|
Building the Transatlantic Bridge
|
by
Brian Murphy:
Co-Director, EU Center Univ. System of Georgia, (Sam Nunn
Scholl of Int. Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology)
28/02/2003 |
 |
The transatlantic
relationship is currently under its greatest strain since
the end of World War II. At this critical moment, we need
to focus on what works: the transatlantic economic connection.
It is the glue that holds the partnership together. At the
same time, we must ensure that a bridge is built that links
the two societies in order to escape the failed diplomacy
taking place through official channels. The deepening of interaction
at the civil society level is the second component of healing
the transatlantic divide.
The networking of civil society would promote a common agenda
across the Atlantic that is defined by the priorities from
the public at-large. Cross-fertilization is needed to replace
the absence of genuine joint discussion. If achieved, governments
would be held to the same standards and, in the process, a
foundation would be established supporting transatlantic harmony.
According to Felix Phillipp, "A fundamental premise underlying
the joint transatlantic inquiry into the civil society and
communitarian concepts is the notion that societies which
are based on similar ideas of value, and which have similar
social, welfare, and democratic procedures and structures
will tend to be prepared to defend these values and structures
jointly." The New Transatlantic Agenda, an agreement
signed in 1995, launched several "bridge-building"
dialogues-such as for consumers, the environment, labor, and
business-but most failed to survive their infancy. In simple
terms, they were never supported at the official levels and
had no influence. These initiatives must be energized and
given meaningful access to governmental policy-makers.
A strengthened civil society bridge is also vital in light
of the increased amount of transatlantic economic activity.
A European Union with a unified (or nearly so) monetary system
means that the calculus must be revised under which the transatlantic
partnership has functioned to date. As the EU emerges from
the shadow of the U.S., the economic playing field must be
better balanced to reflect the interests of both parties.
The existing structures, it is safe to conclude, are tarnished
by obsolete assumptions and flawed methods. Change, drastic
on some fronts, is inevitable.
The shortcomings of the transatlantic economic zone are mired
in defects of the policy process. The agenda is too dominated
by trade disputes. Both the EU and U.S. have sought to score
domestic political victories at the expense of sound economic
strategies. Each uses the WTO more often to appease local
lobbies than to establish fundamental principles of how trade
should flow most efficiently and fairly. Distortion in trade
is the consequence as the system is brought to its knees for
the sake of temporary and largely meaningless deference to
constituents. Congress, and recently the European Parliament,
are interfering to inject parochial concerns into trade disputes.
It is the triumph of politics over principle in its most naked
form.
Patterns of investment, mergers, and networking are countervailing
forces to the factors provoking discord in the transatlantic
axis. Mutual self-interest, in simple terms, is a buffer to
some of the tendencies stirring economic and even political
combat. What must be realized is that problems, ranging from
pensions to employment conditions, will become elements of
a shared agenda as a matter of course. This means that closer
coordination on regulatory matters will surface as a transatlantic
priority to resolve. The difficulty is finding an acceptable
ground for compromise. Since the EU and U.S. have different
attitudes toward the tolerable scope of regulatory intervention,
the framework for a settlement will be a hard bargain to negotiate.
A long period of friction should be anticipated before greater
synchronization is achieved.
The civic and economic areas should become increasingly intertwined
in the transatlantic partnership. The alternative would be
the evolution of competing and hostile blocs. The seeds of
the former are already planted and should bear fruit if properly
tended. After all, it is economics-not security or culture-that
constitutes the bond holding together the transatlantic alliance.
The incentive of self-interest should prevail.
From Globalization to Global Organization:
Is There An EU-US Convergence?
Globalization is a challenge and an opportunity that must
be managed with sensitivity to regional interests to prevent
fracturing world stability into competing camps. We have suffered
from the premature legalization of organizations and invested
them with extraordinary power. The transatlantic matrix, for
better or worse, will decide the long-term implications of
globalization. In this context, the panelists tackled four
questions:
" Will sufficient convergence exist in the transatlantic
alliance to enable the effective operation of transnational
organizations?
" Will institutional reform of transnational organizations
occur to the extent necessary to offset criticisms of elite
dominance, insensitivity to alternative avenues of globalization,
and policy incoherence?
" Can the transatlantic partnership avoid disintegration
into hostile competitors as the EU emerges in economic strength
to a level of parity with the US?
" Will the organizational structure of the EU be improved
enough to administer the monetary union as well as any additional
steps toward economic integration?
A globalized economy requires institutions that work in concert.
Today, policies are decided by institutions-like the International
Monetary Fund, World Bank, and World Trade Organization-that
are confined to their own field of responsibility. Under this
model, the EU and US cope with the effects of globalization
rather than provide a direction to changes in an orderly and
consistent fashion. The policy agenda is being set without
effective management or uniformity in goals. In addition,
the democratic voice is not finding expression in the process
and the implication is being drawn that globalization is orchestrated
by elite manipulation.
This same indictment applies to the EU more specifically as
the administration of Europe (EU, national, and regional)
has been outpaced by global transformation. Hierarchical organization
has become obsolete in the face of monetary union, impending
enlargement, and possible political deepening within the next
two decades. The European administrative arrangement would
operate more logically if based on function (EU function,
national function, regional function) rather than on level
of government. Present institutional deadlocks are indeed
partly a result of Europe's failure to move from the pyramid
mode (organized in hierarchical levels in which the skills
gained by one are lost by another) to the networking mode
(organized in functions in which roles are complementary and
enable a positive end-result).
Setting up the European administrative network would depend
on the formation of units within each ministry that answer
directly to government leaders. These units would be charged
with overseeing sector-based networks (such as EuroPol and
Eurojust) and their personnel would be hired on the basis
of professional skills explicitly for careers in European
administration. The Commission would play the role of "network
leader," providing concept integration, common proposals,
and respect for common rules. Bureaucrats across Europe would
interact in a horizontal or parallel configuration, ensuring
accountability and efficiency in a template that unifies the
continent.
This method of organization could be exported on a transatlantic
or even global scale. The catalog of problems introduced by
globalization are exceeding the grasp of the traditional nation-state
to handle. Solutions defy unilateral approaches when confronted
by environmental degradation, cross-border crime, and meandering
financial flows that are difficult to track. "One logical
consequence of this development," according to Curt Gasteyger
of the Institut Universitaire de Haute Etudes, Internationales
in Geneva, "is the rise of a great variety of non-governmental
actors within the policy-making community." Closer global
cooperation is, at least in theory, the outcome. This benefit
has not materialized to the extent anticipated because the
politics of national self-interest have hamstrung the capacity
of transnational organizations to fulfill their lofty commitments.
Despite predictions to the contrary, the demise of the nation-state
has been exaggerated and this situation is not likely to change
in the future for the simple reason that no other authority
will have the legitimacy to enforce policy. The paradox is
that problems defy national competence and nations constitute
the hurdle to effective administration.
The engine of globalization is the liberalized economy driven
by new technology. This economy is responsible for the rapid
integration of markets. Poorer countries, nonetheless, are
not in a position to avail themselves of the opportunities
presented by globalization and this legacy is a moral imperative
to be dealt with by the transatlantic alliance over the next
twenty years. If anything, globalization has aggravated the
income disparity between affluent and poorer nations. The
conditions imposed by transnational organizations for loans
and other aid have not always improved the lives of the average
worker and citizen in the recipient nations. The market model
being exported as the "one size fits all" solution
has wrought disastrous outcomes, particularly in Russia. This
calls into question Martin Wolf's recent conclusion that "(g)lobalization
is not destined, it is chosen." What is the alternative
for an impoverished nation? Globalization cannot be ignored
and it is marching to the tune drummed by transnational organizations.
Clearly, institutional reform is warranted if the backlash
against globalization is to be muted and its raw edges made
less cruel. The methods of dispute settlement must change.
A host of factors must be considered. Most important, a greater
respect for diversity in the path toward globalization must
be tolerated by transnational organizations. As countries
move toward increased specialization, different economic prescriptions
must be accorded more latitude. In addition, basic governmental
tasks like taxation will become more difficult in the fluid
exchange among nations. Countries acting independently will
lack the resources and enforcement capabilities to control
many essential functions in the absence of a multilateral
cooperative framework. Lines of authority will become further
obscured in areas like crime and social services where national
responsibilities overlap. These factors combine to compel
transnational organizations to reinvent themselves to maintain
relevance to future needs. They are both the solution and
the problem. The question is how to accomplish this makeover
while balancing the competing interests of labor versus management,
rich versus poor nations, and democratic input versus efficiency.
Since the nation-state is unlikely to wither away or even
diminish, it must be incorporated as the building-block of
the transnational approach to global management. It is at
this point that the networking strategy is an appropriate
mechanism. Functional lines should be established at the nation-state
level and linked with the transnational organizations. This
process will enable democratic input into the policy-making
sequence. It does not mean nation-states should determine
policy but only contribute feedback. Otherwise, politics will
intrude where technical standards should prevail. While a
system of mandatory consultation should be a prerequisite
to transnational administration, such a step alone is not
enough since global management would be a patchwork of isolated
organizations acting without a coherent blueprint. To avoid
the negative stigma of global government, an annual strategic
plan with broad objectives should be prepared by a forum representing
nations equally, such as in the context of the United Nations.
The transnational organizations would merely implement the
objectives consistent with their mandates.
The transatlantic relationship will be the pivotal influence
in the transnational process of the future. Collaboration
in defining mutually acceptable positions will make the process
perform in a smooth but also advantageous manner. The danger,
from a global perspective, is that the shared weight of these
two giants could skew transnational management in a direction
that is detrimental to the non-Western world, placing other
countries in an almost subservient status. The likelihood
of transatlantic hegemony, however, is unrealistic since the
amount of harmony required is beyond plausible attainment.
What should be attempted is a method of dialogue on functional
lines with the condition that consequences are binding on
a set of discrete matters. The participation of legislators
and interest groups, for example, would render substance and
a democratic spirit into the process. Some step of this kind
is important to prevent the transnational model from being
contorted by disputes and frustrated by deadlock. Instead
of hegemony, the real future peril is division of the transatlantic
partnership into contending economic blocs. Standstill and
global economic warfare would be the result. Transatlantic
convergence will serve the world better than divergence.
Globalization is an opportunity that must be managed correctly.
The transatlantic relationship will determine whether the
ill tendencies currently manifested will be reversed or at
least curtailed.
copyright
TIES
|
)
