Dominique Moisi on Europe + Obama

[JayB]

Very insightful commentary. I'm also quite interested in what'll happen when and if Obama presses Europe on Afghanistan.

 

"Will 2009 and the beginning of Barack Obama's presidency mark the beginning of a new era in transatlantic relations, or will the old divisions linger, nurtured by the depth and gravity of the economic crisis? Will the crisis lead to nationalistic and selfish attitudes on both sides of the Atlantic, stymieing the long-awaited rapprochement, if not a full reconciliation?

 

It is, of course, too early to tell. Even if the more left-leaning of the European left, like the most liberal of US Democrats, voice concerns that Obama has selected a far too centrist cabinet, a classical form of anti-Americanism is bound to recede in Europe. It is very unlikely that Europeans will take to the streets to denounce the "essence" of the United States – what America is as much as what America does – as they did during the Bush era and even during the Clinton years. America's image in Europe has changed profoundly since November 4, and the style of Obama's diplomacy once he becomes president will probably confirm that change.

 

Yet in the realm of transatlantic relations, as is true globally, it is unwise to expect too much from a single man, whatever his exceptional qualities. Fundamental problems remain, and new ones are likely to emerge.

 

First, whatever the brutal style of the new Russia under Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev, the Soviet Union no longer exists and no longer constitutes the common threat that was the "glue" of the Alliance until 1989. Unless something very wrong happens, a new cold war is not about to start.

 

Second, there is a continuing structural imbalance between the way Europe looks at America, i.e., with passion and concern, and the way America looks at Europe – with mild interest giving way to growing indifference. During the cold war, Europe was America's first line of defence. In the current global age, Asia, the Middle East, and maybe even Africa will constitute greater priorities for the US.

 

Third, even if the US under Obama praises and even practices multilateralism, Americans are far from ready to accept the reality of a multipolar world. They may write about it conceptually, but its meaning – a world in which their country is only primus inter pares – has not really penetrated the national psyche.

 

America's internationalism remains grounded in the idea of American exceptionalism – a unique role and sense of mission. It is an approach to the world which Europeans have great difficulty coming to terms with. Even with Obama as president, they may be quick to denounce the combination of arrogance and hypocrisy that they see as linked to America's view of her special and unique mission.

 

Fourth, if US diplomacy changes in style and content, will Europe be ready to face the challenge when America calls for help? One early test is likely to be Afghanistan, when a smiling but firm Obama turns to Europe and says: "You have backed me in immense numbers. I thank you for it. But now I do not need your symbolic votes; I need your concrete support. I need the further engagement of your troops in Afghanistan."

 

I suspect that European leaders will not respond eagerly. Most are convinced that there is no military solution in Afghanistan and they know that public opinion, especially in time of great economic hardship, has no appetite for such operations. Europeans have a traditional tendency to denounce American military adventurism, while relying on the US as their protector.

 

Fifth, to these "old" problems one must add a new one: the likely impact on transatlantic relations of the worst financial crisis in decades. Protectionism in the classical sense of the term is unlikely. We have learned the lessons of 1929. But public subsidies to national champions may prove to be as destabilising for the climate of international cooperation as tariff barriers were in the past. The temptation to appease suffering populations with populist, selfish measures may grow as the crisis deepens.

 

Paradoxically, too, the greening of America – an America that discovers late but with passion its responsibility for the planet's survival – may lead to a competitive transatlantic race for first prize in ecological good behaviour.

 

And one could multiply the subjects of possible tensions, from nuclear disarmament – too much for the French, too little for many others – to the best ways to deal with Iran, Russia and China.

 

The essential issue lies elsewhere. For Europe, the election of Barack Obama is a crucial test. Will Europe rise to the occasion and seize the opportunity created by America's daring and exhilarating choice to prove to itself, and to the rest of the world, that the old continent can exist as a power, and a united actor?"

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/27/barack-obama-europe

 

[billcoe]

Europeans have a traditional tendency to denounce American military adventurism, while relying on the US as their protector.

 

Ha ha! So true. I noticed that very thing last time I was in France, they seemed less than ....hmmm ... overwhelmed may be the word, perhaps overjoyed is closer to the truth, that we had committed our lives, our nation and our resources to bailing their butts out of WW1 and perhaps to a lesser amount, WW2.

 

They're happy when we are doing it, but have short memories afterwards it seems to me. They have a strong memory of Gen Charles Seagull and a few partisans chasing Nazis out of Paris for instance and celebrate this in the WW2 Charles Seagaul museum, yet conveniently totally forget that the US had Paris surrounded on 3 sides and had left an escape route so the town wouldn't be leveled.

 

I bet that comes off sounding like an old man there. BTW, the way Bush et al prosecuted and ramrodded the Iraq war, I think was poorly done unless you are celebrating the lone cowboy taking on the world thing. Piss Poor job.

 

Damn I feel old sometimes.

[tvashtarkatena]

That's not been my experience in France at all during several visits. Knowing I was American, they treated me very warmly each time. I happened upon an anniversary festival in Lyon, which included an acrobatic military display (Chinese style, human pyramids and shit) of French soldiers riding WWII era Harley Davidson dirt bikes; the announcer couldn't stop gushing about how much the US and British helped them during the war.

 

It's easy to mistake a country's natural primary focus on their own history for a disregard for other nations. The U.S., which takes vastly more credit for defeating the Nazis than it deserves, is by far the worst offender. That credit goes to the Russians, of course, who outnumbered our troops 5 to 1, and inflicted German casualties at about the same ratio. How often do you think Americans thank Russian tourists visiting over here for mopping up most of the German Army on the Eastern Front? Yeah, you get the idea.

 

Also, the America of WWII is not the America of today. We've pulled some really shitty stuff lately, and made the world a worse place for it. It's understandable why the French or anyone else, most of whom weren't alive during WWII, would view the U.S. based on its recent behavior, rather than what it accomplished more than 60 years ago. Most of us don't judge modern day Japan or Germany based on their behavior during the war, why should it be any different for us?

 

 

Edited January 8, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[billcoe]

It's easy to mistake a country's natural primary focus on their own history for a disregard for other nations. The U.S., which takes vastly more credit for defeating the Nazis than it deserves, is by far the worst offender. That credit goes to the Russians, of course, who outnumbered our troops 5 to 1, and inflicted German casualties at about the same ratio. How often do you think Americans thank Russian tourists visiting over here for mopping up most of the German Army on the Eastern Front? Yeah, you get the idea.

 

Also, the America of WWII is not the America of today. We've pulled some really shitty stuff lately, and made the world a worse place for it. It's understandable why the French or anyone else, most of whom weren't alive during WWII, would view the U.S. based on its recent behavior, rather than what it accomplished more than 60 years ago.

 

 

Holy F* T, did the Aliens replace you with a pod people dude? Your post is right on the money AND polite: and I'm in total agreement as well. Russians do carry that issue around to this day. Most Americans have no idea the shit that the Russians had to endure alone while our prime contribution was sending them trucks as their cities got rickrolled by the Wehrmacht and massively leveled. BTW, the French folks were very warm and kind as well, despite, as you say and I also agree, the sh*t we've been pulling.

[tvashtarkatena]

Afghanistan will certainly be the sticky wicket in U.S./European relations, but the European idea of a hands off approach may actually be the better one in the long run, if...

 

Pakistan and India can negotiate a settlement in Kashmir and

Pakistan and India can negotiate a nuclear disarmament.

 

This would probably require the U.S. and Europe's nuclear powers to lead the way towards disarmament. Strategically, we have little to lose, as these weapons are not really usable in any scenario. As a standing excuse for other nations to arm themselves with nukes, our nukes have become far more of a threat to national security than a boon to our defense.

 

It might also require firm incentives from Europe and the U.S. (a threat of the denial of aid and trade, etc) to get demilitarize and partition Kashmir once and for all.

 

Such moves would make any outcome in Afghanistan less potentially damaging from a security perspective. Let's face it, the situation may not have a peaceful solution any time soon, so it's probably best to mitigate the potential fallout from a failure to stabilize that country.

 

It's also become critical to bring the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to a peaceful, mutually agreeable resolution. That's going to require bringing Iran into negotiations, like it or not.

 

All conflicts are eventually resolvable. As other resolved conflicts have proven, aggressively resolving the major ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Central Asia would do much to knock the ideological wind out of the extremist movements, such as the Taliban, that now operate there.

[Fairweather]

Afghanistan will certainly be the sticky wicket in U.S./European relations, but the European idea of a hands off approach may actually be the better one in the long run, if...

 

Pakistan and India can negotiate a settlement in Kashmir and

Pakistan and India can negotiate a nuclear disarmament.

 

This would probably require the U.S. and Europe's nuclear powers to lead the way towards disarmament. Strategically, we have little to lose, as these weapons are not really usable in any scenario. As a standing excuse for other nations to arm themselves with nukes, our nukes have become far more of a threat to national security than a boon to our defense.

 

It might also require firm incentives from Europe and the U.S. (a threat of the denial of aid and trade, etc) to get demilitarize and partition Kashmir once and for all.

 

Such moves would make any outcome in Afghanistan less potentially damaging from a security perspective. Let's face it, the situation may not have a peaceful solution any time soon, so it's probably best to mitigate the potential fallout from a failure to stabilize that country.

 

It's also become critical to bring the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to a peaceful, mutually agreeable resolution. That's going to require bringing Iran into negotiations, like it or not.

 

All conflicts are eventually resolvable. As other resolved conflicts have proven, aggressively resolving the major ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Central Asia would do much to knock the ideological wind out of the extremist movements, such as the Taliban, that now operate there.

 

You're a simpleton.

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

Odd that he didn't mention perhaps the largest factor in Euro/American relations - the changing face of intra-European relations.8 years ago most Europeans were much less keen on integration that they are today? Why? The financial crisis, and in the east, Russia.

 

The collapse of the financial markets and subsequent currency runs in Denmark and Hungary, to name only a few, have stimulated substantial interest in nations joining the common currency, including those like Denmark that had in the past rejected it. Support for the Euro is even increasing in Britain (no doubt because the pound is close to par!

 

Russia, well, that's a long story.

 

The other factor is when will Italy be thrown out of the EU?

[mattp]

Afghanistan will certainly be the sticky wicket in U.S./European relations, but the European idea of a hands off approach may actually be the better one in the long run, if...

 

All conflicts are eventually resolvable. As other resolved conflicts have proven, aggressively resolving the major ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Central Asia would do much to knock the ideological wind out of the extremist movements, such as the Taliban, that now operate there.

 

You're a simpleton.

 

 

Which particular idea there do you disagree with? The idea that forging peace in the MIddle East or between Pakistan and India would increase our security? The idea that we have a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons we cannot use and which do not deter terrorists? The idea that if we maintain a huge arsenal and supply arms all over the world it can be used as a justification by those who would seek their own arms?

[j_b]

What insipid tripe! Seeking a military solution in Afghanistan isn't a change in "style and content" (Moisi clapped with both hands in support of attacking Iraq).

[j_b]

It is very unlikely that Europeans will take to the streets to denounce the "essence" of the United States – what America is as much as what America does – as they did during the Bush era and even during the Clinton years.

 

That is disinformation. Euros never were in the street to denounce the "essence" of the US but to protest US militarism.

[j_b]

Second, there is a continuing structural imbalance between the way Europe looks at America, i.e., with passion and concern, and the way America looks at Europe – with mild interest giving way to growing indifference.

 

More disinformation. US pols are never indifferent about the progress of the EU toward common policy and the euro currency.

[j_b]

America's image in Europe has changed profoundly since November 4

 

It's about to change again as congress approves of Israel's bloody assault on palestinians.