|
The Transatlantic Relationship: More Heat Will Not Thaw the Ice
|
by
Brian MURPHY:
Co-Director, EU Center Univ. System
of Georgia, (Sam Nunn Scholl of Int. Affairs, Georgia
Institute of Technology)
29/01/2003
|
 |
The
signs of transatlantic drift are escalating in number and
intensity. The dispute over Iraq is a symptom, not the cause,
of the ever-widening gulf across the Atlantic. What must be
recognized is that the roots of the tension are embedded in
the characters of very different societies. Since cultural
values are at stake, the collision must be addressed through
an effort to define priorities that will facilitate cooperation.
In basic terms, the United States and European Union do not
have to get along but merely tolerate one another. The Cold
War retarded the process of developing transatlantic understanding
because open dialogue about differences was muted in the interest
of projecting a united front toward the USSR. The U.S. became
accustomed to deference from Europe but this leadership mode
is now becoming a source of instability at the global level.
As the EU is beginning to demand more respect, which is sometimes
warranted but sometimes not, a new transatlantic equation
must be defined to maintain any future hope of international
security. The paradox is that equilibrium must be established
in an uneven power relationship.
US Religious values versus EU secular ones
Javier
Solana, the EU's High Representative, considers underlying
value structures as the primary factor generating transatlantic
conflict, especially the influence of religion that motivates
aspects of American policy-making. According to Solana, "For
us Europeans, it is difficult to deal with because we are
secular. We do not see the world in such black and white terms."
A recent study from the University of Michigan concurs by
finding values in the U.S. gravitating more toward traditional
attitudes on family and religion while Europe is moving in
the opposite direction. Demographic changes will likely accelerate
the process of cultural polarization. Europe is not only predicted
to grow older in terms of median age but it is expected to
escape the social transformation to be experienced in the
U.S. as a result of higher American immigration rates.
US
as the revolutionary power
This scenario paints a picture of enhanced
transatlantic friction that will be more difficult to reconcile
since not even the illusion of a common cultural bridge would
remain to promote the basis of compromise. The situation worsens
if economics are added to the mix. The inevitable march of
globalization is too frequently construed as imposing the
"Americanization" of business on a global scale.
In the words of historian Ronald Steel: "It was never
the Soviet Union but the United States itself that is the
true revolutionary power.…We lead an economic system
that effectively buried every other form of production and
distribution-leaving great wealth and sometimes great ruin
in its wake." Since the integration of markets will continue,
any economic disruption or social displacement runs the risk
of being blamed on U.S. manipulation.
No
Transatlantic future without Nato
Fate is not inevitable but is something that
is chosen. The question is how to repair the damage to transatlantic
relations before cultural and demographic forces combine to
limit diplomatic flexibility. Military power is the most immediate
obstacle irritating the transatlantic alliance-highlighted
by the dispute over Iraq-and NATO constitutes the only available
solution. To begin, European nations will not allocate the
resources needed to construct a credible military presence
because it would require diminishing funds for cultural priorities,
like an adequate social safety net. When considered from this
perspective, NATO fills the security vacuum for Europe quite
well. At the same time, however, it is becoming clear that
the U.S. needs a reason to remain committed to NATO since
the organization currently lacks a mission justifying its
existence. As Gustav Hägglund, chair of the Military
Committee of the European Union, stated last month, "The
new goal for Europe is to maintain the relevance of NATO in
American security thinking." Post-Cold War security threats
(Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan) have complicated this effort
by deluding the U.S. into believing it could confront the
"new world order" in a unilateral way. This luxury
might not be the case in the future when more substantial
security dangers arise. Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright understood the concern and proposed a "global
mission" for NATO in which coalitions would be formed
within the organization's membership to undertake specific
operations. On the positive side, Albright's proposal renders
NATO significant to the U.S. as a legitimate military vehicle
for its ambitions but it also has the unintended consequence
of perpetuating the dominance of American interests and elevating
them to a global level. The EU's insistence that peacekeeping
represents an equal contribution to security initiatives,
while plausible and commendable, is hardly sufficient to sway
U.S. military decision-makers. Only power is respected in
the halls of power.
Franco-German
proposals pave the way for more US dominance
The solution, as unacceptable as it is inevitable,
is for Europe to compensate for its military deficiencies
to retain any legitimacy in security discussions within NATO.
The absence of money constitutes an obstacle but one that
can be overcome in a three-fold approach. First, European
countries within NATO should develop specialties to minimize
redundancies in military procurement. Each country should
have a capability to bring to the table. Second, the EU should
establish a common fund to concentrate certain elements of
military expenditures in a targeted manner. Consolidation
will yield efficiency. Third, the debate on the future of
Europe should reject the direction advocated by France and
Germany. Too much member state autonomy in the context of
foreign and security policy will culminate in an EU incapable
of addressing the U.S. as an equal. Stuart Eizenstat, former
U.S. ambassador to the EU, cautions that "the European
Union will not develop a diplomatic and political weight commensurate
with its economic and commercial strength" until the
principal member states are "willing to relinquish their
prerogatives." Europe should not surrender so easily
to the persuasion of national self-interest. To do so is to
sacrifice its place on the global stage and submit to being
a subordinate to the U.S.
Economics
is the glue for sustainable Transatlantic relations
Nonetheless,
the glue of the transatlantic relationship is economic. The
EU and U.S. are becoming increasingly intertwined as investment
is overtaking trade as the principal form of economic interaction
across the Atlantic. More than trade, foreign investment links
economies because it represents a more permanent stake in
the destiny of a country. In the process, the transatlantic
marketplace is becoming the domestic policy agenda of both
the EU and U.S. Bilateral organizations need to be built to
manage this mutual market in order to prevent repeated episodes
of trade disruption. Moreover, merger and investment regulations
need to be harmonized to facilitate business on a transatlantic
basis. The agenda is clear but the resolve is weak to fight
the domestic battles required to implement what will happen
anyhow.
In
the long run, economics will provide the engine to transatlantic
cooperation. The security and cultural clashes will recede
once appropriate steps are taken to redress the power imbalance.
"A fanatic," according to Winston Churchill, "is
one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
It is time to change the subject and make the decisions that
will improve the transatlantic alliance.
copyright
TIES
|
)
