Obama and the Dialogue with Europe
Published in Le Figaro
(France) on 12 March 2009
by Pierre Rousselin (link to original)
Dialogue is resuming between the United States and Europe. It is a new type of exchange, one to which the eight years of George Bush’s presidency had not accustomed us.
More dialogue is a good thing. It does not exclude differences of opinion. Although President Obama is still more popular in Europe than in his own country, he was not elected to give presents.
Envoys follow one another and contacts are on the increase. Americans are hearing the Europeans’ lament that blames them for causing the global banking crisis and for not wanting to change the rules of capitalism in order to prevent a recurrence. Obama and his advisers respond that the urgency is elsewhere, that the economy must be revived before one can even think of reforming it. Bolstered by the 787 billion dollars that he’s injecting into the American economy, the American president denounces the timidity of European revival plans.
The debate reveals ideological divergences and contradictory interests. It is a discussion that must be had. And quickly - if the G2- summit, which will be held in London in three weeks, is to amount to anything.
To move forward, each must take into account the constraints of his interlocutor. Since he has not succeeded in rallying Republicans to his cause, Obama’s leeway is narrow. He will have great difficulty accepting a reduction of the United States’ sovereignty over its own financial institutions. As for the Europeans, they cannot widen their deficits with impunity. In particular, Angela Merkel is at the mercy of September elections. Supported by Nicolas Sarkozy, she must show that she is fighting for true reforms. Great Britain leans, as usual, towards the American side, in order to preserve its interests as a leading financial market.
The debate is launched. Can it move forward enough so that the G20 leads to something other than a statement of intentions without practical result?
On many other topics, such as Afghanistan, where disagreement remains, dialogue is also becoming richer. The search for a credible strategy is underway. We should congratulate ourselves for this.
All of this is occurring in a serious and professional climate. The new style prevailing in Washington was visible on the day of Gordon Brown’s visit. The British press was offended by Barack Obama’s reserve. No hugs or pats on the back. The meeting lasted 45 minutes, without a joint press conference. The American president obviously had lots of work to do that day.
In the time of George W. Bush, Gordon Brown, Washington’s closest ally, the first European to come calling, would have been entitled to a visit at the ranch, or at least to a weekend at Camp David. With Obama, work comes first. They’re not there to play; they stay very focused, very “pro”…
It’s because America and Europe are in crisis. With Obama, dialogue won’t be easy, but it will be diligent. At least, let’s hope so.
More dialogue is a good thing. It does not exclude differences of opinion. Although President Obama is still more popular in Europe than in his own country, he was not elected to give presents.
Envoys follow one another and contacts are on the increase. Americans are hearing the Europeans’ lament that blames them for causing the global banking crisis and for not wanting to change the rules of capitalism in order to prevent a recurrence. Obama and his advisers respond that the urgency is elsewhere, that the economy must be revived before one can even think of reforming it. Bolstered by the 787 billion dollars that he’s injecting into the American economy, the American president denounces the timidity of European revival plans.
The debate reveals ideological divergences and contradictory interests. It is a discussion that must be had. And quickly - if the G2- summit, which will be held in London in three weeks, is to amount to anything.
To move forward, each must take into account the constraints of his interlocutor. Since he has not succeeded in rallying Republicans to his cause, Obama’s leeway is narrow. He will have great difficulty accepting a reduction of the United States’ sovereignty over its own financial institutions. As for the Europeans, they cannot widen their deficits with impunity. In particular, Angela Merkel is at the mercy of September elections. Supported by Nicolas Sarkozy, she must show that she is fighting for true reforms. Great Britain leans, as usual, towards the American side, in order to preserve its interests as a leading financial market.
The debate is launched. Can it move forward enough so that the G20 leads to something other than a statement of intentions without practical result?
On many other topics, such as Afghanistan, where disagreement remains, dialogue is also becoming richer. The search for a credible strategy is underway. We should congratulate ourselves for this.
All of this is occurring in a serious and professional climate. The new style prevailing in Washington was visible on the day of Gordon Brown’s visit. The British press was offended by Barack Obama’s reserve. No hugs or pats on the back. The meeting lasted 45 minutes, without a joint press conference. The American president obviously had lots of work to do that day.
In the time of George W. Bush, Gordon Brown, Washington’s closest ally, the first European to come calling, would have been entitled to a visit at the ranch, or at least to a weekend at Camp David. With Obama, work comes first. They’re not there to play; they stay very focused, very “pro”…
It’s because America and Europe are in crisis. With Obama, dialogue won’t be easy, but it will be diligent. At least, let’s hope so.