The schism within the transatlantic framework is taking place as American power has reached a peak unmatched by any in history. This preponderance of power and US determination to use it unilaterally has also enabled a unification of a European society long desired by supporters of a united Europe. The members of the transatlantic framework contain the vast majority of the world’s economic and military power. The global agenda from trade to security initiatives is set largely by the members of the United States and the European Union. Consensus on these issues enables the creation of international norms.

Transatlantic relations however, have reached a nadir. The destabilization of transatlantic relations is real and maybe beyond repair. However, the Iraq war did not by itself create the situation transatlantic relations find themselves at the present time. The Iraq war simply exacerbated the differences and was also manipulated by elements on both sides of the Atlantic to further political agendas. European vindictiveness has been increasingly on display since the Iraq war. This may be arguably the result of American indifference; However, France in particular has increasingly taken a position as desiring to actively impede US policies and has successfully encouraged other states such as Germany and Russia to withhold and even impede aid for Iraq reconstruction purposes.

Amid much recrimination and bluster by both sides, the basic underlying truth is that both the US and EU are major centers of power. However, their spheres of influence are so disparate in respect to their sources of power and credibility that both sides need each other to further each other’s goals. The EU provides the legitimacy of 25 states. The US provides credibility with unprecedented power. The Iraq war has become the 21st century’s 1956 Suez Canal crisis, as both sides have maneuvered to test the increasingly fragile boundaries of the transatlantic partnership. The schism between Europe and the United States is not an isolated instance of disagreement; it is symbolic of a critical and serious cleavage over how to address the common threats to both Europe and the United States: International terrorism, rouge and failed states and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and how to counter these new, non-traditional 21st century threats.

The Transatlantic relationship was established on the assumption that long forged traditional ties were the focus of strategic, political and economic interests of the transatlantic framework. Today, these aspects of the transatlantic framework are in a process of weakening. The United States’ center of power is shifting more towards Trans-Pacific Asia while Europe has decided itself to diverting its focus from the Atlantic to focus its center of power within itself as it becomes more preoccupied in its own internal debates. Both sides of the Atlantic have reduced their commitments to the transatlantic framework by their own decision and actions, over a period of time, not as the result of any legacy of US unilateralism in Iraq. The current traditional model of a dominant US power and European junior partners must be restructured. Burden sharing or diversification of duties and power must be instituted. Capabilities and burdens must be distributed.

Transatlantic relations need to be reformed from the legacy of the Cold War. The lack of a universally perceived threat to the members of the NATO alliance has enabled Europe to be vindictive and the US to become indifferent in regards to Atlantic relations. New common interests must be defined. Values cannot be the foundation of an encompassing common interest, after all, Finland and New Zealand have many common values, however, no potential alliance between these two states will establish itself on this foundation alone. One common interest for both the US and EU is the desire to establish European style zones of peace and common prosperity into regions of close proximity.

New attempts to reform transatlantic relations must take into consideration methods of mediating differences among its members. Since consensus of views, especially of threats and challenges is highly probable in the future is difficult reforms must be made. Failure to do so will create two alternatives, either complete unanimity or risking the destruction of the transatlantic framework. This would put the existence of transatlantic organizations such as NATO in peril, subject to reaction to events on both sides of the framework.

Any attempt to reassess the Atlantic partnership must be to redefine the scale of the partnership. Has it become regional or global in nature? Some on both sides of the Atlantic see the US as the hub of global power, and Europe becoming a regional power along similar spheres of influence within Asia, Eurasia and Asia. Or, should an equal, balanced relationship between the powers develop? The idea of Europe itself must also be addressed. France and Germany, the economic powerhouses of Europe have claimed the mantle of Europe and routinely claim authority for its policies, even intimidating other European states that oppose their views and policies. Yet, the newly democratized states in Eastern Europe as well as Britain, Italy and initially Spain supported and assisted US policies towards Iraq.

The bureaucrats in Brussels are committed to forging common defense and foreign policy. They have become the vanguard of European nationalism. They are embodied by France and Germany, who desire to impose their political culture of commitment to diplomacy, restrictions on the use of force and trust in international law, institutions and treaties. They expect that over time, Britain Eastern Europe and other European dissenter will be compelled to acquiesce to their desires. They anticipate European unity by imposing German and French policy as a forerunner of common EU policy. However, French and German domination within the EU is not certain. There are doubts among many within Europe as to France’s intention with the EU. France is seen by many as desiring to seek its own aggrandizement to become a superpower using the EU as its vehicle. Suspicions linger about a resurgent Germany.

US policymakers have indifferently dismissed and thus ignored these important questions and have generalized Europe as weak minded and appeasers, especially after the Madrid terrorist attacks. Many US policy makers have failed to see the divisions within Europe embodied by the various supporters of US Iraq policy from within it. In doing so they have failed to recognize the opportunities for diplomatic maneuvering that it affords US policymakers. Indeed, some Neo-Conservative policy makers have agreed with the US liberal foreign policy establishment in promoting further political integration of Europe on the premise of inevitability. They may be actually supplying the forces desiring an Anti-American European superpower. Conversely, an America emerging from its European indifference will defend its interests and create more vindictiveness from a EU increasingly dominated by the Brussels-Franco-German-bloc.

British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury is quoted as saying “The only bond that endures is the absence of clashing interests.” Perhaps Transatlantic politics may have to evolve from an era where transatlantic relations were the result of the foundation of common interests to a policy of toleration of each other policies and beliefs.