Current Iraq/UN crisis between Europeans and Americans have clashed with deeply rooted European trends and will generate long term consequences

Whatever some would like to believe on both sides of the Atlantic, the consequences of the Iraq/UN crisis will have long, sustainable consequences. What they embody is the end of the post WWII order which first big crack was the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989. In many ways, current Iraq/UN crisis will generate effects of the same magnitude: the US led 'West Side Story'.

Of course at first sight, everything looks completely different, if not opposed: on the one hand, we had a crumbling Empire, defeated by its inability to move forward and adapt itself to this finishing XXth century socio-economic conditions; on the other hand, we have what is commonly described as the only, or the last, 'super-power', seemingly at the perigee of its might. How comes that these two events could be in any way the two faces of the same coin?

Empires are XXIst century political dinosaurs

Well, simply because of something called History, passing time, transitory nature of human glory (Sic Transit Gloria Mundi),… all these things which powers of all sorts in History have learnt to learn … by force… Because nothing lasts forever… Because there is no such thing as the end of History… Because one of the most fragile political structures on Earth is… the Empire. About this last point, it is extremely interesting to look at the duration of empires in the past 2 centuries: obviously their life expectancy is not anymore going beyond a century, if not just a few decades. Europe was the first place where empires learnt that their time had passed. Europe was first hit by this fact in the XXth century and empires as well as dreams of eternal might had to vanish (though they did it at a very heavy cost in terms of death and destruction). Most likely this fact will also affect the rest of the world in the coming decades. Let's hope destruction and death will be more limited than in European history…

Many reasons to the progressive disappearing of those political dinosaurs called 'Empires', of course. One may be the simple fact that we now live in a full world: full of people, full of information, full of common problems and challenges. Those huge machineries that empires are (bureaucratic machineries combined with a political power always closely connected to religion and God) seem to have become unable to deal with the growing complexity of modern societies (inside and with the rest of the world). Their own management progressively becomes a fight in itself, a fight for who will control the empire. A 'power bubble' where the rest of the world and all other issues are only seen in terms of 'rapport de forces' within this 'bubble'. Such 'power bubbles' do emerge regularly in centralistic systems where power is concentrated in a precise city/region, like in Washington today.

The Europeans are facing challenges far more important to them and the rest of the world, than preservingUS power on top

But how does that affect transatlantic relations? Well in two very simple ways:

These are the deep European trends that current transatlantic struggles on Iraq and UN issues have clashed with. It explains why the consequences will be long lasting. It simply puts now in the open trends which were there for about a decade or so and where buried under assumptions coming from 1945.

The US is a European dream as much as European unity is an American dream: but now a new context emerges

In many ways, the US is a European dream as much as European unity is an American dream. The point today is that the dominant American dream about America is looking like a European nightmare; while the European dream about Europe is looking like an American competitor. It defines the new context in which transatlantic relations will have to be pursued in the coming decades.
It says all the obstacles which are going to be in the way of those who do think, as I am, that if we fail to build a new constructive transatlantic partnership for the XXIst century then, the world will be unable to solve many of its problems.
But those who are serious about building a long lasting EU/US partnership have to be candid about the new situation and its consequences. It is not about healing the wounds created by this crisis.
It is on the contrary by getting deeper in what created this crisis. It is not about being politically correct and not calling problems by their names. It is on the contrary by 'calling a cat, a cat' as we say in French. It is not by being afraid to 'shock' the other side; but on the contrary to say unpleasant things if we think that they deserve being said. Of course this has to be made with keeping in mind the overall objective of rebuilding a new transatlantic partnership.
Therefore there is absolutely no place for names-calling, country-bashing, hatred, … . There should be no place for arguments which prevent discussions to move forward by helping those involved to understand better the other's position; but there should be all space made available for ideas, opinions helping out to break the 'conviction bubble' in which many players tend to dig themselves into. This is definitely, by the way, the course TIESWEB will follow in coming years.

I will conclude on this very question of 'conviction'. In the past months, and until today every day on TV or in newspapers, we can hear to comments praising 'leaders' convictions' as if it had a value in itself. Hitler was convinced he was right. Petain was convinced he was right. Franco was convinced he was right. Chamberlain was convinced he was right. Gengis Khan and Attila were most certainly convinced that they were right. And so what?
One's conviction is not a proof of one's being right: it is just saying that one has no doubt. It may come from absolute knowledge (a pretty rare thing when you are not God); or from a very human ability to ignore information which may raise doubt.

In any case, as a European, I would tend to think that not to have doubts is a very specific feature, which fits better to a religious leader than to a politician. Here maybe is an entry to some more politically incorrect discussions regarding future EU/US relations.