU.

Such a renewal, however, is urgently needed. It is at least time to review the situation: What connects and what separates the U.S. and Europe? What interests and values do they really share? Which considers itself still as the other’s friend—and how does that have an impact on dealing with each other?

Friendship is complicated. The French, for example, always historically viewed the U.S. as their child. French ideals related to enlightenment and revolution provided the theoretical foundation for the United States. The Brits still consider themselves as brothers in spirit to their former colonies; and we, the Germans, owe the Americans and the Allies relief from national socialism. First the Americans and the Allies took care of Adolf Hitler and then the victors resisted the temptation to burn Germany to the ground. Instead they created the foundation for freedom and prosperity—for which a significant debt of gratitude has been built up.

However, can someone who is deeply indebted to someone else be a friend at the same time? And will the bigger partner always meet the smaller one on equal grounds, even though it requires constant compromise? The relationship between the U.S. and its ideological relatives in Europe was never without friction. However, lately it has turned tense, causing some cracks in the relationship.

The 9/11 trauma has changed the U.S. more than we realize. The terror made the country, and especially its politics, more self-centered and reckless. Multilateral politics, which traditionally are not strongly developed in the U.S., disappeared completely. Eventually the U.S. came to rely only on itself, while at the same time feeling overwhelmed.

In its point of view, it is always troubled with problems, which others—like the Europeans—should be taking care of. However, if the U.S. is always asked to get involved, it wants to act as it feels fit. This applies to using drones in Pakistan and to fishing for data on the Internet. If this involves a politician’s cellphone? So what?

Before the war in Iraq, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was assumed to be an unreliable risk. Thus, according to U.S. war logic, spying was absolutely necessary. As it was now possible to appropriately classify the German government as a target, it was decided to continue to do so. It is this mix of arrogance and ignorance, which Europe, but especially Germany, sees as an insult.

In the meantime, the National Security Agency scandal alone has turned out to be enough to lose any remaining trust in Washington. Individual politicians in these parts will probably make a fool of themselves if they start threatening the U.S. with spying on their end; however, the chancellor’s harsh answer to the diplomat’s revealing jargon shows that this is about more than just bruised vanity. Estrangement is raging.

This is critical especially in times when the need for greater collaboration is growing. It is not just the Ukraine, where both Europe and the U.S. are needed as intermediaries. No matter if it’s climate change or security—none of these global challenges can be addressed by one party alone. The U.S. and Europe need to find a way to a new, resilient partnership. This quest won’t be easy.